CAR_Public/091201.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, December 1, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 237
  
                            Headlines

AT&T INC: Sued in W.D. Mo. for Collecting Illegal Taxes
BANK OF AMERICA: Moves to Dismiss S.D.N.Y. Merrill Lynch Action
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Still Defends "Cohen" Extended Viewing Fee Suit
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Facebook Members Privacy Suit Pending in Calif.
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Extended Viewing Fee Lawsuit Pending Dismissal

BLOCKBUSTER INC: Hazell Contract Breach Suit Pending in Canada
BLOCKBUSTER INC: "Hedley" Contract Breach Suit Pending in Canada
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Defends Lampone's Suit Over "No Late Fees"
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Defends Amended Complaint Over VPPA Violations
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Creighton's "No Late Fees" Suit Remains Pending

BLUE CROSS: Alabama MDs Say Insurer Isn't Abiding By Settlement
BOBCAD CAM: Accused of Sexual & Religious Discrimination in Fla.
CANO PETROLEUM: Bid to Nix Amended Securities Fraud Suit Pending
HUMANETICS CORP: Zylotrim Diet Pill Claims Draw Fire in Calif.
IMS HEALTH: Shareholders Sue In Del. To Get More from TPG Capital

LAWYERS TITLE: Accused in Calif. Suit of Improper Deed Procedures
LONGEVITY LLC: Calif. Suit Says Vinotrol is a Dangerous Product
MINNESOTA: Lawsuit Challenges Issuance of Misdemeanor Citations
MITSUBISHI: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges TV Parts Are Defective
NEW YORK: Sexual Predators Sue to Halt Indefinite Confinement

PARTNER COMMS: Non-Religious Subscribers Allege Discrimination
STORK CRAFT: Multiple Canadian Class Actions Follow Crib Recall
TD AMERITRADE: New York Court Dismisses Consolidated ARS Suit
TD AMERITRADE: "Ross" Suit Over Yield Plus Fund Pending in N.Y.
TD AMERITRADE: Case Conference in "Holders" Suit Set for Dec. 10

TIGRENT INC: Wants Class Claims Against Whitney Info Dismissed
TIGRENT INC: Florida Court Dismisses Durham/Friedman Lawsuit
TIGRENT INC: Faces Suit Over Sale of "Teach Me To Trade" Items
TOYOTA MOTOR: Accused of Lying About Prius Hybrid Performance
YOUNG CHANG: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges Piano Manufacturing Problem

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

STEC INC: Weiss & Lurie Files Shareholder Lawsuit in C.D. Calif.

                            *********

AT&T INC: Sued in W.D. Mo. for Collecting Illegal Taxes
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that AT&T charges state and local
taxes for Internet access, which is illegal in Missouri, a class
action claims in Jefferson City Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Pauley v. AT&T, Inc., et al., Case No.
09-cv-04248 (W.D. Mo.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/25/AT&T.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward D. Robertson, Jr., Esq.
          Mary D. Winter, Esq.
          Anthony L. DeWitt, Esq.
          BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON & GORNY, P.C.
          715 Swifts Highway
          Jefferson City, MO 65109
          Telephone: 573-659-4454

               - and -  

          Matthew A. Clement, Esq.
          Timothy W. Van Ronzelen, Esq.
          COOK, VETTER, DOERHOFF & LANDWEHR, P.C.
          231 Madison Street
          Jefferson City, MO 65101
          Telephone: 573-635-7977
     
               - and -  

          Craig S. Johnson, Esq.
          BERRYWILSON LLC
          304 E. High Street
          P.O. Box 1606
          Jefferson City, MO 65102
          Telephone: 573-638-7272

          Harry Huge, Esq.
          Theodore Huge, Esq.
          THE HUGE LAW FIRM LLC
          1080 Wisconsin Ave, N.W., Suite 3016
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: 202-965-4672

               - and -  

          Theodore Huge, Esq.
          THE HUGE LAW FIRM LLC
          31 Broad Street
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: 843-793-4702


BANK OF AMERICA: Moves to Dismiss S.D.N.Y. Merrill Lynch Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Bank of America Corp. filed an 87-page
motion to dismiss In re Bank of America Corp. Securities,
Derivative, and Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Litigation, Case No. 09-cv-02058 (S.D.N.Y.), last week.  

BofA says the plaintiffs fail to allege that anyone was misled
about $3.6 billion of bonuses that Merrill paid, and that it was
well-publicized that payments would be made.  BofA also says "it
was no secret" that Merrill was losing money, and that it had no
legal obligation to reveal Merrill's losses and outlook on an "ad
hoc" basis, which it said could have whipsawed investors in
unsettled markets.  BofA also repeated that Merrill's losses
accelerated after December 5 shareholder votes on the merger
rather than before.

"There was no misrepresentation or failure to disclose required
facts of any nature whatsoever," the bank's lawyers Mitchell
Lowenthal, Esq., a partner at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
LLP; and Peter Hein, Esq., a partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen &
Katz, wrote in last week's filing.

They urged U.S. District Judge Denny Chin to dismiss the case
with prejudice.  


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Still Defends "Cohen" Extended Viewing Fee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc., continues to defend the extended viewing fee
putative class-action case, Cohen v. Blockbuster.

The case, filed on Feb. 18, 1999 in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division, was not completely resolved
by a court-approved national class settlement (the "Scott
settlement").

The Scott settlement refers to the Texas trial court order on
April 11, 2001, preliminarily certifying a nationwide class for
settlement purposes and preliminarily approving a settlement
agreement in the case of Scott v. Blockbuster, No. D 162-535
(Jefferson County, Texas).

Marc Cohen, Uwe Stueckrad, Marc Perper and Denita Sanders assert
common law and statutory claims for fraud and deceptive
practices, unjust enrichment and unlawful penalties regarding
Blockbuster's extended viewing fee policies.  Such claims were
brought against Blockbuster, individually and on behalf of all
entities doing business as Blockbuster or Blockbuster Video.

The plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of themselves and other
plaintiff class members including actual damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief.

By order dated April 27, 2004, the Cohen trial court certified
plaintiff classes for U.S. residents who incurred extended
viewing fees and/or purchased unreturned videos between Feb. 18,
1994 and Dec. 31, 2004, and who were not part of the Scott
settlement or who do not have a Blockbuster membership with an
arbitration clause.  In the same order, the trial court
certified a defendant class comprised of all entities that have
done business in the United States as Blockbuster or Blockbuster
Video since Feb. 18, 1994.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the trial court denied Blockbuster's motion to
reconsider the trial court's certification of plaintiff classes.

On Sept. 26, 2007, the Illinois Appellate Court remanded the
trial court's decision to certify plaintiff classes back to the
trial court for reconsideration of Blockbuster's motion to
decertify plaintiff classes. Plaintiffs did not petition the
Illinois Supreme Court for leave to appeal.

On March 14, 2008, upon reconsideration the trial court granted
Blockbuster's motion to decertify plaintiff classes and
decertified both plaintiff and defendant classes.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 13, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Oct. 4, 2009.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global   
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-
video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Facebook Members Privacy Suit Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc., continues to face a putative class-action
complaint filed under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA),
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, and California's Computer Crime Law in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On Aug. 12, 2008, Sean Lane, Mohannaed Sheikha, Sean Martin, Ali
Sammour, Mohammaed Zidan, Sara Karrow, Colby Henson, Denton
Hunker, Firas Sheikha, Hassen Sheikha, Linda Stewart, Tina Tran,
Matthew Smith, Erica Parnell, John Conway, Austin Muhs, Phillip
Huerta, Alicia Hunker, and Mega Lynn Hancock (a minor, through
her parent Rebecca Holey) filed the class action complaint.

The plaintiffs assert claims against Facebook, Inc., Blockbuster
Inc., Fandango, Inc., Hotwire, Inc., STA Travel, Inc.,
Overstock.com, Inc., Zappos.com, Inc., Gamefly, Inc., and John
Does 1-40, corporations.

They are purporting to act on behalf of every Facebook member
who visited one or more of Facebook's affiliates' websites and
engaged in activities that triggered the Facebook affiliates'
websites to communicate with Facebook regarding the activity
from Nov. 6, 2007 to Dec. 5, 2007.

The plaintiffs claim Blockbuster violated the VPPA, ECPA, and
CFAA by allegedly violating the plaintiffs' privacy through
their activities on the Blockbuster and Facebook websites.

They seek class certification, injunctive and equitable relief,
statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The plaintiffs have stipulated that Blockbuster is not required
to respond to the pending complaint at this time, according to
the company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 4,
2009.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global   
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-
video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Extended Viewing Fee Lawsuit Pending Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
One additional extended viewing fee putative class-action suit
in the U.S. is inactive and subject to dismissal under the Scott
settlement.

The Scott settlement refers to the Texas trial court order on
April 11, 2001, preliminarily certifying a nationwide class for
settlement purposes and preliminarily approving a
settlement agreement in the case of Scott v. Blockbuster, No. D
162-535 (Jefferson County, Texas).

Blockbuster was a defendant in 12 lawsuits filed by customers in
nine states and the District of Columbia between November 1999
and April 2001.

These putative class-action lawsuits alleged common law and
statutory claims for fraud and deceptive practices and/or
unlawful business practices regarding the company's extended
viewing fee policies for customers who chose to keep rental
product beyond the initial rental term.

Some of the cases also alleged that these policies imposed
unlawful penalties and resulted in unjust enrichment.

In January 2002, the 136th Judicial District Court of Jefferson
County, Texas entered a final judgment approving a national
class settlement (the "Scott settlement").

Under the approved settlement, the company paid $9.25 million in
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees during the first quarter of 2005 and
made certificates available to class members for rentals and
discounts through November 2005.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 13, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Oct. 4, 2009.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global   
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-
video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Hazell Contract Breach Suit Pending in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc., and Blockbuster Canada, Inc., continue to
face William Robert Hazell's putative class-action lawsuit in  
British Columbia, Canada.

The plaintiff filed a complaint before the Supreme Court of
British Columbia, on Aug. 24, 2001, against Viacom Entertainment
Canada Inc., Viacom Inc., Blockbuster Canada, and Blockbuster.

The case asserts claims of unconscionability, violations of the
trade practices act, breach of contract and high handed conduct.

The relief sought includes actual damages, disgorgement, and
exemplary and punitive damages.

No further updates regarding the lawsuit were reported in the
company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 4,
2009.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global   
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-
video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: "Hedley" Contract Breach Suit Pending in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc., and Blockbuster Canada, Inc., continue to
face a putative class-action lawsuit by Douglas R. Hedley.

Mr. Hedley filed a complaint before the Court of Queen's
Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, in Saskatchewan on July 19,
2002.

The case asserts claims of unconscionability, unjust enrichment,
misrepresentation and deception, and seeks recovery of actual
damages of $3 million, disgorgement, declaratory relief,
punitive and exemplary damages of $1 million and attorneys'
fees.

No further updates regarding the lawsuit were reported in the
company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 4,
2009.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global   
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-
video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Defends Lampone's Suit Over "No Late Fees"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc., intends to defend Nicholas Lampone's putative
class action over the company's "no late fees" program.

On May 20, 2009, Nicholas Lampone filed a putative class action
in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, alleging
Blockbuster's "no late fees" program is a breach of contract and
violates California's consumer protection and unfair competition
statutes prohibiting unfair, unlawful and deceptive business
practices.

Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, injunctive
relief, general damages, special damages, compensatory damages,
punitive damages, equitable relief, attorneys' fees, interest,
and costs.

Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

No further updates regarding the lawsuit were reported in the
company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 4,
2009.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global   
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-
video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Defends Amended Complaint Over VPPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc., is defending an amended a putative class
action complaint under the Video Privacy Protection Act.

On April 9, 2008, Cathryn Elaine Harris filed a putative class
action complaint under VPPA in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas.

On June 3, 2008, plaintiff Harris filed her first amended class
action complaint adding Mario Herrera and Maryam Hosseiny as
additional named plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs are purporting to act on behalf of every individual
who has ever been a member of Facebook and Blockbuster online
during the same time period since Nov. 6, 2007, whose name,
and/or address, or a title, description, or subject matter of any
video tapes or other audio visual materials that were rented,sold
or delivered to each individual were distributed to third parties
by Blockbuster without the informed written consent of such
individuals obtained at the time the disclosure was made.

Plaintiffs claim Blockbuster violated the VPPA when it knowingly
distributed plaintiffs video tape rental and sales records to
Facebook, a third party, without plaintiffs consent at the time
of the disclosure.

Plaintiffs seek class certification, statutory damages, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive relief.

On Dec. 30, 2008, the trial court granted Blockbuster's amended
motion to transfer venue and transferred the lawsuit to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division.

No further updates regarding the lawsuit were reported in the
company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 4,
2009.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global   
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-
video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Creighton's "No Late Fees" Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc., remains a defendant in Beth Creighton's
lawsuit arising out of the company's "no late fees" program.

On March 4, 2005, Ms. Creighton filed a putative class-action
suit in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon, alleging
that Blockbuster's "no late fees" program violates Oregon's
consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and
misleading business practices.

The suit alleges fraud and unjust enrichment and seeks equitable
and injunctive relief.  Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for District of Oregon.

No further updates regarding the lawsuit were reported in the
company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 4,
2009.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global   
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to-
video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLUE CROSS: Alabama MDs Say Insurer Isn't Abiding By Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Working with 20 specialist physicians and practices, Anne Zieger
at FierceHelathcare.com reports, the Medical Association of the
State of Alabama has filed formal complaints arguing that Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama hasn't been following the terms
of a class-action settlement.

The settlement, which took place in 2007, regarded payment
practices of 30 health plans affiliated with the BlueCross
BlueShield Association, including the Alabama plan.  Physicians
say that the Alabama Blue plan has failed to give doctors enough
notice of planned fee schedule changes, has not paid for claims
including CPT modifiers 25 and 59, and has never formed a
specialty physician advisory committee as required by the
agreement.

Settling this matter is particularly important to physicians
given that the Alabama Blues hold an estimated 89 percent market
share in the state, according to AMA projections. That makes the
plans the dominant single-state health insurer within the states
tracked by the AMA.

The complaint follows other controversies over compliance with
the settlement agreement. In August, Independence Blue Cross of
Pennsylvania was ruled to be in violation of the agreement when
it attempted to collect what it deemed to be overpayments going
out to surgeons.

American Medical News provides additional coverage of this matter
at http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/11/23/bisd1123.htm


BOBCAD CAM: Accused of Sexual & Religious Discrimination in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a boss at Bobcad Cam
sexually harassed and threatened her, and she was told she had to
attend Scientology classes "to go anywhere in the company," then
she was fired for complaining, a woman claims in Pinellas County
Court, Fla.  

A copy of the Complaint in Serecka v. Bobcad Cam, Inc., Case No.
09-20117-ci-20 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 6th J. Cir., Pinellas Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/23/EmployScien.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          Gregory A. Owens, Esq.
          FLORIN, ROEBIG, P.A.
          777 Alderman Road
          Palm Harbor, FL 34683
          Telephone: 727-786-5000


CANO PETROLEUM: Bid to Nix Amended Securities Fraud Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss an amended purported securities fraud
class-action lawsuit filed against Cano Petroleum, Inc., the
company's outside directors and its underwriters is pending in
New York.

On Oct. 2, 2008, the following lawsuit (08 CV 8462) was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against David W. Wehlmann; Gerald W. Haddock; Randall Boyd;
Donald W. Niemiec; Robert L. Gaudin; William O. Powell, III, and
the underwriters alleging violations of the federal securities
laws.

The plaintiff seeks to certify the suit as a class-action.  The
lawsuit alleges that the prospectus for the June 26, 2008 public
offering of Cano common stock contained statements regarding
Cano's proved reserve amounts and standards that were materially
false and overstated Cano's proved reserves.

Messrs. Wehlmann, Haddock, Boyd, Niemiec, Gaudin and Powell were
outside directors of Cano on June 26, 2008.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages for the class
if the lawsuit is certified as a class action.

On July 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
adds as defendants Cano, Cano's Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board, Jeff Johnson, Cano's former Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, Morris B. "Sam" Smith,
Cano's current Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, Ben Daitch, Cano's Vice President and Principal
Accounting Officer, Michael Ricketts and Cano's Senior Vice
President of Engineering and Operations, Patrick McKinney, and
drops Gerald W. Haddock, a former director of Cano, as a
defendant.

The amended complaint alleges that the prospectus for the
Secondary Offering contained statements regarding Cano's proved
reserve amounts and standards that were materially false and
overstated Cano's proved reserves.

The plaintiff is seeking to certify the lawsuit as a class
action lawsuit and is seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

Cano is cooperating with its Directors and Officers Liability
insurance carrier regarding the defense of the lawsuit.

On July 27, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit.

No further updates regarding the lawsuit were reported in the
company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

Cano Petroleum, Inc. -- http://www.canopetro.com/-- is an
independent oil and natural gas company that is primarily
utilizing waterflooding and enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
techniques to increase production and reserves at its existing
properties.  The company's assets are located onshore United
States in Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma.  Cano's proved oil and
natural gas reserves as of June 30, 2008, were prepared by
Miller and Lents, Ltd., international oil and gas consultants.
As of September 10, 2008, it had 17 wells containing multiple
completions.  On Sept. 10, 2008, the Company had total
acreage of 74,200 gross acres and 70,805 net acres, all of which
was considered developed acres.  Cano sells its crude oil and
natural gas production to several independent purchasers.


HUMANETICS CORP: Zylotrim Diet Pill Claims Draw Fire in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Zylotrim, the Obesity
Research Institute, and Humanetics Corp. push "Zylotrim" weight-
loss products with "blatantly false claims," a class action
claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.


IMS HEALTH: Shareholders Sue In Del. To Get More from TPG Capital
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of IMS Health are
selling the company too cheaply through an unfair process to TPG
Capital, for $5.2 billion or $22 a share, stockholders say in
Delaware Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in City of Ann Arbor Employees'
Retirement System v. Carlucci, et al., Case No. 5093 (Del. Ch.
Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/23/SCAIMS.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          Mary S. Thomas, Esq.
          Alessandra C. Phillips, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
          1201 N. Market St.
          Wilmington, DE 19801     
          Telephone: 302-622-7000
          
               - and -  

          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          Amy Miller, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMAN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: 212-554-1400
           

LAWYERS TITLE: Accused in Calif. Suit of Improper Deed Procedures
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Lawyers Title Co. conspires
with notaries to execute blank documents that are used to change
deeds of trust without notifying property owners, a class action
claims in Los Angeles Superior Court


LONGEVITY LLC: Calif. Suit Says Vinotrol is a Dangerous Product
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Thomas Shipley and Andrew
Survilo push potentially dangerous stuff they call Vinotrol,
through their companies Longevity, Urban Nutrition, and a host of
others, a class action claims in Alameda County Court, Oakland.

A copy of the Complaint in Panos v. Shipley, et al., Case No.
09-485615 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/23/DietSupp.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas H. Clarke, Jr., Esq.
          Timothy A. Dolan, Esq.
          ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY
          201 Spear Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1667
          Telephone: 415-543-4800


MINNESOTA: Lawsuit Challenges Issuance of Misdemeanor Citations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association claims the Minnesota Department
of Public Safety has no right to issue its members misdemeanor
citations for violating federal regulations, in a class action in
Hennepin County Court, Minneapolis.

A copy of the Complaint in Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association, Inc., et al. v. State of Minnesota, et al., Case No.
_________ (Minn. Dist. Ct., 4th J. Dist., Hennepin Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/23/Govt.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul D. Cullen, Sr., Esq.
          Daniel E. Cohen, Esq.
          Paul D. Cullen, Jr., Esq.
          THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1101 30th St., Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: 202-944-8600

               - and -  

          Albert Turner Goins, Sr., Esq.
          GOINS LAW OFFICES
          301 4th Ave. S., Suite 378N
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: 612-339-3848


MITSUBISHI: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges TV Parts Are Defective
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Mitsubishi's WD series of
TVs fail prematurely because of defective electronic parts, a
class action claims in Hartford Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Fisher v. Mitsubishi Electric
Corporation, et al., Case No. 09-cv-01899 (D. Conn.) (Chatigny,
J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/23/CCATVs.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur S. Wells, Esq.
          13 Winifred's Way
          Rutland, MA 01543
          Telephone: (508) 873-5182
          E-mail: aswells@charter.net

               - and -  

          Thomas P. Sobran, Esq.
          Thomas P. Sobran, P.C.
          7 Evergreen Lane
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (781) 741-6075
          E-mail: tsobran@sobranlaw.com


NEW YORK: Sexual Predators Sue to Halt Indefinite Confinement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of
more than 127 "sexually violent predators" claims former Gov.
George Pataki imprisoned them indefinitely in psychiatric
facilities after they did their time in prison. The class also
sued a host of psychiatric center executives and Department of
Corrections employees for wrongful detainment.
     
"The putative class is compromised of all 'All individuals who
while in prison were determined to be Sexually Violent Predators
("SVP") and committed to a State psychiatric hospital or a
designated secure inpatient psychiatric program pursuant to New
York State Mental Hygiene Law Sec. 9.27 between September 2005
and April 13, 2007," according to the 97-page complaint.

The plaintiffs say they should have been released, or should have
been released sooner.

The complaint adds: "The Class includes over 127 individuals,
approximately 78 of whom have been released from psychiatric
incarceration and, due to their 'sex offender' designation by the
State, frequently have great difficulty securing permanent
residence. Consequently, given the peripatetic nature of most of
the Class, it will difficult to locate the individual members."

The case details individual claimants' plights. For example,
after a "brief" meeting with a physician, one prisoner, Leon
Smith, says he has been "unlawfully confined, against his will,
in Central New York Psychiatric Center" from 2006 until today.
"During the entirety of his confinement," the complaint alleges,
"Smith has not been permitted to leave, and has been kept in a
segregated wing behind double locked doors."

The plaintiffs seek damages for unlawful imprisonment, assault
and battery, and abuse of process.

A copy of the Complaint in Smith, et al. v. Pataki, et al., Index
No. 09116457 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/25/SexOffenders.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Reza Rezvani, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF REZA REZVANI
          61 Broadway, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: 212-608-2100


PARTNER COMMS: Non-Religious Subscribers Allege Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. (Nasdaq:PTNR)(TASE:PTNR), a
leading Israeli mobile communications operator, disclosed last
week that it was served with a lawsuit requesting certification
as a class action, filed against Partner, Pelephone
Communications Ltd, Cellcom Israel Ltd. and the Minister of
Communication in the District Court of Jerusalem.

The claim alleges that the Cellular Operators discriminate
against the non-religious subscribers by not offering them
certain tariffs and terms that are offered to the religious
sector.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount
claimed from the Defendants is estimated by the plaintiffs to be
approximately NIS 900 million (for all Defendants together).

Partner is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and at this
preliminary stage is unable to evaluate the probability of
success of the lawsuit or the range of potential exposure, if
any, with any degree of certainty.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. is a leading Israeli provider
of telecommunications services (cellular, fixed-line telephony
and internet services) under the orangeT brand. The Company
provides mobile communications services to over 3million
subscribers in Israel (as of September 30, 2009). Partner's ADSs
are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its shares
are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (Nasdaq:PTNR)
(TASE:PTNR).

Partner is an approximately 45%-owned subsidiary of Scailex
Corporation Ltd.  Scailex's shares are traded on the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange under the symbol SCIX and are quoted on "Pink
Quote" under the symbol SCIXF.PK.  Scailex currently operates in
three major domains of activity: 1) the sole import, distribution
and maintenance of Samsung mobile handset and accessories
products primarily to the three major cellular operators in
Israel; 2) distribution and sale of various manufacturers' mobile
handsets, accessories and provision of maintenance services,
through a chain of retail stores and booths ("Dynamic"), to end
customers of Cellcom (as part of the acquisition of the
controlling stake in Partner, Scailex announced to Cellcom the
termination of the distribution agreement through Dynamic,
effective July 1, 2010) and; (3) management of its financial
assets.


STORK CRAFT: Multiple Canadian Class Actions Follow Crib Recall
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that class-action lawsuits have been
filed across Canada on behalf of consumers who bought drop-side
cribs now subject to a massive North American recall.  

The action, filed in six provinces, seeks a full refund for
consumers who bought the cribs manufactured by Stork Craft
Manufacturing of Richmond, B.C.

Tony Merchant, whose law firm is behind the suits, says about
1,000 consumers have signed on to the class action so far.  

The suits also names Fisher-Price, which sold some of the cribs
under its banner, and retailers Sears and Wal-Mart.

The recall covers more than 2.1 million cribs and comes after at
least 15 infants, including three in Canada, were trapped in the
drop-side part of the product.

In the U.S., four deaths have been linked to the cribs.

News about the recall appeared in the Wed., Nov. 25, 2009,
edition of the Class Action Reporter.  


TD AMERITRADE: New York Court Dismisses Consolidated ARS Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
ruled on the motion to dismiss an amended complaint in the
consolidated class-action lawsuit captioned In re Humphrys v. TD
Ameritrade Holding Corp., and the lead plaintiff dismissed the
lawsuit without prejudice, according to the company's Nov. 13,
2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Beginning in March 2008, lawsuits were filed against various
financial services firms by customers related to their
investments in auction rate securities.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege that the defendants made
material misrepresentations and omissions in statements to
customers about investments in ARS and the manner in which the
ARS market functioned in violation of provisions of the federal
securities laws.

Two purported class-action complaints have been filed alleging
such conduct with respect to TDA Inc. and TD Ameritrade Holding
Corp.

The first case, filed on March 19, 2008, is captioned Humphrys
v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. et al.  The second case, filed
on April 17, 2008, is captioned, Silverstein v. TD Ameritrade
Holding Corp. et al.

Both complaints were filed on behalf of customers who purchased
ARS between March 19, 2003, and Feb. 13, 2008.  The complaints
seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, injunctive
relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.

Both cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

A motion has been filed by some plaintiffs requesting that the
proceedings in the lawsuits against the various financial
services firms in effect be consolidated before one judge.  The
company and the other defendants and several plaintiffs in other
cases have filed oppositions to the proposed consolidation.

The company and parties in other cases filed oppositions to the
motion.

An amended complaint was filed in February 2009.  The amended
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, equitable
relief, interest and attorneys' fees.  In April 2009, the
company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On Oct. 23, 2009, before the Court ruled on the motion, and the
lead plaintiff dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice.

TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. -- http://www.amtd.com/-- is
engaged in providing securities brokerage services and
technology-based financial services to retail investors and
business partners, predominantly through the Internet, a
national branch network and relationships with independent
registered investment advisors.  The company offers touch-tone
trading, trading over the Internet, unlimited, streaming, free
real-time quotes, extended trading hour, direct access and
commitment on the speed of execution to its customers.  As of
Jan. 24, 2006, the company acquired the U.S. brokerage business
of TD Waterhouse Group, Inc..  The client offerings include TD
AMERITRADE, TD AMERITRADE Institutional, TD AMERITRADE Izone,
Amerivest, TDAX Independence ETFs and TD AMERITRADE Corporate
Services.  The products available to the clients include common
and preferred stock, exchange-traded funds, option trades,
mutual funds, fixed income, margin lending and cash management
services.


TD AMERITRADE: "Ross" Suit Over Yield Plus Fund Pending in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. continues to face a purported class
action lawsuit captioned Ross v. Reserve Management Company, Inc.
et al.

In November and December 2008, two purported class action
lawsuits were filed with respect to the Reserve Yield Plus Fund.

The lawsuits are captioned:

   -- Ross v. Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al.,
      Case No. 08-cv-_____ (S.D.N.Y.); and

   -- Hamilton v. TD Ameritrade, Inc. et al.,
      Case No. 08-cv-_____ (N.D. Ga.).

The plaintiff in the Hamilton case dismissed his complaint
without prejudice on March 2, 2009.

The Ross lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of
Reserve Yield Plus Fund.  The complaint names as defendants a
number of entities and individuals related to The Reserve.  The
company is also named as a defendant.

The complaint alleges claims of violations of the federal
securities laws and other claims based on allegations that false
and misleading statements and omissions were made in the Reserve
Yield Plus Fund prospectus and in other statements regarding the
fund.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, interest and attorneys' fees.

No further developments regarding the lawsuit was reported in the
company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. -- http://www.amtd.com/-- is
engaged in providing securities brokerage services and
technology-based financial services to retail investors and
business partners, predominantly through the Internet, a
national branch network and relationships with independent
registered investment advisors.  The company offers touch-tone
trading, trading over the Internet, unlimited, streaming, free
real-time quotes, extended trading hour, direct access and
commitment on the speed of execution to its customers.  As of
Jan. 24, 2006, the company acquired the U.S. brokerage business
of TD Waterhouse Group, Inc..  The client offerings include TD
AMERITRADE, TD AMERITRADE Institutional, TD AMERITRADE Izone,
Amerivest, TDAX Independence ETFs and TD AMERITRADE Corporate
Services.  The products available to the clients include common
and preferred stock, exchange-traded funds, option trades,
mutual funds, fixed income, margin lending and cash management
services.


TD AMERITRADE: Case Conference in "Holders" Suit Set for Dec. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Dec. 10, 2009, hearing has been set for a case conference in
the consolidated class action captioned In re TD Ameritrade
Accountholders Litigation, according to the company's Nov. 13,
2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2009.

A purported class action, Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No.
07-cv-_____ (N.D. Calif.), was filed on May 31, 2007, alleging
that there was a breach in TDA Inc.'s systems that allowed
access to e-mail addresses and other personal information of
account holders, and that as a result account holders received
unsolicited e-mail from spammers promoting certain stocks and
have been subjected to an increased risk of identity theft.  The
complaint requests unspecified damages and injunctive and other
equitable relief.

A second lawsuit, Zigler v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No.
07-cv-______, (N.D. Calif.), was filed on Sept. 26, 2007, on
behalf of a purported nationwide class of account holders.  The
factual allegations of the complaint and the relief sought are
substantially the same as those in Elvey.

The cases were consolidated under the caption In re TD
Ameritrade Accountholders Litigation.

The company hired an independent consultant to investigate
whether identity theft occurred as a result of the breach.  The
consultant has conducted four investigations since August 2007,
and reported that it found no evidence of identity theft.  

The parties entered into an agreement to settle the lawsuits on
a class basis subject to court approval.  On May 1, 2009, the
Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement,
which had been revised, and set a hearing on final approval for
Sept. 10, 2009.  

Some class members have filed objections and opt-outs.

On May 1, 2009, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement, which had been revised. Some class members
filed objections and opt-outs.

The court denied final approval of the proposed settlement on
Oct. 23, 2009.

The court ruled that the asserted benefits of the settlement to
the class were not sufficient to warrant approval and that the
proposed settlement was not fair, reasonable and adequate.

The court scheduled a case conference for Dec. 10, 2009.

TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. -- http://www.amtd.com/-- is
engaged in providing securities brokerage services and
technology-based financial services to retail investors and
business partners, predominantly through the Internet, a
national branch network and relationships with independent
registered investment advisors.  The company offers touch-tone
trading, trading over the Internet, unlimited, streaming, free
real-time quotes, extended trading hour, direct access and
commitment on the speed of execution to its customers.  As of
Jan. 24, 2006, the company acquired the U.S. brokerage business
of TD Waterhouse Group, Inc..  The client offerings include TD
AMERITRADE, TD AMERITRADE Institutional, TD AMERITRADE Izone,
Amerivest, TDAX Independence ETFs and TD AMERITRADE Corporate
Services.  The products available to the clients include common
and preferred stock, exchange-traded funds, option trades,
mutual funds, fixed income, margin lending and cash management
services.


TIGRENT INC: Wants Class Claims Against Whitney Info Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tigrent Inc. asks the court to dismiss the authorization of the
class claims against Whitney Information Network, according to
the company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

On Jan. 11, 2007, Whitney Canada, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary, and the company received notice of an Amended Motion
for Authorization to Institute a Class Action in the Province of
Quebec, Canada on behalf of all persons who are alleged to have
made various real estate investments at the alleged inducement
of, or through, Marc Jemus, Francois Roy, Robert Primeau and/or
their companies, and/or B2B Trust, and/or Whitney Canada, Inc.,
and/or the company and/or Jean Lafreniere.

The complaint seeks repayment of $39,235 to the petitioner,
unspecified payment to each member of the class of an amount
corresponding to their lost investments, payment of $10,000 to
each member of the class as general damages, recovery of costs
and other litigation expenses, and unspecified equitable relief.

On Oct. 19 and Oct. 20, 2009, the company argued its motions for
lack of jurisdiction and to dismiss the authorization of the
class claims against Whitney Information Network.

The company awaits a ruling from the court as to two motions.

Tigrent Inc. -- http://tigrent.com/-- formerly Whitney  
Information Network, Inc., is a provider of practical, training,
conferences, publications, technology-based tools and mentoring.  
Through its affiliates, Tigrent Brands, Tigrent Learning, Tigrent
eLearning and Rich Dad Education, the company provides a training
model that imparts skills and knowledge in investing (real estate
and financial instruments), entrepreneurship and personal
finance.  The company's courses are available for customers to
attend live and in person at various regional locations.  Many of
Tigrent's trainings are offered in a virtual live environment
over the Internet.  Other forms of training program delivery
include on-demand streaming Internet-based courses and packaged
compact discs (CDs) and digital versatile discs (DVDs), as well
as mentoring and personal phone coaching.


TIGRENT INC: Florida Court Dismisses Durham/Friedman Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
dismissed a putative class action suit against Tigrent Inc., on
the grounds that the plaintiff failed to plead a securities fraud
case, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Dec. 28, 2006, Rodney Durham, an alleged shareholder of the
company, filed a putative class action suit ("Durham/Friedman
Lawsuit") against the company and Russell A. Whitney and Nicholas
S. Maturo in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida seeking unspecified compensatory damages, unspecified
equitable relief, and attorney's fees and costs for alleged
violations of federal securities laws.

On July 10, 2007, an amended complaint was filed by new court-
appointed lead plaintiff, Arnold Friedman who replaced Mr.
Durham.

On Dec. 8, 2008, Friedman, on behalf of all investors who
acquired the company's common stock from Aug. 11, 2005 through
and including Dec. 15, 2006, filed a second amended complaint
against the company, Russell A. Whitney, Nicholas S. Maturo,
Ronald S. Simon, Alfred R. Novas, John F. Kane, Rance Masheck
(all former officers and/or directors of the Company), and
Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC, the company's independent
outside auditor.

Friedman sought class certification, damages, injunctive relief,
attorney costs and fees and other relief deemed appropriate by
the Florida Court.

On Jan. 30, 2009, the company, along with defendants Whitney,
Simon, Novas, Kane, and Maturo, moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint, arguing that plaintiffs have not and cannot
state claims against them as a matter of law and that the claims
against them should be dismissed with prejudice.

On Nov. 10, 2009, the Florida Court dismissed the Durham/Friedman
Lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to plead a
securities fraud case.

Tigrent Inc. -- http://tigrent.com/-- formerly Whitney  
Information Network, Inc., is a provider of practical, training,
conferences, publications, technology-based tools and mentoring.  
Through its affiliates, Tigrent Brands, Tigrent Learning, Tigrent
eLearning and Rich Dad Education, the company provides a training
model that imparts skills and knowledge in investing (real estate
and financial instruments), entrepreneurship and personal
finance.  The company's courses are available for customers to
attend live and in person at various regional locations.  Many of
Tigrent's trainings are offered in a virtual live environment
over the Internet.  Other forms of training program delivery
include on-demand streaming Internet-based courses and packaged
compact discs (CDs) and digital versatile discs (DVDs), as well
as mentoring and personal phone coaching.


TIGRENT INC: Faces Suit Over Sale of "Teach Me To Trade" Items
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tigrent Inc. has received notice of a class action lawsuit
resulting from sale of its Teach Me To Trade products and
services, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On October 6, 2009, the company received notice of a class action
lawsuit filed by Eric Springer and Maurice J. Seghers, Jr.,
alleged customers of the company, against the company, two of its
subsidiaries, EduTrades Inc., and Wealth Intelligence Academy,
Inc., Linda Woolf, David Gengler, Hands On Capital, Inc. and
Lashaico, Inc.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida and seeks unspecified compensatory damages,
unspecified equitable relief, attorney's fees and costs.

The complaint alleges that the defendants committed fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, deceptive and
unfair trade practices arising out of the sale of the company's
TMTT products and services.

The purported class consists of all persons who paid to attend a
TMTT training and/or purchased TMTT products or services from
2002 through at least 2006.

Tigrent Inc. -- http://tigrent.com/-- formerly Whitney  
Information Network, Inc., is a provider of practical, training,
conferences, publications, technology-based tools and mentoring.  
Through its affiliates, Tigrent Brands, Tigrent Learning, Tigrent
eLearning and Rich Dad Education, the company provides a training
model that imparts skills and knowledge in investing (real estate
and financial instruments), entrepreneurship and personal
finance.  The company's courses are available for customers to
attend live and in person at various regional locations.  Many of
Tigrent's trainings are offered in a virtual live environment
over the Internet.  Other forms of training program delivery
include on-demand streaming Internet-based courses and packaged
compact discs (CDs) and digital versatile discs (DVDs), as well
as mentoring and personal phone coaching.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Accused of Lying About Prius Hybrid Performance
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Toyota lied about the
mileage its 2004-2007 Prius Hybrids get, especially in city
driving, a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court


YOUNG CHANG: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges Piano Manufacturing Problem
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Young Chang America and
Music Corp. made pianos with defective "metal action rail
connecting brackets," a class action claims in Los Angeles
Superior Court.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

STEC INC: Weiss & Lurie Files Shareholder Lawsuit in C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Lurie commenced a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of purchasers of STEC, Inc. (NASDAQ: STEC) securities from
June 16, 2009, through November 3, 2009 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that the defendants, who are STEC and
certain of the Company's officers, violated the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company, its financial condition,
customers, products, competitive position and prospects.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants represented
that STEC had no competitors for certain of its solid state disk
drive products ("SSDs"), and anticipated increases in the sales
of its SSD products and continued profitability despite a
worldwide downturn in the disk drive market. As a result of
defendants' allegedly false and misleading statements, STEC stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
reaching a Class Period high of $41.84 per share on September 10,
2009. During the Class Period, defendants Manouch Moshayedi and
Mark Moshayedi sold 9 million shares of their personal holdings
of STEC stock in a public secondary stock offering for proceeds
of approximately $268 million.

On November 3, 2009, STEC announced that one of its largest
customers would carry 2009 inventory into 2010, negatively
affecting the Company's first quarter 2010 financial prospects.
On this news, the price of STEC stock dropped more than $9.00 per
share to close at $14.14 per share on November 4, 2009, a loss of
more than 38% of the stock's value in a single day.

The action seeks to recover damages on behalf of investors who
purchased STEC securities during the Class Period. Plaintiff is
represented by Weiss & Lurie, a law firm possessing significant
experience and expertise in prosecuting class actions on behalf
of shareholders in federal and state courts throughout the United
States. Weiss & Lurie has been responsible for collectively
recovering more than a billion dollars on behalf of class members
and is one of the nation's leading law firms representing
shareholders in securities class actions.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired STEC securities from June
16, 2009 through November 3, 2009, you may move the court no
later than January 5, 2010 for appointment as lead plaintiff. In
order to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must meet certain legal
requirements. You do not need to seek appointment as a lead
plaintiff in order to share in any recovery obtained in the case.

If you would like to view a copy of the complaint or additional
information about this action and Weiss & Lurie, please visit
www.weisslurie.com. If you would like to discuss this action, or
have any questions about this notice or your rights as a
potential class member, contact:

          Jordan Lurie, Esq.
          Leigh Parker, Esq.       
          WEISS & LURIE
          10940 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: 310-208-2800

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2009.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *