CAR_Public/091207.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 7, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 241
  
                            Headlines

AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Plaintiffs Withdraw Plea to Injunction
ANTS SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Labor-Related Suit in Calif.
BJ SERVICES: Faces Amended Complaint Over Merger in Delaware
BJ SERVICES: Appellate Court Stays Consolidated Suit in Texas
BROOKLINE BANCORP: Brookline Bank's Suit Dismissed by Court

CONEXANT SYSTEMS: New Jersey Court Approves Proposed Settlement
CULLEN AGRICULTURAL: Faces Amended Complaint in Delaware
DAKTRONICS INC: Briefing on Motion to Dismiss Currently Ongoing
DICK'S SPORTING: Inks Settlement Agreement in "Parks" FLSA Suit
DICK'S SPORTING: Fails to Reach Settlement in "Barrus" FLSA Suit

DOLLAR TREE: Expects Decision on Class Decertification in 2010
DOLLAR TREE: No Trial Date Yet in California Store Mangers Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Wants "Gender Bias" Complaint in Virginia Dismissed
DRESS BARN: Reaches Agreement with Plaintiffs to Settle Suit
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Court Sets Settlement Hearing for January 14

INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Faces Shareholder Suit in South Carolina
MUELLER WATER: U.S. Pipe Still Faces Suit in Northern Alabama
PILGRIMS PRIDE: Deadlines in Suit vs. Officers Adjourned to Jan.
PILGRIMS PRIDE: "Simmons" Suit Not Yet Served to Defendants
PILGRIMS PRIDE: No Decision Yet on Motion to Dismiss Complaint

PILGRIMS PRIDE: Estimation Hearing Set in "Unpaid Wages" Suit
SEARS HOLDINGS: Awaits Summary Judgment Ruling in Merger Suit
SEARS HOLDINGS: Kmart Shareholders Appeal on Nixed Suit Ongoing
SMART ONLINE: Continues to Face "Gooden" Fraud Lawsuit in N.C.
SPIRIT AERO: Age Discrimination Suit in Kansas Still Pending

SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: "Harkness" Suit in Kansas Remains Pending
STARENT NETWORKS: Inks MOU with Plaintiffs to Settle Del. Suit
VCG HOLDING: Facing Suit in Colorado over Investors Buy Proposal
WARNER MUSIC: No Decision Yet on Plaintiffs Appeal in Price Suit
XEROX CORP: Inks Pact with ACS Shareholders to Settle Suit

                            *********

AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Plaintiffs Withdraw Plea to Injunction
-----------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation and Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. said
that they have resolved claims made in a consolidated action
filed by ACS shareholders in Dallas County, Texas, related to
Xerox's proposed acquisition of ACS.  In a stipulation agreed to
by the parties, the plaintiffs have withdrawn their motion for a
temporary and/or permanent injunction.

The parties agreed that if ACS's board of directors receives a
superior proposal, and, as a result, withdraws its recommendation
of the Xerox acquisition, Xerox will not enforce requirements in
its voting agreement with ACS Chairman Darwin Deason that
obligate Mr. Deason to vote any of his shares of ACS common stock
in favor of the Xerox acquisition.

In addition, Xerox, will not enforce any requirements of the
Merger Agreement that compel ACS to hold the ACS stockholders'
meeting to vote on the Xerox transaction and if requested by ACS,
Xerox will terminate the Merger Agreement in accordance with its
terms.

The plaintiffs have agreed to stay prosecution of the Texas
action (City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement
System, et al. v. ACS, et al., No. CC-09-07377-C).

A class action by ACS stockholders related to Xerox's acquisition
of ACS remains pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery (In re
ACS Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 4940-VCP).

Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. -- http://www.acs-inc.com/--  
support thousands of multinational corporations and government
agencies in over 100 countries from 500 locations.  It offers
business process outsourcing support in areas that include
finance, human resources, information technology, transaction
processing, and customer care.


ANTS SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Labor-Related Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTs Software, Inc., intends to continue defending itself in a
labor-related putative class action complaint.

On Aug. 22, 2008, a former ANTs employee, filed a putative class
action complaint for all current and former software engineers,
for failure to pay overtime wages, and failure to provide meal
breaks, among other things, in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of San Mateo.

The former employee is seeking an injunction, damages, attorneys'
fees, and penalties.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 23, 2009,
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

ANTs Software, Inc. -- http://www.ants.com/-- is developing the
Ants Compatibility Server (ACS) and develops, markets and
supports the ANTs Data Server ADS.  ACS is middleware that is
intended to offer a method to move applications from one database
to another and enable enterprises to achieve cost efficiencies by
consolidating their applications onto fewer databases.  The
company had developed technologies used in the monitoring and
management of applications and databases related to ACS.


BJ SERVICES: Faces Amended Complaint Over Merger in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
BJ Services Co. faces an amended complaint filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, according to the company's
Nov. 23, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Aug. 30, 2009, the company and Baker Hughes Inc. entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which the company
will merge with and into a wholly-owned subsidiary of Baker
Hughes.

In connection with the pending Baker Hughes Merger, various
lawsuits have been filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware on behalf of the public stockholders of the company,
naming the company, current members of the company's Board of
Directors, and Baker Hughes as defendants.

In the Delaware Lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that the company's Board of Directors violated various
fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement and that the
company and/or Baker Hughes aided and abetted such alleged
violations.  Among other remedies, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin
the Merger.

On Sept. 25, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court entered an order
consolidating the Delaware Lawsuits into one class action, In re:
BJ Services Company Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 4851-VCN.

On Oct. 6, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court entered an order
designating the law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP of New York, New
York as lead counsel and Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A. of
Wilmington, Delaware as liaison counsel.

On Oct. 16, 2009, lead counsel for the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in the Delaware Chancery Court which, among
other things, adds Jeffrey E. Smith, the company's Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, as a defendant, contains
new factual allegations about the merger negotiations, and
alleges the preliminary joint proxy/prospectus filed on Oct. 14,
2009, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission omits and
misrepresents material information.

BJ Services Co. -- http://www.bjservices.com/-- is a provider of  
pressure pumping and oilfield services for the petroleum
industry.  Pressure pumping services consist of cementing and
stimulation services used in the completion of new oil and
natural gas wells and in remedial work on existing wells, both
onshore and offshore.  Oilfield services include casing and
tubular services; precommissioning, maintenance, turnaround and
pipeline inspection services in the process and pipeline services
business, chemical services, completion tools, and completion
fluids.  The company conducts its operations through four
segments: U.S./Mexico Pressure Pumping Services; Canada Pressure
Pumping Services; International Pressure Pumping Services, and
Oilfield Services Group.


BJ SERVICES: Appellate Court Stays Consolidated Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas at Houston
granted BJ Services Co.'s emergency motion to stay the
consolidated action styled Garden City Employees' Retirement
System, et al. v. BJ Services Company, et al., Cause No. 2009-
57320, according to the company's Nov. 23, 2009, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Various lawsuits have also been filed in the District Courts of
Harris County, Texas. The Texas Lawsuits make substantially the
same allegations as were initially asserted in the lawsuits filed
in Delaware.  The Texas Lawsuits also seek the same relief as the
ones filed in Delaware.

On Oct. 9, 2009, the Harris County Court consolidated the Texas
Lawsuits into one class action, Garden City Employees' Retirement
System, et al. v. BJ Services Company, et al., Cause No. 2009-
57320, 80th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas.

On Oct. 20, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the First District of
Texas at Houston granted the defendants' emergency motion to stay
the Texas Lawsuits pending its decision on the defendants'
petition seeking a stay of the Texas Lawsuits pending
adjudication of the lawsuits in Delaware, which were filed first.

BJ Services Co. -- http://www.bjservices.com/-- is a provider of  
pressure pumping and oilfield services for the petroleum
industry.  Pressure pumping services consist of cementing and
stimulation services used in the completion of new oil and
natural gas wells and in remedial work on existing wells, both
onshore and offshore.  Oilfield services include casing and
tubular services; precommissioning, maintenance, turnaround and
pipeline inspection services in the process and pipeline services
business, chemical services, completion tools, and completion
fluids.  The company conducts its operations through four
segments: U.S./Mexico Pressure Pumping Services; Canada Pressure
Pumping Services; International Pressure Pumping Services, and
Oilfield Services Group.


BROOKLINE BANCORP: Brookline Bank's Suit Dismissed by Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action filed against Brookline Bancorp, Inc.'s
subsidiary, has been dismissed with prejudice and without costs,
according to the company's Nov. 20, 2009, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The action was filed on Feb. 21, 2007 against Brookline Bank, a
subsidiary of the company, asserting claims under the
Massachusetts Uniform Commercial Code.

The action, captioned Mosca v. Brookline Bank, had been dismissed
by the trial court and was pending appeal.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement and on Nov. 20,
2009, pursuant to a joint stipulation for voluntary dismissal
filed by the parties, the Massachusetts Appeals Court entered an
order dismissing the appeal.

Brookline Bancorp, Inc. -- https://www.brooklinebank.com/ -- is
the holding company of Brookline Bank.  As of Dec. 31, 2008,
Brookline operated 18 full-service banking offices in Brookline,
Medford and adjacent communities in Middlesex County and Norfolk
County in Massachusetts.  Brookline's deposits are gathered from
the general public primarily in the communities, in which its
banking offices are located.  Brookline's lending activities are
concentrated primarily in the greater Boston metropolitan area
and eastern Massachusetts.  The company has approximately 87%
interest in Eastern Funding LLC (Eastern). Eastern specializes
primarily in the financing of coin-operated laundry, dry cleaning
and convenience store equipment, and businesses in the greater
metropolitan New York area and selected other locations
throughout the United States.


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: New Jersey Court Approves Proposed Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of New Jersey approved the proposed
settlement entered into by Conexant Systems, Inc., and the
plaintiffs in a complaint styled Graden v. Conexant, et al.,
according to the company's Nov. 25, 2009, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Oct. 2, 2009.

In February 2005, the company and certain of its current and
former officers and the company's Employee Benefits Plan
Committee were named as defendants in Graden v. Conexant, et al.,
a lawsuit filed on behalf of all persons who were participants in
the company's 401(k) Plan (Plan) during a specified class period.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey and
alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, as amended, to the
Plan and the participants in the Plan.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Aug. 11, 2005.

The amended complaint alleged that the plaintiffs lost money in
the Plan due to:

     (i) poor company merger-related performance,

    (ii) misleading disclosures by the Company regarding the
         merger,

   (iii) breaches of fiduciary duty regarding management of Plan
         assets,

    (iv) being encouraged to invest in Conexant Stock Fund,

     (v) being unable to diversify out of said fund and

    (vi) having the company make its matching contributions in
         said fund.

On Oct. 12, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case.

The plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss on Dec. 30,
2005, and the defendants' reply was filed on Feb. 17, 2006.

On March 31, 2006, the judge dismissed this case and ordered it
closed.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 17, 2006.

The appellate argument was held on April 19, 2007.

On July 31, 2007, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the
District Court's order dismissing plaintiffs' complaint and
remanded the case for further proceedings.

On Aug. 27, 2008, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and
denied in part.  The judge left in claims against all of the
individual defendants as well as against the company.

In January 2009, the company and the plaintiffs agreed in
principle to settle all outstanding claims in the litigation for
$3.25 million.

On May 21, 2009, plaintiffs' attorneys filed with the District
Court a motion asking the court to grant its preliminary approval
of the proposed settlement and set a date for a final hearing on
the settlement, after notice to the class, the obtaining of an
allocation of the dollar recovery, and certain other
preconditions set forth in the settlement agreement.

By order dated June 18, 2009, the District Court granted
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and set Sept. 11,
2009 as the date of the final Settlement Fairness hearing.

On Sept. 11, 2009 the Court approved the proposed settlement.

In fiscal 2009, the Company deposited $3.25 million into an
escrow account and anticipates that the settlement will be paid
in December 2009.

Conexant Systems, Inc. -- http://www.conexant.com/-- designs,  
develops and sells semiconductor system solutions, consisting of
semiconductor devices, software and reference designs, for
imaging, video, audio, and modem applications.  These include a
portfolio of imaging solutions for multifunction printers (MFPs),
fax platforms, and digital photo frame market segments.  The
company's video solutions are targeted at personal computer
television (PCTV) applications that enable consumers to watch
broadcast television on a personal computer and the video
surveillance and security market.  In addition, it provides audio
solutions that are targeted at personal computer (PC) audio,
speakers, and audio subsystems.  On Aug. 11, 2008, it completed
the sale of certain assets related to its Broadband Media
Processing (BMP) business to NXP B.V. (NXP).


CULLEN AGRICULTURAL: Faces Amended Complaint in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------
Cullen Agricultural Holding Corp. faces an amended class action
complaint, styled Goodman v. Cullen Agricultural Holding Corp.,
et al., and filed on Nov. 2, 2009, in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware.

The complaint was filed against the company and the former
directors of Triplecrown challenging the Merger and alleging that
Triplecrown's former directors breached their fiduciary duties
by, among other things, causing Triplecrown to take ultra vires
action and failing to provide Triplecrown's stockholders with
adequate time and information to determine whether to support the
Merger.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to have the Merger
declared void, to have Triplecrown dissolved, to have
Triplecrown's trust account restored and distributed pro rata to
members of the putative class of public stockholders of
Triplecrown and an opportunity for members of the putative class
to exercise conversion rights in connection with the Merger.

The defendants' answer was due on or before November 30, 2009.

The company is in the process of analyzing the complaint and
determining how to proceed, according to its Nov. 25, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Cullen Agricultural Holding Corp. was formed as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Triplecrown Acquisition Corp. and CAT Merger Sub,
Inc., a Georgia corporation, was incorporated as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the company on Aug. 31, 2009.  The company and
Merger Sub were formed in order to allow Triplecrown to complete
the transactions contemplated by an Agreement and Plan of
Reorganization, dated as of Sept. 4, 2009, as amended, among
Triplecrown, the Company, Merger Sub, Cullen Agricultural
Technologies, Inc. and Cullen Inc. Holdings Ltd., an affiliate of
Eric J. Watson, the Company's chief executive officer, secretary,
chairman of the board and treasurer, and the then holder of all
of the outstanding common stock of Cullen Agritech.


DAKTRONICS INC: Briefing on Motion to Dismiss Currently Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on Daktronics, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an Amended
Consolidated Complaint is underway, according to the company's
Nov. 25, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009.

The company and two of its executive officers are named as
defendants in a consolidated class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Dakota in November 2008
on behalf of a class of investors who purchased the company's
stock in the open market between Nov. 15, 2006 and April 5, 2007.

In an Amended Consolidated Complaint filed on April 13, 2009, the
plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false and misleading
statements of material facts about our business and expected
financial performance in the company's press releases, its
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and
conference calls, thereby inflating the price of the company's
common stock.

The Amended Complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The Amended Complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the
alleged class in an unspecified amount, reasonable fees and costs
of litigation, and such other and further relief as the Court may
deem just and proper.

On June 5, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.

In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in
opposition to the company's motion to dismiss.

In September 2009, the company filed a reply memorandum in
support of the motion to dismiss.

Daktronics, Inc. -- http://www.daktronics.com/-- is a supplier  
of electronic scoreboards, large electronic display systems and
related marketing services, digital messaging solutions and
software and services for sports venues, commercial and
transportation applications.  The company operates through five
segments: Commercial, Live Events, Schools and Theatres,
Transportation and International.  The Ccmpany offers a line of
products, from small indoor and outdoor scoreboards and
electronic displays to video display systems, as well as related
control, timing, sound and hoist systems and related professional
services.  The company is engaged in designing, marketing,
manufacturing, installing and servicing integrated systems that
display real-time data, graphics, animation and video.  The
company is engaged in a range of activities, including marketing
and sales, engineering and design, manufacturing and professional
services.


DICK'S SPORTING: Inks Settlement Agreement in "Parks" FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., has reached an agreement to settle
the case styled Daniel Parks v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., on a
class-wide basis, according to the company's Nov. 23, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009.

The company is a defendant in two cases which make claims
concerning alleged failures to pay wages and overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and applicable state
labor law.

The cases were filed in May and November of 2005 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York.

The cases are:

       -- Tamara Barrus v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. and
          Galyan's Trading Company, Inc., Case No. 05-cv-____
          (W.D.N.Y.), and

       -- Daniel Parks v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., Case No.
          05-cv-____ (W.D.N.Y.).

In September and October 2006, respectively, a magistrate judge
for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
conditionally certified classes for notice purposes under the
FLSA in the Barrus and Parks cases, which the U.S. District Judge
upheld.

In both cases, the parties and the court agreed to stay the
litigation pending an attempt to resolve all claims through
mediation.

Mediation sessions were held in April and August 2007 and
November 2008.

In the Parks case, the parties reached an agreement to settle the
case on a class-wide basis, subject to court approval of the
proposed settlement.

In the Barrus case, attempts to resolve the case through
settlement at mediation were unsuccessful, and litigation has
resumed.

The company believes that this case does not properly represent a
class action.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. --
http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/-- is a full-line sporting
goods retailer that offers an assortment of brand name sporting
goods equipment, apparel and footwear in a specialty store
environment.


DICK'S SPORTING: Fails to Reach Settlement in "Barrus" FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., was unable to reach a settlement at
mediation in the case styled Tamara Barrus v. Dick's Sporting
Goods, Inc. and Galyan's Trading Company, Inc., according to the
company's Nov. 23, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31,
2009.

The company is a defendant in two cases which make claims
concerning alleged failures to pay wages and overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and applicable state
labor law.

The cases were filed in May and November of 2005 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York.

The cases are:

       -- Tamara Barrus v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. and
          Galyan's Trading Company, Inc., Case No. 05-cv-____
          (W.D.N.Y.), and

       -- Daniel Parks v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., Case No.
          05-cv-____ (W.D.N.Y.).

In September and October 2006, respectively, a magistrate judge
for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
conditionally certified classes for notice purposes under the
FLSA in the Barrus and Parks cases, which the U.S. District Judge
upheld.

In both cases, the parties and the court agreed to stay the
litigation pending an attempt to resolve all claims through
mediation.

Mediation sessions were held in April and August 2007 and
November 2008.

In the Barrus case, attempts to resolve the case through
settlement at mediation were unsuccessful, and litigation has
resumed.

The company believes that this case does not properly represent a
class action.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. --
http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/-- is a full-line sporting
goods retailer that offers an assortment of brand name sporting
goods equipment, apparel and footwear in a specialty store
environment.


DOLLAR TREE: Expects Decision on Class Decertification in 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., expects the Alabama federal court to render a
decision whether to decertify the collective action early in
2010, according to the company's Nov. 24, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Oct. 31, 2009.

In 2006, a former store manager filed a collective action against
the company in Alabama federal court.  She claims that she and
other store managers should have been classified as non-exempt
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and received
overtime compensation.

The Court preliminarily allowed nationwide (except California)
notice to be sent to all store managers employed for the three
years immediately preceding the filing of the suit.

Approximately 500 individuals are included in the collective
action.

The company expects the Court to decide whether to decertify the
collective action early in 2010.  If the case proceeds as a
collective action, it will likely proceed to trial in the Spring
of 2010.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com/-- formerly  
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., is an operator of discount variety
stores offering merchandise at the fixed price of one dollar.  At
Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 3,591 discount variety retail
stores in 48 states.  Approximately 3,450 of these stores sell
substantially all items for one dollar or less.  The remaining
stores, operating as Deal$, sell most items for one dollar or
less but also sell items for more than one dollar.  Dollar Tree's
stores operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Deal$ and Dollar
Bills.


DOLLAR TREE: No Trial Date Yet in California Store Mangers Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date has been scheduled in a class action filed by two
store managers against Dollar Tree, Inc., according to the
company's Nov. 24, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31,
2009.

In 2007, two store managers filed a class action against the
company in California federal court, claiming they and other
California store managers should have been classified as non-
exempt employees under California and federal law.

The Court has allowed notice to be sent to all California store
managers employed since Dec. 12, 2004, and a class of
approximately 720 individuals exists.

Following discovery the company anticipates it will seek to
decertify the class.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com/-- formerly  
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., is an operator of discount variety
stores offering merchandise at the fixed price of one dollar.  At
Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 3,591 discount variety retail
stores in 48 states.  Approximately 3,450 of these stores sell
substantially all items for one dollar or less.  The remaining
stores, operating as Deal$, sell most items for one dollar or
less but also sell items for more than one dollar.  Dollar Tree's
stores operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Deal$ and Dollar
Bills.


DOLLAR TREE: Wants "Gender Bias" Complaint in Virginia Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss a new complaint
filed in a federal court in Virginia, according to the company's
Nov. 24, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009.

In 2008, the Company was sued under the Equal Pay Act in Alabama
federal court by two female store managers alleging that they and
other female store managers were paid less than male store
managers.

Among other things, they seek monetary damages and back pay.

The Court ordered that notice be sent to potential plaintiffs and
approximately 350 individuals opted in.

The company expects that the Court will consider a motion to
decertify the collective action at a future date.

In October 2009, 33 plaintiffs filed a new Complaint in a federal
court in Virginia, alleging gender pay and promotion
discrimination under Title VII, as a class action.

The company has filed a Motion to dismiss on the grounds that the
Complaint is time barred.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com/-- formerly  
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., is an operator of discount variety
stores offering merchandise at the fixed price of one dollar.  At
Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 3,591 discount variety retail
stores in 48 states.  Approximately 3,450 of these stores sell
substantially all items for one dollar or less.  The remaining
stores, operating as Deal$, sell most items for one dollar or
less but also sell items for more than one dollar.  Dollar Tree's
stores operate under the names of Dollar Tree, Deal$ and Dollar
Bills.


DRESS BARN: Reaches Agreement with Plaintiffs to Settle Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Dress Barn, Inc., has reached an agreement in principle with
the plaintiffs to settle the claims in a consolidated action,
according to the company's Nov. 24, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Oct. 24, 2009.

Tween Brands, the members of Tween Brands' board of directors
and, in certain of the lawsuits, Dress Barn, Dress Barn's chief
executive officer and/or Merger Sub, were named as defendants in
several purported class action lawsuits that were filed by Tween
Brands stockholders in either the Common Pleas Court of Franklin
County, Ohio or the Delaware Court of Chancery.
Plaintiff Clair Rand filed the first suit in Ohio on June 29,
2009, naming as defendants Tween Brands, its six directors, Dress
Barn, and its chief executive officer.

Plaintiff Sarah Elliott filed a similar suit in Ohio on July 8,
2009, naming as defendants only Tween Brands and its directors.

Plaintiff Cheryl Dutiel filed a similar suit in Delaware on July
17, 2009, naming as defendants Tween Brands, its six directors,
Dress Barn, and Merger Sub.

Plaintiff Edward Hirsch filed a similar suit in Ohio on August 4,
2009, naming the same defendants as plaintiff Dutiel.
Following the defendants' motions to stay the Ohio suits in favor
of the Delaware litigation, the three Ohio plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed their suits and together filed a similar suit in the
Delaware Court of Chancery on Aug. 28, 2009, but did not include
Dress Barn or its chief executive officer as defendants.

Amended complaints have been filed in each of the two Delaware
actions.

The amended complaints allege, among other things, that Tween
Brands and its directors breached their fiduciary duties by
allegedly failing to obtain adequate consideration in the
proposed merger, agreeing to certain provisions in the merger
agreement, and issuing allegedly inadequate disclosure documents;
and (in the Dutiel complaint) that Dress Barn, by obtaining non-
public information about Tween Brands, aided and abetted the
Tween Brands directors' alleged breach in failing to obtain
adequate consideration for the merger.

The suits seek, among other things, to enjoin the consummation of
the merger.

The parties have engaged in initial discovery proceedings.

By letter decision dated Oct. 2, 2009, the Delaware Chancellor
consolidated the two Delaware actions and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel for plaintiffs.

All defendants and plaintiffs, through Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel,
reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims in all the
now-consolidated actions, subject to the approval of the Delaware
Court of Chancery.

Under the parties' agreement in principle:

     (i) the defendants will provide supplemental disclosures to
         stockholders, which are contained in the proxy
         statement/prospectus,

    (ii) the parties will present to the Delaware Court of
         Chancery a Stipulation of Settlement and any other
         necessary documents to obtain the prompt approval by
         the Court of the settlement and the dismissal with
         prejudice and release of all claims against all
         defendants held by the plaintiffs and class members,
         and

   (iii) plaintiffs' attorneys will make an application to the
         Court for an award of fees and expenses from
         defendants.

The settlement is contingent upon, among other things,
consummation of the merger and approval by the Delaware Court of
Chancery.

The Dress Barn, Inc. -- http://www.dressbarn.com/-- operates  
women's apparel specialty stores, principally under the names
dressbarn, dressbarn woman and maurices.  As of July 25, 2009,
the Company operated 1,559 stores in 48 states and the District
of Columbia, including 684 dressbarn Combo stores (a combination
of its dressbarn and dressbarn woman brands), 721 maurices
stores, 120 dressbarn stores and 34 dressbarn woman stores.  Its
dressbarn stores are typically operated as Combo stores, offering
both dressbarn and larger-sized dressbarn woman merchandise.  The
Dress Barn, Inc. also operates stand-alone dressbarn and
dressbarn woman stores in certain markets. Its dressbarn brands
cater to 35 to 55 year-old women, sizes 4 to 24.  The dressbarn
stores offer in-season and casual fashion located primarily in
convenient strip shopping centers in major trading and markets
and surrounding suburban areas.  As of July 25, 2009, the company
operated 1,559 stores in 48 states and the District of Columbia.


FIRST ADVANTAGE: Court Sets Settlement Hearing for January 14
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has set a hearing
for Jan. 14, 2010, to consider approval of the settlement in a
class action complaint against First Advantage Corp., according
to the company's Nov. 18, 2009, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Nov. 18, 2009, the company, its parent corporation, The First
American Corporation, Parker S. Kennedy, a former director of the
company and current director of First American, and Norfolk
County Retirement System (the "Plaintiff") filed a Stipulation of
Settlement with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
relating to the action commenced by the Plaintiff's filing of a
Verified Class Action Complaint with the Court against the
company, First American and Mr. Kennedy on July 2, 2009.

The Litigation was filed in connection with First American's
proposed acquisition of all publicly-held shares of the company's
Class A common stock, which was completed on Nov. 18, 2009.

The Stipulation sets forth the terms of the settlement of the
Litigation, which remain subject to approval by the Court.

First Advantage Corporation -- http://www.fadv.com/-- is an  
international provider of risk mitigation and business solutions.  
The company operates in six primary business segments: Lender
Services, Data Services, Dealer Services, Employer Services,
Multifamily Services, and Investigative and Litigation Support
Services.  It serves mortgage lenders, automobile dealerships,
real estate investment trusts and property management companies,
many of the top providers of transportation services, insurance
agents, the national law firms, and non-profit organizations.


INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Faces Shareholder Suit in South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Textile Group, Inc., has been named as a defendant
in an alleged shareholder class and derivative action, according
to the company's Nov. 23, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

In August 2009, the company was notified that an alleged
shareholder class and derivative action had been filed in the
Court of Common Pleas, County of Greenville, State of South
Carolina, purportedly on behalf of the company as the nominal
plaintiff.

The action names as defendants, among others, the company (in a
nominal capacity) and certain individuals who were officers and
directors of a company formerly known as International Textile
Group, Inc. at the time of the merger.

The action alleges the same breach of certain fiduciary duties by
certain of the defendants, and makes the same related claims
against such persons, all in connection with the merger.

The company also is not aware of any claims being made against
the company in this suit; however, the company has certain
obligations to provide indemnification to its officers and
directors (and certain former officers and directors) against
certain claims.

International Textile Group, Inc. -- http://www.itg-global.com/-
- is a diversified textile manufacturer that produces automotive
safety (including airbag fabric and airbag cushions), apparel,
government uniform, technical and specialty textiles.  ITG's
market presence includes operations principally in the United
States, China, Germany, Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic,
Mexico, Vietnam and South Africa.  The company considers its five
primary markets to be automotive safety, including airbag fabric
and airbag cushions; bottom-weight woven apparel fabrics,
including denim, synthetic and worsted fabrics; government
uniform fabrics, including fabrics for military dress uniforms
and battle dress uniforms; interior furnishings fabrics and
specialty fabrics and services, including commission printing and
finishing, narrow fabrics for seat belts and for military and
technical uses and technical fabrics used in a variety of
government, industrial and commercial applications.


MUELLER WATER: U.S. Pipe Still Faces Suit in Northern Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Water Products, Inc.'s U.S. Pipe business segment
continues to face a putative civil class action case in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

U.S. Pipe and a number of co-defendant foundry-related companies
were named in a putative civil class action case originally filed
in April 2005 in the Circuit Court of Calhoun County, Alabama,
and removed by defendants to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama under the Class Action Fairness Act.

The putative plaintiffs in the case filed an amended complaint
with the U.S. District Court in December 2006.

The amended complaint alleged state law tort claims (negligence,
failure to warn, wantonness, nuisance, trespass and outrage)
arising from the creation and disposal of "foundry sand" alleged
to contain harmful levels of PCBs and other toxins, including
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and zinc.

The plaintiffs originally sought damages for real and personal
property and for other unspecified personal injury.

In June 2007, a motion to dismiss was granted to U.S. Pipe and
certain co-defendants as to the claims for negligence, failure to
warn, nuisance, trespass and outrage.  The remainder of the
complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint.

On July 6, 2007, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which dismissed prior claims relating to U.S. Pipe's former
facility located at 2101 West 10th Street in Anniston, Alabama
and no longer alleges personal injury claims.

Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on July 27, 2007.

U.S. Pipe and the other defendants have moved to dismiss the
third amended complaint.

On Sept. 24, 2008, the court issued an order on the motion,
dismissing the claims for wantonness and permitting the
plaintiffs to move forward with their claims of nuisance,
trespass and negligence.

No further updates were reported in Mueller Water's Nov. 24,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Mueller Water Products, Inc. --
http://www.muellerwaterproducts.com/-- manufactures and markets  
of a range of water infrastructure, flow control and piping
component system products for use in water distribution networks
and treatment facilities.  The company also acts as a
distributor, especially in Canada, for products that are
manufactured by other companies.  The company's product portfolio
includes engineered valves, fire hydrants, pipe fittings, water
meters and ductile iron pipe.  The company operates through three
business segments: Mueller Co., U.S. Pipe and Anvil.


PILGRIMS PRIDE: Deadlines in Suit vs. Officers Adjourned to Jan.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has
ordered that deadlines in the consolidated action captioned In re
Pilgrim's Pride Stock Investment Plan ERISA Litigation, No. 2:08-
cv-472-TJW, be adjourned until Jan. 15, 2010, to allow the
parties to pursue mediation, according to Pilgrim's Pride Corp.'s
Nov. 23, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 26, 2009.

                       Patterson Action

On Dec. 17, 2008, Kenneth Patterson filed suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall
Division, against Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie "Ken" Pilgrim,
Clifford E. Butler, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A. Cogdill, Renee
N. DeBar, Pilgrim's Pride Compensation Committee and other
unnamed defendants.

The complaint, brought pursuant to section 502 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Section 1132,
alleges that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties
to participants and beneficiaries of the Pilgrim's Pride Stock
Investment Plan, as administered through the Pilgrim's Pride
Retirement Savings Plan, and the To-Ricos, Inc. Employee Savings
and Retirement Plan (collectively with the Plan and the RSP, the
"Plans").

The allegations in the complaint are similar to the allegations
made in the case filed by Ronald Acaldo in the same court.

Patterson further alleges that he purports to represent a class
of all persons or entities who were participants in or
beneficiaries of the Plans at any time between May 5, 2008,
through the present and whose accounts held the company's common
stock or units in the company's common stock.

The complaint seeks actual damages in the amount of any losses
the Plans suffered, to be allocated among the participants'
individual accounts as benefits due in proportion to the
accounts' diminution in value, attorneys' fees, an order for
equitable restitution and the imposition of constructive trust,
and a declaration that each of the defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties to the Plans' participants.

Although the company is not a named defendant in this action, its
bylaws require the company to indemnify its current and former
directors and officers from any liabilities and expenses incurred
by them in connection with actions they took in good faith while
serving as an officer or director.

The likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the amount or range
of any possible loss to the company cannot be determined at this
time.

On Jan. 23, 2009, Patterson filed a motion to consolidate the
subsequently filed, similar to the case filed by Denise M. Smalls
case, into this action.  The defendants filed a dispositive
motion seeking to dismiss the Patterson complaint on April 16,
2009.

Mr. Patterson filed a response brief in opposition to the motion
on May 15, 2009, and the defendants filed a reply in support of
their motion on June 1, 2009.

                        Smalls Action

On Jan. 2, 2009, Denise M. Smalls filed suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division,
against Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, Clifford E.
Butler, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A. Cogdill, Renee N. DeBar,
Pilgrim's Pride Compensation Committee and other unnamed
defendants.

The complaint and the allegations are similar to those filed in
the Patterson case.

Smalls alleges that she purports to represent a class of all
persons or entities who were participants in or beneficiaries of
the Plans at any time between May 5, 2008, through the present
and whose accounts held the company's common stock or units in
the company's common stock.

The complaint seeks actual damages in the amount of any losses
the Plans suffered, to be allocated among the participants'
individual accounts as benefits due in proportion to the
accounts' diminution in value, attorneys' fees; an order for
equitable restitution and the imposition of constructive trust;
and a declaration that each of the defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties to the Plans' participants.

Although the company is not a named defendant in the action, its
bylaws require it to indemnify its current and former directors
and officers from any liabilities and expenses incurred by them
in connection with actions they took in good faith while serving
as an officer or director.  The likelihood of an unfavorable
outcome or the amount or range of any possible loss to the
Company cannot be determined at this time.

On July 9, 2009, the defendants filed a dispositive motion
seeking to dismiss the complaint.

                      Consolidated Action

On July 20, 2009, the Court entered an order consolidating the
Smalls action and the Patterson action and set the consolidated
action for a scheduling conference on July 30, 2009.

On Aug. 12, 2009, following the Scheduling Conference, the Court
ordered that the case will proceed under the caption In re
Pilgrim's Pride Stock Investment Plan ERISA Litigation, No. 2:08-
cv-472-TJW.

Plaintiffs were granted leave to file an Amended (consolidated)
Complaint by or on Sept. 25, 2009.

On Sept. 28, 2009, the Court ordered that deadlines in the
consolidated action be adjourned until Jan. 15, 2010 to allow the
parties to pursue mediation.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Texas, Pilgrim's Pride Corp. --
http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- employs roughly 41,000 people  
and operates chicken processing plants and prepared-foods
facilities in 14 states, Puerto Rico and Mexico.  The company's
primary distribution is through retailers and foodservice
distributors.


PILGRIMS PRIDE: "Simmons" Suit Not Yet Served to Defendants
-----------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action styled Simmons et al v. Pilgrim, et
al., Action No. 2:09-CV-121, has yet to be served to the
defendants, according to Pilgrim's Pride Corp.'s Nov. 23, 2009,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Sept. 26, 2009.

On Oct. 9, 2009, David Simmons, Carla Simmons, Patty L.
Funkhouser, and Dickie L. Funkhouser filed a putative class
action, styled Simmons et al v. Pilgrim, et al., Action No. 2:09-
CV-121, against Lonnie A. Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, Clifford
Butler, O.B. Goolsby, Richard A. Cogdill, S. Key Coker, Blake D.
Lovette, Vance C. Miller, James G. Vetter, Donald L. Wass,
Charles L. Black, Linda Chavez, J. Clinton Rivers, Keith W.
Hughes, Don Jackson, the Administrative Committee of the
Pilgrim's Pride Retirement Savings Plan, Renee DeBar, Jane
Brookshire, Gerry Evenwel, the Prudential Retirement Insurance
and Annuity Company, and other unnamed defendants.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia.

The action alleges that the fiduciaries breached their duties to
the participants and beneficiaries by, among other things:

     -- amending the Pilgrim's Pride Retirement Savings Plan
        (RSP),

     -- allowing imprudent investments in the company's common
        stock,

     -- failing to collect the company's delinquent employer
        contributions and

     -- failing to file unsecured and priority claims on behalf
        of the RSP or otherwise protect the rights of RSP
        participants in the Bankruptcy Court.

The company anticipates that plaintiffs will seek certification
of a class of all persons or entities who were participants or
beneficiaries under the RSP between Oct. 3, 2002 and the present,
and will seek a determination that the defendants breached their
fiduciary and co-fiduciary duties to the RSP and the participants
and beneficiaries, restoration to the RSP and to their
participants and beneficiaries of the losses sustained by the
RSP, imposition of a constructive trust, attorneys' fees, and
further legal, equitable or remedial relief.

Although the company is not a named defendant in this action, its
bylaws require the company to indemnify its current and former
directors and officers from any liabilities and expenses incurred
by them in connection with actions they took in good faith while
serving as an officer or director.

The likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the amount or range
of any possible loss to the company cannot be determined at this
time.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Texas, Pilgrim's Pride Corp. --
http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- employs roughly 41,000 people  
and operates chicken processing plants and prepared-foods
facilities in 14 states, Puerto Rico and Mexico.  The company's
primary distribution is through retailers and foodservice
distributors.


PILGRIMS PRIDE: No Decision Yet on Motion to Dismiss Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
Marshall Division, has yet to rule on the Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint styled In re: Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
Securities Litigation, according to Pilgrim's Pride Corp.'s
Nov. 23, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 26, 2009.

                           Acaldo Action

On Oct. 29, 2008, Ronald Acaldo filed suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division,
against the company and individual defendants Lonnie "Bo"
Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A.
Cogdill and Clifford E. Butler.

The complaint alleged that the company and the individual
defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by allegedly failing to disclose that:

     (a) the company's hedges to protect it from adverse changes
         in costs were not working and in fact were harming the
         company's results more than helping;

     (b) the company's inability to continue to use illegal
         workers would adversely affect its margins;

     (c) the company's financial results were continuing to
         deteriorate rather than improve, such that the
         company's capital structure was threatened;

     (d) the company was in a much worse position than its
         competitors due to its inability to raise prices for
         consumers sufficient to offset cost increases, whereas
         it competitors were able to raise prices to offset
         higher costs affecting the industry; and

     (e) the company had not made sufficient changes to its
         business to succeed in the more difficult industry
         conditions.

Mr. Acaldo further alleged that he purports to represent a class
of all persons or entities who acquired the common stock of the
company from May 5, 2008 through Sept. 24, 2008.  The complaint
sought unspecified injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of
damages.

On Nov. 21, 2008, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and Brief
in Support Thereof, asserting that plaintiff failed to identify
any misleading statements, failed to adequately plead scienter
against any defendants, failed to adequately plead loss
causation, failed to adequately plead controlling person
liability and, as to the omissions that plaintiff alleged
defendants did not make, defendants alleged that the omissions
were, in fact, disclosed.

                        Howes Action

On Nov. 13, 2008, Chad Howes filed suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division,
against the company and individual defendants Lonnie "Bo"
Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A.
Cogdill and Clifford E. Butler.

The allegations in the Howes Complaint are identical to those in
the Acaldo Complaint, as are the class allegations and relief
sought.  The defendants were never served with the Howes
Complaint.

                    Consolidated Action

On May 14, 2009, the Court consolidated the Acaldo and Howes
cases and renamed the style of the case, In re: Pilgrim's Pride
Corporation Securities Litigation.

On May 21, 2009, the Court granted the Pennsylvania Public Fund
Group's Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff.  Thereafter, on
June 26, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated (and
amended) Complaint.

The Consolidated Complaint dismissed the company and Clifford E.
Butler as Defendants.

In addition, the Consolidated Complaint added the following
directors as Defendants:

     -- Charles L. Black,
     -- S. Key Coker,
     -- Blake D. Lovette,
     -- Vance C. Miller,
     -- James G. Vetter, Jr.,
     -- Donald L. Wass,
     -- Linda Chavez, and
     -- Keith W. Hughes.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges four causes of action
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder solely against Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Clint Rivers, and
Rick Cogdill ("Officer Defendants").

Those claims assert that, during the Class Period of May 5, 2008
through Oct. 28, 2008, the Defendants, through various financial
statements, press releases and conference calls, made material
misstatements of fact and/or omitted to disclose material facts
by purportedly failing to completely impair the goodwill
associated with the Gold Kist acquisition.

The Consolidated Complaint also asserts claims under Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933 against all Defendants, asserting
that, statements made in a Registration Statement in connection
with the May 14, 2008 secondary offering of the company's common
stock were materially false and misleading for their failure to
completely impair the goodwill associated with the Gold Kist
acquisition.

Finally, the Consolidated Complaint asserts a violation of
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Officer
Defendants only, claiming that the Officer Defendants were
controlling persons of the company and the other Defendants in
connection with the Section 11 violation.

By the Consolidated Complaint, the lead plaintiff seeks
certification of the Class, undisclosed damages, and costs and
attorneys' fees.

On July 27, 2009, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint for its failure to adequately plead, as to
the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) claims, scienter and loss causation
and, as to the Sections 11 and 15 claims, for its failure to
adequately plead misrepresentations and omissions.

Defendants requested that the Consolidated Complaint be dismissed
with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on
Aug. 27, 2009.

Defendants filed a Reply Brief on Sept. 10, 2009, and Plaintiffs
filed a Sur-Reply on Sept. 24, 2009.

The Court has not yet ruled on the Motion to Dismiss.

No discovery has commenced in the consolidated case, and the case
has not been set for trial.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Texas, Pilgrim's Pride Corp. --
http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- employs roughly 41,000 people  
and operates chicken processing plants and prepared-foods
facilities in 14 states, Puerto Rico and Mexico.  The company's
primary distribution is through retailers and foodservice
distributors.


PILGRIMS PRIDE: Estimation Hearing Set in "Unpaid Wages" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A claims estimation hearing has been set for Dec. 7, 2009, for
purposes of allowance and distribution in a consolidated action
against Pilgrim's Pride Corp., according to the company's Nov.
23, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 26, 2009.

The Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor
conducted an industry-wide investigation to ascertain compliance
with various wage and hour issues, including the compensation of
employees for the time spent on activities such as donning and
doffing clothing and personal protective equipment.

Due, in part, to the government investigation and the recent U.S.
Supreme Court decision in IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, employees have
brought claims against the company.

The claims filed against the company as of Sept. 26, 2009,
include:

     -- "Juan Garcia, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation,
        a/k/a Wampler Foods, Inc.", filed in Pennsylvania state
        court on Jan. 27, 2006, and subsequently removed to the
        U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
        Pennsylvania;

     -- "Esperanza Moya, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
        and Maxi Staff, LLC", filed March 23, 2006, in the
        Eastern District of Pennsylvania;

     -- "Barry Antee, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation"
        filed April 20, 2006, in the Eastern District of Texas;

     -- "Stephania Aaron, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation"
        filed Aug. 22, 2006, in the Western District of
        Arkansas;

     -- "Salvador Aguilar, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride
        Corporation" filed Aug. 23, 2006, in the Northern
        District of Alabama;

     -- "Benford v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation" filed
        Nov. 2, 2006, in the Northern District of Alabama;

     -- "Porter v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation" filed
        Dec. 7, 2006, in the Eastern District of Tennessee;

     -- "Freida Brown, et al v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation"
        filed March 14, 2007, in the Middle District of Georgia,
        Athens Division;

     -- "Roy Menser, et al v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation" filed
        Feb. 28, 2007, in the Western District of Paducah,
        Kentucky;

     -- "Victor Manuel Hernandez v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation"
        filed January 30, 2007, in the Northern District of
        Georgia, Rome Division;

     -- "Angela Allen et al v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation"
        filed March 27, 2007, in U.S. District Court, Middle
        District of Georgia, Athens Division;

     -- Daisy Hammond and Felicia Pope v. Pilgrim's Pride
        Corporation, in the Gainesville Division, Northern
        District of Georgia, filed on June 6, 2007;

     -- Gary Price v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, in the U.S.
        District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
        Atlanta Division, filed on May 21, 2007;

     -- Kristin Roebuck et al v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, in
        the U.S. District Court, Athens, Georgia, Middle
        District, filed on May 23, 2007; and

     -- Elaine Chao v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, in the U.S.
        District Court, Dallas, Texas, Northern District, filed
        on Aug. 6, 2007.

The plaintiffs generally purport to bring a collective action for
unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, and declaratory and/or injunctive relief and
generally allege that they are not paid for the time it takes to
either clear security, walk to their respective workstations, don
and doff protective clothing, and/or sanitize clothing and
equipment.  The presiding judge in the consolidated action in El
Dorado issued an initial Case Management order on July 9, 2007.

Plaintiffs' counsel filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint and
the parties filed a Joint Rule 26(f) Report.

On March 13, 2008, the Court issued an opinion and order finding
that plaintiffs and potential class members are similarly
situated and conditionally certifying the class for a collective
action.  The opt-in period is now closed.  Approximately 13,700
plaintiffs have opted into the class.

Plaintiffs recently moved the court for leave to amend the
consolidated complaint to add certain company officers.

The company filed a Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy before any
response to that motion was filed.

The court has not yet ruled on the plaintiffs' motion.  Likewise,
the court has not issued an order in response to the company's
notice.

The company recently filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court to
extend the bankruptcy stay to include individual employees and
officers named as defendants in cases concerning the company,
including this lawsuit.

The motion was denied without prejudice to the company,
commencing an adversary proceeding as to this case in order to
seek the relief requested in the motion.

On June 1, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a master proof of claim in
the Bankruptcy Court.

On June 30, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order granting
limited relief from the automatic stay to allow limited
discovery.

Pursuant to that order, the parties conducted limited discovery
at five sample plants.

Also, the company has filed a motion requesting that the claims
in this matter be estimated for purposes of allowance and
distribution.

The Court granted that motion and this matter is presently set
for an estimation hearing on Dec. 7, 2009.

Additionally, the DOL and the company recently filed an agreed
request that the DOL action be remanded to the Northern District
of Texas, where it was originally filed.

The plaintiffs have objected to this request and the Court has
yet to rule on it.

The parties entered into active settlement negotiations with the
plaintiffs in the Department of Labor action and the consolidated
action in El Dorado, Arkansas.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Texas, Pilgrim's Pride Corp. --
http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- employs roughly 41,000 people  
and operates chicken processing plants and prepared-foods
facilities in 14 states, Puerto Rico and Mexico.  The company's
primary distribution is through retailers and foodservice
distributors.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Awaits Summary Judgment Ruling in Merger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for summary judgment and decertification in Maurice
Levie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., Case No. __-cv-____
(N.D. Ill.), are pending.  This lawsuit followed Kmart's merger
into Sears on Nov. 17, 2004.  

This suit asserts claims under the federal securities laws on
behalf of a class of former Sears' stockholders against Sears,
Alan J. Lacy, Edward S. Lampert and ESL Partners, L.P. for
allegedly failing to make timely disclosure of merger discussions
during the period Sept. 9 through Nov. 16, 2004, and seeks
damages.

On July 17, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, certifying a class of
Sears' stockholders who sold shares of Sears' stock between Sept.
9, 2004 and Nov. 16, 2004, excluding short sellers who covered
their positions during the class period.

On Sept. 24, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit denied defendants' petition for leave to appeal the class
certification order.  Merits and expert discovery are concluded.  

Defendants have filed motions for summary judgment and
decertification.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 19, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009.

Sears Holdings Corporation -- http://www.searsholdings.com/--
is the parent company of Kmart Holding Corporation and Sears,
Roebuck and Co.  The company is a broadline retailer with 2,297
full-line and 1,233 specialty retail stores in the United States
operating through Kmart and Sears and 388 full-line and
specialty retail stores in Canada operating through Sears Canada
Inc., a 73%-owned subsidiary.  During the fiscal year ended Jan.
31, 2009 (fiscal 2008), Sears Holdings Corporation operated
three business segments: Kmart, Sears Domestic and Sears Canada.

   
SEARS HOLDINGS: Kmart Shareholders Appeal on Nixed Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The briefing on the appeal of the plaintiffs in the class action
suit In re: Sears Holdings Corporation Securities Litigation,
Case No. 06-cv-04053 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sprizzo, J.), is ongoing,
according to the company's Nov. 19, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Oct. 31, 2009.

In May and July 2006, two putative class action complaints --
each naming as defendants Sears Holdings Corp. and Edward S.
Lampert -- were filed before U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of a class
of persons that sold shares of Kmart Holding Corp. stock on or
after May 6, 2003, through June 4, 2004.

Sears, Roebuck and Co. merged with Kmart which resulted in the
2004 formation of Sears Holdings.

The plaintiffs in each case allege that Kmart's Plan of
Reorganization and Disclosure Statement filed on Jan. 24, 2003,
which was amended on Feb. 25, 2003, misrepresented Kmart's
assets, particularly its real estate holdings, as evidenced by
the prices at which Kmart subsequently sold certain of its
stores in June 2004 to Home Depot and Sears.

The plaintiffs seek damages for alleged misrepresentations.

On Dec. 19, 2006, the Court consolidated the two suits and a
consolidated complaint was later filed.

On April 15, 2008, the Court denied without prejudice
defendants' motion to dismiss.  After taking some additional
discovery, defendants filed another motion to dismiss which
remains pending before the Court.  On March 17, 2009, the Court
heard arguments on the pending motion.  

After taking some additional discovery, defendants filed another
motion to dismiss.  On July 21, 2009, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss and entered a final order of
dismissal.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on Aug. 20, 2009.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-983-9330
          Fax: 212-983-9331
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Mark Casser Gardy, Esq.  
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          440 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 110
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Phone: 201-567-7377
          Fax: 201-567-7337
          E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com

               - and -

          Geoffrey Coyle Jarvis, Esq.
          Grant & Eisenhofer, PA
          Chase Manhattan Centre
          1201 North Market Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-622-7040
          Fax: 302-622-7100
          E-mail: gjarvis@gelaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          David B. Anders, Esq.  
          Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-403-1000
          Fax: 212-403-2000
          E-mail: dbanders@wlrk.com


SMART ONLINE: Continues to Face "Gooden" Fraud Lawsuit in N.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Smart Online, Inc. continues to face an amended complaint in the
purported securities fraud class-action suit filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina.

On Oct. 18, 2007, Robyn L. Gooden filed the purported class
action suit naming as defendants the company, certain of its
current and former officers and directors, Maxim Group LLC, and
Jesup & Lamont Securities Corp.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons other than the
defendants who purchased the company's securities from May 2,
2005, through Sept. 28, 2007, and were damaged.

The complaint asserts violations of federal securities laws,
including violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5.  It asserts that the defendants participated in
a fraudulent scheme to manipulate trading in the company's
stock, allegedly causing plaintiffs to purchase the stock at an
inflated price.

The complaint requests certification of the plaintiff as class
representative and seeks, among other relief, unspecified
compensatory damages, including interest, plus reasonable costs
and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

On June 24, 2008, the court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff for the class action.

On Sept. 8, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint which
added additional defendants who had served as directors or
officers of the Company during the class period as well the
Smart Online's independent auditor.

No further developments were reported in the company's Nov. 16,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The suit is Gooden v. Smart Online, Inc., Case No. 07-cv-
00785 (N.C.) (Osteen, J.)

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Guy W. Crabtree, Esq.
          Pulley Watson King & Lischer, P.A.
          PO Drawer 3600
          Durham, NC 27702
          Phone: 919-682-9691
          Fax: 919-688-9107
          E-mail: gwc@pwkl.com

Representing the defendant is:

          Nicholas I. Porritt
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
          1700 K St., N.W., Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20006-3817
          Phone: 202-973-8807
          Fax: 202-973-8899
          E-mail: nporritt@wsgr.com


SPIRIT AERO: Age Discrimination Suit in Kansas Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., continues to face a lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court in Wichita, Kansas, on allegations of age
discrimination, according to the company's Nov. 25, 2009, Form 8-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In 2005, a lawsuit was filed against Spirit, Onex Corporation of
Toronto, Canada, and The Boeing Co., alleging age discrimination
in the hiring of employees by Spirit when Boeing sold its Wichita
commercial division to Onex.

The complaint seeks class-action status, an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and more than $1.5 billion in punitive
damages.

The Asset Purchase Agreement requires Spirit to indemnify Boeing
for damages resulting from the employment decisions that were
made by the company with respect to former employees of the
commercial aerostructures manufacturing operations at Boeing
("Boeing Wichita") which relate or allegedly relate to the
involvement of, or consultation with, employees of Boeing in such
employment decisions.

Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.spiritaero.com/-
- is an independent non-aircraft original equipment manufacturer
parts designer and manufacturer of commercial aerostructures.  
The company is also an independent supplier to The Boeing Company
and Airbus S.A.S.  Holdings provides manufacturing and design
expertise in a range of products and services for aircraft
original equipment manufacturers and operators through its
subsidiary, Spirit AeroSystems, Inc (Spirit).  The segments of
the company include Fuselage Systems, Propulsion Systems and Wing
Systems.  In April 2008, Spirit entered into a joint venture with
Hong Kong Aircraft Engineering Company Limited (HAECO), and its
subsidiary, Taikoo Aircraft Engineering Company Limited (TAECO),
Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, and Cal-Asia to develop and
implement a composite and metal bond component repair station in
the Asia-Pacific region.  The service center is called Taikoo
Spirit AeroSystems Composite Co. Ltd.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: "Harkness" Suit in Kansas Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., continues to face an action
entitled Harkness et al. v. The Boeing Company et al., according
to the company's Nov. 25, 2009, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The action was filed on Feb. 16, 2007, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas.  The defendants were served in early
April 2007.

The defendants include Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., Spirit
AeroSystems, Inc., the Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc.
Retirement Plan for the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers (IBEW), Wichita Engineering Unit (SPEEA WEU) and Wichita
Technical Professional Unit (SPEEA WTPU) Employees, and the
Spirit AeroSystems Retirement Plan for International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Employees, along with
The Boeing Company and Boeing retirement and health plan
entities.

The named plaintiffs are twelve former Boeing employees, eight of
whom were or are employees of Spirit.

The plaintiffs assert several claims under ERISA and general
contract law and brought the case as a class action on behalf of
similarly situated individuals.

The putative class consists of approximately 2,500 current or
former employees of Spirit.

The parties agreed to class certification and are currently in
the discovery process.

The sub-class members who have asserted claims against the Spirit
entities are those individuals who, as of June 2005, were
employed by Boeing in Wichita, Kansas, were participants in the
Boeing pension plan, had at least 10 years of vesting service in
the Boeing plan, were in jobs represented by a union, were
between the ages of 49 and 55, and who went to work for Spirit on
or about June 17, 2005.

Although there are many claims in the suit, the plaintiffs'
claims against the Spirit entities, asserted under various
theories, are:

     (1) that the Spirit plans wrongfully failed to determine
         that certain plaintiffs are entitled to early
         retirement "bridging rights" to pension and retiree
         medical benefits that were allegedly triggered by their
         separation from employment by Boeing and

     (2) that the plaintiffs' pension benefits were unlawfully
         transferred from Boeing to Spirit in that their claimed
         early retirement "bridging rights" are not being
         afforded these individuals as a result of their
         separation from Boeing, thereby decreasing their
         benefits.

The plaintiffs seek a declaration that they are entitled to the
early retirement pension benefits and retiree medical benefits,
an injunction ordering that the defendants provide the benefits,
damages pursuant to breach of contract claims and attorney fees.

Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.spiritaero.com/-
- is an independent non-aircraft original equipment manufacturer
parts designer and manufacturer of commercial aerostructures.  
The company is also an independent supplier to The Boeing Company
and Airbus S.A.S.  Holdings provides manufacturing and design
expertise in a range of products and services for aircraft
original equipment manufacturers and operators through its
subsidiary, Spirit AeroSystems, Inc (Spirit).  The segments of
the company include Fuselage Systems, Propulsion Systems and Wing
Systems.  In April 2008, Spirit entered into a joint venture with
Hong Kong Aircraft Engineering Company Limited (HAECO), and its
subsidiary, Taikoo Aircraft Engineering Company Limited (TAECO),
Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, and Cal-Asia to develop and
implement a composite and metal bond component repair station in
the Asia-Pacific region.  The service center is called Taikoo
Spirit AeroSystems Composite Co. Ltd.


STARENT NETWORKS: Inks MOU with Plaintiffs to Settle Del. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starent Networks, Corp. said that it and the other named
defendants have entered into a memorandum of understanding with
plaintiff's counsel in connection with a putative class action
lawsuit filed in the Chancery Court for the State of Delaware in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Starent Networks by
Cisco Systems, Inc.

Under the terms of the memorandum, Starent Networks, the other
named defendants and the plaintiff have agreed to settle the
lawsuit, subject to court approval.  If the court approves the
settlement contemplated in the memorandum, the lawsuit will be
dismissed with prejudice.  Starent Networks and the other
defendants deny all of the allegations in the lawsuit and believe
the disclosures are appropriate under the law.  Nevertheless,
Starent Networks and the other defendants have agreed to settle
the putative class action lawsuit in order to avoid costly
litigation and reduce the risk of any delay to the closing of the
merger.

Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum, Starent Networks has
agreed to provide additional information to stockholders through
publicly available filings in order to supplement the proxy
statement that has been provided to Starent Networks'
stockholders in connection with the special meeting of
stockholders concerning the proposed merger.

In return for the additional disclosures, the plaintiff has
agreed to dismiss the action and to withdraw all motions filed in
connection with such action.  In addition, Starent Networks has
agreed to pay the legal fees and expenses of plaintiff's counsel,
in an amount to be determined by the court.  This payment will
not affect the amount of merger consideration to be paid in the
merger. The details of the settlement will be set forth in a
notice to be sent to Starent Networks' stockholders prior to a
hearing before the court to consider both the settlement and
plaintiff's fee application.

Starent Networks, Corp. -- http://www.starentnetworks.com/-- is  
a leading provider of infrastructure solutions that enable mobile
operators to deliver multimedia services to their subscribers.  
Starent Networks has created solutions that provide mobile
operators with the functions and services needed for access,
mobility management and call control in their networks. Through
integrated intelligence and high performance capabilities,
Starent Networks' solutions also enhance subscriber management,
billing and session policy enforcement.  The company's products
are capable of supporting a wide range of mobile wireless
networks, such as CDMA2000, UMTS/HSPA, LTE, WiFi, and WiMAX.
Starent Networks' products have been deployed by over 100 mobile
operators in 45 countries.


VCG HOLDING: Facing Suit in Colorado over Investors Buy Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
VCG Holding Corp. is facing a complaint in the District Court in
Jefferson County, Colorado, in connection with the proposal by
investors to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of the company, according to the company's Nov. 20, 2009,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Nov. 4, 2009, the company created a Special Committee of the
Board of Directors to evaluate the proposal by the company's
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Troy Lowrie, Lowrie
Management, LLP and certain other unidentified investors to
acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of the
company.

On Nov. 20, 2009, the company was served with a complaint filed
by Gene Harris and William C. Steppacher, Jr.  In the complaint,
the Plaintiffs purport to bring a derivative and class action
lawsuit against the company and each of the individual members of
the Board on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated and derivatively on behalf of the company.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Mr. Lowrie has
conflicts of interest with respect to the proposal and that the
individual defendants have breached their fiduciary duties under
Colorado law in connection with the proposal.

The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the
Plaintiffs as class representatives, an injunction directing the
Board members to comply with their fiduciary duties, an
accounting to the Plaintiffs and the class for alleged damages
suffered or to be suffered based on the conduct described in the
complaint, an award of the costs and disbursements of maintaining
the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees,
and such other relief the court deems just and proper.

VCG Holding Corp. -- http://www.vcgh.com/-- is in the business  
of acquiring, owning and operating nightclubs, which provide live
adult entertainment, restaurant and beverage services.


WARNER MUSIC: No Decision Yet on Plaintiffs Appeal in Price Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to issue a decision
on the appeal of the plaintiffs on the decision of the District
Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing a
consolidated amended complaint against record companies,
according to Warner Music Group Corp.'s Nov. 24, 2009, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Dec. 20, 2005 and Feb. 3, 2006, the Attorney General of the
State of New York served the company with requests for
information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as
to whether the practices of industry participants concerning the
pricing of digital music downloads violate Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, New York State General Business Law Sections 340 et
seq., New York Executive Law Section 63(12), and related
statutes.

On Feb. 28, 2006, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department
of Justice served the company with a request for information in
the form of a Civil Investigative Demand as to whether its
activities relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music
violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The company has provided documents and other information in
response to these requests and intend to continue to fully
cooperate with the New York Attorney General's and Department of
Justice's industry-wide inquiries.

Subsequent to the announcements of the governmental
investigations, more than thirty putative class action lawsuits
concerning the pricing of digital music downloads have been
filed.

On Aug. 15, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated these actions for pre-trial proceedings in the
Southern District of New York.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007,
alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the release of
their content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing of
CDs and fix prices for digital downloads.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and
treble damages.

All defendants, including the company, filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint on July 30, 2007.

On Oct. 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order dismissing
the case as to all defendants, including the company.

On Nov. 20, 2008, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal from the
order of the District Court to the Circuit Court for the Second
Circuit.

Oral argument took place before the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals on Sept. 21, 2009.

Warner Music Group Corp. -- http://www.wmg.com/-- is a music  
content company that classifies its business interests into two
areas: Recorded Music and Music Publishing.  The Recorded Music
business produces revenue through the marketing, sale and
licensing of recorded music in various physical (such as compact
disc's (CDs), cassettes, long playings (LPs) and digital
versatile discs (DVDs)) and digital (such as downloads and
ringtones) formats.  The Music Publishing business owns and
acquires rights to musical compositions, exploits and markets
these compositions and receives royalties or fees for their use.  
The company publishes music across a range of musical styles.  
The company own or control rights to more than one million
musical compositions, including a number of pop music hits,
American standards, folk songs, and motion picture and theatrical
compositions.  In August 2008, Warner Music Group Corp. bought a
majority stake in a Spanish company specializing in artist
management.


XEROX CORP: Inks Pact with ACS Shareholders to Settle Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation and Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. said
that they have resolved claims made in a consolidated action
filed by ACS shareholders in Dallas County, Texas, related to
Xerox's proposed acquisition of ACS.  In a stipulation agreed to
by the parties, the plaintiffs have withdrawn their motion for a
temporary and/or permanent injunction.

The parties agreed that if ACS's board of directors receives a
superior proposal, and, as a result, withdraws its recommendation
of the Xerox acquisition, Xerox will not enforce requirements in
its voting agreement with ACS Chairman Darwin Deason that
obligate Mr. Deason to vote any of his shares of ACS common stock
in favor of the Xerox acquisition.

In addition, Xerox, will not enforce any requirements of the
Merger Agreement that compel ACS to hold the ACS stockholders'
meeting to vote on the Xerox transaction and if requested by ACS,
Xerox will terminate the Merger Agreement in accordance with its
terms.

The plaintiffs have agreed to stay prosecution of the Texas
action (City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement
System, et al. v. ACS, et al., No. CC-09-07377-C).

A class action by ACS stockholders related to Xerox's acquisition
of ACS remains pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery (In re
ACS Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 4940-VCP).

Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. -- http://www.acs-inc.com/--  
support thousands of multinational corporations and government
agencies in over 100 countries from 500 locations.  It offers
business process outsourcing support in areas that include
finance, human resources, information technology, transaction
processing, and customer care.

Xerox Corp. -- http://www.xerox.com/-- represent the world's  
leading document management, technology and services enterprise,
providing the industry's broadest portfolio of color and black-
and-white document processing systems and related supplies, as
well as document management consulting and outsourcing services.

                            *********

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  * * *