CAR_Public/091209.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, December 9, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 243
  
                            Headlines

AGRIA CORP: S.D.N.Y. Dismisses IPO-Related Securities Fraud Case
AT&T INC: Broadband Customer Class Certified in St. Louis, Mo.
BARMENSEN LABS: Calif. Suit Says Male Enhancement Pill Useless
CANO PETROLEUM: Skadden Wins Dismissal of Oil Estimate Litigation
CAREER EDUCATION: Student Class Certified in Oregon Litigation

COMPUTER WORLD: Cash Register Distributor Sued by Restaurants
CVS PHARMACIES: Airshied Class Certification Hearing Continued
DELL INC: Paying $40 Mil. to Settle Dismissed Securities Suit
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Consumer Class Action Suit is Dismissed
FACEBOOK INC: Social Network Members Receive Settlement Notice

FAIR FINANCE: Ohio Lawsuit Seeks Rescission of $200 Mil. Deal
FIRST CITY BANCORP: $4.6 Mil. Settlement with Retirees Approved
FLORIDA: AP Reports that Medicaid Class-Action Heading to Trial
GATEWAY INC: Computer Buyers Not Required to Arbitrate Claims
MDL 1811: $2 Million Verdict in Bellwether Rice Crop Trial

NATIONAL COLLEGE: Eleven Students File Suit in S.D. Ohio
NORANDA INCOME: Receives New Motion to Institute a Class Action
PACIFIC GAS: State Senator Questions Accuracy of Utility Bills
PALM INC: Sued in Calif. for Losing Handheld Device Data
PARTNER COMMS: Acknowledges Receipt of Class Action Lawsuit

PROVIDENT ROYALTIES: Court Appoints Interim Co-Lead Counsel
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Employee Class Action Settlement Expanded
SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHEID: U.S. Court Sets Jan. 6, 2010, Trial Date
TALKING PHONE: Class Certified in S.C. Phone Book Dumping Case
TRANS BELL: D. Nev. Certifies Limo Driver Class in Labor Case

UNITED HEALTHCARE: $350 Mil. Settlement Gets Initial Approval
UNITED STATES: Alaskan Census Takers Suing for Unpaid Overtime
VERIZON COMMS: Disputes Idearc Retirees' Class Action Claims
WISCONSIN: Court Decertifies Class Challenging Diploma Privilege

* Battea - Class Action Services, LLC, Creates Advisory Board

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

SIEMENS AG: Weiss & Lurie Files Shareholder Suit in E.D.N.Y.
SUNPOWER CORP: Shareholder Derivative Action filed in Calif.

                            *********

AGRIA CORP: S.D.N.Y. Dismisses IPO-Related Securities Fraud Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
dismissed the class action lawsuit against China-based agri-
solutions provider Agria Corporation (NYSE: GRO), and the
underwriter defendants, and the Court issued a judgment in favor
of Agria and the underwriter defendants.  The Plaintiffs have 30
days to appeal the Court's decision.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was filed
in 2008 on behalf of all purchasers of securities of Agria
Corporation pursuant or traceable to the Company's November 6,
2007, Initial Public Offering.

                      About Agria Corporation

Agria Corporation -- http://www.agriacorp.com/-- is a China-
based agri-solutions provider focusing on research and
development, production and distribution of three different types
of upstream agricultural products. Its diversified portfolio of
products comprises corn seeds, sheep breeding and seedlings,
including proprietary products.


AT&T INC: Broadband Customer Class Certified in St. Louis, Mo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Barker at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that some AT&T
broadband Internet customers have claimed a bit of a legal
victory in their case involving complaints about the company's
DSL service.

The lawsuit was filed in 2005 in St. Louis County Circuit Court,
but was recently certified as a class action suit that could
affect thousands of customers in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma,
Arkansas and Texas.  AT&T has notified the court that it wants to
appeal the class certification decision.

At the heart of the case are the complaints of some customers who
say the company could not match the speeds promised in its DSL
marketing campaign. The company put artificial caps on the lines
of some customers, making it impossible to reach even the minimum
promised speeds, according to the lawsuit.

"They were being charged for these high speeds that could not be
delivered," said Don Downing, an attorney with Gray, Ritter &
Graham in St. Louis.

A spokeswoman for AT&T said the company does not comment on
litigation.

According to court filings, AT&T acknowledges that it capped the
lines of some customers.

"Defendants concede there were DSL customers who were capped or
'optimized' and can, by their own records, identify by name,
address and phone number every month in which a particular AT&T
IS Express DSL customer was capped."

Mr. Barker says it is unclear exactly how many people might fall
into the class, which includes customers from late 2000 to the
present.


BARMENSEN LABS: Calif. Suit Says Male Enhancement Pill Useless
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action in Los
Angeles Superior Court claims Barmensen Labs makes and Target
sells a "male enhancement" pill called Maxoderm, which doesn't
work.


CANO PETROLEUM: Skadden Wins Dismissal of Oil Estimate Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Longstreth at The Am Law Litigation Daily reports that
before the independent oil and natural gas company Cano Petroleum
sold 7 million shares in a secondary offering last year, it made
estimates about proved oil reserves at some of its properties in
the Southwest.  A month later, the company disclosed that those
estimates were off by more than 10 million barrels.  The stock
price declined.  Cano shareholders smelled fraud and sued Cano
and some of its officers.  But in a decision dismissing Truk
International Fund LP v. Wehlman, et al., Case No. 09-cv-00308
(N.D. Tex.), Fort Worth federal district court judge John McBryde
ruled last week that there were plenty of warnings in Cano's
offering documents.

"Summed up, a reasonable investor would know from reading the
cautionary language in the offering documents that an investment
in Cano was risky and that a part of that risk was in the
uncertainty as to the quantity of proved reserves," wrote Judge
McBryde, adding that "the fact that the investment didn't pay
off" didn't give the plaintiffs a claim.

Judge McBryde did not give the plaintiffs another shot at
repleading. He noted that they hadn't asked for the opportunity,
but even if they had, he found the deficiencies in their case to
be fatal.

Jonathan Lerner of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, who
represented Cano and certain officers, said the case was an
example of a case of "fraud by hindsight" that sought to make a
claim out of a stock drop. "The fact that the judge spared Cano
of going through discovery . . . is consistent with the pleading
standards of the PSLRA," Mr. Lerner told Mr. Longstreth.

The case against Canaccord Adamas, which underwrote Cano's
offering, was also dismissed.  Canaccord was represented by
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr and Bracewell & Giuliani.

Daniel Hume of Kirby McInerney, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
told Mr. Longstreth his side was disappointed in the ruling and
would file an appeal.


CAREER EDUCATION: Student Class Certified in Oregon Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Hunsberger at The Oregonian reports that a Multnomah
County, Oregon, judge has approved a lawsuit against Western
Culinary Institute as a class action, potentially exposing
opening the Portland trade school to claims from hundreds of
former students.  

The lawsuit, filed in 2008, alleges the Career Education Corp.-
owned school engaged in fraud and unfair business practices by
overstating the value of its culinary education and providing
misleading job-placement rates.  

In a letter to attorneys last week, Judge Richard Baldwin ruled
the lawsuit could go forward on those claims.  David Sugerman,
the attorney who brought the suit, estimates the lawsuit could
cover at least 2,000 students who've attended the school since
March 2006.  

"I think the judge recognized the seriousness of the students'
claims and will allow them their day in court," Mr. Sugerman
said. Attorneys for Western Culinary point out Baldwin refused to
allow other claims to go forward under the class-action --
including whether the school breached its contract to provide
placement services it promised. That would have made several
thousand more ex-students eligible to join the case.  

"Granting class certification on this narrow issue does not mean
one thing about the merits of the claims," said Jeff Scott, an
attorney representing the school.  "We feel very good about our
position on the merits."  

Western Culinary charges $18,000 to $41,000 for 30- or 60-week
culinary and hospitality programs, according to the suit. Most
students cover the bulk of those costs by taking out federal or
private student loans.  

Jennifer Adams, the named plaintiff, alleges in the suit that 70
percent of Western's 2007-08 graduates earn less than $22,500 a
year. Her suit maintains that prospective students aren't told
before enrollment that their diploma would mostly get them low-
wage, prep and line-cook jobs. She contends they could get such
jobs without WCI's training.  

Western's parent, Hoffman Estates, Ill.-based Career Education
Corp., operates 75 private school campuses training students in
culinary, medical, design and other fields.  About 80 percent of
CEC's tuition revenue comes from federal student loans and
grants, according to its latest quarterly report.  

CEC currently faces lawsuits alleging violations of consumer-
protection laws by its California School of Culinary Arts Inc.
and Sanford-Brown College Inc. in Illinois.  A Georgia appeals
court recently denied class-action certification in a lawsuit
involving Career's American InterContinental University Inc.
Career settled a lawsuit brought by six ex-students of Sanford-
Brown in Missouri earlier this year.  


COMPUTER WORLD: Cash Register Distributor Sued by Restaurants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert McMillan at PCWorld reports that when Keith Bond bought a
computerized cash register system for his Broussard, Louisiana,
restaurant, he thought he was modernizing his restaurant. Today,
he believes he was unwittingly opening a back door for Romanian
hackers who have now cost him more than US$50,000.

Mr. Bond's is one of more than a half-dozen Louisiana restaurants
that have sued the makers of their point-of-sale system, alleging
that the companies that made and resold the systems are the ones
who should be responsible for fines levied by payment processors
following the hack.

His story reads like a warning for small businesses, who in
connecting their businesses to the Internet, have also become
prey for sophisticated cyber-criminals.

Mr. Bond says that systems at his Mel's Diner, Part II, were
hacked, along with several other restaurants in the region,
sometime around March 2008.  Investigators told him that the
systems were compromised by Romanian hackers who used the
devices' remote access software to steal credit card numbers from
the systems.  This software let Bond's reseller, Computer World,
provide remote support to the systems. The criminals took those
credit card numbers and then used them to make fraudulent
purchases throughout the U.S., he said.

In the class-action lawsuit, Mr. Bond and the other plaintiffs
allege that their point-of-sale systems were out of compliance
with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS),
which defines how secure the big credit card companies expect
their merchants' computers to be.  Mr. Bond and others blame the
maker of his Aloha point-of-sale system, Radiant Systems, and its
Louisiana reseller, Computer World (Computer World is not related
to IDG's ComputerWorld magazine).

After the hack, Mr. Bond had to spend close to $20,000 to audit
his systems. He was then assessed tens of thousands of dollars in
fines and chargeback fees generated by the 699 credit card
numbers that were stolen from his three point-of-sale devices.

"Our clients are restaurants," said Mr. Bond's lawyer, Charles
Hoff, in a statement.  "They are food experts, not technologists.
When major players in the hospitality industry such as Radiant
Systems and its distributors say their software and business
practices are PCI-DSS compliant, our clients trust them."

The class-action lawsuit was filed in October but was not widely
known until the privacy blog DataBreaches.net disclosed it
earlier this month.  Another similar lawsuit was filed against
Radiant and Computer World in April by plaintiffs in Georgia.

Citing company policy, a Radiant spokeswoman declined to comment
on the lawsuits, but in an e-mailed statement, she said that the
company believes that the allegations are without merit. "These
customers were victims of criminal acts almost two years ago.
Unfortunately, in today's world criminal acts like these are not
uncommon in the restaurant industry," the statement read.

Mr. Bond doesn't buy that. "You're buying an expensive point-of-
sale system," he said. "But when you're compromised, Visa and
Mastercard come after the merchant. There's no level of
responsibility with the processor, the reseller or with Visa
Mastercard. So the merchant is the person who is suffering."

The lawsuit claims that Visa warned Radiant and Computer World
that they were not PCI compliant the year before the hack, but
that merchants were never notified of these problems, even though
they were the ones who ultimately had to pay big fines.

That's a real problem, said Avivah Litan, an analyst with the
Gartner research firm.  "Merchants should be notified directly
when Visa or MasterCard issue alerts about non-compliant
software," she said in an e-mail interview. "Restaurants are in
the business of selling food; they should not be expected to be
experts in the intricacies of credit card processing
certification processes, especially when they are not even privy
to most of the communications surrounding them."

Radiant warned about the problem, according to a security alert
posted by a San Francisco Bay Area Radiant reseller. The alert
warned Aloha users to disable a Remote Desktop feature on their
equipment if it's not being used to provide remote support to the
point-of-sale system. The plaintiffs in Bond's lawsuit say they
received no such alert. Computer World did not respond to a
request for comment on this article.

According to Mr. Bond, Computer World used this Remote Desktop
feature to access his systems.  To make matters worse, Computer
World had set up his and other restaurants with the same default
password: "Computer," Mr. Bond said.


CVS PHARMACIES: Airshied Class Certification Hearing Continued
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood at The St. Clair Record reports that a hearing in a
proposed class action suit over the effectiveness of a cold
medicine was continued Monday.

St. Clair County Circuit Judge Lloyd Cueto announced the
hearing's continuation during his motion call Monday morning.

The hearing had been set for 9:00 a.m.

Defendant CVS Pharmacies Inc. had filed its motion opposing class
certification in the suit brought by lead plaintiff Iean Finley
in late November.

Mr. Finley's suit is one of a number of proposed class actions
currently pending against retailers in St. Clair County over
forms of the popular immune system supplement "Airborne."

The suit seeks damages of not more than $75,000 per individual
class member, costs and attorney's fees.

The suit claims that CVS violated Illinois' Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act and is guilty of unjust
enrichment and other claims.

CVS denies the charges and argues that Mr. Finley misunderstood
what product he was buying and what it did.

It claims Finley bought the CVS product "Airshield," relying on
information related to "Airborne."

Mr. Finley and the proposed class are represented by Kevin
Hoerner, Brian Kreisler, Richard Burke and Paul Weiss.

The defendant is represented by Robert Bassett, David Smith and
others.

The case is St. Clair case number 08-L-616.


DELL INC: Paying $40 Mil. to Settle Dismissed Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Every once in a while," Alison Frankel at The Am Law Litigation
Daily reports, "we're reminded that winning a motion to dismiss
doesn't mean you've won the case.  Just ask Dell's lawyers at
Jones Day and Yetter, Warden & Coleman.  A month after asking the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to affirm the
dismissal of a 2007 securities class action, Dell agreed to
settle the case for $40 million," citing a report by Kevin
LaCroix at The D&O Diary at http://is.gd/5fDqz

The timing of the settlement, as Mr. LaCroix notes, raises
obvious questions about how Dell thought the Fifth Circuit would
rule -- and based on what the shareholders' lawyers told us about
oral arguments, Dell had good reason to worry the case would be
revived.

In October 2008, Austin federal district court judge Sam Sparks
tossed the shareholders' case with prejudice, finding that the
plaintiffs' consolidated complaint in In re Dell, Inc.,
Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-00726 (W.D. Tex.) (Sparks,
J.) -- despite being 304 pages! -- fell short in establishing
scienter and loss causation. The plaintiffs appealed. Oral
arguments took place in New Orleans on Sep. 1, with Gregory
Coleman of Yetter Warden arguing for Dell and Gregg Levin of
Motley Rice and Geoffrey Jarvis of Grant & Eisenhofer arguing for
the shareholders.

Within weeks -- and before the Fifth Circuit ruled -- Dell and
the plaintiffs filed a joint motion to stay the appeal as they
negotiated a settlement.  The two sides told the appellate court
they'd reached a deal in a November 25 joint motion.  Dell
disclosed the amount of the settlement in a 10-Q last week.

So was the company concerned about the outcome at the Fifth
Circuit?  Ms. Frankel didn't hear back from Dell's lead counsel,
Patricia Villareal of Jones Day, or appellate counsel Coleman of
Yetter Warden.  Company spokesperson Jess Blackburn sent her an
e-mail statement that said the appeal was one factor Dell
considered.  "Because such litigation can be protracted,
expensive, could involve significant management time and
attention, and because the outcome of the pending appeal was
uncertain," the statement says, "Dell believes resolving this
matter is in the best long-term interests of the company and its
shareholders."

The plaintiffs' lawyers who argued at the Fifth Circuit told the
Litigation Daily that the appellate judges seemed receptive to
the shareholders' positions on both scienter and loss causation.  
"We felt very good when we left the courthouse," said Levin of
Motley Rice, who addressed the lower court's ruling on scienter.
"You listen to where the most vigorous questioning of defense
counsel was.  They asked very probing questions during the
discussion of scienter.  That suggested in my mind that the court
was giving very serious consideration to the issues we raised in
our briefing."

Mr. Jarvis at Grant & Eisenhofer's, who argued the plaintiffs'
loss causation case at the appeals court, told us that a couple
of recent Fifth Circuit rulings (including a strongly worded per
curiam decision we previously covered) seemed to tilt the odds in
favor of shareholders.

Mr. Jarvis noted that he wasn't involved in settlement
negotiations, which were handled by Motley Rice, and didn't
specificially know why Dell decided to make a deal.  But, he
added, "generally speaking, you don't pay unless you're concerned
you're going to lose. . . .  Otherwise, why pay a dime?"

"This was a very, very good result for the class," said Mr.
Levin.  "Particularly given the procedural posture of the case."


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Consumer Class Action Suit is Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Kara Reeder at IT Business Edge reports that a consumer class-
action lawsuit against pharmacy benefits company Express Scripts
over a 2008 data breach has been thrown out by a Missouri federal
court.

According to Computerworld, Magistrate Judge Frederick Buckles
dismissed the suit because plaintiff John Amburgy failed to show
how the data breach had caused him any direct injury or even put
him in imminent danger of any injury.  Without harm being done,
there can be no damages awarded.

In 2008, extortionists sent a letter threatening to release
millions of patient records unless Express Scripts paid up.  The
company says it has notified about 700,000 members that their
information may have been breached.


FACEBOOK INC: Social Network Members Receive Settlement Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick O'Neill at http://www.allfacebook.com/reports that a number  
of Facebook users received notice last week of the pending class
action law suit in Lane v. Facebook, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-
cv-03845 (N.D. Calif.) (Seeborg, J.), in which a $9.5 million
independent fund was allocated for projects to promote the cause
of online privacy. Facebook has been forced to send out a
notification by court order to Beacon users that may have been
effected by the service. Ironically, participation in the
settlement is "opt-out" only, something that Facebook was
criticized for under the Beacon program.

Users received an e-mail message saying:

     Facebook is sending you this notice of a proposed class
     action settlement that may affect your legal rights as a
     Facebook member who may have used the Beacon program. This
     summary notice is being sent to you by Court Order so that
     you may understand your rights and remedies before the Court
     considers final approval of the proposed settlement on
     February 26, 2010.

     This is not an advertisement or attorney solicitation.

     This is not a settlement in which class members file claims
     to receive compensation. Under the proposed settlement,
     Facebook will terminate the Beacon program. In addition,
     Facebook will provide $9.5 million to establish an
     independent non-profit foundation that will identify and
     fund projects and initiatives that promote the cause of
     online privacy, safety, and security.

     For full details on the settlement and further instructions
     on what to do to opt out of, object to, or otherwise comment
     upon the proposed settlement, please go to:

          http://www.BeaconClassSettlement.com/

     Please do not reply to this email.

So what do settlement participants receive? Nothing aside from
knowledge of this settlement. All this money will be used for is
to set up a fund and to pay for all the attorney fees.
Additionally, $41,500 will be distributed among the 19 class
action representatives. While Facebook has already publicly
acknowledge this settlement it appears that users are officially
being notified of it now.

Preliminary approval of the settlement was covered in the Nov. 4,
2009, edition of the Class Action Reporter.


FAIR FINANCE: Ohio Lawsuit Seeks Rescission of $200 Mil. Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Andrews at IBJ.com reports that attorneys filed a class-
action lawsuit last week seeking to rescind $200 million in
investor purchases of Fair Finance Co. securities and to slap Tim
Durham and other company insiders with millions of dollars in
punitive damages.

The case, filed in Summit County, Ohio, appears to be the first  
investor lawsuit filed since the U.S. Attorney's Office alleged
in court papers late last month that the business was operating
as a Ponzi scheme, using the influx of money from new investors
to pay off existing ones.

Attorneys with Maddox Hargett & Caruso of Fishers and David P.
Meyer & Associates of Columbus, Ohio, allege that Fair Finance
offering circulars provided to prospective investors contained
material misrepresentations and omissions. They also charge that
insiders breached their fiduciary duty to investors, and unjustly
enriched themselves.

The suit alleges that Durham and co-owner Jim Cochran have used
Fair like a personal bank since buying it in 2002, pulling tens
of millions of dollars out in the form of related-party loans.
Fair, which was founded in 1934 and historically made money by
purchasing customer-finance contracts, obscured the fundamental
change in its business in the offering circulars, the suit
alleges. Fair Finance used "a tangled web of financial
transactions to conceal the withdrawal of the funds . . . for
their own enrichment.," according to the suit.

"Upon buying the company, the two out-of-state owners promoted
the same values and business models to deceive investors into
investing tens of millions of dollars of their hard-earned life
savings in the company even though the new owners had  no
intention of continuing to operate the business as the Fair
family had for so many years."

Investors, who were required to be Ohio residents, purchased
investment certificates, ranging in term from six months to two
years, that paid interest rates substantially higher than those
for certificates of deposit. But unlike CDs, the securities have
no government guarantee if Fair fails to pay.

Fair Finance has not reopened since FBI agents on Nov. 24
executed search warrants and seized records at Durham's
Indianapolis office and at Fair's headquarters.

The company has not been able to sell additional investment
certificates since that afternoon, when a registration granted in
July 2008 expired. The company has sought permission to sell an
additional $250 million in investment certificates, but the Ohio
Department of Commerce's Division of Securities has balked,
saying the company would have to satisfactorily address a long
list of questions first.

IBJ reported in an investigative story in late October that
Durham and related parties have taken out more than $168 million
in related-party loans, with some of the money flowing to Durham-
controlled businesses that struggled or failed. Records also show
money was used for personal items, including real estate and
artwork.

John Tompkins, an attorney for Durham, has said his client does
not believe he has done anything wrong.


FIRST CITY BANCORP: $4.6 Mil. Settlement with Retirees Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert Schaffer of the 152nd Judicial District Court in
Houston has approved a class-action lawsuit settlement that would
distribute approximately $4.6 million to former employees of the
former First City Bancorporation. Each of the more than 2,400
eligible members of the class may receive payments of
approximately $1,800 or more.

"These beneficiaries are likely to be retirees in their 70s and
80s for whom this financial settlement could be very welcome,"
says David Furlow of Thompson & Knight LLP and counsel for the
class. "There remain several hundred former First City employees
who have not responded to our efforts to contact them about their
rights to receive a distribution from the settlement fund, and
the deadline to do so is approaching."

Former First City employees who have questions about their
eligibility should review the information on the Class
Administrator's Web site at http://www.firstcityclassaction.com/

Under the terms of the settlement, class members must currently
submit a claims form before Friday, Dec. 18, 2009, to receive a
distribution from the settlement fund. Membership in the class
depends on whether a former First City employee was an annuitant
under Prudential Insurance Company Group Annuity Contracts GA-
5858 (which includes GA-5524) and GA-5523.

The dispute involved a defined-benefit retirement plan
established and funded solely by First City for employees in
1976. First City cancelled the plan for being overfunded 10 years
later. The company then made lump-sum payments to some
participants and purchased long-term annuities on behalf of other
employees from the Prudential Insurance Company.

After First City was declared insolvent in 1992 and went through
an involuntary bankruptcy, successor corporations took the
position that the former First City employees should receive
nothing from the annuity investments.

Lead Class Counsel Robert S. MacIntyre, Jr. of Houston's
MacIntyre & McCulloch, LLP, emphasizes that these payments will
not affect anyone's right to receive pension benefits.


FLORIDA: AP Reports that Medicaid Class-Action Heading to Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelli Kennedy, writing for the The Associated Press, reports that
the State of Florida has spent about $2 million defending a
class-action lawsuit that claims it is violating federal Medicaid
requirements by providing inadequate medical and dental care to
more than a million children.

The case, scheduled for trial next week, claims 390,000 children
did not get a medical checkup in 2007 and more than 750,000
received no dental care.

The problem, Ms. Kennedy explains: Many doctors and dentists
won't accept Medicaid as Florida's reimbursement rates are among
the country's lowest. Medicaid pays $15 for a basic dental exam
in Florida, compared to $25 in Tennessee, which is considered a
model of success for Medicaid dental reform. It's about $40 for
private insurance. A pilot program in Miami-Dade County pays
dentists a monthly fee of $6.55 to treat each child.

"There are many counties where there are only one or two dentists
willing to receive Medicaid patients and then they limit the
number of Medicaid patients they do see," the attorney
representing the Plaintiffs:

          Stuart H. Singer, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-356-0011

told Ms. Kennedy.  Mr. Singer filed the lawsuit in 2005 on behalf
of the Florida Pediatric Society, the Florida Academy of
Pediatric Dentistry and all Floridians under age 21 who now or in
the future would be eligible for Medicaid.

State officials mostly declined comment except to say they
believe they will win at trial.

Florida reimbursement rates are so low that less than 9 percent
of Florida dentists are significant Medicaid providers, leaving a
backlog of children desperate for care and few doctors to see
them, experts say. In 2003, one dentist served about 400 Medicaid
children in Miami-Dade County. In 2007, one dentist served an
average of 1,196 children, according to a study done by Columbia
University.

The wait for specialists can be longer. In Tallahassee, a child
on private insurance has a two- to four-week wait to see an ear,
nose and throat doctor. The wait for a Medicaid child can be two
to three months, said Dr. Louis St. Petery, a pediatric
cardiologist and executive vice president of the Florida
Pediatric Society. Children with fractures in South Florida are
struggling to get appointments with orthopedic surgeons, he said.
A 10-year old boy on Medicaid complaining of leg pain came to a
southwest Florida hospital in 2004. Doctors found a tumor, but
further tests came up negative. Six months later he returned with
severe neck pain and doctors ordered an MRI and CT scan, but
couldn't get insurance authorization, despite repeated phone
calls. Three months later they got permission and found a large
tumor in his neck infringing on his spinal canal, said Dr.
Chatchawin Assanasen, a pediatric oncologist at Nemours
Children's clinic.

Getting the tests sooner would have provided "a much more benign
outcome with treatment provided before the tumor progressed so
significantly," he wrote in a letter to the insurance company.
The boy was given emergency chemotherapy and survived, but today
has little bone left to support his head and neck.
Doctors say that boy's story is a common tale in Florida's
Medicaid system, where patients often have to drive long
distances to find care. Hundreds of eligible people aren't even
aware of their potential benefits, according to the lawsuit.
Administrative red tape in the program is so bad that children
frequently have their coverage dropped or are switched to another
provider without their parents' knowledge, experts say. It takes
about 30 days to switch to another program. The state Agency for
Health Care Administration - which runs Medicaid - has blamed the
problems on glitches while switching over to a new computer
system.

Kendra Garcia, a South Florida mother of three, says her children
were twice switched from one plan to another without her
knowledge.

"My kids have gone periods where they weren't getting any
services because the doctors didn't take the insurance and it
took 30 days for it to get worked out," she said.

During one switch, she brought her autistic son to his therapist
of two years and was told her insurance had changed and they no
longer accepted the new plan. At times she's had two children on
one plan and one enrolled in another, without her authorization.
Critics say the state should have spent the $2 million used on
legal fees to better care for children. The defendants include
AHCA, the Department of Children and Family Services and the
state Health Department.

St. Petery criticized the agencies' response to the lawsuit,
saying "the first thing the state did is spend money defending
this rather than turn around and recognize that kids aren't
getting care."
DCF and the attorney general's office declined comment. An AHCA
spokeswoman said agency attorneys are "busy preparing for the
trial and believe we have a very strong case."

The agencies have argued that the children and health providers
don't have legal standing to pursue the claims because the
Medicaid program promises money but not necessarily the delivery
of health services for particular individuals, as the lawsuit
contends.

Courts nationwide have split on that issue. In an earlier hearing
this year, a Miami federal judge said legal precedent in the
federal 11th Circuit -- which includes Florida -- suggests that
Medicaid is about delivery of health services, not just money.
If the plaintiffs succeed, it could cost Florida taxpayers tens
of millions of dollars, but their attorneys argue it will save
the state money in the long run by avoiding costs for children
who didn't get adequate care early on. A mediation attempt
earlier this year failed.

Raising reimbursement rates has had significant affect on
children's access to health care nationally, according to
testimony from the American Dental Association and the American
Academy of Pediatric Dentistry before the House of
Representatives in October.

Dentist participation in Virginia's Medicaid program increased by
80 percent after the state increased reimbursement fees and fixed
administrative snafus in 2005. The number of children getting
dental care increased by 55 percent after that. South Dakota,
Alabama and Tennessee have had similar successes.


GATEWAY INC: Computer Buyers Not Required to Arbitrate Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gorman at Courthouse News Service reports that computer
buyers don't have to arbitrate a class action accusing Gateway of
hiding the fact that its Pentium 4 processor chip is slower and
less powerful than its predecessor, an Illinois appeals court
ruled.

Faced with the class action, Gateway Corp. unsuccessfully asked
the trial court to compel arbitration.

The 5th District Appellate Court agreed that the arbitration
agreement is void, because the National Arbitration Forum (NAF)
is no longer handling consumer disputes.

"We find that the selection of the NAF (in the agreement) is
neither logistical nor ancillary and is thus an integral part of
the agreement to arbitrate in this case," Judge Stephen Spomer
wrote.  

A copy of the slip opinion in Carr v. Gateway, Inc., No.
5-07-0711 (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist.), is available at
http://is.gd/5evZn

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
          Aaron M. Zigler, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          One US Bank Plaza
          505 N. 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101

               - and -  
          Stephen A. Swedlow, Esq.
          Maximilian C. Gibbons, Esq,
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1940
          Chicago, IL 60601

               - and -  
          
          Robert L. King
          One US Bank Plaza
          505 N. 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101

               - and -  

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, L.L.C.
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603

Gateway is represented by:

          John T. Walsh, Esq.
          Peter Maginot, Esq.
          LATHROP & GAGE, L.C.
          10 South Broadway, Suite 1300
          St. Louis, MO 63102-1708

               - and -  

          Stephen M. Hogan, Esq.
          1133 6th Avenue, Suite 207
          San Diego, CA 92101


MDL 1811: $2 Million Verdict in Bellwether Rice Crop Trial
----------------------------------------------------------
If you care about mass tort litigation, Alison Frankel at The
American Lawyer reports, there's a very interesting experiment
under way right now in St. Louis.  Ms. Frankel explains that
federal district court Judge Catherine Perry is overseeing some
3,000 suits in which rice farmers allege that Bayer CropScience
was careless in its handling of an experimental, genetically
modified strain of long-grain rice, permitting the non-approved
strain to contaminate the U.S. long-grain rice crop.  Last August
the judge overseeing the multidistrict litigation refused to
certify it as a class action, which meant that the lead
plaintiffs counsel:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          55 West Monroe St., Suite 1111
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312-984-0000

               - and -  

          Don M. Downing, Esq.
          GRAY RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C.
          701 Market Street, Suite 800
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314-241-5620
          
faced the prospect of thousands of individual trials.

And they were up against a defendant (and law firm) with plenty
of mass tort experience. Bayer and its lead counsel in the rice
MDL, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott were justly celebrated
a few years back for their hard-nosed, but sensible, approach to
the product liability litigation over Bayer's cholesterol-
lowering drug Baycol.  Bayer said it would pay damages to the
relatively small number of plaintiffs who could demonstrate an
injury directly linked to Baycol.  All the others, it said, would
have to go to trial. When the first two Baycol trials ended with
defense verdicts, plaintiffs lawyers started dropping Baycol
cases by the thousands.

That's not going to happen anytime soon in the rice litigation.
In the first of two cases to go to trial, a St. Louis jury on
Friday awarded two Missouri farmers almost $2 million in
compensatory damages, which, according to Mr. Levitt, was almost
all the farmers claimed. "The facts and evidence adduced in this
case speak for themselves, and speak very loudly," Mr. Levitt
told the Litigation Daily. (Mr. Downing was lead trial counsel
for the plaintiffs.)

The jury didn't award the farmers any punitive damages, but if
the compensatory awards in these bellwether cases are any
indication, Bayer faces "certainly hundreds of millions" in
liability for rice crop contamination, Mr. Levitt said. "This is
a healthy nine-figure case," he told Ms. Frankel.

The next test case is scheduled for trial next month.  It's a
good bet that Bayer won't start thinking about settlement before
several more juries render verdicts.  But the Baycol mold is
already broken.  As mass tort junkies, we're very curious to see
what happens next.

Ms. Frankel called and e-mailed Bayer CropScience and lead
defense counsel:

          Mark E. Ferguson, Esq.
          BARTLIT BECK HERMAN PALENCHAR & SCOTT LLP
          Courthouse Place
          54 West Hubbard Street, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312-494-4404

but didn't hear back.  A Bayer spokesman told Bloomberg that the
company "acted responsibly with regard to its handling and
testing of its biotech rice."

The case is In re Genetically Modified Rice litigation, MDL No.
1811; Master Docket No. 06-md-01811 (N.D. Ill.) (Perry, J.), and
the Court provides periodic updates on the Web at:

     http://www.moed.uscourts.gov/mdl/06-1811.asp


NATIONAL COLLEGE: Eleven Students File Suit in S.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Thomas at Courthouse News Service reports that eleven
students say the National College of Virginia lied about its
accreditation and job placement rates to bilk them for $30,000
apiece in tuition. They say the school fka the National College
of Business and Technology falsely claimed it was accredited or
that "accreditation would likely by obtained . . . by the
graduation of the first class."

The 11 students say that "during subsequent years employees
orally promised that accreditation would be obtained" for the
Salem, Va.-based college.

Accreditation was supposed to come from the Commission on
Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs. The students
sought associate's degrees as surgical technologists. Each of
them says they paid the school about $30,000.

They say the college told them that upon graduation they would be
qualified to take the Certified Surgical Technologist examination
-- but they were not allowed to take the test because they did
not graduate from an accredited program. As a result, they have
been unable to "obtain employment as surgical technologists."

The students demand return of their tuition. They say the school
was "contractually obligated to have a surgical technology
program that was accredited" but breached that contract.

They also seek damages for fraud, deceptive trade and consumer
law violations.

A copy of the Complaint in Thomas, et al. v. National College of
Virginia, Inc., fka National College of Business and Technology,
Inc., Case No. 09-cv-00879 (S.D. Ohio) (Bertelsman, J.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/03/CincyBizSchool.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John A. Rebel, Esq.
          MCKINNEY & NAMEI CO, L.P.A.
          15 East Eighth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-2087
          Telephone: 513-721-0200


NORANDA INCOME: Receives New Motion to Institute a Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Noranda Income Fund (TSX: NIF.UN) reports that it has
received a new motion for leave to institute a class action
against the company following the incident that occurred at the
Valleyfield zinc processing facility on August 9th, 2004.

In August 2004, the Processing Facility was served with a class
action motion to institute a class action presentable before the
Quebec Superior Court, subsequent to an accidental discharge of
sulphur trioxide. In June 2008, the Quebec Superior Court
dismissed the motion. The plaintiff appealed the decision. In
August 2009, the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal,
thereby bringing an end to the matter.

This new motion will have no impact on operations. The Fund
intends to vigorously contest the proceedings and will not
comment on this matter while the proceedings are pending before
the Court.

Noranda Income Fund is an income trust whose units trade on the
Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol "NIF.UN". The Noranda
Income Fund owns the CEZinc processing facility and ancillary
assets located in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, Quebec. The CEZinc
processing facility is the second-largest zinc processing
facility in North America and the largest zinc processing
facility in eastern North America, where the majority of its
customers are located. It produces refined zinc metal and various
by-products from zinc concentrates purchased from mining
operations. The Processing Facility is operated and managed by
Canadian Electrolytic Zinc Limited.

Further information about the Noranda Income Fund can be found at
http://www.norandaincomefund.com/


PACIFIC GAS: State Senator Questions Accuracy of Utility Bills
--------------------------------------------------------------
KGET channel 17 reports that Pacific Gas & Electric Company is
getting a cool reception from more than 500 people who have
joined a class action lawsuit, the majority from Bakersfield,
Calif.  The lawsuit accuses PG&E of negligence, fraud, deceit,
and false advertisement.

The attorney who filed the lawsuit last month, says Bakersfield
temperatures this past summer were actually cooler than 2008,
putting the heat on PG&E's claim that temperatures caused power
bills to soar.

"If temperatures are a consistent 90 degrees and you were
consistently cooling your house to 78 degrees your bill would
stay the same," PG&E spokesman Denny Boyles said. "When the
temperature fluctuates, when it gets warmer, it's going to take
more electricity to cool your house to reach that same lower
temperature."

However, the attorney representing a class action lawsuit showed
17 News data to prove that statement wrong.

"2008 was considerably higher in terms of cooling degree days
than either 2007 or 2009," attorney Michael Kelly said.

Mr. Kelly says a weather analysis by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Association cools down PG&E's claims. 17's Pinpoint
Weather system showed similar data.

"In May was the only month we say a big difference and that was
only seven degrees," 17's Kevin Charette explained. "Is that
enough to effect a PG&E bill? I'm not sure but I won't think that
would be a huge difference. Seven degrees isn't much and the rest
of the months, they were only 3 degrees warmer or cooler."

PG&E says a recent rate change caused the biggest increases in
customer bills. Kelly responded by saying no stone will be left
unturned in the case.

"They're saying it's not the temp, now it's the rate increase,
then I guess we know which stone to look under next," Mr. Kelly
said.

California state Senator Dean Florez sent a letter to PG&E's CEO
today, questioning the utility company's pledge to "investigate
and resolve" each customer complaint.

"We're really wary about full-page ads that say they are going to
investigate," Mr. Florez said. "'Investigate' is a very
interesting term because it doesn't simply tell us that each and
every customer's concern is being met, and I think the reason for
that is the meters have a lot of problems and still need to be
looked into."

Senator Florez "challenges PG&E's commitment to resolve each and
every customer's issue" and says PG&E should contact each
customer with a SmartMeter by mail. Florez called the commitment
to thoroughly investigate customer issues "vague" and also
questioned where the SmartMeters go once they are replaced.


PALM INC: Sued in Calif. for Losing Handheld Device Data
--------------------------------------------------------
A California man filed a class action lawsuit against Palm
(NASDAQ:PALM) and Sprint Nextel (NYSE:S) for losing most all the
contacts, appointments and other data stored by many of the
hundreds of thousands of Sprint users of the popular Palm webOS
line of mobile phones, including the Palm Pre and Pixi. The data
loss is reminiscent of the recent data loss suffered by T-Mobile
Sidekick users after Microsoft lost the personal data of Sidekick
users.

The lawsuit alleges that Palm and Sprint actively marketed the
Palm webOS mobile phones as automatically backing up all the data
that users would store, such as contacts, appointments, and more
and then failed to follow through on these promises.

The suit is brought by Jason Standiford of San Francisco.
Standiford alleges he suffered a nearly complete loss of his
personal data in November after exchanging his fourth
malfunctioning Palm Pre for a fifth new Palm Pre. He further
alleges that Palm has since recovered some, though not all of his
data, leaving him missing crucial information Palm promised it
would safeguard for him.

For its part, Palm has publicly acknowledged the problem, but its
statement provided no guidance as to when the problem will be
fixed or what Palm or Sprint plan to do for affected customers.

Following right on the heels of the Sidekick disaster, even more
mobile phone users are left in the dark after yet another cloud
computing service fails to perform as promised, explained Michael
Aschenbrener, the lead attorney for the class action. These
recent cloud computing catastrophes demonstrate the companies
need to do more to protect the data they promise to keep safe.
Whether that means doing a better job of backing up the data or
allowing customers easier means to back up their data locally,
the present ways of doing business in the cloud cannot continue.

The class action seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages for
failing to protect Palm webOS user data and false advertising.

Mr. Aschenbrener's firm, KamberEdelson, LLC --
http://www.kamberedelson.com/-- is a leading class action firm  
that focuses on internet, technology, and privacy issues.
KamberEdelson also represents a woman who filed a class action
against Microsoft and T-Mobile for the Sidekick data loss.

Aschenbrener is joined on the lawsuit by Jay Edelson and Ben
Richman of KamberEdelson.

A copy of the Complaint in Standiford v. Palm, Inc., and Sprint
Nextel Corp., Case No. 09-cv-05719 (N.D. Calif.), is available
at:

     http://www.prnewschannel.com/pdf/Palm_webOS_Complaint.pdf

About KamberEdelson: Jay Edelson testified before the U.S. Senate
in 2008 in connection with the contaminated pet food recall, in
which his law firm was lead counsel and achieved a result in a
settlement of over $24 million. He has a reputation for bringing
and winning high profile class action lawsuits. Just last year,
Edelson settled a nationwide case involving lead paint
contamination with Thomas the Tank Engine & Friends Wooden
Railway childrens toys that was valued at over $30 million.


PARTNER COMMS: Acknowledges Receipt of Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. acknowledged that it was
served last week with a lawsuit requesting certification as a
class action, filed against Partner in the District Court of Tel-
Aviv-Jaffa.

The claim alleges that Partner overcharges its subscribers since
the total amount that appears on the subscriber's bill is
incorrect.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount
claimed from Partner is estimated by the plaintiff to be
approximately NIS 50 million.

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.

News about the filing of the lawsuit appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Dec. 1, 2009.  

Partner Communications Company Ltd. is a leading Israeli provider
of telecommunications services (cellular, fixed-line telephony
and internet services) under the orange(TM) brand. The Company
provides mobile communications services to over three million
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 and TASE:
PTNR).


PROVIDENT ROYALTIES: Court Appoints Interim Co-Lead Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP has been appointed Interim Co-
Lead Counsel in Billitteri v. Securities America Inc., et al.,
Case No. 09-cv-01568 (N.D. Tex.), representing investors who
purchased securities issued by certain affiliates of Provident
Royalties LLC, including corporations designated as "Provident
Royalties" or "Shale Royalties."  

On November 5, 2009, U.S. District Judge Royal Furgeson appointed
Girard Gibbs LLP and Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling LLP as
Interim Co-Lead Counsel in the consolidated case. As co-lead
counsel, Girard Gibbs and ZSZ will be responsible for conducting
and coordinating pretrial proceedings in the litigation on behalf
of all plaintiffs in the case.

"During these difficult economic times, we recognize the
significance of this litigation as it relates to investors'
rights," said Jonathan Levine of Girard Gibbs LLP, "Individuals
were induced to invest in Provident securities based on
misleading offering documents that failed to adequately disclose
all material facts and potential risks. We are committed to
enforcing the securities laws that require broker-dealers to
stand behind the securities they sell."

Girard Gibbs filed one of the first class action lawsuits on
behalf of all investors who, from September 1, 2006, until
January 31, 2009, purchased or acquired partnership interests,
preferred stock, or other securities issued by certain affiliates
of Provident Royalties LLC, including corporations designated as
"Provident Royalties" or "Shale Royalties."  The named defendants
in the lawsuit include the broker-dealers who sold the securities
to investors through a series of private placement offerings,
such as Securities America, Inc., CapWest Securities, Inc., Next
Financial Group, Inc., and QA3 Financial Corp.

The lawsuit alleges that the offering documents misrepresented
that investors' funds would be invested in the oil and gas
business (including acquiring real estate, oil and gas leases and
mineral interests, and conducting exploration and development
activities), but the investors' funds were actually being
commingled with funds received from other investors in connection
with other offerings. It is further alleged that later investors'
funds were used to pay "dividends" and "returns of capital" to
earlier investors in the Provident companies.

In addition to the consolidated action pending in Texas, another
lawsuit was recently filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho. The deadline for filing a motion to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in that action is January 25,
2010. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. To be
appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must decide that your claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that you
will adequately represent the class.

If you invested in Provident Royalties or Shale Royalties through
the named defendants or any other broker-dealers and would like
to discuss your legal rights in either of the cases described
above, please contact Jonathan Levine of Girard Gibbs LLP toll-
free at (866) 981-4800 or by email at jkl@girardgibbs.com.

Girard Gibbs LLP is one of the nation's leading firms
representing individual and institutional investors in securities
fraud class actions and litigation to correct abusive corporate
governance practices, breaches of fiduciary duty and proxy
violations.  For more information, please access the firm's web
site at http://www.girardgibbs.com/provident.asp


RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Employee Class Action Settlement Expanded
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Fellow at Courthouse News Service reports that a California
appeals court upheld a court order allowing 140 potential
plaintiffs to participate in a wage class action against Rubio's
Restaurants and claim a slice of the settlement.

After Rubio's made its first $2.5 million payment of the $7.5
settlement over wage and hour claims, it realized it left out 140
potential class members. The restaurant notified Orange County
Superior Court Judge Thierry Patrick Colaw, who ruled to include
the omitted names.

But Judge Colaw later vacated the order, saying he had no
authority to add the late members, because the parties never
filed a formal motion to have the court interpret the settlement
agreement. He then recused himself from the case.

Rubio's said the judge could not vacate the order and disqualify
himself in the same minute order, but the appeals court
disagreed, saying the actions were not simultaneous.

The 4th District Court of Appeal pointed out that Judge Colaw had
followed a sequential process, first ruling that he did not have
the authority to admit the class members and then recusing
himself in the interest of justice.

The appeals court ruled that the post-judgment order can be
appealed, tossing out the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss.

The trial judge's original ruling to admit the 140 plaintiffs
stands.

The late-admitted plaintiffs will be notified and given a chance
to participate in the settlement, the court said, and the 529
original settlement class members will have the opportunity to
opt out, as they will now receive a smaller settlement payment.

A copy of the slip opinion in Bates, et al. v. Rubio's
Restaurants, Inc., No. G041231 (Calif. Ct. App., 4th Dist.), is
available at:

     http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G041231.PDF

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Righetti, Esq.
          John Glugoski, Esq.
          RIGHETTI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 983-0900                    

               - and -  

          Kevin J. McInerney, Esq.
          Kelly McInerney, Esq.
          MCINERNEY & JONES
          18124 Wedge Parkway #503
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 849-3811

               - and -  

          Charles A. Jones, Esq.
          MCINERNEY & JONES
          9460 Double R Boulevard #103
          Reno, NV 89521
          Telephone: (775) 853-6440

Rubio's is represented by:

          Gregory R. Smith, Esq.
          IRELL & MANELLA LLP
          1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276
          Telephone: 310-277-1010

               - and -  

          Andra Barmash Greene, Esq.
          Julie M. Davis, Esq.
          IRELL & MANELLA LLP
          840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
          Newport Beach, CA 92660-6324
          Telephone: 949-760-0991


SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHEID: U.S. Court Sets Jan. 6, 2010, Trial Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Asa Sokopo, the Dispatch's Court Reporter, says that thousands in
the Eastern Cape have come forward as complainants in a multi-
billion dollar class action lawsuit against some of South
Africa's top international firms.

The firms, which include Mercedes-Benz (Daimler), IBM, General
Motors and Ford, will be taken to task for their alleged role in
aiding the apartheid regime.

Ten thousand people in the Eastern Cape and thousands more around
the country have cleared their final hurdle in one of the biggest
lawsuits involving South Africans.

The case will be heard before a United States court on January 6.
The US government called on Tuesday for the dismissal of an
appeal by the firms.

Lead attorney John Ngcebetsha, of Ngcebetsha Madlanga attorneys,
told the Daily Dispatch that this followed a recent letter
written by Justice Minister Jeff Radebe for the cases to be
settled out of court.

In April, a landmark ruling in a US court gave advocate Dumisa
Ntsebeza and his legal team the right to sue multinational
corporations that knowingly "aided and abetted" the apartheid
government.

Mercedes-Benz SA (BMSA) is accused of supplying apartheid forces
with armoured Unimog military vehicles used to suppress public
meetings and marches in the country. GM and Ford are also accused
of "aiding and abetting torture . . . extrajudicial killing and
apartheid". IBM is accused of providing technology used by the
apartheid regime in displacing South Africans to Bantustans.

While Ngcebetsha said it was impossible to give an exact figure
on the lawsuit, it is expected to be billions of dollars.
Ngcebetsha said Cosatu general- secretary Zwelinzima Vavi had
"submitted a memorandum to court in support of the actions".

The South African Council of Churches had also shown their
support through general secretary Eddie Makue . He sent a letter
to the lawyers of the victims asking them to ensure that justice
was served.

MBSA spokesperson Madelaine van Wyk said they never co-operated
with security forces for the perpetuation of apartheid. "At
numerous times Daimler's management publicly expressed its
opposition to apartheid, including the head of MBSA at that time,
Jrgen Schrempp, in the immediate presence of representatives of
the apartheid regime. In 1999, Nelson Mandela awarded Mr Schrempp
South Africa's highest civilian medal, the Order of Good Hope, in
recognition of his involvement in South Africa."

The class action lawsuit was brought in 2001 by Ntsebeza, with
University of Cape Town sociology professor Lungisile Ntsebeza as
lead plaintiff, under America's Alien Tort Statute, which allows
foreigners to bring human rights claims in American courts.
Claims were initially dismissed in 2004 by US district judge John
Sprizzo but the suit was reinstated on April 8 by Southern
District of New York judge Shira Scheindlin.


TALKING PHONE: Class Certified in S.C. Phone Book Dumping Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Connor at The Greenville News reports that a federal judge
last week agreed to grant class-action status in Gray v. Talking
Phone Book, et al., Case No. 08-cv-01833 (D. S.C.) (Anderson,
J.), filed by an Upstate chiropractor and other advertisers
against the owners of the Talking Phone Book, who are accused of
hiding and dumping thousands of phone books instead of delivering
them.

In one case, hundreds of books were dumped into a Greenville
County creek in 2007, attorney Terry Richardson told U.S.
District Judge Ross Anderson during a hearing a week ago today.
Another 20,000 books were found sitting in a warehouse,
Richardson said.

The owners of the Greenwood-based phone book company -- Hearst
Holdings Inc. and subsidiaries -- denied the allegations and said
that the thousands of class members suggested across the Upstate
each had different circumstances in making their decisions to
advertise.

Greenwood chiropractor William B. Gray III filed the suit last
year, and earlier this year more plaintiffs were added.

The Talking Phone Book agreed to thousands of contracts to
advertise in its publication up until 2008, knowing that it
wasn't going to distribute the number of books it had represented
to advertisers, Richardson said.

Attorneys for Hearst said the plaintiffs can't prove that any
contract depended on the number of phone books delivered and that
some hadn't looked at paperwork that showed numbers represented
phone books printed, not books delivered.

Company representatives solicited Gray to become an advertiser
and represented distribution numbers that exceed the numbers of
phone book competitors, Mr. Richardson said.

Instead, Mr. Richardson said, thousands of phone books were
stored in Greenville, Anderson and Greenwood counties with no
intention to distribute them and then were later dumped at
recycling centers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel S. Haltiwanger, Esq.
          Terry Edward Richardson, Jr., Esq.
          RICHARDSON PATRICK WESTBROOK AND BRICKMAN
          PO Box 1368
          Barnwell, SC 29812
          Telephone: 803-259-9900

               - and -  

          Jon E. Newlon, Esq.
          MCCRAVY LAW FIRM
          1629 Bypass 72 NE
          Greenwood, SC 29649
          Telephone: 864-388-9100

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alan Mansfield, Esq.
          Stephen Lawrence Saxl, Esq.  
          GREENBERG TRAURIG
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: 212-801-1277

               - and -  

          Stephen G. Morrison, Esq.
          Robert Bruce Shaw, Esq.   
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH
          PO Box 11070
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Telephone: 803-799-2000

               - and -  

          Christopher Lance Sheek, Esq.
          SHEEK LAW FIRM
          422 Montague Avenue, Suite 5
          Greenwood, SC 29646
          Telephone: 864-227-6134


TRANS BELL: D. Nev. Certifies Limo Driver Class in Labor Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Benston at the Las Vegas Sun reports that a federal judge has
certified a plaintiff class of Nevada limousine drivers suing the
state's largest limo company, claiming Bell Trans failed to pay
drivers for time spent on the job while they were not
transporting passengers.

The landmark case -- Lucas, et al. v. Bell Trans, Case No.
08-cv-01792 (D. Nev.) (Jones, J.) -- marks a test of Nevada's
complex wage and hour laws by drivers, who have historically been
paid according to how productive they are in obtaining fares
rather than for hours worked.

Since the recession, drivers of taxis and limos in Las Vegas have
taken home slimmer paychecks that in some cases fall below
minimum wage, triggering a rash of complaints with the Nevada
Labor Commissioner, as well as the Bell Trans suit, filed last
year.

While limo drivers aren't entitled to minimum wage under state
law, the drivers may pursue a claim that their employer violated
the law by not paying drivers at all for time worked, U.S.
District Judge Robert C. Jones said in his order Tuesday.

Drivers say this includes time spent washing and maintaining
their vehicles, retrieving their limos at the beginning of their
shifts, driving to the airport and waiting for fares.

They say some transportation companies, seeking to avoid minimum
wage disputes amid the recession, are firing drivers who can't
find enough rides to bolster fares that are split with employers.

Judge Jones said a class action encompassing more than 1,000 Bell
Trans drivers would be the most efficient way to dispose of the
case.

"A class action is far superior to individual litigation in a
case such as this one, where all of the putative class members'
claims involve facts that are virtually identical in substance,
and no putative class member will recover enough to justify
bringing his own case," he wrote.

Judge Jones dismissed some of the drivers' claims in June, siding
with Bell Trans' argument that limo drivers don't have a right to
sue for minimum wages, as they are exempt under state law.

Even after Nevada voters in 2006 approved a constitutional
amendment to raise the state's minimum wage, drivers couldn't sue
for minimum wage because the amendment wasn't intended to remove
pre-existing minimum wage exemptions built into state law for
limo and taxi drivers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          THIERMAN LAW FIRM
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: 775-284-1500

The Defendants are represented by:

          Norman H. Kirshman, Esq.
          NORMAN H. KIRSHMAN PC
          3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 500
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: 702-262-6899

               - and -  

          Mark E. Trafton
          1900 Industrial Road
          Las Vegas, NV 89102
          Telephone: 702-385-1813


UNITED HEALTHCARE: $350 Mil. Settlement Gets Initial Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Gottlieb at the New Jersey Law Journal reports that a
federal judge in New York has granted preliminary approval to a
$350 million settlement of a class action alleging United
Healthcare Corp. shortchanged 21 million patients and doctors on
reimbursements for medical claims.

Plaintiffs lawyers would get up to 25 percent of the settlement
in fees.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence McKenna said in an opinion filed
last week that proponents of the pact were convincing, and that
objectors failed to demonstrate that the insurance company was
getting off cheap.

The suit accused UHC of using a rigged database to determine the
amount of reasonable reimbursements for out-of-network medical
treatments.

Objectors represented by a New Jersey firm that started the
litigation nine years ago, Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, presented
evidence that the difference between the value of claims
submitted to the company and the amounts paid was $26.4 billion.

But McKenna ruled that the damages were $4.76 billion at the most
and that $350 million was fair because there was no guarantee the
plaintiffs would prevail if there were a trial in the case,
American Medical Association v. United Healthcare Corp., 00-2800.

The settlement covers a companion case in federal court in
Newark, N.J., against a UHC subsidiary, OxfordHealthplans Inc.

The chief question following the approval is whether the
settlement will lead toward a resolution of similar class actions
in Newark against Aetna Health Inc. and Cigna Insurance Co. The
defendants in the Newark cases figured their reimbursement rates
by using the same allegedly flawed database that UHC used: a
product of Ingenix, a UHC subsidiary.

"I don't want to predict, but obviously the settlement will have
an impact in that it provides either a model or a number that
parties will be looking at," says D. Brian Hufford, the lead
plaintiffs counsel in the UHC and Aetna cases.

Some of the facts are different and the UHC case took nine years
to develop, but it is a "relevant point" for the New Jersey
claims, says Hufford, of Pomerantz Hudak Grossman & Gross in New
York.

But objectors' lawyer Barbara Quackenbos, of the Wilentz firm in
Woodbridge, N.J., says it's a bad model because the millions of
class members in the UHC case could have done much better. On
Tuesday, the firm asked the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to
reverse McKenna's approval.

Bruce Nagel of Nagel Rice in Roseland, N.J., whose firm is co-
lead counsel for one group of plaintiffs in the Cigna case in
Newark, says the better model would be an Ingenix database
settlement with HealthNet Insurance Co. last year. In that class
action, he says, the potential damages were pegged at $450
million and the case settled for $255 million.

Nagel says of the UHC deal, "It stinks because it's for a
fraction of the value. It's way too low and will not be relevant
to what we are doing in Cigna in New Jersey."

                          A DELTA TOO WIDE

Last year, after evidence in the class actions against the
Ingenix database attracted the attention of the attorney
general's office in New York state, UHC agreed in a consent order
to pay $50 million to researchers at a nonprofit consortium
headed by Syracuse University to develop a new system.

Pomerantz Hudak and Wilentz Goldman were co-lead counsel in the
UHC litigation until they split over whether to settle.

Making a separate peace, Pomerantz Hudak, on behalf of the AMA,
reached the agreement with UHC on the $350 million last year, but
plaintiffs represented by the Wilentz firm objected. The firm
argued at hearings in March and April and again in September that
more litigation would yield an even bigger pay day for the class.

The objectors argued that the "delta" -- the gap between the
claims and the reimbursements -- was too large to justify a $350
million settlement.

Judge McKenna, though, found the data showed the gap wasn't as
large as the objectors claimed. He also rejected arguments that
the settlement would release the insurance company from
reimbursing too many subscribers, including almost 9 million
whose claims had nothing to do with the Ingenix database.

He said that if the plaintiffs had to try the case they would
have to prove the Ingenix database was flawed, and legal
roadblocks -- such as whether the plaintiffs had exhausted
administrative remedies -- would remain.

"A reasonable result, for reasons some of which have been
mentioned, is by no means assured, and the amount of recovery in
the event of success, could be quite small compared to the deltas
suggested," he concluded.

Mr. Hufford says $12 million in interest accumulating since the
company agreed to the pact earlier this year will be added to the
$350 million if Judge McKenna grants final approval after class
notification and a fairness hearing.

But in his appeal of Judge McKenna's approval, Wilentz partner
Barry Epstein said that after deductions for legal fees and
administrative costs, the net recovery for the 21 million class
members would be only $250 million.

He said Judge McKenna erred by refusing to permit discovery about
the damages and by including the 9 million non-Ingenix claimants
in the class.  And he said the class notice in the settlement
doesn't give members enough information to make a rational
decision about whether to opt in or out.


UNITED STATES: Alaskan Census Takers Suing for Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Gusty at KTVA-CBS 11 News reports that on the eve of the
2010 Census, Alaskans are suing the federal government over
unpaid overtime.

They are part of the thousands of Americans who brought a class
action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Commerce, saying
not only did they not get paid the overtime they deserved, but
also claiming their census supervisors used their patriotism
against them.

The Fair Labor Standards Act mandates that any employee who works
more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week is entitled to
overtime pay which has to be at least time and a half.

Seven thousand former census workers claim they did not get paid
for the over time they worked during the last national Census 10
years ago. Now, they are in a legal battle with the federal
government.

"I find it ironic that it is happening on the eve of the 2010
Census," says Jack Lee, Lead attorney for the class action, "It
has been a long hard slog for everyone."

Every ten years hundreds of thousands of Americans are hired by
the federal government to work in the census, going door to door
to count how many men women and children live in our country.

"It's the chief funding source whereby lots of funding dollars
from the federal government and the state government come back to
the community," explains Michael Burns, Deputy Regional Director
for the Census.

Here in Alaska, census workers have to work especially long hours
because of travel time.

"They had lots of travel time, especially in places like
Anchorage where there's great distances between populations,"
says Mr. Lee, "That is all considered paid time when you are on
travel status."  

But during the last census in 2000, some say they did not get
paid for it like they were supposed to.

"Mistakes were made and these stories were not just Anchorage-
these stories were across the nation." Says Lee, "People would
turn in time sheets that had more than 40 hours, and the
supervisor says well, you can't be paid over 40. That's too bad
that you worked that, but you can only put in 40 so that is what
you are going put in, or 35. Or 32. Because we cant have you
right at 40."

For the last 8 years, thousands of 2000 census workers in 17
states including Alaska have been in a court battle with the
federal government, using a class action lawsuit to try to get
back some of the money they say they are owed.

"Under Federal Law that we sued under, basically any claims they
had would be doubled."  Explains Mr. Lee, "There is no interest
on the money but that doubling represents kind of the
government's attempts to pay back for the lost opportunity of not
having the money."

Just the in the last month, the class action's lawyers have
reached a tentative settlement in the case with the Justice
Department.

When all is said and done, it looks like members of the class
action will get about 50 cents on the dollar of their claim.

For some who worked on the census only a few days, it will mean a
check for $50. Others are entitled to tens of thousands of
dollars.

"That resolution is going up the chain of command and will be
approved by the Assistant Attorney General of the United States,"
says Mr. Lee.

With the 2010 Census looming, census officials are now working to
hire approximately 2000 temporary Census workers.

"At the crunch of the census, those are full time positions,"
says Mr. Burns  "Now they only last about 4 to 8 weeks, and that
is that hard time period when the census questioners go out and
we have to go and follow up on anybody who hasn't returned their
census forms to us."

During the 2000 Census, those employees worked from January to
November. According to the class action suit, the workers were
told to carry their overtime to the next week, and they were led
to believe they would be paid their overtime at the end of the
census process.

"Also, the supervisors were extorting, asking these people to
work on behalf of their country," says Mr. Lee, "So I think there
was some misplaced loyalty there."

Officials assure CBS 11 News census workers this time around will
get paid for the overtime they work.

"I tell people if they need overtime to talk to their immediate
supervisor," says Mr. Burns, "The overtime has to be pre-approved
and then if it is pre-approved, they get paid the overtime."

Lawyers for the class say they hope to have the census settlement
approved by the end of the year, and checks going out to members
of the class action by spring.


VERIZON COMMS: Disputes Idearc Retirees' Class Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Godinez at The Dallas Morning News reports that Verizon
disputes the plaintiffs' claims in Murphy, et al. v. Verizon
Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-02262 (N.D. Tex.).  
Verizon says that:

     (A) the retirees were properly transferred since they came
         from the business divisions that were used to form
         Idearc;

     (B) it transferred $750 million to Idearc to cover pension
         benefits; and

     (C) all required documentation was provided to retirees.

News about the filing of the lawsuit appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Dec. 3, 2009.  


WISCONSIN: Court Decertifies Class Challenging Diploma Privilege
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex De Grand, a Legal Writer for the State Bar of Wisconsin,
reports that Federal District Judge Barbara Crabb decertified the
class challenging the constitutionality of Wisconsin's diploma
privilege, but said the litigation could continue with its named
plaintiffs.

During a show cause hearing, Judge Crabb said the decision arises
from her doubts regarding the ability of class counsel Chris
Wiesmueller to adequately represent all graduates of out-of-state
law schools who seek a Wisconsin law license without taking a bar
exam just as graduates of Wisconsin law schools are exempted from
the test.

"It worries me considerably that you are a brand new attorney,
you are just starting out in the practice of law, you have no
federal court experience other than this case and, granted, this
has been a good experience for you," Judge Crabb said. "But that
doesn't mean that you -- or for that matter, 99 percent of the
new graduates of any law school -- are equipped to handle a class
action lawsuit in federal court when you are a one-person
practice."

Judge Crabb remarked that "class actions are by their nature
difficult, complex, and expensive" and questioned whether this
case presented a serious mismatch of resources.

"The defendants have all the resources of the attorney general
and the State of Wisconsin," Judge Crabb said. "If they wanted
to, defendants could hold depositions in three different cities
at the same time. That would be rather a low blow and I doubt
they would stoop to that, but theoretically they could do that. I
really think that I would be derelict in my responsibility to the
class to continue to certify it as a class."

Judge Crabb noted that if Mr. Wiesmueller lost the class action,
all members of the class would be bound by the result and could
not relitigate the issue on their own.  "I have to look out for
the interests of people that you represent," Judge Crabb said.
"They could lose their rights if you represent them poorly."

The lawsuit has a named plaintiff, Corrine Wiesmueller, and that
is sufficient for the case to continue, Judge Crabb said. She
remarked that this development is unlikely to undermine the
purpose of the lawsuit.

"You probably would have the same effect as if you had
represented the class," Judge Crabb told Mr. Wiesmueller. "If
this court or the Court of Appeals found it was unconstitutional
for Corrine Wiesmueller to have to take the bar exam, I suspect
the Supreme Court of Wisconsin would find it unconstitutional for
anyone to have to take the bar exam."

                              Recusal Motion

Judge Crabb said that other events had led her to conclude that
Mr. Wiesmueller should not continue as class counsel, including
Mr. Wiesmueller's Nov. 27 motion to seek Judge Crabb's recusal
from this case.

In that motion, Mr. Wiesmueller alleged various grounds for
suspecting Judge Crabb's impartiality, including her receipt of a
distinguished service award from a group of U. W. Law School
graduates. The motion also took issue with Judge Crabb's Oct. 30
order denying Mr. Wiesmueller's request for summary judgment
against the state's continued administration of the Multistate
Bar Exam to out-of-state law school graduates. In that order,
Judge Crabb first expressed her doubts regarding Mr.
Wiesmueller's competency to serve as class counsel.

Judge Crabb denied the motion for recusal on Wednesday, rejecting
each of Mr. Wiesmueller's charges. Regarding the service award,
Judge Crabb wrote, "Plaintiffs might have a point if I had
received an award from a group that was dedicated to preserving
the diploma privilege, but the award had nothing to do with the
issues in this case.

"Plaintiffs do not suggest that the group is involved in advocacy
for maintaining the diploma privilege or even that it has taken a
position on the issue," Judge Crabb continued. "After all, as
plaintiffs point out themselves, members of the group have
already received the benefit of the privilege."

Addressing her earlier ruling against Mr. Wiesmueller's motion,
Judge Crabb noted that unfavorable rulings are often the reason a
party seeks recusal, but it is very rare that a judicial opinion
provides grounds to disqualify a judge.

                    Voluntary Withdrawal Of A Claim

Judge Crabb agreed to permit Mr. Wiesmueller to withdraw his
claim that the diploma privilege promotes effectual
discrimination against interstate commerce.  Mr. Wiesmueller said
that he lacked the resources to sort through the particulars of
the Wisconsin law school curriculum to prove the claim.

The litigation continues with the claim that SCR Chapter 40,
taken as a whole, facially discriminates against interstate
commerce.  Mr. Wiesmueller said he would like to have the words
"in this state" struck from the rule so that an out-of-state law
student could complete a Wisconsin curriculum and benefit from
the diploma privilege, assuming the court finds there is a
Wisconsin-specific law requirement.


* Battea - Class Action Services, LLC, Creates Advisory Board
-------------------------------------------------------------
Battea - Class Action Services, LLC, a leading provider of
securities class action claims filing for institutional
investors, has created a corporate Advisory Board to further the
Company's pursuits in the global marketplace.  The advisory board
is expected to consist of multiple members with diversified
backgrounds in the financial services markets.  The Company hopes
to leverage members' expertise to expand Battea's recognition as
the go-to source for securities class action claims processing
and award recovery.  Battea has named Sean J. Sullivan, Executive
Vice President and head of global sales for BNY ConvergEx/Eze
Castle Software, as the first member of its Advisory Board.  BNY
ConvergEx's Eze Castle Software is a leading provider of
investment and execution technology solutions to institutional
clients worldwide.

"As we are aggressively investing in services and expansion in
2010, we are excited to welcome Sean on board as our first
Advisory Board member.  With over 400 clients in the investment
advisor space, Sean will be a valuable resource for both Battea
and clients looking to add to their returns," commented Andrew
Wilson, a Managing Director of Battea - Class Action Services,
LLC.  Mr. Sullivan added, "I have seen a lot of products and
services and Battea's value proposition of recovering maximum
funds for clients is truly unique. I look forward to working with
the Battea team to increase clients' class action award
settlement recoveries."

           About Battea - Class Action Services, LLC

Through its proprietary technology, The Claims Engine(R), Battea
- Class Action Services -- http://www.battea.com/-- optimizes  
class action settlement award recovery for institutional
investors. Our experts manage the entire award recovery process
-- from calculating recognized loss for every claim through the
confirmation, receipt and delivery of award payouts.  The Claims
Engine is the only service available on the market that
calculates, confirms and files claims based on a client's
recognized loss, the key factor in determining class action
settlement payouts.  A full-service, outsourced solution to the
manual and complex claims filing process, Battea - Class Action
Services harnesses the power of technology to maximize clients'
award recoveries and deliver the highest net return on settlement
assets.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


SIEMENS AG: Weiss & Lurie Files Shareholder Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Siemens AG (NYSE: SI) was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the American
Depository Receipt Shares of Siemens between November 8, 2007,
and April 30, 2008.

The complaint charges Siemens with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, Siemens made materially false and misleading statements
concerning its ability to generate revenues and achieve earnings
expectations once it had put an end to systemic and extensive
fraud, bribery and other illegal and corrupt activities in order
to obtain contracts or retain business.  As the truth was
revealed, Siemens shares plummeted, causing damages of billions
of dollars to Siemens shareholders.

This action seeks to recover damages on behalf of investors who
purchased Siemens shares 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 firms representing
shareholders in securities class actions.

If you purchased Siemens shares during the Class Period, you may
move the court no later than February 5, 2010, to serve as a lead
plaintiff of the class. 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.

A copy of the Complaint in Johnson v. Siemens AG, Case No.
09-cv-05310 (E.D.N.Y.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/07/SCASiemens.pdf

Courthouse News Service reports that top dogs at Siemens AG
cost shareholders billions of dollars by paying bribes,
committing wire fraud, money laundering and other crimes for
which the company was fined more than $1.6 billion, and
shareholders say the executives, not stockholders, should pay
the costs, in Brooklyn Federal Court.

For more information about Weiss & Lurie or this action, or if
you want to obtain a Certification form to serve as a lead
plaintiff, please visit http://www.weisslurie.com/

If you wish to receive an investor package or if you wish to
discuss this action, have any questions concerning this notice or
your rights or interests with respect to this matter, or if you
have any information you wish to provide to the Firm, please
contact:

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
          James E. Tullman, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          The French Building
          551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
          New York, NY 10176
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          E-mail: infony@weisslurie.com

               - and -

          Jules Brody, Esq.           
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230


SUNPOWER CORP: Shareholder Derivative Action filed in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sunpower Corp.'s directors
inflated its share price through false and misleading statements,
shareholders claim in Santa Clara County Court, Calif.

A copy of the Complaint in Bonna v. Werner, et al., Case No.
109CV158522 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/03/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Herschel Bornstein, Esq.
          Kathryn Quetel, Esq.
          BORNSTEIN & BORNSTEIN
          507 Polk Street, Suite 320
          San Francisco, CA 94118-3339
          Telephone: 415-409-7611

               - and -  

          Robert B. Weiser, Esq.
          Brett D. Steckerm Esq,
          Jeffrey J. Ciarlanto, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          121 N. Wayne Ave., Suite 100
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: 610-225-2677

                            *********

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  * * *