CAR_Public/091214.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, December 14, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 246

                            Headlines

ANIMALFEEDS INT'L: High Court Reviews Class Action Arbitration
ASPECT MEDICAL: Plaintiffs in "Donnay" Suit Amend Complaint
ASPECT MEDICAL: Enters Agreement to Settle "Cherwek" Suit
ASPECT MEDICAL: Wants "Pfeiffer" Suit in Massachusetts Stayed
ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses All Claims in "McAnaney" Suit

BALTIMORE GAS: Parent Still Faces Amended Complaint in Maryland
BALTIMORE GAS: Parent Continues to Face ERISA Violations Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Nevada Lawsuit Challenges Foreclosure Actions
KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Faces Another Class Action Suit in E.D. La.
COINSTAR INC: Redbox Faces "Piechur" Suit Over Excessive Fees

DRUG COMPANIES: 9th Cir. Reinstates Calif. Counties' Lawsuit
KEYCORP: To Defend Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit in Ohio
KEYCORP: Austin Capital Faces Suits over "Madoff" Affair
NATROL PRODUCTS: "Carb-Intercept" Ad Claims Challenged in Calif.
PEROT SYSTEMS: Court Denies Plaintiff's Temp. Injunction Plea

PEROT SYSTEMS: Faces "Lawrie" Suit over Planned Sale to Dell
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Has Yet to be Served Suit Over Corrosion
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Settlement in "Wilder" Suit Gets Final Approval
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Amended Suit
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of State Suit

VERIZON WIRELESS: N.J. Suit Says Backup Assistance Fees Illegal
WELCH FOODS: Sues Insurers for Class Action Defense Costs
WIDEOPEN WEST: Broadband Provider Accused of Spyware Misdeeds

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES: Investors File Fraud Suit in M.D. Fla.

                            *********

ANIMALFEEDS INT'L: High Court Reviews Class Action Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Wilson at Courthouse News Service reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court heard arguments in Stilt-Nielsen S.A. v.
AnimalFeeds International Corp., No. 08-1198 (U.S.), last week
over whether an arbitrator, appointed by two clashing companies,
can hear a class action brought by one of them even though the
arbitration contract is silent on that issue.  "The question was
whether that silence should be interpreted as a preclusion or a
permission," Justice John Paul Stevens said.

A second question raised in the hearing was whether the
arbitration panel made the right decision in finding that the
plaintiff can proceed on a class basis.

Animalfeeds, a corporation that sells animal feed
internationally, tried to file a class action against a tanker
company that it uses to ship its feed, Stolt-Nielsen. It filed in
federal court on behalf of all companies that use tankers, but
the 2nd Circuit ultimately decided that the matter should be sent
to arbitration.

But the terms of the arbitration contract did not discuss the
question of whether an arbitrator could include other companies
in the arbitration process. When the companies asked the
mediating panel to determine whether a class action was permitted
or precluded, the panel decided that the contract permits a class
action.

"If you ask whether something permits it, and if it doesn't
prohibit it, doesn't it for sure permit it?" Stevens asked of the
shipping company's lawyer, implying that a class arbitration
would be allowed.

Justice Antonin Scalia expressed some agreement. "If the contract
is silent, it's up to the court or the arbitrator to decide what
that silence means," he said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that Animalfeed had originally
intended to bring a class action in court and was diverted by the
court to an arbitration. Appearing concerned, she told the
shipping company's lawyer that a failure to allow a class action
in the arbitration, "is shrinking drastically the dimensions of
Animalfeeds' claim."

But Chief Justice John Roberts approached from a different angle,
noting that the shipping company had not agreed to go into
arbitration with other members who join as a class. "I understood
the fundamental question before getting arbitration is whether
the parties have agreed to arbitrate this dispute with this
party," he said.

Justice Scalia read from the arbitrator's decision. "The panel is
struck by the fact that respondents have been unable to cite any
post-Bazzle panels or arbitrators that construed their clauses as
prohibiting the class action, he read, then noted, "That's not
what they have to find. They must find positively that it permits
a class action."
     
Seth Waxman, Esq., from WilmerHale represented tanker company
Stolt-Nielsen and argued that the contract's silence should be
interpreted to mean that a class action had not been part of the
agreement. "There's no consent," he said.
     
While the case falls under the jurisdiction of maritime law,
references to any differences between the law governing this
contract and non-maritime contracts were rare. Waxman argued that
maritime law relies heavily on "custom and practice," and said
that maritime contracts have long been bilateral, suggesting that
both parties would have to expressly agree to the terms of the
arbitration contract.
     
Animalfeeds' counsel Cornelia Pillard, Esq., from Georgetown
University Law Center, argued that the arbitration panel was
correct in deciding that silence should be interpreted to mean
that a class action wasn't prohibited from the agreement, adding
that if there is doubt, the question is usually handed to the
arbitrator.

Ms. Pillard said judicial review can only correct "gross defects"
in the arbitration process, and that the arbitrators simply
interpreted the contract, as they were asked.
     
Before the skirmish over class arbitration, Animalfeeds had
pointed to what it considered Stolt-Nielsen's unreasonable
shipping prices and argued that the company is conspiring to
dampen tanker shipping competition in violation of federal anti-
trust laws.
     
After the arbitration panel decided to allow the class action, a
district court had decided that the arbitrators had neglected the
law in allowing the class action.  The 2nd Circuit, which had
originally sent the case to an arbitrator, reversed the district
court, allowing the class action to continue.
     

ASPECT MEDICAL: Plaintiffs in "Donnay" Suit Amend Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the action, Albert Donnay v. Nassib Chamoun, et
al., filed a motion to amend the complaint to add claims
asserting that Aspect Medical Systems, Inc., Aspect and
individual defendants failed to disclose in regulatory filings
material information regarding its merger with Covidien plc.

On Sept. 27, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with United States Surgical Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (Parent), and Transformer Delaware Corp., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent (Purchaser).  
Parent and Purchaser are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Covidien.

On Oct. 6, 2009, a putative class action complaint, Albert Donnay
v. Nassib Chamoun, et al., Civil Action No. 09-4249-BLS, was
filed in the Massachusetts Superior Court for Suffolk County,
Business Litigation Session.

This action purports to be brought on behalf of all public
stockholders of Aspect, and names Aspect, certain of its
directors, United States Surgical Corporation, and Transformer
Delaware Corp. as defendants.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the consideration
to be paid to Aspect stockholders in the proposed acquisition is
unfair and undervalues Aspect.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the Aspect directors
named in the action violated their fiduciary duties by, among
other things, failing to maximize stockholder value and failing
to engage in a fair sale process.

The complaint also alleges that Aspect, United States Surgical
Corporation and Transformer Delaware Corp. aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by certain of Aspect's
directors.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, an injunction preventing
completion of the Merger or, if the Merger is consummated,
rescission of the Merger.

On Oct. 8, 2009, Aspect and the individual defendants filed an
answer in which they have denied the allegations, and they also
served a motion to dismiss and/or for judgment on the pleadings.

On Oct. 16, 2009, Aspect and the individual defendants filed a
motion to stay the action.

On Oct. 19, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend the
complaint to add claims asserting that Aspect and the individual
defendants failed to disclose in SEC filings material information
regarding the Merger, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Oct. 3, 2009.

Aspect Medical Systems, Inc. -- http://www.aspectmedical.com/--  
is engaged in developing, manufacturing, and marketing an
anesthesia monitoring system named BIS system. The BIS system is
based on the Bispectral Index (BIS Index) technology.  The BIS
system provides information that allows clinicians to assess and
manage a patient's level of consciousness in the operating room,
intensive care and procedural sedation settings, and is intended
to assist the clinician in better determining the amount of
anesthesia or sedation needed by each patient.  The BIS system
includes the BIS monitor, BIS Module Kit or BISx system, which
allows original equipment manufacturers to incorporate the BIS
index into their monitoring products, and a group of sensor
products, referred as BIS Sensors.  During the year ended Dec.
31, 2008, the global installed base of BIS monitors and original
equipment manufacturer products was approximately 56,300 units.  
In November 2009, Covidien plc completed the acquisition of the
company.


ASPECT MEDICAL: Enters Agreement to Settle "Cherwek" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the suit, Roland A. Cherwek v. Aspect Medical
Systems, Inc., et al., entered into a memorandum of understanding
reflecting an agreement in principle to settle the case,
according to the company's Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Oct. 3, 2009.

On Sept. 27, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with United States Surgical Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (Parent), and Transformer Delaware Corp., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (Purchaser).  
Parent and Purchaser are wholly owned subsidiaries of Covidien.

On Oct. 13, 2009, a putative class action complaint, Roland A.
Cherwek v. Aspect Medical Systems, Inc., et al., was filed in
Delaware Chancery Court.

This action purports to be brought on behalf of all public
stockholders of Aspect, and names Aspect, its directors, United
States Surgical Corporation, Transformer Delaware Corp., and
Covidien plc as defendants.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the consideration
to be paid to Aspect stockholders in the proposed acquisition is
unfair and undervalues Aspect.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the Aspect directors
named in the action violated their fiduciary duties by, among
other things, failing to maximize stockholder value, failing to
engage in a fair sale process, and failing to disclose in SEC
filings material information regarding the Merger.

The complaint also alleges that Aspect, United States Surgical
Corporation, Transformer Delaware Corp., and Covidien plc aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by Aspect's
directors. The complaint seeks, among other relief, an injunction
preventing completion of the Merger or, if the Merger is
consummated, rescission of the Merger and damages in an
unspecified amount.

On Oct. 26, 2009, plaintiff (on behalf of himself and the members
of the putative class) and all defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding reflecting an agreement in principle
to settle the matter.

The agreement in principle is subject to the parties reaching
agreement on the terms of a mutually acceptable definitive
settlement agreement.

The settlement agreement will be subject to approval by the court
and also conditioned upon consummation of the Merger.

Aspect Medical Systems, Inc. -- http://www.aspectmedical.com/--  
is engaged in developing, manufacturing, and marketing an
anesthesia monitoring system named BIS system. The BIS system is
based on the Bispectral Index (BIS Index) technology.  The BIS
system provides information that allows clinicians to assess and
manage a patient's level of consciousness in the operating room,
intensive care and procedural sedation settings, and is intended
to assist the clinician in better determining the amount of
anesthesia or sedation needed by each patient.  The BIS system
includes the BIS monitor, BIS Module Kit or BISx system, which
allows original equipment manufacturers to incorporate the BIS
index into their monitoring products, and a group of sensor
products, referred as BIS Sensors.  During the year ended Dec.
31, 2008, the global installed base of BIS monitors and original
equipment manufacturer products was approximately 56,300 units.  
In November 2009, Covidien plc completed the acquisition of the
company.


ASPECT MEDICAL: Wants "Pfeiffer" Suit in Massachusetts Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aspect Medical Systems, Inc., has filed a motion to stay the
action styled Milton Pfeiffer v. Nassib Chamoun, et al.,
according to the company's Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Oct. 3, 2009.

On Sept. 27, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with United States Surgical Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (Parent), and Transformer Delaware Corp., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent (Purchaser).  
Parent and Purchaser are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Covidien.

On Oct. 14, 2009, a putative class action complaint, Milton
Pfeiffer v. Nassib Chamoun, et al., Case No. 09-4377-BLS, was
filed in the Massachusetts Superior Court for Suffolk County,
Business Litigation Session.

This action purports to be brought on behalf of all public
stockholders of Aspect, and names Aspect, certain of its
directors, United States Surgical Corporation, and Transformer
Delaware Corp. as defendants.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the consideration
to be paid to Aspect stockholders in the proposed acquisition is
unfair and undervalues Aspect.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the Aspect directors
named in the action violated their fiduciary duties by, among
other things, failing to maximize stockholder value, failing to
engage in a fair sale process, and failing to disclose in SEC
filings material information regarding the Merger.

The complaint also alleges that Aspect, United States Surgical
Corporation and Transformer Delaware Corp. aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Aspect directors
named in the action.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, an injunction preventing
completion of the Merger or, if the Merger is consummated,
rescission of the Merger and damages in an unspecified amount.

On Oct. 16, 2009, Aspect and the individual defendants filed a
motion to stay the action.

Aspect Medical Systems, Inc. -- http://www.aspectmedical.com/--  
is engaged in developing, manufacturing, and marketing an
anesthesia monitoring system named BIS system. The BIS system is
based on the Bispectral Index (BIS Index) technology.  The BIS
system provides information that allows clinicians to assess and
manage a patient's level of consciousness in the operating room,
intensive care and procedural sedation settings, and is intended
to assist the clinician in better determining the amount of
anesthesia or sedation needed by each patient.  The BIS system
includes the BIS monitor, BIS Module Kit or BISx system, which
allows original equipment manufacturers to incorporate the BIS
index into their monitoring products, and a group of sensor
products, referred as BIS Sensors.  During the year ended Dec.
31, 2008, the global installed base of BIS monitors and original
equipment manufacturer products was approximately 56,300 units.  
In November 2009, Covidien plc completed the acquisition of the
company.


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses All Claims in "McAnaney" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has
dismissed all claims against Astoria Financial Corp., in the
action entitled David McAnaney and Carolyn McAnaney, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Astoria
Financial Corporation, et al., according to the company's Nov. 6,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In 2004, an action entitled David McAnaney and Carolyn McAnaney,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs.
Astoria Financial Corporation, et al. was commenced in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The action, commenced as a class action, alleges that in
connection with the satisfaction of certain mortgage loans made
by Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association, The Long Island
Savings Bank, FSB, which was acquired by Astoria Federal in 1998,
and their related entities, customers were charged attorney
document preparation fees, recording fees and facsimile fees
allegedly in violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act, the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, or RESPA, the Fair Debt
Collection Act, or FDCA, the New York State Deceptive Practices
Act, and alleges actions based upon breach of contract, unjust
enrichment and common law fraud.

Astoria Federal previously moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, which motion was granted in part and denied in part,
dismissing claims based on violations of RESPA and FDCA.

The District Court further determined that class certification
would be considered prior to considering summary judgment.  
The District Court, on Sept. 19, 2006, granted the plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

Astoria Federal has denied the claims set forth in the complaint.

Both the company and the plaintiffs subsequently filed motions
for summary judgment with the District Court.

The District Court, on Sept. 12, 2007, granted the company's
motion for summary judgment on the basis that all named
plaintiffs' Truth in Lending claims are time barred.

All other aspects of plaintiffs' and defendants' motions for
summary judgment were dismissed without prejudice.

The District Court found the named plaintiffs to be inadequate
class representatives and provided plaintiffs' counsel an
opportunity to submit a motion for the substitution or
intervention of new named plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion with the District Court for
partial reconsideration of its decision.

The District Court, by order dated Jan. 25, 2008, granted
plaintiffs' motion for partial reconsideration and again
determined that all named plaintiffs' Truth-in Lending claims are
time barred.

Plaintiffs' counsel subsequently submitted a motion to intervene
or substitute plaintiff proposing a single substitute plaintiff.

On April 18, 2008, the company filed with the District Court its
opposition to such motion.

The District Court on Sept. 29, 2008 granted the plaintiffs'
motion allowing a new single named plaintiff to be substituted.
The District Court also established a schedule for the plaintiffs
to amend the complaint, for the defendants to respond and for
consideration of summary judgment on the merits.

During the fourth quarter of 2008, the plaintiffs amended their
complaint to assert the claim of the new substitute plaintiff,
the defendants answered denying such claims and both parties
cross-moved for summary judgment.

On Sept. 29, 2009, the District Court issued a decision regarding
the parties' cross motions for summary judgment.  
Plaintiff's motion was denied in its entirety.

The defendant's motion was granted in part and denied in part.

All claims asserted against Astoria Financial Corporation and
Long Island Bancorp, Inc. were dismissed.

All remaining claims against Astoria Federal were dismissed,
except those based upon alleged violations of the federal Truth
in Lending Act, the New York State Deceptive Practices Act and
breach of contract.

The District Court held, with respect to these claims, that there
exist triable issues of fact.

Astoria Financial Corp. -- http://www.astoriafederal.com/-- is  
the unitary savings and loan association holding company of
Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association, and its
consolidated subsidiaries.  Astoria Federal's primary business is
attracting retail deposits from the general public and investing
those deposits, together with funds generated from operations,
principal repayments on loans and securities and borrowings,
primarily in one- to-four family mortgage loans, multi-family
mortgage loans, commercial real estate loans and mortgage-backed
securities.  To a lesser degree, Astoria Federal also invests in
construction loans, and consumer and other loans, United States
government, government agency and government-sponsored enterprise
(GSE), securities and other investments permitted by federal
banking laws and regulations.


BALTIMORE GAS: Parent Still Faces Amended Complaint in Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.'s parent company, Constellation
Energy Group, Inc., continues to face a consolidated amended
complaint alleging violations of securities laws, according to
the company's Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

Three federal securities class action lawsuits have been filed in
the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York
and the District of Maryland between September 2008 and November
2008.

The cases were filed on behalf of a proposed class of persons who
acquired publicly traded securities, including the Series A
Junior Subordinated Debentures, of Constellation Energy between
Jan. 30, 2008 and Sept. 16, 2008, and who acquired Debentures in
an offering completed in June 2008.

The securities class actions generally allege that Constellation
Energy, a number of its present or former officers or directors,
and the underwriters violated the securities laws by issuing a
false and misleading registration statement and prospectus in
connection with Constellation Energy's June 27, 2008 offering of
Debentures.

The securities class actions also allege that Constellation
Energy issued false or misleading statements or was aware of
material undisclosed information which contradicted public
statements including in connection with its announcements of
financial results for 2007, the fourth quarter of 2007, the first
quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2008 and the filing of
its first quarter 2008 Form 10-Q. The securities class actions
seek, among other things, certification of the cases as class
actions, compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses,
including counsel fees, and rescission damages.

The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion
to transfer the two securities class actions filed there to the
District of Maryland, and the actions have since been transferred
for coordination with the securities class action filed there.

On June 18, 2009, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, who filed
a consolidated amended complaint on Sept. 17, 2009.

Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. -- http://www.bge.com/-- provides  
electricity and natural gas services without having to pull
anyone's finger.  The company not only provides services in
Baltimore, but to all or parts of 10 surrounding central Maryland
counties as well in a service area of 2,300 square miles.  The
company's regulated power transmission and distribution system
consists of 24,500 circuit miles of distribution lines, and 1,300
circuit miles of transmission lines, and serves more than 1.2
million customers; its gas system serves 648,900 homes and
businesses in an 800- square-mile service area.  BGE is a
subsidiary of Constellation Energy Group, Inc.


BALTIMORE GAS: Parent Continues to Face ERISA Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.'s parent company, Constellation
Energy Group, Inc., continues to face a consolidated complaint
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In the fall of 2008, multiple class action lawsuits were filed in
the U.S. District Courts for the District of Maryland and the
Southern District of New York against Constellation Energy; Mayo
A. Shattuck III, Constellation Energy's Chairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive Officer; and others in their roles
as fiduciaries of the Constellation Energy Employee Savings Plan.

The actions, which have been consolidated into one action in
Maryland, allege that the defendants, in violation of various
sections of ERISA, breached their fiduciary duties to prudently
and loyally manage Constellation Energy Savings Plan's assets by
designating Constellation Energy common stock as an investment,
by failing to properly provide accurate information about the
investment, by failing to avoid conflicts of interest, by failing
to properly monitor the investment and by failing to properly
monitor other fiduciaries.

The plaintiffs seek to compel the defendants to reimburse the
plaintiffs and the Constellation Energy Savings Plan for all
losses resulting from the defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty,
to impose a constructive trust on any unjust enrichment, to award
actual damages with pre- and post-judgment interest, to award
appropriate equitable relief including injunction and restitution
and to award costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. -- http://www.bge.com/-- provides  
electricity and natural gas services without having to pull
anyone's finger.  The company not only provides services in
Baltimore, but to all or parts of 10 surrounding central Maryland
counties as well in a service area of 2,300 square miles.  The
company's regulated power transmission and distribution system
consists of 24,500 circuit miles of distribution lines, and 1,300
circuit miles of transmission lines, and serves more than 1.2
million customers; its gas system serves 648,900 homes and
businesses in an 800- square-mile service area.  BGE is a
subsidiary of Constellation Energy Group, Inc.


BANK OF AMERICA: Nevada Lawsuit Challenges Foreclosure Actions     
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Bank Of America and
Countrywide Financial are foreclosing on homes though their
owner-occupants qualify for the federal Home Affordable
Modification Program, a class action claims in Clark County
Court, Las Vegas.

A copy of the Complaint in Vazquez, et al. v. Bank of America
Home Loans, et al., Case No. 4-09-605283-V (Nev. Dist. Ct., Clark
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/10/HomeMorts.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Q. Callister, Esq.
          CALLISTER + ASSOCIATES, LLC
          823 Las Vegas Blvd. South, 5th Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 87101
          Telephone: 702-385-3343


KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Faces Another Class Action Suit in E.D. La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that New
Orleans Saints manager Sean Payton has joined the thousands of
homeowners who say bad Chinese drywall ruined their homes. Payton
and his wife, of Mandaville, La., are lead plaintiffs in a 591-
page class action, with 2,072 plaintiffs from Florida, Alabama
and Louisiana, who say their homes or businesses were destroyed
by drywall with "unreasonably" high levels of sulfur and other
toxic and corrosive components.

The lead defendant is Germany-based drywall manufacturer Knauf
Gips, whose affiliates in China are accused of producing the
highly sulfuric gypsum board. Knauf Gips, along with all
companies that "manufactured, exported, imported, distributed,
delivered, supplied, inspected, installed, marketed and sold
defective drywall products." are blamed for noxious fumes,
corroded air conditioning systems, electrical appliances,
internal wiring and other electrical systems, and a variety of
respiratory ailments.
     
Mr. Payton is the lead plaintiff in this claim because he was
among the first people in Louisiana to link news reports of bad
drywall to his family becoming ill and televisions, computers and
electrical equipment failing in his home, attorney Daniel Becnel
Jr., Esq., told the Times-Picayune this week.  Mr. Becnel filed
the first drywall class action in Louisiana.

Because the three states with high incidents of defective Chinese
drywall seek comparable damages against the same defendants, all
federal suits filed in Florida, Alabama and Louisiana were
elected for consolidation under one federal judge as
multidistrict litigation.

Mr. Becnel was a strong proponent for a transfer of the defective
drywall litigation to New Orleans because New Orleans residents
have suffered several times over, first from losing their homes
to Hurricane Katrina, the again when the renovated homes were
found to contain the defective drywall.
     
Mr. Becnel said some New Orleans residents whose houses are
filled with the tainted drywall cannot afford to move, even
though the walls of their houses emit sulfur-like odors, corrode
appliances and cause nosebleeds and other health issues.
     
The multidistrict litigation was assigned to U.S. District Judge
Eldon E. Fallon in New Orleans.
     
Judge Fallon engineered a global settlement in the consolidated
class action against manufacturers of the drug Vioxx.

Knauf Gips argued this year that claims against it should be
dismissed because the company is based in Germany, and U.S.
courts lack jurisdiction.

The Sarasota (Fla.) Herald Tribune reported in October that Knauf
Gips attorney Richard Franklin, Esq., denied that the company was
"the parent company of the Knauf Chinese entities," which he said
were part of "a different chain of ownership."

Attorneys for the plaintiffs and the homebuilders reportedly
disagreed, and said Judge Fallon's court should retain control.

Victor Diaz, Esq., an attorney for the plaintiffs, told the court
that Knauf Gips in Germany in fact "exercises control over the
operations" of the Chinese affiliates, provides technical support
for them and "established the production criteria to produce the
very Chinese drywall at issue in this litigation."
     
Because overseas product liability litigation could take years to
organize and execute, Fallon denied Knauf Gips' arguments, saying
this is "not a case that can wait. . . .  It can't linger."

Judge Fallon is overseeing hundreds of drywall-related cases,
several of them against Knauf Gips.
     
In January, default proceedings will begin against another
Chinese drywall manufacturer, this one controlled by the Chinese
government, Taishan Gypsum.  Judge Fallon found the company in
default after it failed to show for proceedings in September from
a series of cases from Virginia.

The Herald Tribune reported in October that the warning Judge
Fallon issued to Taishan Gypsum when it failed to appear was "his
strongest warning yet" to a Chinese drywall manufacturer.

"The judge said at a hearing . . . that as soon as attorneys are
ready to submit evidence of monetary damages against Taishan
Gypsum Co. Ltd., he is prepared to move forward, and will
consider seizing any U.S. assets of the company to help pay the
judgment.  'I can issue orders seizing either vessels or bank
accounts or transfers, or anything of that sort that is brought
to my attention,' Judge Fallon said."

Mr. Payton's class action demands that the Knauf Gips defendants
"buy back or rescind the contracts" for homes, or "remediate,
repair and/or replace the drywall" and cease and desist from
misrepresenting to the class and the general public that there is
no defect in, or danger associated with the drywall.

And because the drywall puts plaintiffs at risk of "contracting a
serious latent disease," the class demands the defendants
institute a public awareness campaign to alert the public of the
dangers associated with the drywall, and pay for medical
monitoring.

The first jury trial against Knauf Gips from the Payton class
action is set to begin in March and.  The plaintiffs are Lakeview
residents John and Diane Hernandez, who rebuilt their Katrina-
flooded home only to find it was redone with bad drywall. The
trial is slated to last two weeks.

A copy of the 558-page Complaint in Payton, et al. v. Knauf Gips
KG, et al., Case No. 09-cv-07628 (E.D. La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/11/Drywall.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Russ M. Herman, Esq.
          Leonard A. Davis, Esq
          HERMAN, HERMAN, KATZ & COTLAR, LLP
          820 O'Keefe Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581-4892

               - and -  

          Arnold Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500

               - and -  

          Dawn M. Barrios, Esq.
          BARRIOS, KINGSDORF & CASTEIX, LLP
          701 Poydras Street, Suite 3650
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: (504) 524-3300


COINSTAR INC: Redbox Faces "Piechur" Suit Over Excessive Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Coinstar, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Redbox Automated
Retail, LLC, faces a class action complaint alleging illegal and
excessive late fees, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2009,
FOrm 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
filed a class action complaint against Redbox in the Circuit
Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County,
Illinois.

The plaintiff alleges that, among other things, Redbox charges
consumers illegal and excessive late fees in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
other state statutes.

Coinstar, Inc. -- http://www.coinstar.com/-- is a multi-national  
company offering a range of 4th Wall solutions for retailers'
storefronts.  The company's services consist of self-service coin
counting; self-service digital versatile disc (DVD) kiosks where
consumers can rent or purchase movies; entertainment services,
such as skill-crane machines, bulk vending machines and kiddie
rides, money transfer services, and electronic payment (e-
payment) services, such as stored value cards, payroll cards,
prepaid debit cards and prepaid wireless products via point-of-
sale terminals and stored value kiosks.  The company operates in
four segments: Coin and Entertainment services, DVD services,
Money Transfer services and E-payment Services.  On Jan. 1, 2008,
the company completed the acquisition of GroupEx Financial
Corporation, JRJ Express Inc. and Kimeco, LLC (collectively,
GroupEx).  In September 2009, the company announced the sale of
its entertainment services business to National Entertainment
Network, Inc.


DRUG COMPANIES: 9th Cir. Reinstates Calif. Counties' Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated a class action accusing
major drug companies of violating pricing contracts by
overcharging federally funded medical clinics by millions of
dollars a month.

The underlying dispute hinges on a provision of the 1992 Veterans
Health Care Act that caps drug prices for federally funded
hospitals and clinics. The provision requires the Department of
Health and Human Services and drug makers to set a "ceiling
price" for drugs - the maximum price that drug companies can
charge hospitals and clinics covered by the Act.

Santa Clara County and several county-operated clinics filed a
class action over the drug discount program, claiming major drug
companies regularly overcharged them -- to the tune of millions
of dollars a month. According to an inspector general's report,
federally funded clinics overpaid $3.9 million in June 2005
alone.

Drug makers had the case removed to federal court, where they won
their motion to dismiss. The county amended its complaint to
include claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, negligence and unjust enrichment.

The district court again dismissed the class action.

On appeal, the San Francisco-based appellate panel agreed with
the county that federally funded clinics can pursue their
contract claim.

"Although the statute mandating the [pharmaceutical pricing
agreement] does not create a federal private cause of action,"
Judge Raymond Fisher wrote, "allowing Santa Clara's contract
claim to go forward is consistent with Congress' intent in
enacting the legislative scheme."

The court rejected the drug companies' bid to have the contract
claim stayed or dismissed, pending a resolution by the Department
of Health and Human Services.

The contract claim "could plausibly be adjudicated without DHHS'
expertise," Judge Fisher wrote for the three-judge panel.

The panel issued a separate order withdrawing its August 2008
opinion.  

A copy of the slip opinion in County of Santa Clara v. Astra USA,
Inc., et al., No. 06-16471 (9th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/12/09/0616471.pdf


KEYCORP: To Defend Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
KeyCorp intends to defend a consolidated complaint alleging
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
according to the company's Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

On Aug. 11, 2008, a purported class action case was filed against
KeyCorp, its directors and certain employees, captioned Taylor v.
KeyCorp et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio.

On Sept. 16, 2008, a second and related case was filed in the
same district court, captioned Wildes v. KeyCorp et al.

The plaintiffs in these cases seek to represent a class of all
participants in our 401(k) Savings Plan and allege that the
defendants in the lawsuit breached fiduciary duties owed to them
under the ERISA.

On Jan. 7, 2009, the Court consolidated the Taylor and Wildes
lawsuits into a single action.

Plaintiffs have since filed their consolidated complaint, which
continues to name certain employees as defendants but no longer
names any outside directors.

KeyCorp -- https://www.key.com/ -- is a bank holding company and
a financial holding company.  KeyCorp is the parent holding
company for KeyBank National Association, its principal
subsidiary, through which its banking services are provided.  
KeyCorp provides a range of retail and commercial banking,
commercial leasing, investment management, consumer finance and
investment banking products and services to individual, corporate
and institutional clients through two major business groups,
Community Banking and National Banking.


KEYCORP: Austin Capital Faces Suits over "Madoff" Affair
--------------------------------------------------------
KeyCorp's subsidiary, Austin Capital Management, Ltd., continues
to face putative class actions as a result of losses incurred
from the crimes perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff, according to
the company's Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

In December 2008, Austin, an investment subsidiary that
specializes in managing hedge fund investments for its
institutional customer base, determined that its funds had
suffered investment losses of up to approximately $186 million
resulting from the crimes perpetrated by Madoff and entities that
he controls.

The investment losses borne by Austin's clients stem from
investments that Austin made in certain Madoff-advised "hedge"
funds.

Several lawsuits, including putative class actions and direct
actions, and one arbitration proceeding were filed against Austin
seeking to recover losses incurred as a result of Madoff's
crimes.

The lawsuits and arbitration proceeding allege various claims,
including negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, and
violations of federal securities laws and the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

KeyCorp -- https://www.key.com/ -- is a bank holding company and
a financial holding company.  KeyCorp is the parent holding
company for KeyBank National Association, its principal
subsidiary, through which its banking services are provided.  
KeyCorp provides a range of retail and commercial banking,
commercial leasing, investment management, consumer finance and
investment banking products and services to individual, corporate
and institutional clients through two major business groups,
Community Banking and National Banking.


NATROL PRODUCTS: "Carb-Intercept" Ad Claims Challenged in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Natrol Products pushes its
"Carb-Intercept" with the ridiculous claim that it "neutralizes"
digestion of carbohydrates, a class action claims in Los Angeles
Superior Court.


PEROT SYSTEMS: Court Denies Plaintiff's Temp. Injunction Plea
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of the State of Texas, County of Dallas,
denied the application of the plaintiffs in the suit styled The
Booth Family Trust v. Perot Systems Corporation, et al., for a
temporary injunction of Perot Systems Corp.'s merger with Dell
Inc., according to the company's Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2009.

DII-Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation and an indirect,
wholly-owned subsidiary of Dell Inc., a Delaware corporation,
offered to purchase all of the issued and outstanding shares of
the company's Class A Common Stock for $30.00 per share, upon the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Offer to
Purchase dated Oct. 2, 2009.

On Oct. 5, 2009, a lawsuit related to the offer was filed in the
District Court of the State of Texas, County of Dallas, The Booth
Family Trust v. Perot Systems Corporation, et al. (Cause No. 09-
13538).

The action is brought by The Booth Family Trust, which claims to
be a stockholder of the company, on its own behalf and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, and seeks certification as a
class action on behalf of all the company's stockholders, except
the defendants and their affiliates.

The lawsuit names the company, each of the company's directors
and Dell as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by:

     (i) failing to maximize shareholder value;

    (ii) securing benefits for certain officers and directors of
         the company in the Merger at the expense of the
         company's public shareholders;

   (iii) discouraging and/or inhibiting alternative offers to
         purchase control of the corporation or its assets; and

    (iv) failing to provide to the company's shareholders
         material information so that they can make an informed
         decision as to whether to tender their shares.

The lawsuit alleges that, as a result of the foregoing, the Offer
and the Merger are the result of an unfair process resulting in
an unfair price of $30.00 per share.

In addition, the lawsuit alleges that the company and Dell aided
and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Company's directors.

Based on these allegations, the lawsuit seeks, among other
relief, injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from
consummating the Offer and the Merger.

It also purports to seek recovery of the costs of the action,
including reasonable attorney's fees.

On Oct. 29, 2009, an order was entered denying the plaintiff's
application for a temporary injunction.

Founded over twenty years ago by Ross Perot, Dell Perot Systems
Corp. -- http://www.perotsystems.com/-- is a global provider of  
innovative solutions and capabilities to clients worldwide.


PEROT SYSTEMS: Faces "Lawrie" Suit over Planned Sale to Dell
------------------------------------------------------------
Perot Systems Corp. faces a suit filed by Delores Lawrie over its
proposed sale to Dell Inc., according to the company's Nov. 6,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

DII-Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation and an indirect,
wholly-owned subsidiary of Dell Inc., a Delaware corporation,
offered to purchase all of the issued and outstanding shares of
the company's Class A Common Stock for $30.00 per share, upon the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Offer to
Purchase dated Oct. 2, 2009,

On Oct. 7, 2009, a lawsuit related to the Offer and Merger was
filed in Collin County, Texas in the 296th Judicial District
Court, Delores Lawrie v. Peter Altabef, et al. (Cause No. 296-
03947-2009).

The action is brought by Delores Lawrie, who claims to be a
stockholder of the company, on her own behalf and on behalf of
all other similarly situated and seeks certification as a class
action on behalf of all the Company's stockholders, except the
defendants and their affiliates.

The lawsuit names the company, each of the company's directors,
the Purchaser and Dell as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize
shareholder value and by making alleged materially inadequate
disclosures and material disclosure omissions.

In addition, the lawsuit alleges that the company and Dell aided
and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Company's directors.

Based on these allegations, the lawsuit seeks, among other
relief, injunctive relief enjoining the Offer and the Merger.

It also purports to seek recovery of the costs of the action,
including reasonable attorney's fees.

Founded over twenty years ago by Ross Perot, Dell Perot Systems
Corp. -- http://www.perotsystems.com/-- is a global provider of  
innovative solutions and capabilities to clients worldwide.


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Has Yet to be Served Suit Over Corrosion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., has yet to be served in a
putative class action alleging premature corrosion of its strap
tie holdown products installed in buildings, according to the
company's Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

A putative class action was filed against the company in the
Hawaii First Circuit Court styled Kai et al. v. Haseko Homes,
Inc., Haseko Construction, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc.,
Case No. 09-1-1476 RAT.

The suit alleges premature corrosion of the company's strap tie
holdown products installed in buildings in a housing development
known as Ocean Pointe in Honolulu, Hawaii, allegedly causing
property damage.

The case is a putative class action brought by the owners of
allegedly affected Ocean Pointe houses.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and punitive damages.  

The case appears to have been voluntarily dismissed, although the
company has been informed that it will be re-filed.

The case has not been served on the Company.

The company is currently investigating the facts underlying the
claims asserted, including, among other things:

     -- the cause of the alleged corrosion;

     -- the severity of any problems shown to exist;

     -- the buildings affected;

     -- the responsibility of the general contractor, various
        subcontractors and other construction professionals for
        the alleged damages;

     -- the amount, if any, of damages suffered; and

     -- the costs of repair, if needed.

Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. -- http://www.simpsonmfg.com/--  
is primarily a holding company.  Through its subsidiary, Simpson
Strong-Tie Company Inc. (SST), the company designs, engineers and
manufactures wood-to-wood, wood-to-concrete and wood-to-masonry
connectors, SST Quik Drive screw fastening systems and collated
screws, stainless steel fasteners, and pre-fabricated shear
walls.  SST Anchor Systems offers a line of adhesives, mechanical
anchors, carbide drill bits and powder actuated tools for
concrete, masonry and steel.  SST is the company's connector
products segment.  The company's subsidiary, Simpson Dura-Vent
Company, Inc. (SDV), designs, engineers and manufactures venting
systems for gas, wood, oil, pellet and other alternative fuel
burning appliances.  SDV is the Company's venting products
segment.  SST's Anchor Systems product line is included in the
connector product segment.  In January 2009, the company acquired
the business of RO Design Corp, doing business as DeckTools.


SONIC SOLUTIONS: Settlement in "Wilder" Suit Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
gave its final approval to the settlement of the suit styled
Wilder v. Doris, et al., according to Sonic Solutions' Nov. 6,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Between March and June 2007, the company was notified that a
total of five shareholder derivative lawsuits had been filed by
persons identifying themselves as its shareholders and purporting
to act on the company's behalf, naming the company as
a nominal defendant and naming some of its current and former
officers and directors as defendants.

Four of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, and one was filed in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Marin.

In these actions, the plaintiffs assert claims against the
individual defendants for violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act, violations of the California Corporations Code,
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting, abuse of
control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, unjust enrichment,
rescission, constructive fraud, and an accounting
and a constructive trust.

The plaintiffs' claims concern the granting of stock options by
the company and the alleged filing of false and misleading
financial statements.  All of these claims are asserted
derivatively on the company's behalf.

The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, an indeterminate amount
of damages from the individual defendants and a judgment
directing the company to reform its corporate governance.

The federal cases were consolidated on Aug. 2, 2007, into one
action captioned "Wilder v. Doris, et al. (C07-1500)," in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On April 30, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class-
action and shareholder derivative complaint.

Pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, defendants' response to
the complaint was due Feb. 12, 2009.

On Sept. 19, 2007, the court in the state action granted the
company's motion to stay that proceeding in its entirety until
final resolution of the consolidated federal action.

In February 2009, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle these actions.  The company agreed to adopt certain
remedial measures to improve its stock option granting processes,
in addition to the repayment and repricing of
portions of the excess value received from stock options that
certain officers and directors previously agreed to.  As part of
the settlement, the company's Directors and Officers liability
insurer agreed to pay the derivative plaintiffs' counsel
attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $775,000, subject to
court approval.

On May 14, 2009 the Wilder court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement.

On Aug. 6, 2009 the Wilder court granted final approval of the
settlement and the federal and state derivative actions were
dismissed with prejudice.  

Sonic Solutions -- http://www.sonic.com/-- develops and markets  
computer software related to digital media, such as data,
photographs, audio and video in digital formats.  Its product
lines focus on the two optical disc-based digital media formats,
the Compact Audio Disc and the Digital Video Disc, as well as the
High Definition Digital Video Disc and Blu-ray Disc formats.  
Sonic's Professional Products Group offers hardware and software
authoring solutions for creating packaged media releases in DVD-
Video, DVD-read only memory, as well as HD DVD and BD next-
generation, high-definition and high-density disc formats.  The
Roxio Division offers a number of digital media software
application products under the Roxio brand name.  The Advanced
Technology Group develops software and software components that
it supplies to the other two operating units and that it licenses
to personal computer application and consumer electronics
developers.


SONIC SOLUTIONS: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Solutions is awaiting approval of an agreement from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to
settle an amended class action complaint alleging violations U.S.
Securities Exchange Act, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Oct. 4, 2007, a putative shareholder class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
premised on substantially similar factual allegations as in the
suit styled Wilder v. Doris, et al. (C07-1500).

On March 21, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs comprised
of persons that purchased the company's shares between Oct. 23,
2002 and May 17, 2007.

On May 27, 2008, plaintiffs filed a "corrected" consolidated
amended complaint which alleges various violations of the
Exchange Act and the rules thereunder.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on Nov. 25, 2008 and on
April 6, 2009, the judge issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the company's motion to dismiss, with leave to
amend.

On May 8, 2009, plaintiffs filed a first amended class action
complaint, alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), 20(a),
and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act.

In July 2009, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle this action.

On Oct. 15, 2009, the parties executed a stipulation of
settlement providing for the creation of a settlement fund of $5
million to satisfy claims submitted by class members and to pay
any attorneys fees awarded by the Court.

As part of the settlement, the company's Directors and Officers
liability insurers agreed to fund the settlement amount.  

Also on Oct. 15, 2009, class counsel submitted a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement which was set to be heard
on Dec. 3, 2009.

In the event that the court preliminarily approves the
settlement, notice will be provided to all class members and a
date will be set for a final approval hearing.

Sonic Solutions -- http://www.sonic.com/-- develops and markets  
computer software related to digital media, such as data,
photographs, audio and video in digital formats.  Its product
lines focus on the two optical disc-based digital media formats,
the Compact Audio Disc and the Digital Video Disc, as well as the
High Definition Digital Video Disc and Blu-ray Disc formats.  
Sonic's Professional Products Group offers hardware and software
authoring solutions for creating packaged media releases in DVD-
Video, DVD-read only memory, as well as HD DVD and BD next-
generation, high-definition and high-density disc formats.  The
Roxio Division offers a number of digital media software
application products under the Roxio brand name.  The Advanced
Technology Group develops software and software components that
it supplies to the other two operating units and that it licenses
to personal computer application and consumer electronics
developers.


SONIC SOLUTIONS: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of State Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals has issued an opinion affirming the
dismissal of a state putative shareholder class action, according
to the company's Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

On Nov. 16, 2007, a putative shareholder class action was filed
in the Superior Court of California for the County of Marin,
against the company and various of its executive officers and
directors on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs comprised
of persons that purchased the company's shares between July 12,
2001 and May 17, 2007.

This action alleges breach of fiduciary duties, and is based on
substantially similar factual allegations and claims as in the
other lawsuits being faced by the company.

The court in the state putative shareholder class action
sustained the company's demurrers to the complaint with leave to
amend.

On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff in that action filed an amended
complaint, which asserted additional claims under the California
Corporations Code.

The court sustained the company's demurrers to the amended
complaint, with leave to amend in part.

Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint.

Accordingly, on July 30, 2008, the court dismissed the entire
case with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of defendants.

On Sept. 26, 2008, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the
court's order dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice and
entering final judgment.

On Sept. 14, 2009, the Court of Appeal issued an opinion
affirming the dismissal of the state shareholder class action.

Sonic Solutions -- http://www.sonic.com/-- develops and markets  
computer software related to digital media, such as data,
photographs, audio and video in digital formats.  Its product
lines focus on the two optical disc-based digital media formats,
the Compact Audio Disc and the Digital Video Disc, as well as the
High Definition Digital Video Disc and Blu-ray Disc formats.  
Sonic's Professional Products Group offers hardware and software
authoring solutions for creating packaged media releases in DVD-
Video, DVD-read only memory, as well as HD DVD and BD next-
generation, high-definition and high-density disc formats.  The
Roxio Division offers a number of digital media software
application products under the Roxio brand name.  The Advanced
Technology Group develops software and software components that
it supplies to the other two operating units and that it licenses
to personal computer application and consumer electronics
developers.


VERIZON WIRELESS: N.J. Suit Says Backup Assistance Fees Illegal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Verizon Wireless illegally
charges customers for "backup assistance," which is automatic, a
class action claims in Newark Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Heaton v. Cellco Partnership dba
Verizon Wireless, Case No. 09-cv-_____ (D. N.J.) (complaint
docketed as Doc. 7308 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on Dec. 9, 2009),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/10/Verizon.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Pinilis, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          160 Morris Street
          Morristown, NJ 07962
          Telephone: 973-656-0222

               - and -  

          Jason A. Zweig, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 212-687-1980

               - and -  

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-772-4700

               - and -  

          Anthony J. Bolognese, Esq.
          Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Stemerman, Esq.
          BOLOGNESE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          Two Penn Center
          1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 320
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: 215-814-6750

Courthouse News Service also reports that a class action in Los
Angeles Superior accuses Verizon of allowing aggregators to cram
its customers' bills.


WELCH FOODS: Sues Insurers for Class Action Defense Costs
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Welch Foods claims Zurich
American Insurance and National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh must defend it from two lawsuits accusing it of
misrepresenting its White Grape Pomegranate Flavored 3 Juice
Blend; one is a consumer class action and one is from POM
Wonderful.  Welch sued the insurers in Boston Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Welch Foods Inc., v. Zurich American
Insurance Company and National Union Fire Insurance Co. Of
Pittsburgh, Pa., Case No. 09-cv-12087 (D. Mass.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/10/Insure.pdf

Welch Foods is represented by:

          Shaun M. Gehan, Esq.
          Richard D. Milone, Esq.
          S. Mahmood Ahmad, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          3050 K Street, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20007-5108
          Telephone: (202) 342-8400

in this insurance coverage dispute.    

The two underlying lawsuits are:

     -- POM Wonderful LLC v. Welch Foods Inc., Case No.
        09-cv-00567 (C.D. Calif.) (Matz, J.), and

     -- Burcham v. Welch Foods Inc., Case No. 09-cv-05946
        (C.D. Calif.) (Snyder, J.).

In POM Wonderful, the Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Eric Asch, Esq.
          Gary S. Sedlik, Esq.
          Christopher Van Gundy, Esq.
          ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
          Legal Department
          11444 W. Olympic Blvd., 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1557
          Telephone: 310-966-5700

               - and -  

          Mark D. Campbell, Esq.
          Andrew Steven Clare, Esq.
          Walter Allan Edmiston, Esq.
          David Aaron Grossman, Esq.
          LOEB AND LOEB LLP
          10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4120
          Telephone: 310-282-2000

and Welch Foods is represented by:

          Erin L. Burke, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-489-3939

               - and -  

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Ward J. Lott, Esq.
          CALL JENSEN & FERRELL
          610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: 949-717-3000

               - and -  

          August T. Horvath, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE AND WARREN LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178-0002
          Telephone: 212-808-7528

               - and -  

          Sarah Taylor Roller, Esq.
          Lewis M. Rose, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE AND WARREN LLP
          3050 K Street, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: 202-342-8582

               - and -  

          Rick L. Shackelford, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400E
          Santa Monica, CA 90404
          Telephone: 310-586-7700

In Burcham, the Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.       
          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Zev B. Zysman, Esq.
          WEISS AND LURIE
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: 310-208-2800

and Welch Foods is represented by Mr. Shackelford at Greenberg
Traurig LLP.


WIDEOPEN WEST: Broadband Provider Accused of Spyware Misdeeds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that Internet
service provider WideOpen West installed spyware on its broadband
networks that "funneled all users' Internet communications --
inbound and outbound, in their entirety -- to a third-party
Internet advertisement-serving company, NebuAd," a class action
claims in Chicago Federal Court.  "NebuAd and WOW used the
intercepted communications to monitor and profile individual
users, inject advertisements into the Web pages users visited,
transmit code that caused undeletable tracking cookies to be
installed on users' computers, and forge the 'return addresses'
of user communications so their tampering would escape the
detection of users' privacy and security controls," the class
claims.
The only named defendant is WideOpen West Finance LLC (WOW). The
class claims WOW gave NebuAd virtually unlimited access to the
personal information of at least 330,000 people.

The information included credit reports, political affiliations,
job searches and even movie rental choices. NebuAd paid WOW for
each person they spied on, and used the information to deliver
customized ads based on people's Internet search preferences, the
class claims.

The class adds that WOW lied to Congress in August 2008 when it
said that it had made an agreement with NebuAd, but that NebuAd
had not use the information to get access to and use people's
phone numbers and addresses.

WideOpen also lied to its customers by telling them that their
personal information was safe, thank to a bogus "opt-out" policy,
the class claims.

It claims WOW misinformed its customers: "please rest assured
that WOW does not and will not share personally identifiable
information with any advertiser," and told them that they would
receive ads that would be less relevant to them if they opted
out.

The class demands that WideOpen hand over all the money it
received from NebuAd, for distribution to the class. It wants
WideOpen ordered to delete all of their stored personal
information, plus restitution and damages for invasion of
privacy, unjust enrichment, eavesdropping and violation of the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Valentine v. WideOpen West, Finance,
LLC, Case No. 09-cv-07653 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/11/NebuAd.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Aschenbrener, Esq.
          KAMBEREDELSON, LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370

               - and -  

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          David A. Stampley, Esq.
          KAMBEREDELSON, LLC
          11 Broadway, Suite 2200
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 920-3071

               - and -  

          Joseph H. Malley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY, P.C.
          1045 North Zang Boulevard
          Dallas, TX 75208
          Telephone: (214) 943-6100

               - and -  

          Brian J. Panish, Esq.
          Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
          PANISH, SHEA & BOYLE, LLP
          11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 477-1700


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES: Investors File Fraud Suit in M.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Development Resources Group
and its directors defrauded investors by making outlandish claims
of profits available from buying rental condos in Legacy Dunes
Condominium, a class action claims in Orlando Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Adrianne Roggenbuck Trust, et al. v.
Development Resources Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 09-cv-02056
(M.D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/10/SecureDunes.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory A. Adamski, Esq.
          ADAMSKI & CONTI, LLC
          100 N. LaSalle St.
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-332-7800

               - and -  

          Ariel Weissberg, Esq.
          WEISSBERG AND ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          401 S. LaSalle St.
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: 312-663-0004

               - and -  

          Blair T. Jackson, Esq.
          BLAIR T. JACKSON, P.A.
          840 Highland Ave.
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: 407-228-4023

                            *********

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  * * *