CAR_Public/091215.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, December 15, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 247

                            Headlines

AES CORP: Continues to Defend Suit over Greenhouse Gas Emissions
AES CORP: AES Sul Facing Suit over Passing Taxes to Consumers
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: More Claims to be Dismissed Owe to Settlement
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Defending Suits over Guidant's Defibrillators
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: No Trial Yet in Consolidated Amended Suit

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Enters MOU to Settle Two ERISA Suits in Mass.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Enters Agreement to Settle Suit v. Guidant
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Dismissal of Securities Suit v. Unit Affirmed
BP AMERICA: Notice of Indirect Propane Purchaser Settlement
DIRECTV GROUP: Still Awaits Final Approval of Settlement Pact

EDISON MISSION: Appellate Court Reinstates Suit v. Edison Int'l
GASOLINE RETAILERS: More Than 1,500 Canadian Claimants Surface
GULFPORT ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
J.C. PENNEY: Recalls 5,600 Cooks Outdoor(r) BBQ Grills
LITTLE MISS MATCHED: Recalls 7,288 Girls Pajama Sets

MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Court Has Yet to Approve Settlement Pact
MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Illinois Court Okays Settlement Agreement
MTD PRODUCTS: Recalls 28,100 Log Splitters
OCCAM NETWORKS: Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Feb. 22, 2010
OSRAM SYLVANIA: Recalls 26,000 Portable Nightlights

PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Second Amended Complaint
PARMALAT FINANZIARIA: Deloitte & Grant Thornton Settlement Notice
SEALED AIR: N.J. Court Approves $20 Shareholder Settlement Pact
VALASSIS COMMUNICATIONS: To Settle Suit v. ADVO for $12.5 Mil.
VARIETY WHOLESALERS: Recalls 700 Lead-Containing Toy Truck

                            *********

AES CORP: Continues to Defend Suit over Greenhouse Gas Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
AES Corp. continues to defend a putative class action complaint
over alleged greenhouse gas emissions, 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 April 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on
behalf of certain individual plaintiffs and all residents and/or
property owners in the State of Mississippi who allegedly
suffered harm as a result of Hurricane Katrina, and against the
company and numerous unrelated companies, whose alleged
greenhouse gas emissions allegedly increased the destructive
capacity of Hurricane Katrina.

The plaintiffs assert unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy/aiding
and abetting, public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence,
and fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment claims against
the defendants.

The plaintiffs seek damages relating to loss of property, loss of
business, clean-up costs, personal injuries and death, but do not
quantify their alleged damages.

In August 2007, the District Court dismissed the case.

The plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, which heard oral arguments in November
2008.

In October 2009, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's
dismissal of the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment, fraudulent
misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy claims.

However, the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court's
dismissal of the plaintiffs' public and private nuisance,
trespass, and negligence claims, and remanded those claims to the
District Court for further proceedings.

The company intends to seek en banc review by the Fifth Circuit.

The AES Corp. -- http://www.aes.com/-- is a global power  
company.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the company owned
a portfolio of electricity generation and distribution businesses
on five continents in 29 countries, with generation capacity
totaling approximately 43,000 megawatts and distribution networks
serving over 11 million people. In addition, AES have more than
3,000 MW under construction in 10 countries. The Company operates
in two lines of business: generation and utilities. In the
generation business, the Company owns and/or operates power
plants to generate and sell power to wholesale customers such as
utilities and other intermediaries. In the utilities business,
the Company owns and/or operates utilities to distribute,
transmit and sell electricity to the customers in the
residential, commercial, industrial and governmental sectors in a
defined service area.


AES CORP: AES Sul Facing Suit over Passing Taxes to Consumers
-------------------------------------------------------------
AES Sul is facing a class action over allegations that it
illegally passed taxes to consumers, according to AES Corp.'s
Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

AES Sul is owned and operated by AES and distributes electricity
to more than one million customers in the southern state of Rio
Grande do Sul.

In September 2009, the Public Defender's Office of the State of
Rio Grande do Sul filed a class action against AES Sul in
Brazilian state court claiming that AES Sul has been illegally
passing PIS and COFINS taxes (taxes based on AES Sul's income) to
consumers.

AES Sul has not been officially served with the action.

According to ANEEL's Order No. 93/05, the federal laws of Brazil,
and the Brazilian Constitution, energy companies such as AES Sul
are entitled to highlight PIS and COFINS taxes in power bills to
final consumers, as the cost of those taxes is included in the
energy tariffs that are applicable to final consumers.

Nevertheless, if AES Sul does not prevail in the litigation and
is ordered to cease recovering PIS and COFINS taxes pursuant to
its energy tariff, its potential prospective losses could be
approximately R$9.6 million ($5.4 million) per month, as
estimated by AES Sul.

In addition, if AES Sul is ordered to reimburse consumers, its
potential retrospective liability could be approximately R$1.2
billion ($672 million), as estimated by AES Sul.

The AES Corp. -- http://www.aes.com/-- is a global power  
company.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the company owned
a portfolio of electricity generation and distribution businesses
on five continents in 29 countries, with generation capacity
totaling approximately 43,000 megawatts and distribution networks
serving over 11 million people. In addition, AES have more than
3,000 MW under construction in 10 countries. The Company operates
in two lines of business: generation and utilities. In the
generation business, the Company owns and/or operates power
plants to generate and sell power to wholesale customers such as
utilities and other intermediaries. In the utilities business,
the Company owns and/or operates utilities to distribute,
transmit and sell electricity to the customers in the
residential, commercial, industrial and governmental sectors in a
defined service area.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: More Claims to be Dismissed Owe to Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corp. expects further dismissal orders as
additional claimants are approved for participation in the
settlement of a multi-district litigation over its defibrillators
or pacemakers, 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.

Approximately 15 product liability class action lawsuits and more
than 234 individual lawsuits involving approximately 328
individual plaintiffs remain pending in various state and federal
jurisdictions against Guidant alleging personal injuries
associated with defibrillators or pacemakers involved in certain
2005 and 2006 product communications.

The majority of the cases in the United States are pending in
federal court but approximately 32 cases are currently pending in
state courts.

On Nov. 7, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
established MDL-1708 in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota and appointed a single judge to preside
over all the cases in the MDL.

In April 2006, the personal injury plaintiffs and certain third-
party payors served a Master Complaint in the MDL asserting
claims for class action certification, alleging claims of strict
liability, negligence, fraud, breach of warranty and other common
law and/or statutory claims and seeking punitive damages.

The majority of claimants allege no physical injury, but sue for
medical monitoring and anxiety.

On July 12, 2007, the company reached an agreement to settle
certain claims, including those associated with the 2005 and 2006
product communications, which was amended on Nov. 19, 2007

Under the terms of the amended agreement, subject to certain
conditions, the company will pay a total of up to $240 million
covering up to 8,550 patient claims, including almost all of the
claims that have been consolidated in the MDL as well as other
filed and unfiled claims throughout the United States.

On June 13, 2006, the Minnesota Supreme Court appointed a single
judge to preside over all Minnesota state court lawsuits
involving cases arising from the product communications.

The plaintiffs in those cases are eligible to participate in the
settlement, and activities in all Minnesota State court cases are
currently stayed pending individual plaintiff's decisions whether
to participate in the settlement.

Through the end of the third quarter, more than 8,160 claims have
been approved for participation in the MDL settlement.

As a result, through the end of the third quarter, the company
has made payments of approximately $232 million related to the
MDL settlement and, if certain agreed-upon requirements are met,
may make substantially all of the remaining $8 million payment
during the fourth quarter of 2009.

On April 6, 2009 and on Sept. 24, 2009, the judge in the MDL
issued orders dismissing with prejudice most of the plaintiffs'
claims which have been resolved through the settlement agreement.  
Further dismissal orders are expected as additional claimants are
approved for participation in the settlement.

Boston Scientific Corp. -- http://www.bostonscientific.com/--  
develops, manufactures, and markets medical devices that are used
in a broad range of interventional medical specialties, including
cardiology, cardiac rhythm management, peripheral interventions,
electrophysiology, neurovascular intervention, endoscopy,
urology, gynecology and neuromodulation.  The company's products
are offered for sale principally by three dedicated business
groups: Cardiac Rhythm Management (CRM); Cardiovascular,
including the Cardiovascular, and Neurovascular businesses;
Endosurgery, including the Endoscopy and Urology/Gynecology
businesses, and Neuromodulation.  In December 2008, the Company
completed the acquisition of Labcoat, Ltd.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Defending Suits over Guidant's Defibrillators
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corp. continues to defend putative class
actions in Canada over Guidant Corp.'s defibrillators or
pacemakers, 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.

Guidant is a part of Boston Scientific and designs and
manufactures artificial pacemakers, implantable defibrillators,
stents, and other cardiovascular medical products.

The company is aware of more than 18 Guidant product liability
lawsuits pending internationally associated with defibrillators
or pacemakers, including devices involved in the 2005 and 2006
product communications.  Six of those suits pending in Canada are
putative class actions, four of which are stayed pending the
outcome of two lead class actions.

On April 10, 2008, the Court certified a class of persons in whom
defibrillators were implanted in Canada and a class of family
members with derivative claims.

On May 8, 2009, the Court certified a class of persons in whom
pacemakers were implanted in Canada.

Boston Scientific Corp. -- http://www.bostonscientific.com/--  
develops, manufactures, and markets medical devices that are used
in a broad range of interventional medical specialties, including
cardiology, cardiac rhythm management, peripheral interventions,
electrophysiology, neurovascular intervention, endoscopy,
urology, gynecology and neuromodulation.  The company's products
are offered for sale principally by three dedicated business
groups: Cardiac Rhythm Management (CRM); Cardiovascular,
including the Cardiovascular, and Neurovascular businesses;
Endosurgery, including the Endoscopy and Urology/Gynecology
businesses, and Neuromodulation.  In December 2008, the Company
completed the acquisition of Labcoat, Ltd.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: No Trial Yet in Consolidated Amended Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A trial has yet to be scheduled in a consolidated amended
complaint against Boston Scientific Corp. alleging material
misstatements, 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 Sept. 23, 2005, Srinivasan Shankar, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, filed a purported securities class
action suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired the company's securities during the period March 31,
2003 through Aug. 23, 2005, alleging that the company and certain
of its officers violated certain sections of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Four other plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, each filed additional purported securities
class action suits in the same Court on behalf of the same
purported class.

On Feb. 15, 2006, the Court ordered that the five class actions
be consolidated and appointed the Mississippi Public Employee
Retirement System Group as lead plaintiff.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2006.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the company made
material misstatements and omissions by failing to disclose the
supposed merit of the Medinol litigation and DOJ investigation
relating to the 1998 NIR ON(R) Ranger with Sox stent recall,
problems with the TAXUS(R) drug-eluting coronary stent systems
that led to product recalls, and our ability to satisfy FDA
regulations concerning medical device quality.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on June 8, 2006, which was granted by the Court on
March 30, 2007.

On April 16, 2008, the First Circuit reversed the dismissal of
only plaintiff's TAXUS(R) stent recall related claims and
remanded the matter for further proceedings.

On Feb. 25, 2009, the Court certified a class of investors who
acquired the company's securities during the period Nov. 30, 2003
through July 15, 2004.

Boston Scientific Corp. -- http://www.bostonscientific.com/--  
develops, manufactures, and markets medical devices that are used
in a broad range of interventional medical specialties, including
cardiology, cardiac rhythm management, peripheral interventions,
electrophysiology, neurovascular intervention, endoscopy,
urology, gynecology and neuromodulation.  The company's products
are offered for sale principally by three dedicated business
groups: Cardiac Rhythm Management (CRM); Cardiovascular,
including the Cardiovascular, and Neurovascular businesses;
Endosurgery, including the Endoscopy and Urology/Gynecology
businesses, and Neuromodulation.  In December 2008, the Company
completed the acquisition of Labcoat, Ltd.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Enters MOU to Settle Two ERISA Suits in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corp. and plaintiffs in two consolidated ERISA
actions entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the
two suits, 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 Jan. 19, 2006, George Larson filed a purported class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of our
401(k) Retirement Savings Plan and GESOP alleging that the
company and certain of its officers and employees violated
certain provisions under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, as amended, and Department of Labor Regulations.

Other similar actions were filed in early 2006.

On April 3, 2006, the Court issued an order consolidating the
actions.

On Aug. 23, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated purported class
action complaint on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries
of our 401(k) Plan during the period May 7, 2004 through Jan. 26,
2006 alleging that the company, its 401(k) Administrative and
Investment Committee, members of the Committee, and certain
directors violated certain provisions of ERISA.

The Consolidated ERISA Complaint alleges, among other things,
that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the 401(k)
Plan's participants because they knew or should have known that
the value of the company's stock was artificially inflated and
was not a prudent investment for the 401(k) Plan (First ERISA
Action).

The Consolidated ERISA Complaint seeks equitable and monetary
relief.

On June 30, 2008, Robert Hochstadt (who previously had withdrawn
as an interim lead plaintiff) filed a motion to intervene to
serve as a proposed class representative.

On Nov. 3, 2008, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify a
class, denied Hochstadt's motion to intervene, and dismissed the
action.

On Dec. 2, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

On Dec. 24, 2008, Robert Hochstadt and Edward Hazelrig, Jr. filed
a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all participants and
beneficiaries of our 401(k) Plan during the period May 7, 2004
through Jan. 26, 2006 (the Second ERISA Action).

The complaint repeats the allegations of the August 23, 2006,
Consolidated ERISA Complaint.

On Sept. 30, 2009, the company and certain of the proposed class
representatives in the First and Second ERISA Actions entered
into a memorandum of understanding reflecting an agreement-in-
principle to settle the First and Second ERISA Actions in their
entirety.

The proposed settlement has not yet been finalized or submitted
to the District Court for approval.

Boston Scientific Corp. -- http://www.bostonscientific.com/--  
develops, manufactures, and markets medical devices that are used
in a broad range of interventional medical specialties, including
cardiology, cardiac rhythm management, peripheral interventions,
electrophysiology, neurovascular intervention, endoscopy,
urology, gynecology and neuromodulation.  The company's products
are offered for sale principally by three dedicated business
groups: Cardiac Rhythm Management (CRM); Cardiovascular,
including the Cardiovascular, and Neurovascular businesses;
Endosurgery, including the Endoscopy and Urology/Gynecology
businesses, and Neuromodulation.  In December 2008, the Company
completed the acquisition of Labcoat, Ltd.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Enters Agreement to Settle Suit v. Guidant
-------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corp. entered into an agreement to settle a
purported class action complaint against Guidant Corp., 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.

Guidant is a part of Boston Scientific and designs and
manufactures artificial pacemakers, implantable defibrillators,
stents, and other cardiovascular medical products.

In July 2005, a purported class action complaint was filed on
behalf of participants in Guidant's employee pension benefit
plans.

This action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana against Guidant and its directors.

The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty under Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Guidant fiduciaries
concealed adverse information about Guidant's defibrillators and
imprudently made contributions to Guidant's 401(k) plan and
employee stock ownership plan in the form of Guidant stock.
The complaint seeks class certification, declaratory and
injunctive relief, monetary damages, the imposition of a
constructive trust, and costs and attorneys' fees.

In September 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim.

In June 2008, the District Court dismissed the complaint in part,
but ruled that certain of the plaintiffs' claims may go forward
to discovery.

On Oct. 29, 2008, the Magistrate Judge ruled that discovery
should be limited, in the first instance, to alleged damages-
related issues.

On Oct. 8, 2009, the company reached a resolution with the
plaintiffs in this matter.

The proposed settlement has not yet been finalized or submitted
to the District Court for approval.

Boston Scientific Corp. -- http://www.bostonscientific.com/--  
develops, manufactures, and markets medical devices that are used
in a broad range of interventional medical specialties, including
cardiology, cardiac rhythm management, peripheral interventions,
electrophysiology, neurovascular intervention, endoscopy,
urology, gynecology and neuromodulation.  The company's products
are offered for sale principally by three dedicated business
groups: Cardiac Rhythm Management (CRM); Cardiovascular,
including the Cardiovascular, and Neurovascular businesses;
Endosurgery, including the Endoscopy and Urology/Gynecology
businesses, and Neuromodulation.  In December 2008, the Company
completed the acquisition of Labcoat, Ltd.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Dismissal of Securities Suit v. Unit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals has affirmed the decision of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana dismissing a
securities class action complaint against Guidant Corp.,
according to Boston Scientific Corp.'s Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Guidant is a part of Boston Scientific and designs and
manufactures artificial pacemakers, implantable defibrillators,
stents, and other cardiovascular medical products.

On Nov. 3, 2005, a securities class action complaint was filed on
behalf of purchasers of Guidant stock between Dec. 1, 2004 and
Oct. 18, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, against Guidant and several of its officers
and directors.

The complaint alleges that the defendants concealed adverse
information about Guidant's defibrillators and pacemakers and
sold stock in violation of federal securities laws.

The complaint seeks a declaration that the lawsuit can be
maintained as a class action, monetary damages, and injunctive
relief.

Several additional, related securities class actions were filed
in November 2005 and January 2006.

The Court issued an order consolidating the complaints and
appointed the Iron Workers of Western Pennsylvania Pension Plan
and David Fannon as lead plaintiffs.

In August 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

On Feb. 27, 2008, the District Court granted the motion to
dismiss and entered final judgment in favor of all defendants.

On March 13, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to amend
the final judgment to permit the filing of a further amended
complaint.

On May 21, 2008, the District Court denied plaintiffs motion to
amend the judgment.

On June 6, 2008, plaintiffs appealed the judgment to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

On Jan. 16, 2009, the appeal was argued before a panel of the
Court.

On Oct. 21, 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of
the District Court granting the company's motion to dismiss the
case with prejudice.

Boston Scientific Corp. -- http://www.bostonscientific.com/--  
develops, manufactures, and markets medical devices that are used
in a broad range of interventional medical specialties, including
cardiology, cardiac rhythm management, peripheral interventions,
electrophysiology, neurovascular intervention, endoscopy,
urology, gynecology and neuromodulation.  The company's products
are offered for sale principally by three dedicated business
groups: Cardiac Rhythm Management (CRM); Cardiovascular,
including the Cardiovascular, and Neurovascular businesses;
Endosurgery, including the Endoscopy and Urology/Gynecology
businesses, and Neuromodulation.  In December 2008, the Company
completed the acquisition of Labcoat, Ltd.


BP AMERICA: Notice of Indirect Propane Purchaser Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
A $15.25 million settlement has been reached, subject
to final court approval, in class actions captioned In re BP
Propane Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, Civil No.
06-CV-03541 (N.D. Ill.).  You are a member of the Settlement
Class if you purchased propane from a person other
than the BP Releasees or Producers (as defined in the
Settlement Agreement) in April 2003 or during the period
February 1, 2004, through March 31, 2004.

A complete description of the settlement and your rights
is contained in a written Notice of Pendency of Class Action,
Proposed Class Settlement and Hearing.  To obtain a copy of
this notice, please call toll-free: 877-872-3816 or visit

     http://www.BPIndirectPropaneSettlement.com/

which is maintained by Rust Consulting, Inc., in its role as the
Claims Administrator.  

Please do not delay.  The deadline for certain matters is
January 11, 2010.  Proofs of Claim must be received by the
Administrator no later than April 15, 2010.

Your rights in this class-action settlement are in addition to
any rights you may have in a separate restitution fund
administered by the U.S. Department of Justice.  You should
pursue whatever rights you may have in both of these funds.

Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class are:

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          Gary S. Jacobson, Esq.  
          Ian T. Stoll, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP
          61 Broadway, Suite 501
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900

               - and -  

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400

               - and -  

          Ronald Futterman, Esq.
          John R. Wylie, Esq.
          FUTTERMAN HOWARD WATKINS WYLIE & ASHLEY, CHTD.
          122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 426-3600

               - and -  

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          One North LaSalle Street, Suite 2000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222

               - and -  

          Daniel Hume, Esq.
          David Kovel, Esq.
          KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
          825 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 371-6600

Attorneys for Additional Plaintiffs are:

          Larry D. Drury, Esq.
          LARRY D. DRURY, LTD
          205 West Randolph, Suite 1430
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 346-7950

               - and -  

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Jennifer F. Sherrill, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560

               - and -  

          Paul M. Weiss, Esq.
          FREED & WEISS LLC
          111 West Washington St., Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 220-0000

               - and -  

          Mark Gardy, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          440 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 110
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          
               - and -  

          Daniel Gustafson, Esq.
          Jason Kilene, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON & GLUEK PLLC
          725 Northstar East
          608 Second Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844

               - and -  

          Lance A. Harke, Esq.
          HARKE & CLASBY LLP
          155 South Miami Avenue, Suite 600
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 536-8222

               - and -  

          William J. Harte, Esq.
          WILLIAM J. HARTE, LTD
          111 W. Washington St., Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 726-5015

               - and -  

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P,.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570

               - and -  

          Robert M. Klein, Esq.
          239 S. Fifth Street, 17th Floor
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 581-1600

               - and -  

          Richard A. Lockridge, Esq.
          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          LODKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 224-3833

               - and -  

          Jayne Goldstein, Esq.
          MAGER & GOLDSTEIN LLP
          2825 University Drive, Suite 350
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Telephone: (954) 340-0844

               - and -  

          Greg McEwen, Esq.
          McEWEN LAW FIRM P.L.L.C.
          5850 Blackshire Path
          Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076
          Telephone: (651) 224-3883

          Dennis Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON & PERKINSON
          1690 Williston Road
          P.O. Box 2305
          South Burlington, VT 05403
          Telephone: (802) 862-0030

BP America, Inc., is represented by:

          Richard C. Godfrey, Esq.      
          David J. Zott, Esq.
          Andrew A. Kasoff, Esq.
          Kathryn F. Taylor, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312-862-2000


DIRECTV GROUP: Still Awaits Final Approval of Settlement Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------
The DirecTV Group Inc. is still awaiting final approval from the
Delaware Chancery Court of the Stipulation and Agreement of
Compromise, Settlement and Release, entered into with the
plaintiffs, 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.

There are multiple purported class action complaints pending
against DIRECTV, Liberty and the DIRECTV board of directors in
the Delaware Court of Chancery and California State Court.

Four stockholder class action complaints were brought in Delaware
Chancery Court from May 12, 2009 to May 19, 2009, all of which
were subsequently consolidated on May 22, 2009.

One stockholder class action complaint was brought in California
State Court on May 29, 2009.

The Delaware and California Actions are purported class actions
on behalf of the public stockholders of DIRECTV.

The consolidated Delaware complaint and the California complaint
allege, among other things, that the members of the DIRECTV board
of directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving the
merger agreement.

In September 2009, the California Action was stayed pending
conclusion of the consolidated Delaware Action.

On Oct. 16, 2009, all of the parties to the Delaware action
entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise,
Settlement and Release.

On Oct. 19, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement of the Delaware Action.

The Delaware Chancery Court scheduled a hearing on Nov. 25, 2009
for final approval of the settlement, at which time the Delaware
Chancery Court will hear any objections to the settlement.

The DirecTV Group Inc. -- http://www.DirecTV.com/-- provides  
digital television entertainment in the United States and Latin
America.  The company's two business segments, DirecTV U.S. and
DirecTV Latin America, are engaged in acquiring, promoting,
selling and/or distributing digital entertainment programming via
satellite to residential and commercial subscribers.


EDISON MISSION: Appellate Court Reinstates Suit v. Edison Int'l
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reinstated a
class action lawsuit against Edison International, of which
Edison Mission Energy is a subsidiary, alleging the greenhouse
gas emissions from its business activities contributed to global
warming impacts, according to EME'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. 15, 2009, a California federal district court dismissed
the complaint that had been filed by the native Alaskan village
of Kivalina and the Kivalina tribe in February 2008 against
numerous defendants, including Edison International, principally
in the oil and energy industries.

Plaintiffs had alleged GHG emissions from the defendants'
business activities contributed to global warming impacts that
are melting the Arctic sea ice that protects the village from
winter storms.

Although EME was not named as a defendant, the complaint
identified EME as a direct or indirect operating subsidiary of
Edison International through which Edison International engages
in electric power generation.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' federal nuisance claims
stating that they were inappropriate for judicial resolution
because they required policy choices that were reserved to the
legislative or executive branches of the government (the
"political question doctrine").  The court also held that the
plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case, in part
because of the lack of connection between the defendants' conduct
and the harm that plaintiffs alleged was occurring. The court
also dismissed plaintiffs' state law nuisance claims, but without
prejudice to those claims being re-filed in state court.

However, the federal Second Circuit and Fifth Circuit Courts of
Appeals both issued decisions in cases against GHG emitters,
which concluded that plaintiffs in those cases did have standing
to bring nuisance claims and that those claims were not precluded
by the political question doctrine.

In 2004, several states and environmental organizations filed a
complaint in a federal district court in New York, alleging that
several electric utilities were liable under a theory of public
nuisance for damages caused by the alleged contribution to global
warming resulting from carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired
power plants owned and operated by these companies or their
subsidiaries.  Neither EME nor its subsidiaries were named as
defendants in the complaint.  The power plants that were the
subject of the complaint were not located in physical proximity
to the plaintiffs.  On Sept. 21, 2009, the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals reinstated the lawsuit, holding that the plaintiffs
had standing and that their claims did not violate the political
question doctrine.

On Oct. 16, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
reinstated a class action lawsuit that had been dismissed by a
federal district court in Mississippi.

The plaintiffs claimed that emissions of GHGs from fossil fuel-
fired electric generation and other operations allegedly
contributed to the destructive force of Hurricane Katrina.

The Fifth Circuit decision would allow the plaintiffs to continue
to pursue their state law claims of public and private nuisance,
trespass and negligence.  At the time the action was dismissed by
the court in Mississippi, the plaintiffs were seeking to amend
their complaint to include Edison International and several
affiliates of Edison International, including EME, as defendants.

Edison Mission Energy -- http://www.edison.com/--  is engaged in  
the business of developing, acquiring, owning or leasing,
operating and selling energy and capacity from independent power
production facilities. EME also conducts hedging and energy
trading activities in power markets open to competition. EME is
an indirect subsidiary of Edison International. Edison
International also owns Southern California Edison Company (SCE),
an electric utility in the United States. As of December 31,
2008, EME's subsidiaries and affiliates owned or leased interests
in 37 operating projects with an aggregate net physical capacity
of 11,019 megawatts (MW) of which EME's capacity pro rata share
was 9,849 MW. EME's operating projects primarily consist of coal-
fired generating facilities, natural gas-fired facilities and
wind farms. At December 31, 2008, three wind projects totaling
223 MW of generating capacity were under construction.


GASOLINE RETAILERS: More Than 1,500 Canadian Claimants Surface
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marianne White at the National Post reports that more than 1,500
Quebec drivers have joined a class-action lawsuit over alleged
price-fixing in the retail gas markets in the province since the
initiative received the green light a little more than a week
ago.

"We are overwhelmed by the response," said George Iny, president
of the Automobile Protection Association (APA), one of the
plaintiffs.  The APA joined the lawsuit earlier this year, as
reported in Class Action Reporter on April 8, 2009.  

Ms. White relates that a Quebec Superior Court judge authorized
on Nov. 30 the class action against an alleged gas cartel formed
of 12 oil companies and 19 individuals.

The targeted companies include: Ultramar, Esso, Imperial, Shell,
Couche-Tard, Provigo, Irving, Olco and La Coop Federee, which
operates Sonic stations.

Justice Dominique Belanger excluded three individuals and three
companies from the lawsuit due to a lack of evidence. The
plaintiffs are seeking $7.5 million in damages -- $1,500 for each
motorist and $250,000 for the APA to be spent on protecting
drivers' rights.

The class action was filed a day after a Competition Bureau of
Canada investigation revealed in June 2008 that gas-station
owners in four Quebec cities called one another to set the pump
price. Thirteen Quebecers and 11 companies were charged with gas-
price fixing in Victoriaville, Thetford Mines, Magog and
Sherbrooke.  Coverage about the filing of the lawsuit appeared in
the Class Action Reporter on June 18, 2008.  

Ms. White explains that the class action is broader because it
targets most of the retailers involved in the alleged scheme and
more individuals based on the wiretap evidence gathered by the
Competition Bureau.

Judge Belanger ruled in her decision all people or companies with
50 or fewer employees who have bought gas between Jan. 1, 2002
and June 30, 2006 in either one of the four markets are eligible
for the class action.


GULFPORT ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gulfport Energy Corp.'s motion to dismiss a second amended
complaint over the pricing of its 2004 rights offering remains
pending, 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 July 27, 2007, Robotti & Company, LLC filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware.

The original complaint alleged a breach of fiduciary duty by the
company and its then present directors in connection with the
pricing of its 2004 rights offering.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Jan. 15, 2008, and the
company filed a motion to dismiss in early February 2008 and
filed the brief in support of such motion on April 29, 2008.

The court held a hearing on Oct. 3, 2008, ultimately deciding to
allow the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint.

Plaintiff filed its second amended complaint Dec. 22, 2008, which
sets forth class action and derivative claim allegations that the
company's then present directors breached their fiduciary duty in
connection with the pricing of the 2004 rights offering.

The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on Jan. 19, 2009 and
their brief in support of such motion on Feb. 20, 2009.

Briefing by the parties concluded April 6, 2009, oral arguments
on the motion were heard by the court on April 22, 2009 and the
court's ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss is pending.

Gulfport Energy Corp. -- http://www.gulfportenergy.com/-- is an  
independent oil and natural gas exploration and production
company with its principal producing properties located along the
Louisiana Gulf Coast in the West Cote Blanche Bay (WCBB),
Hackberry fields, and in West Texas in the Permian Basin.  The
company holds a significant acreage position in the Alberta oil
sands in Canada, through its interest in Grizzly Oil Sands ULC,
and in the Bakken Shale, and has interests in entities that
operate in Southeast Asia, including the Phu Horm gas field in
Thailand.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, Gulfport had 25.5 million barrels
of oil equivalent.  The company's wholly owned subsidiary,
Grizzly has approximately 511,000 acres under lease during 2008.  
Grizzly drilled an aggregate of 117 core holes, tested five
separate lease blocks using up to four different rigs, and
undertook a seismic program.


J.C. PENNEY: Recalls 5,600 Cooks Outdoor(r) BBQ Grills
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
JCPenney Purchasing Corp., of Plano, Texas, announced a voluntary
recall of about 5,600 Cooks Outdoor(r) BBQ Grills.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The drip pan on the grill does not allow for adequate drainage,
posing fire and burn hazards to consumers.

The firm has received 11 reports of fires resulting from
inadequate drainage.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Cooks(r) brand outdoor BBQ grills. The grill
has a digital thermometer on the hood, stainless steel top and a
global LP regulator.  Lot number 780-2176 is printed on the
underside of the grill's stand.  Pictures of the recalled product
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10064.html

The recalled appliances were manufactured in China and sold at
JCPenney stores nationwide and on-line at http://www.jcp.com/
from February 2009 through September 2009 for between $190 and
$600.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled grills.  To
ensure the grills are not useable, consumers should remove the
gas regulator and hose assembly.  All consumers (whether they
purchased the item online or at a JCPenney retail stores) should
return the regulator and hose to the Catalog/Customer Service
Desk at any JCPenney store for a full refund.  Consumers should
contact JCPenney for instructions on how to disconnect the gas
regulator and hose.  For additional information, contact JCPenney
toll-free at (888) 333-6063 anytime of visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.jcp.com/


LITTLE MISS MATCHED: Recalls 7,288 Girls Pajama Sets
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Little Miss Matched Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a
voluntary recall of about 7,000 Little Miss Matched Girls Pajama
Sets in the United States and about 288 in Canada.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The sleepwear fails to meet the federal children's sleepwear
flammability standard posing a risk of burn injury to children.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.  

This recall involves long sleeve toddler and girls pajama sets.
The sets were sold in sizes XXS (2t-3t), XS (3t-4t), S (5-6), M
(7-8) and L (10-12), and in three varieties:

     Black - Multicolored stripes/polka dots
     White - Multicolored stripes/polka dots
     Pink - Blue stripes and oversized polka dots

Pictures of the recalled pajama sets are available at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10063.html

The garments were manufactured in Honduras and sold at various
retailers nationwide from March 2008 through July 2009 for
between $30 (U.S.) and in Canada from March 2008 through November
2009 for about $30 (CAN).

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled pajamas and
contact the firm to receive a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Little Miss Matched toll-free at
(877) 649-4386 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.littlemissmatched.com/


MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Court Has Yet to Approve Settlement Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts has yet to
approve the settlement agreement in a class action complaint
against Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc., alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards 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 Oct. 4, 2009.

In May 2005, a former employee of the Boston, Massachusetts
Morton's steakhouse filed a nationwide class action complaint in
federal court in the U.S. District Court, District of
Massachusetts, alleging that the sharing of tips with other
restaurant employees violates the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The company moved to dismiss the complaint and compel
arbitration.

While the motion was pending, the plaintiff filed a nationwide
collective action demand for arbitration with the American
Arbitration Association.

The demand for arbitration alleged the same facts as the lawsuit
filed in federal court.

The company's motion to dismiss was granted and the matter moved
forward as an arbitration.

The arbitrator ruled that a nationwide class is appropriate,
excluding certain states.

The company appealed that decision to the district court and that
appeal was denied.

In July 2009, a settlement agreement was entered into by the
parties covering federal and state claims.

This settlement also includes settlement of the case involving
Massachusetts state claims only.

The settlement is subject to arbitrator and court approval.

Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc. -- http://www.mortons.com/-- is  
engaged in the business of owning and operating restaurants under
the names Morton's The Steakhouse, Trevi and Bertolini's
Authentic Trattorias.  As of Jan. 4, 2009, the company owned and
operated 83 restaurants (80 Morton's and three Italian
restaurants (one Trevi and two Bertolini's)).


MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Illinois Court Okays Settlement Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has
approved the settlement agreement in a nationwide class action
complaint against Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc., alleging
failure to pay overtime wages, 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. 4, 2009.

In April 2008, a former employee of the Chicago (Wacker),
Illinois Morton's steakhouse filed a nationwide class action
complaint in federal court in the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of Illinois, alleging that the company failed to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In addition, in April 2008, another former employee of the
Chicago (Wacker), Illinois Morton's steakhouse filed a statewide
class action complaint in state court in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois County Department alleging that certain
food deductions, tip pooling practices and tip credits taken by
the company violate Illinois wage and hour laws.

The company filed motions to dismiss both complaints and compel
arbitration for both matters.

In July 2008, the plaintiff in the federal action filed a motion
to dismiss the lawsuit (without prejudice), which was granted by
the court.

In September 2008, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss and compel arbitration for the state action and the
plaintiff in such action subsequently filed a motion asking the
court to reconsider its decision.

This motion was denied and the case was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, along with a group of others, subsequently filed
individual claims in arbitration.

In July 2009, a settlement agreement covering all of these
individual arbitrations was entered into.

In September 2009, arbitrator approval was obtained and in
October 2009, court approval was obtained resolving this matter.

Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc. -- http://www.mortons.com/-- is  
engaged in the business of owning and operating restaurants under
the names Morton's The Steakhouse, Trevi and Bertolini's
Authentic Trattorias.  As of Jan. 4, 2009, the company owned and
operated 83 restaurants (80 Morton's and three Italian
restaurants (one Trevi and two Bertolini's)).


MTD PRODUCTS: Recalls 28,100 Log Splitters
------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with MTD Products Inc, of Cleveland, Ohio, announced
a voluntary recall of about 26,000 Log Splitters in the United
States and 2,100 Log Splitters in Canada.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The control handle of the log splitter could fail to
automatically return to the neutral position as it should and
could fail to stop the splitting wedge from moving forward,
posing a risk of amputation to consumers' hands and fingers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

These log splitter brand names and model numbers are included in
this recall:

     Brand Name        Model Number    Sold In
     ----------        ------------    -------
     MTD Gold          24BF510B004     Hardware Stores
     MTD Gold          24BF510E204     Hardware Stores
     MTD Gold          24BF570L004     Hardware Stores
     MTD Gold          24BF570F204     Hardware Stores
     Troy-Bilt         24BF572B766     Hardware Stores
     Troy-Bilt         24AD597D766     Hardware Stores
     Troy-Bilt         24BF572B711     Lowe's
     Troy-Bilt         24AD597D711     Lowe's
     Yard Machines     24BF552B729     Home Depot
     Yard Machines     24BF550B029     Home Depot & Walmart
     Cub Cadet         24BF572B756     Home Depot
     Cub Cadet         24BF572B710     Independent Dealers
     Cub Cadet         24AD598A010     Independent Dealers
     Troy-Bilt         24BF572B766     Independent Dealers
     Troy-Bilt         24AD597D766     Independent Dealers
     MTD               24BF550M006     Walmart & Menards
     Craftsman         247.77640       Sears
     Craftsman         247.77641       Sears

They were sold in red, black and yellow in 21, 25, 27 and 33 ton
models.  The model number is located on the frame near the
engine.  Log splitters manufactured from November 2008 through
October 2009 are included in this recall.  Only models with
certain serial numbers are included in this recall. Pictures of
the recalled product are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10062.html

The log splitters were manufactured in the United States and sold
at The Home Depot, Lowe's, Menards, Sears, Walmart, hardware
stores and by independent dealers from November 2008 through
October 2009 for between $1,000 and $2,300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled log
splitters and contact MTD Products Inc. to determine if their log
splitter is included in the recall, to receive inspection
instructions and to receive a free repair if needed.  For
additional information, contact MTD toll free at (888) 848-6038
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through
Friday, and on Saturdays between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Eastern
time, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.mtdproducts.com/


OCCAM NETWORKS: Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Feb. 22, 2010
------------------------------------------------------------
This statement is being issued by Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP pursuant to an order of the United States District
Court, Central District of California, Western Division:

                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
                      WESTERN DIVISION





LAURI S. BATWIN, On Behalf      )
of Herself and All Others       )
Similarly Situated,             )  No. 2:07-cv-02750-CAS(SHx)
                                )  (Consolidated)
          Plaintiff,            )
     v.                         )  CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE
                                )  
OCCAM NETWORKS, INC., et al.,   )   
                                )
          Defendants.           )

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED OCCAM
    NETWORKS, INC. ("OCCAM") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD
    BETWEEN APRIL 29, 2004 AND OCTOBER 15, 2007, INCLUSIVE
    ("CLASS PERIOD")

     YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
Western Division, that a hearing will be held on February 22,
2010, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Christina A. Snyder,
United States District Judge, at the United States District
Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, for
the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement
of the claims in the Litigation against the Defendants for the
sum of $13,945,000 in cash, plus accrued interest, should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether, thereafter, this Litigation should be dismissed with
prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated
November 2, 2009 (the "Stipulation"); (3) whether the Plan of
Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should
be approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for
the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses and the reimbursement
of the Lead Plaintiff's expenses incurred in connection with this
Litigation should be approved.

     If you purchased or acquired Occam common stock during the
period beginning April 29, 2004 through and including October 15,
2007, your rights may be affected by the settlement of this
Litigation. If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a
copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain
copies by writing to Occam Securities Litigation, Claims
Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 808003, Petaluma,
CA 94975-8003. If you are a Class Member, in order to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no later than March 8,
2010, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. You will be
bound by any judgment rendered in the Litigation whether or not
you make a claim.

     If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit
a request for exclusion postmarked by February 8, 2010, in the
manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to
above. All members of the Class who have not requested exclusion
from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the
Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation.

     Any objection to the settlement must be mailed or delivered
such that it is received by each of the following no later than
February 8, 2010:

          CLERK OF THE COURT
          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
          CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
          WESTERN DIVISION
          312 North Spring Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90012

          Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101

               Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

          Jerome F. Birn, Jr., Esq.
          Gregory L. Watts, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050

               - and -  

          Scott A. Fink, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2933

               - and -

          Christopher Sundermeier, Esq.
          COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
          Five Palo Alto Square, 4th Floor
          3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155

               - and -  

          Jordan Eth, Esq.
          Philip T. Besirof, Esq.
          Timothy W. Blakely, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482

               - and -  

          Efren A. Compean, Esq.
          GARRETT & TULLY
          225 South Lake Avenue, Suite 1400
          Pasadena, CA 91101

               - and -  

          Stephen A. Scott, Esq.
          HAYES SCOTT BONINO ELLINGSON & MCLAY LLP
          203 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 480
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065

               Counsel for Defendants

           PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S
                       OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

     DATED: November 12, 2009      BY ORDER OF THE COURT
                                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                   CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
                                   WESTERN DIVISION


OSRAM SYLVANIA: Recalls 26,000 Portable Nightlights
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
OSRAM SYLVANIA Products Inc., of Danvers, Mass., announced a
voluntary recall of about 26,000 LED Rocketship PalPODzzz(tm)
Portable Nightlights.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The bottom plastic cover on the recharging base of the portable
nightlight can break, exposing internal electrical components.
This poses an electric shock hazard to consumers.

The firm has received three reports of the bottom of the
recharging base breaking and consumers touching internal
electrical components that resulted in minor electric shocks.

This recall involves LED Rocketship PalPODzzz(tm) portable
nightlights with model number 72174. The product can also be used
as an emergency light or a flashlight. The nightlight is shaped
as a rocket ship and sits in a plastic recharging base that plugs
into the wall. The model number and date codes "0808" or "0908"
are printed on the label attached to the bottom cover of the
recharging base.  Pictures of the recalled product are available
at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10060.html

The recalled nightlights were manufactured in China and sold at
The Home Depot, Stop & Shop, and other retailers nationwide and
online at Amazon.com, Smarthome.com, and Sylvaniaonlinestore.com
from October 2008 through November 2009 for between $15 and $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled portable
nightlights and contact OSRAM SYLVANIA for a free replacement
portable nightlight and a $5 coupon credit for OSRAM SYLVANIA
products.  For additional information, contact OSRAM SYLVANIA at
(877)-423-3772 Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m., Eastern time, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.sylvania.com/


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Second Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., continues to defend a second
consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of the
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 Oct. 3, 2009.

Par and certain of its former executive officers have been named
as defendants in consolidated class action lawsuits filed on
behalf of purchasers of common stock of Par between July 23, 2001
and July 5, 2006.

The lawsuits followed Par's July 5, 2006 announcement regarding
the restatement of certain of its financial statements and allege
that Par and certain members of its then management engaged in
violations of the Exchange Act , by issuing false and misleading
statements concerning Par's financial condition and results of
operations.

The class actions are pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

On June 24, 2008, the Court dismissed co-lead plaintiffs'
Consolidated Amended Complaint without prejudice with leave to
re-file.

On July 24, 2008, co-lead plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint.

Par and the individual defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.

On Sept. 30, 2009, the Court granted the motion to dismiss all
claims as against Kenneth Sawyer but denied the motion as to the
company, Dennis O'Connor, and Scott Tarriff.

The time for the Company and Messrs. O'Connor and Tarriff to file
answers expired on Oct. 30, 2009.

Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. -- http://www.parpharm.com/--  
is a holding company that, principally through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., is in the business of
developing, manufacturing and distributing generic and branded
drugs in the United States.  The company is divided into two
business segments: generic pharmaceuticals and brand
pharmaceuticals.  The company is operating the brand
pharmaceutical segment under the name Strativa Pharmaceuticals.  
In the brand segment, Par Pharmaceutical markets brand products
under trademarked brand names designed to create an association
between the products and their intended uses.  In June 2008, the
company entered into an exclusive licensing agreement with
MonoSol Rx under which it acquired the commercialization rights
in the United States to MonoSol's thin film formulation of
ondansetron.


PARMALAT FINANZIARIA: Deloitte & Grant Thornton Settlement Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A notification program has begun, as ordered by the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, to alert
domestic investors, including U.S. persons and entities, who
bought Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A. equity securities from January
5, 1999, through and including December 18, 2003 about two
partial settlements of a class action.  

The lawsuit alleges that Parmalat and numerous other defendants
participated in a fraudulent financial scheme, resulting in the
understatement of Parmalat's debt and the overstatement of its
net assets. Parmalat ultimately filed for bankruptcy, and the
value of its stock dramatically declined. The defendants deny
that they did anything wrong, and the settlements do not mean
that any law was violated. The Court did not decide which side
was right.

The partial settlements resolve the case against several Deloitte
& Touche Parties and several Grant Thornton Parties and will pay
money to Class Members. The terms "Deloitte & Touche Parties" and
"Grant Thornton Parties" and other capitalized terms used in this
notice are defined in the detailed Notice available at:

     http://www.ParmalatSettlement.com/

which is maintained by Epiq Systems in its capacity as the
authorized noticing and claims agent.  

The Deloitte & Touche Settling Parties agreed to pay $8.5 million
and the Grant Thornton Settling Parties agreed to pay $6.5
million to resolve this matter; attorneys' fees, expenses and
administrative costs will also be paid from these amounts.
Settlement stipulations, available at the Web site describe all
of the details.

In May 2004, the Court appointed the law firms of Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, of Washington, D.C. and Grant & Eisenhofer,
P.A., of Wilmington, DE, to represent the Class, and the law firm
of Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C., of Philadelphia, PA,
has served as counsel. These firms have been litigating this case
known as In re Parmalat Securities Litigation, No. 04 MD 1653
(LAK), since that time, and they negotiated the partial
settlements.

Class members may go to the Web site to view the notice of the
settlements, register and complete the claim form online, OR
request that a claim form be mailed to them. They also may call
Toll Free 1-800-713-9910 for more information. Notices informing
Class members about their legal rights are scheduled to be mailed
in early December, 2009.  If a Class member does not receive the
notice and claim form in the mail directly, s/he should register
as soon as possible and download or request copies of these
documents. The deadline to file a claim is April 9, 2010. Persons
who previously submitted a claim form in connection with prior
settlements in this case do not have to submit another claim form
now.

Class members may also now exclude themselves from the two
partial settlements with the Grant Thornton parties and
Deloitte & Touche parties, or object to the terms of the proposed
settlements. The deadline for exclusions is February 1, 2010 and
the deadline for objecting to the two settlements is February 16,
2010. A hearing will later be held in New York on March 8, 2010
at 2:30 p.m. (eastern standard time), to consider whether to
approve the settlements, the proposed plan of allocation for them
and the application for attorneys' fees and expenses.

Epiq Systems has established and maintains a Web site at:

     http://www.ParmalatSettlement.com/

where notices and the Settlement Stipulations may be obtained.
Those affected may also write to "Parmalat Settlement", P.O.
Box 4068, Portland, OR 97208-4068. You may also call Toll Free
1-800-713-9910.


SEALED AIR: N.J. Court Approves $20 Shareholder Settlement Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant at the New Jersey Law Journal reports that the
manufacturer of Bubble Wrap and other packaging items has agreed
to pay $20 million to settle Louisiana Municipal Police Employees
Ret. Sys. v. Sealed Air Corp., Case No. 03-cv-4372 (D. N.J.)
(Cavanaugh, J.).

The Honorable Dennis Cavanaugh approved the settlement, under
which $6 million, or 30 percent, goes toward attorney fees and
another $393,350 for expenses, on Dec. 4.

The litigation stemmed from Sealed Air Corp.'s 1998 acquisition
of the Cryovac division of W.R. Grace and Co., a company that in
the 1990s was hit with thousands of asbestos suits. Beginning in
2000, personal injury litigants began suing Grace and Sealed Air
as co-defendants, seeking to overturn the acquisition as a
fraudulent transfer designed to protect Grace's assets from
liability. In April 2001, Grace filed for Chapter 11.

The suit was filed on behalf of buyers of company stock between
March 27, 2000 and July 30, 2002, during which period the share
price dropped from $58.18 to $14.51.  Shareholders charged that
Sealed Air understated its liability for litigation caused by
acquiring Cryovac from W.R. Grace.

It charged the company "consistently failed to acknowledge Sealed
Air's potentially massive contingent liabilities related to
Grace's asbestos liability exposure." It further alleged that
Sealed Air violated generally accepted accounting principals by
failing to account for the "substantial likelihood" that Sealed
Air would be held liable for asbestos claims against Grace.

Asbestos claimants got a better shot at suing the company after
July 2002 when, in a separate case, U.S. District Judge Alfred
Wolin in Newark, N.J., ruled that Grace should have anticipated
the asbestos claims when it sold Cryovac. That same year, Sealed
Air agreed to pay $512 million, plus nine million shares of
stock, to settle all asbestos claims related to its purchase of
Cryovac.

Judge Cavanaugh certified the class in the Louisiana Municipal
suit in March 2008.  Sealed Air unsuccessfully sought to overturn
that decision in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  In
October 2008, the parties engaged in mediation with former U.S.
District Judge Nicholas Politan, now a Roseland, N.J.-based solo,
but failed to reach a settlement. After a second mediation, with
Eric Green, a professor at Boston University School of Law, they
reached a deal on April 27 of this year.

In approving the settlement, Judge Cavanaugh said 82,000
potential class members were given notice of the terms and none
objected to its reasonableness, adequacy or fairness, although
two members opted out.

Judge Cavanaugh also said the attorney fees are reasonable
because they come to around 65 percent of the total lodestar
value of $9.2 million. He cited other securities class actions
where courts had deemed other percentage-of-fund awards
reasonable even when they exceeded the lodestar.

Sealed Air is represented by:

          Andrew G. Gordon, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019-6064
          Telephone: 212-373-3000

               - and -  

          Gregory B. Reilly, Esq.
          LOWENSTEIN SANDLER
          65 Livingston Avenue
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: 973-597-2500

Ken Aurichio, Sealed Air's director of corporate communications,
told Mr. Toutant the agreement was reached "to avoid the cost and
burden on our company resulting from continuing litigation." He
added, We've always denied and continue to deny each and every
one of the claims."


VALASSIS COMMUNICATIONS: To Settle Suit v. ADVO for $12.5 Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valassis Communications, Inc., has agreed to settle a
consolidated class action lawsuit against ADVO Inc., for
$12.5 million, 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.

Upon completion of its acquisition of ADVO, the company assumed
responsibility for ADVO's pending securities class action
lawsuits.

In September 2006, three securities class action lawsuits (Robert
Kelleher v. ADVO, Inc., et al., Jorge Cornet v. ADVO, Inc., et
al., Richard L. Field v. ADVO, Inc., et al.) were filed against
ADVO and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut by certain ADVO shareholders seeking
to certify a class of all persons who purchased ADVO stock
between July 6, 2006 and Aug. 30, 2006.

The cases have been consolidated under a single action titled
Robert Kelleher et al. v. ADVO, Inc., et al., Civil Case No.
3:06CV01422(AVC) and a consolidated amended complaint was filed
on June 8, 2007.

The complaint generally alleges ADVO violated federal securities
law by making a series of materially false and misleading
statements concerning ADVO's business and financial results in
connection with the proposed merger and, as a result, the price
of ADVO's stock was allegedly inflated.

On Aug. 24, 2007, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
complaint, which was denied.

On Aug. 29, 2008, plaintiff moved for certification of the case
as a class action.

This motion was granted on March 27, 2009.

On Oct. 28, 2009, the parties entered into an agreement providing
for the settlement of the action and filed papers seeking
preliminary approval of a settlement agreement in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut.

The settlement is subject to approval by the court, and the
settlement amount of $12.5 million will be paid from the proceeds
of ADVO's directors' and officers' insurance policy, with no
adverse impact to Valassis' financial statements.

Valassis Communications, Inc. -- http://www.valassis.com/-- is a  
media and marketing services company, offering reach and scale to
more than 15,000 advertisers.  Its portfolio of products and
services delivers value on a weekly basis to over 100 million
shoppers across a multi-media platform, in the mailbox, in the
newspaper, on the doorstep, in store and online.  The company
operates through four segments: Shared Mail, Neighborhood
Targeted, Free-standing Inserts (FSI), International, Digitial
Media & Services. In January 2008, the Company launched RedPlum,
its consumer brand, across its portfolio of offerings.  In
conjunction with the brand launch, Redplum.com was introduced in
the marketplace on Jan. 3, 2008, extending the company's print
advertisers' reach online and offering consumers national and
local deals.


VARIETY WHOLESALERS: Recalls 700 Lead-Containing Toy Truck
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Variety Wholesalers Inc., of Henderson, N.C., announced a
voluntary recall of about 700 Super Rigs Play Sets.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The toy truck's surface coating contains high levels of lead,
violating the federal lead paint standard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.  

This recall involves "Super Rig Transport" toy truck with trailer
and vehicles. The truck and trailer are multi-colored, holding
two vehicles and two action figures. "Super Rigs Play Set" is
labeled on the outside of the packaging. The box back has a bar
code square with Item No. 67007, Made in China and Bar Code 6-
98567-67007-3. The bottom of the trailer has an engraved code
45TNGO9.  Pictures of the recalled product are available at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10061.html

The recalled toys were manufactured in China and sold at discount
stores in the Southeast from September 2009 through November 2009
for about $20.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy away from
children and return it to the place of purchase for a full refund
or replacement product.  For additional information, contact
Variety Wholesalers at (800) 678-7776 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.vwstores.com/

                            *********

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  * * *