CAR_Public/091216.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, December 16, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 248

                            Headlines

AUBURN UNIVERSITY: Class Action Asserts Race-Based Wage Disparity
AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Calif. Suit Challenges "Actual Cash Value"
BERGE FORD: Dealer Sued in Airz. for Skimming Employee Wages
CASEY'S GENERAL: Discovery in Motor Fuel Practices Suit Ongoing
CASEY'S GENERAL: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement

CENTRO: Australian Court to Examine Bid for Action Against PwC
HAWK CORP: No Ruling Yet on Class Certification in Suit v. Unit
JONES FINANCIAL: Edward Jones' Motion to Dismiss Suit Pending
KAHALA HOTEL: Class Action Suit Alleges Improperly Withheld Tips
KRISPY KREME: Court-Ordered Mediation Scheduled for January 2010

LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Three Right-of-Way Suits Remain Stayed
LEVEL 3 COMMS: "Kingsborough" Settlement's Final Approval Denied
LEVEL 3 COMMS: Wants Consolidated Suit in Colorado Dismissed
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Wants Three ERISA Suits Consolidated
MACY'S INC: Ohio Litigation Over 401(k) Plan Continues

MDL 1285: 21 States Settle Vitamin Antitrust Suit for $25 Mil.
MICROSOFT CORP: Another Sidekick Suit filed in Cook County
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Retired Players Settlement Gets Final Approval
NEUROGEN CORP: Faces Lawsuit Over Merger Plan with Ligand Pharma
PALM INC: Sued, with Sprint Nextel, for "Catastrophic Data Loss"

RAIT FINANCIAL: E.D. Pa. Approves Investor Litigation Settlement
SELECTREMEDY: Class Action Says Warehouse Workers Shortchanged
SILICONE IMPLANTS: O'Quinn Estate Agrees to Pay $46.5 Million
SPRINT NEXTEL: Sued, with Palm, for "Catastrophic Data Loss"
SWITCH & DATA: M.D. Fla. Shareholder Complaint Attacks CEO

VCG HOLDING: Faces "Sutton" Complaint over Lowrie's Buy Proposal
WESTERN CULINARY: Oregon Court Certifies Class of Students
YTB INTERNATIONAL: No Ruling Yet on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave
ZUMIEZ INC: Alameda Country Court Denies Approval of Settlement
ZUMIEZ INC: "Berg" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Still Pending

                            *********

AUBURN UNIVERSITY: Class Action Asserts Race-Based Wage Disparity
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Alabama Press-Register reports that a class action lawsuit is
being filed against Auburn University on behalf of a group of
black building services workers who allege they are being paid
less than white workers in their department, the Auburn Plainsman
student newspaper reports.

The black employees are being represented by:

          Arthur L. Dowdell, Esq.
          909 Pleasant Avenue
          Auburn, AL 36832
          Telephone: 334-524-2074

               - and -  

          Julian L. McPhillips, Jr., Esq.
          516 South Perry St.
          Montgomery, AL 36101
          Telephone: 334-262-1911

"I think the only way we will subside (the problem of racial
discrimination at Auburn) is if we file a class action lawsuit,"
Mr. Dowdell said.  "Because it's clear that Auburn University,
time after time, has violated since 1999, since I've been
fighting, that they keep on violating the rights of its own
workers."

According to an Associated Press report, the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission is investigating the claims
that some black custodial employees in the Auburn University
Student Center are being paid less that white co-workers.

The complaint is also being investigated by Auburn's Office of
Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity.  A spokesman for
the employees, Tyrone Durrell, said the complaint started after a
paycheck stub was left in a break room for other workers to see.
Auburn University spokesman Mike Clardy said in The Associated
Press report that school officials were working to resolve the
complaint promptly.

Mr. Dowdell and his brother, the Rev. Larry Taylor, delivered
their demands to a representative for Auburn University President
Jay Gogue.

Mr. Gogue's secretary Jolene Patterson informed them he was out
of town and accepted the sheet of paper listing their demands.
Patterson said she would give the list to administration
officials.

Mr. Dowdell said in the Plainsman report that he wants Mr. Gogue
to respond to his demands because he doesn't think human
resources has done enough.

"You come back to Auburn you see all these pretty buildings, all
these pretty flowers, and you're thinking everything is
beautiful," Rev. Taylor was quoted as saying.  "But then, all of
a sudden, you find a thorn, something there that don't need to be
there."


AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Calif. Suit Challenges "Actual Cash Value"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Automobile Club of
Southern California insures cars for "actual cash value" but
refuses to honor its promise when the vehicle is stolen or
totaled, a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.


BERGE FORD: Dealer Sued in Airz. for Skimming Employee Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that a Ford
dealership deducts $62.50 a month from its workers' paychecks for
"use of [the dealership's] software," and its employees say that
Berge Ford told them they had to submit to it "or get fired."  
The workers' class action claims the deduction is illegal and
they never agreed to it.

The six named plaintiffs sued Berge Ford in Maricopa County
Court.

They say they never signed an agreement that the money could be
deducted from their wages, but the Ford dealer told them to "do
it or get fired," their attorney Harry Friedlander said in an
interview.

Berge Ford, of Mesa, Ariz., has a computer program that helps
employees keep track of prospective clients, Friedlander says.

"They made it available to everyone and started to take the
deductions out," the attorney told Ms. Ross.  The class may
include more than 50 employees or former employees, Mr.
Friedlander said.  The complaint claims the deductions violate
A.R.S. Sec. 23-352.
     
The workers originally filed the complaint pro se at the Highland
Regional Justice Court, but Mr. Friedlander dismissed it and
refiled in county court.
     
The class seeks treble damages for violations of state employment
law, and attorney's fees.

A copy of the Complaint in LaBrue, et al. v. Berge Ford, Inc.,
Case No. CV2009-093717 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/09/BergeFord.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harry P. Freidlander, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HARRY P. FRIEDLANDER
          1837 South Mesa Drive, #C-100
          Mesa, AZ 85210
          Telephone: 480-926-0902


CASEY'S GENERAL: Discovery in Motor Fuel Practices Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated Motor Fuel Temperature
Sales Practices Litigation against Casey's General Stores, Inc.,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas
City.

The company is named as a defendant in four lawsuits ("hot fuel"
cases) brought in the federal courts in Kansas and Missouri
against a variety of gasoline retailers.  

The complaints generally allege that the company, along with
numerous other retailers, has misrepresented gasoline volumes
dispensed at its pumps by failing to compensate for expansion
that occurs when fuel is sold at temperatures above 60-degrees
Fahrenheit.  

Fuel is measured at 60-degrees Fahrenheit in wholesale purchase
transactions and computation of motor fuel taxes in Kansas and
Missouri.  

The complaints all seek certification as class actions on behalf
of gasoline consumers within those two states, and one of the
complaints also seeks certification for a class consisting of
gasoline consumers in all states.  

The actions generally seek recovery for alleged violations of
state consumer protection or unfair merchandising practices
statutes, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, civil conspiracy, and violation of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing; several seek injunctive relief and
punitive damages.

These actions are among a total of 45 similar lawsuits now
pending in 28 jurisdictions, including 25 states, Guam, the
District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands, against a wide
range of defendants that produce, refine, distribute, and/or
market gasoline products in the United States.  

On June 18, 2007, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered that all of the pending hot fuel cases
(officially, the "Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices
Litigation") be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas in Kansas City, Kansas, for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings, including rulings on discovery
matters, various pretrial motions, and class certification.  

Discovery efforts by both sides are being pursued

No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 7, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009.

Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/--   
operates convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store
in nine Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa gave
its final approval to the settlement of two purported collective
and class actions filed against Casey's General Stores, Inc.,
according to the company's Dec. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Oct. 31, 2009.

In April 2009, the company and five individual directors or
officers entered into settlement agreements with plaintiffs in  
the two suits, which are:

   -- Kristina Jones, et al. v. Casey's General Stores, Inc.,
      Robert J. Myers, Ronald M. Lamb, Terry W. Handley, Robert
      C. Ford, and Julia L. Jackowski, individually; and

   -- Connie Wineland, et al. v. Casey's General Stores, Inc.,
      Robert J. Myers, Ronald M. Lamb, Terry W. Handley, Robert
      C. Ford, and Julia L. Jackowski.

The two actions were brought by plaintiffs seeking to represent
approximately 7,800 current and former assistant managers (Jones
action) and approximately 76,000 current and former non-
management-level store employees (Wineland action).

The plaintiffs generally sought back wages, liquidated damages,
penalties, attorneys fees and costs, and equitable relief
pursuant to various federal and state wage and hour laws and
related common law causes of action.

The settlement agreements have been filed with the Court as
attachments to the parties' joint motions for approval of the
settlements, and a hearing on the joint motions was held on May
18, 2009.  Following the hearing, the Court entered Orders
granting preliminary approval of the settlement, approving the
Notices of Class Action and Claim Forms to be distributed to
class members.

Following a hearing on Oct. 9, 2009, the Court entered an order
dated Oct. 22, 2009 granting the parties' Joint Motion for Final
Approval of Settlement and Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval
of Attorneys Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Separate Awards
for named Plaintiffs and Deponents.

The actions were dismissed in their entirety with prejudice, and
the settlement class members are permanently enjoined from
filing, joining, or prosecuting any claims, suits or
administrative proceedings regarding claims released by the
settlement.

Under the settlement agreements, the company paid all putative
plaintiffs and their counsel in both actions a total
of $11.7 million (inclusive of plaintiffs' attorneys fees and
costs); the company's directors and officers insurance carrier
paid $3.0 million of that amount on behalf of all defendants.

The company paid $277,000 in related settlement administration
expenses.

In exchange, the company has been released from the state law
claims of all putative plaintiffs who did not opt-out of the
settlement for any covered claims arising since May 7, 2005 in
the Jones action and since Jan. 10, 2006 in the Wineland action.

In addition, any plaintiffs who previously opted in to the
putative collective actions released any claims under the Fair
Labor Standards Act arising since Nov. 1, 2004 in the Jones
action and since April 15, 2005 in the Wineland action.

Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the company expressly
denied any and all liability to the plaintiffs.

The settlement monies were distributed on Nov. 12, 2009.

Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/--   
operates convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store
in nine Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.


CENTRO: Australian Court to Examine Bid for Action Against PwC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Battersby at The Age reports that the Federal Court will
consider an application by lawyers representing Centro
shareholders to bring direct action against the company's
auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Barrister Michael Lee, acting for Maurice Blackburn, asked
Justice Donnell Ryan for permission to add PwC to a claim against
Centro Properties Group and Centro Retail Group.

The property companies are being sued by former and present
shareholders for allegedly concealing from the market important
financial information that, once it became known, caused the
share price to plummet.

Last week Maurice Blackburn listed three grounds on which PwC
should be added to proceedings: the auditing firm had engaged in
false, misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to the June
2007 accounts of Centro and its listed offshoot Centro Retail;
PwC made representations to Centro about its disclosure
obligations that were false, misleading or deceptive; a
controlled entity of PwC, PwC Securities, allegedly made
misleading and deceptive statements in a product disclosure
statement in relation to a merger of Centro Retail and another
Centro entity, the Centro Shopping America fund.

Richard McHugh, SC, representing PwC, told Ms. Battersby that the
second ground "makes factual assertions which are a fantasy for
which there is no proper basis and which could never be properly
certified."

Two concurrent class actions from shareholders are seeking about
$600 million in damages.  Centro filed a cross-claim against PwC
in May, arguing that as the company's auditor it should share
liability for any shareholder compensation.  

Lawyers from Slater & Gordon, which is running the second class
action, said they would also seek leave to take direct action
against PwC.


HAWK CORP: No Ruling Yet on Class Certification in Suit v. Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for Tulsa County, Oklahoma has yet to rule on
the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in a purported
class action against Hawk Corp.'s subsidiary, Wellman Products
Group, 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.

On Oct. 16, 2007, a lawsuit captioned Paul Mickle v. Wellman
Products Group, LLC, Case No. CJ 2007 06914 was filed in the
District Court for Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

Mr. Mickle alleges violation of wage and hour laws by Wellman
Products.

The case purports to be a class action on behalf of Mr. Mickle
and other allegedly "similarly situated" employees.

Discovery as to the class certification is finished.

The plaintiffs have filed their Motion for Class Certification,
and all briefing on the issue is also finished.

An evidentiary hearing on plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification occurred on July 1 and 2, 2009, in Tulsa County
District Court.

Hawk Corp. -- http://www.hawkcorp.com/-- is a supplier of  
friction products for industrial, aerospace, agricultural and
performance applications.  Through its subsidiaries, the company
operates in the friction products segment.


JONES FINANCIAL: Edward Jones' Motion to Dismiss Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of Edward Jones & Co., L.P., along with other
defendants, to dismiss the plaintiffs' Securities Act Claims over
the sale of Lehman Bonds is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, according to The Jones
Financial Cos., L.L.L.P.'s Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 25, 2009.

Edward Jones is the principal operating subsidiary of Jones
Financial.

In October 2008, a class action suit was filed in Arkansas state
court, Saline County, under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
1933 Act, against certain officers and directors of Lehman
Brothers Holdings, Inc. and a syndicate of underwriters,
including Edward Jones, of Lehman Bonds sold pursuant to the
registration statement and prospectus dated May 30, 2006 and
various prospectus supplements dated Oct. 22, 2006 and
thereafter.

In November 2008, a similar suit was filed in Arkansas state
court, Benton County against the same defendants stemming from
the sale of 6.5% Lehman Bonds maturing Oct. 25, 2007 pursuant to
the registration statement and prospectus and prospectus
supplement dated Aug. 2, 2007.

Plaintiffs in both actions allege that the defendants made
material misrepresentations to the purchasers of the Lehman
Bonds.

While each lawsuit relates to a different series of Lehman Bonds,
the plaintiffs in each suit are seeking unspecified compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.

In February 2009, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred these two actions to the Southern District
of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
with similar actions currently pending in the SDNY.

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs' Securities Act
Claims in April 2009, which is currently pending in the SDNY.

The Jones Financial Companies L.L.L.P --
http://www.edwardjones.com/-- is the parent of Edward Jones, an  
investment brokerage network catering to individual investors.  
Serving some 7 million clients, the "Wal-Mart of Wall Street" has
thousands of satellite-linked offices in all 50 states (mainly in
rural communities and suburbs), plus Canada and the UK.


KAHALA HOTEL: Class Action Suit Alleges Improperly Withheld Tips
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Daysog at the Honolulu Advertiser reports that thousands of
customers of the Kahala Hotel & Resort are now part of a lawsuit
alleging that the hotel's tipping policy was deceptive.

Last week, Circuit Judge Gary Chang granted class-action status
to a 2008 suit by local resident Jason Kawakami, who said the
hotel charged him more than $4,800 in service fees but did not
disclose that only portions of the fee would go to hotel
employees.

The ruling increases the potential damages that the hotel would
have to pay if it loses the suit.  According to Mr. Kawakami's
attorneys:

          John Francis Perkin, Esq.
          Brandee J.K. Faria, Esq.
          PERKIN & FARIA, LLLC
          Davies Pacific Center
          841 Bishop St., Ste. 2000
          Honolulu, HI 96813

more than 4,300 customers have been billed for the service fees
by the hotel.

"This really gives us a chance to pursue the claims on behalf of
all consumers who have been hit by the service charge," Mr.
Perkin told Mr. Daysog.

The Hotel is represented by:

          Lisa W. Cataldo, Esq.
          MCCORRISTON MILLER MUKAI MACKINNON LLP
          Five Waterfront Plaza, 4th Floor
          500 Ala Moana Boulevard
          Honolulu, HI 96813

Mr. Kawakami's lawsuit alleges that he was improperly billed for
service charges of 19 percent when he held his wedding reception
at the Kahala Hotel in July 2007.  They included a service charge
of $3,106.46 for food and $1,704.49 for beverages, the suit said.

Not all of the gratuities went to hotel staffers, and Kahala
officials did not disclose that the hotel service workers would
not receive the entire amount of the tip as required by law, the
lawsuit said.


KRISPY KREME: Court-Ordered Mediation Scheduled for January 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------
A court-ordered mediation has been scheduled for January 2010 in
a wage and hour suit against Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc.,
according to the company's Dec. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Nov. 1, 2009.

The company is a defendant in a wage/hour suit pending in the
Superior Court of Alameda County, California, in which the
plaintiffs seek class action status and unspecified damages on
behalf of a putative class of approximately 35 persons.
Discovery in the case is substantially complete, and court-
ordered mediation currently is scheduled for January 2010.

Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc. -- http://www.KrispyKreme.com/-- is  
a retailer and wholesaler of doughnuts.  The company's principal
business, which began in 1937, is owning and franchising Krispy
Kreme doughnut stores where over 20 varieties of doughnuts are
made, sold and distributed and where a broad array of coffees and
other beverages are offered.


LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Three Right-of-Way Suits Remain Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three purported class actions against Level 3 Communications,
Inc., over railroad right-of-ways remain stayed, 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.

The company and certain of its subsidiaries are parties to three
purported class action lawsuits involving the companies' right to
install fiber optic cable network in railroad right-of-ways
adjacent to plaintiffs' land.

In July 2001, the company was named as a defendant in Koyle, et.
al. v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et. al., a purported two
state class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho.  In November of 2005, the court granted class
certification only for the state of Idaho.

In September 2001, a company subsidiary was named as a defendant
in Nelson, et. al. v. Level 3 Communications, LLC, et. al. a
purported class action covering the state of California, filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District California.

In April 2002, the Company and two of its subsidiaries were named
as defendants in Bauer, et. al. v. Level 3 Communications, LLC,
et al., a purported class action covering 22 states, filed in
state court in Madison County, Illinois.

In general, the companies obtained the rights to construct their
networks from railroads, utilities, and others, and have
installed their networks along the rights-of-way so granted.

Plaintiffs in the purported class actions assert that they are
the owners of lands over which the companies' fiber optic cable
networks pass, and that the railroads, utilities, and others who
granted the companies the right to construct and maintain their
networks did not have the legal authority to do so.

The complaints seek damages on theories of trespass, unjust
enrichment and slander of title and property, as well as punitive
damages.

The companies have also received, and may in the future receive,
claims and demands related to rights-of-way issues similar to the
issues in these cases that may be based on similar or different
legal theories.

All of the purported class actions are currently stayed.

Level 3 Communications, Inc. -- http://www.level3.com/-- through  
its operating subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the
communications business.  Level 3 is a facilities-based provider
of a range of integrated communications services.


LEVEL 3 COMMS: "Kingsborough" Settlement's Final Approval Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied
the motion for final approval of the settlement in the matter
Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P., according to
Level 3 Communications, Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2009.

                         Case Background

In April 2007, Waltham, Massachusetts attorney Catherine
Colinvaux, Esq., on behalf of North Chelmsford couple Richard
and Corey Kingsborough, filed the class-action suit before the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against
several telecommunications companies (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 13, 2008).

The named defendants in the suit are:

   -- Sprint Nextel Corp.;
   -- Sprint Communications Co., L.P.;
   -- Qwest Communications Corp.;
   -- Level 3 Communications, Inc.;
   -- Level 3 Telecom Holdings, Inc.;
   -- WilTel Communications, Inc.;
   -- WilTel Communications, LLC; and
   -- Williams Communications, LLC (f/k/a Vyvx, Inc.).

The lawsuit claims that the defendants illegally ran fiber-optic
cables under railroad rights-of-way without getting approval
from neighboring landowners.

Beginning in the early 1980s, the companies or their
predecessors buried fiber-optic cable and installed related
telecommunications equipment within railroad Rights of Way
across the United States.  A railroad Right of Way is a strip of
land on which a railroad company builds and operates a railroad.

Sprint, Qwest, WilTel and Level 3 entered into agreements with
the railroads who own or occupy the Rights of Way, and under
those agreements paid the railroads for the rights to install
the telecommunications equipment within the Rights of Way at
issue in the case.

The plaintiffs allege the defendants illegally ran the cables to
install a nationwide fiber-optic network in a way to achieve
both lower costs and extra speed in installing their systems.

Under the law, the railroads were granted easements, sometimes
forced by the eminent-domain laws, across private property to
install train tracks.  But the lawsuit states the companies
named in this lawsuit had no legal right to allow the rights of
way for commercial telecommunications purposes with consent from
and compensation to the owners of the land adjacent to the
rights of way.

As a result of this unlawful use of the land, the companies in
the lawsuit have earned millions of dollars from rents, profits
and other benefits, according to the lawsuit.

Sprint, Qwest, WilTel and Level 3 contend that the permissions
granted by the railroads were sufficient, even where the
railroad did not own all property rights in the Rights of Way,
and deny any wrongdoing.

The class consists of all current or previous owners of land
next to or under a railroad Right of Way at any time since the
cables were installed.

Subsequently, a proposed settlement has been reached between
certain defendant telecommunications companies and a proposed
class of current and prior owners of land next to or under
certain railroad Rights of Way.  The deal resolves litigation
over whether these defendants had the right to install
telecommunications facilities within railroad Rights of Way
without the consent of members of the proposed settlement class.

The Proposed Settlement will provide cash payments to qualifying
class members based on various factors that include:

      -- the length of the Right of Way where the cable is
         installed,

      -- the state where the property is located, and

      -- how the railroad got its property rights.

The Proposed Settlement will also provide Sprint, Qwest, WilTel
and Level 3 with permanent Telecommunications Easements, which
give them the right to use the railroad Rights of Way for their
telecommunications equipment.

The Proposed Settlement includes fiber-optic cable in the
District of Columbia and forty-six of the lower forty-eight
states.  This settlement does not include fiber-optic cable in
Louisiana or Tennessee.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement, however, on Sept. 10, 2009 the court denied a motion
for final approval of the settlement on the basis that the court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

Various motions seeking clarification and other relief have been
filed with the court and are pending.

The companies and the plaintiffs are engaged in continuing
discussions.

Level 3 Communications, Inc. -- http://www.level3.com/-- through  
its operating subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the
communications business.  Level 3 is a facilities-based provider
of a range of integrated communications services.


LEVEL 3 COMMS: Wants Consolidated Suit in Colorado Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of Level 3 Communications, Inc., to dismiss a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint remains pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado, 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 Feb. 2009, the company, certain of its current officers and a
former officer were named as defendants in purported class action
lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, which have been consolidated as In re Level 3
Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation (Civil Case No. 09-cv-
00200-PAB-CBS).

The Plaintiffs in each complaint allege, in general, that
throughout the purported class period specified in the complaint
that the defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the company's integration activities, business and
operations.

The complaints seek damages based on purported violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Securities
and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On May 4, 2009, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the case,
and on June 29, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint.

On July 29, 2009, the company and the other defendants named in
the Complaint filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint with
prejudice which is pending before the court.

Level 3 Communications, Inc. -- http://www.level3.com/-- through  
its operating subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the
communications business.  Level 3 is a facilities-based provider
of a range of integrated communications services.


LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Wants Three ERISA Suits Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc.'s motion to consolidate three
purported class action lawsuits remains pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado, 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 March 2009, late April 2009 and early May 2009, the company,
the Level 3 Communications, Inc. 401(k) Plan Committee and
certain current and former officers and directors of Level 3
Communications, Inc. were named as defendants in purported class
action lawsuits styled:

     -- Walter v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et. al.,
     -- Dagres v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et. al. and
     -- Fragale v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et. al.

The complaints allege breaches of fiduciary and other duties
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act with respect to
investments in the company's common stock held in individual
participant accounts in the Level 3 Communications, Inc. 401(k)
Plan.

The complaints claim that those investments were imprudent for
reasons that are similar to those alleged in the securities and
derivative actions described above.

Level 3 Communications, Inc. -- http://www.level3.com/-- through  
its operating subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the
communications business.  Level 3 is a facilities-based provider
of a range of integrated communications services.


MACY'S INC: Ohio Litigation Over 401(k) Plan Continues
------------------------------------------------------
Macy's, Inc. continues to face a purported class-action suit
filed by Ebrahim Shanehchian, an alleged participant in the
company's Profit Sharing 401(k) Investment Plan.

On Oct. 3, 2007, Mr. Shanehchian filed a purported class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on behalf of persons who participated in the 401(k) Plan
and The May Department Stores Company Profit Sharing Plan
between Feb. 27, 2005 and the present.

The complaint charges the Company, as well as certain current
and former members of its board of directors and certain current
and former members of management, with breach of fiduciary
duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) to participants in the 401(k) Plan and the May Plan,
alleging that the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations and
prospects in relation to the integration of the acquired May
operations, resulting in supposed "artificial inflation" of the
Company's stock price between Aug. 30, 2005 and May 15, 2007.

The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages and costs.

No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 7, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009.

Macy's, Inc. -- http://www.macysinc.com/-- formerly Federated
Department Stores, Inc., is a retail company operating retail
stores that sell a range of merchandise, including men's,
women's and children's apparel and accessories, cosmetics, home
furnishings and other consumer goods.  As of Feb. 2, 2008, the
Company operated 853 stores in 45 states, the District of
Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico under the names, Macy's and
Bloomingdale's.  The Company, through its divisions, conducts
electronic commerce and direct-to-customer mail catalog
businesses under the names macys.com, bloomingdales.com and
Bloomingdale's By Mail.  In addition, Macy's, Inc. offers an
online bridal registry to customers.


MDL 1285: 21 States Settle Vitamin Antitrust Suit for $25 Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-one states have agreed to settle litigation involving
vitamin price fixing conspiracy allegations under federal and
state antitrust laws for $25.03 million.  The settlement is on
behalf of consumers and businesses that purchased certain
vitamins between 1988 and 2000 and reside in the settling states.

This settlement follows an earlier $225 million settlement
reached in 2000 involving the same vitamins but different vitamin
manufacturers.

The vitamins affected by this alleged price fixing conspiracy
are: vitamin A, astaxanthin, vitamin B1 (thiamin), vitamin B2
(riboflavin), vitamin B3 (niacin), vitamin B4 (choline chloride),
vitamin B5 (calpan), vitamin B6, vitamin B9 (folic acid), vitamin
B12 (cyanocobalamine pharma), beta-carotene, vitamin C,
canthaxanthin, vitamin E, and vitamin H (biotin), as well as all
blends and forms of these vitamins.

Also included is Premix, a product that contains one or more
these vitamins in combination with other substances.

The companies that sold these vitamins and subject to the $25.03
million settlement are: Akzo Nobel Inc.; Bioproducts
Incorporated, Mitsui & Co., Ltd. and Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc.;
Chinook Global Limited and Chinook Group, Inc.; Evonik Degussa
GmbH, successor to Degussa AG, and Evonik Degussa Corporation;
Lonza AG; Merck KGaA, E. Merck and EM Industries, Inc.; Nepera,
Inc.; Sumitomo Chemical America, Inc. and Sumitomo Chemical Co.,
Ltd.; Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation and Tanabe U.S.A.,
Inc.; UCB Pharma, Inc.; and, Vertellus Specialties Inc. and
Vertellus Chemicals SA.

The states, districts, and commonwealths participating in this
settlement are: Arizona, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii,
Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Puerto Rico,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West
Virginia and Wisconsin.

Attorneys General in these states secured this settlement in
conjunction with a class action lawsuit pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

That lawsuit is Philip Richardson et al. v. Akzo Nobel Inc. et
al., Case No. 09-cv-02112 (D.C.) (Hogan, J.), which is part of In
re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1285; Master Docket No.
99-mc-00197 (D.C.) (Hogan, J.).

A motion for preliminary approval of the settlement has been
filed, and court approval of the settlement is pending.  Once the
settlement is approved, businesses in the settling states that
indirectly purchased any of the above vitamins between 1988 and
2000 may make a claim to obtain money from the portion of the
settlement allocated to businesses.

Given the extraordinary size of affected consumers, each Attorney
General will distribute the settlement funds allocated to
consumers in their state to government or not-for-profit
organizations as approved by the Court.


MICROSOFT CORP: Another Sidekick Suit filed in Cook County
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Microsoft and Danger Inc.
lost enormous amounts of data stored in Sidekicks by failing to
back it up before upgrading the network, a class action claims in
Cook County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Taraszka, et al. v. Microsoft Corp.
and Danger, Inc., Case No. _________ (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/09/Microsoft.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Iilan Chorowski, Esq.
          PROGRESSIVE LAW GROU LLC
          222 W. Onario, Suite 310
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Telephone: 312-787-2717


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Retired Players Settlement Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable William Alsup put his final stamp of approval on a
settlement agreement and plan of distribution in Adderley v.
National Football League Players Association, et al., Case No.
07-cv-00943 (N.D. Calif.), on behalf of all retired NFL players
who executed a group licensing authorization form (GLA) with the
NFLPA that was in effect at any time between February 14, 2003
and February 14, 2007 and which contains the following language:
"[T]he moneys generated by such licensing of retired player group
rights will be divided between the player and an escrow account
for all eligible NFLPA members who have signed a group licensing
authorization form."

Additional information about this matter is available at:

     http://www.retiredplayerclassaction.com/

which is maintained by The Garden City Group, Inc., in its role
as the Noticing and Claims Agent.  


NEUROGEN CORP: Faces Lawsuit Over Merger Plan with Ligand Pharma
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neurogen Corp. faces a putative class action complaint over its
agreement and plan of merger with Ligand Pharmaceuticals 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.

On Aug. 23, 2009, Neurogen entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Ligand and a special purpose subsidiary of Ligand,
Merger Sub.

On Aug. 31, 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Connecticut Superior Court for the New Haven Judicial
District by Gabriel Guzman, one of Neurogen's stockholders,
against Neurogen, the members of its board of directors, Ligand
and Merger Sub.

The complaint generally alleges that Neurogen's board of
directors' decision to enter into the proposed transaction with
Ligand on the terms contained in the merger agreement constitutes
a breach of their fiduciary duties and gives rise to other
unspecified state law claims.

The complaint also alleges that Ligand and Merger Sub aided and
abetted Neurogen's board of directors' breach of their fiduciary
duties.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the named plaintiff will
seek "equitable relief", including among other things, an order
preliminarily and permanently enjoining the proposed transaction.

On Oct. 2, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding
certain claims that the directors had not properly disclosed all
relevant information relating to the proposed merger.

On Oct. 22, 2009, the director defendants moved to dismiss the
Amended Complaint on the basis that the individual defendants had
not been properly served. In addition, the company and the
director defendants filed a motion to strike the Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. On that same date, Ligand filed a motion to strike the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted.

Neurogen Corp. -- http://www.neurogen.com/-- is a development  
company focusing on new small molecule drugs to improve the lives
of patients suffering from psychiatric and neurological
disorders, including Restless legs syndrome (RLS), and
Parkinson's disease.


PALM INC: Sued, with Sprint Nextel, for "Catastrophic Data Loss"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Henderson at Courthouse News Service reports that Palm and
Sprint Nextel caused "catastrophic data losses" on Palm Pre and
Palm Pixi smart phones because of a defective Web-based backup
system, a class action claims in San Francisco Federal Court. The
class says Palm's sole backup system relies on "cloud-computing,"
in which users store information on the "technology providers'
massive servers via the Internet."

The class claims Palm touted cloud computing to sell its
products, claiming it would   allow users to send their data to a
new phone or device should theirs be lost, destroyed or
defective.

The service is designed to update every 24 hours. When a new
backup is complete all previously stored information is
overwritten and becomes irretrievable, and neither Palm nor
Sprint operates a secondary backup system, according to the
complaint.

But the class claims that this webOS system frequently loses data
when customers switch from one device to another. They add that,
unlike iPhones and BlackBerries, Palm phones do not sync with
users' personal computer additional software and hardware.

The class claims Palm and Sprint negligently encouraged their
customers to rely on the webOS service, and that the defendants
failed to invest enough resources in developing the technology.

Hundreds of thousands of Palm Pre phones have been sold since it
was released in June, according to the complaint, which adds that
Sprint is "the exclusive wireless carrier for webOS devices in
the United States".

The class seeks damages for breach of contract, consumer law
violations, unfair business practices and unfair competition.

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

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/09/Palm.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.,
          PARISI & HAVENS, LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: 818-990-1299

               - and -  

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Michael J. Aschenbrener, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          KAMBEREDELSON, LLC
          350 North LaSalle St., Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312-589-6370


RAIT FINANCIAL: E.D. Pa. Approves Investor Litigation Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
On December 10, 2009, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted final court approval
of the settlement of the consolidated class action lawsuit
captioned In re RAIT Financial Trust Securities Litigation,
Case No. 07-cv-03148.  Under the terms of the settlement, the
lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice and RAIT and all the other
defendants received a full release of all claims asserted against
them in the lawsuit in exchange for a cash payment of $32
million.  The settlement payment is within the limits of RAIT's
directors and officers liability insurance, and the settlement
has been funded by RAIT's insurers. In connection with the
settlement, RAIT and the other defendants have at all times
denied and continue to deny wrongdoing of any kind.
About RAIT Financial Trust

RAIT Financial Trust -- http://www.raitft.com/-- manages a  
portfolio of real estate related assets, provides a comprehensive
set of debt financing options to the real estate industry and
invests in real estate related assets. RAIT's management uses
their experience, knowledge and relationship network to seek to
generate and manage real estate related investment opportunities
for RAIT and for outside investors.


SELECTREMEDY: Class Action Says Warehouse Workers Shortchanged
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Moberg at In These Times reports that from the first weeks
after he began working last year as a temporary loader at Wal-
Mart's big distribution center in suburban Chicago, Miguel Deniz
suspected that his immediate employer -- a day labor agency known
as SelectRemedy -- was shortchanging him. But the company
obscured its wage theft by paying him by direct deposit or with a
cash card, not a paycheck listing his hours.

So Mr. Deniz started keeping records.  He says they confirmed
that the company was paying him for fewer hours than he worked.
It also was dividing up his work into short blocks of hours to
avoid both the appearance of his working more than 40 hours a
week and the necessity of paying overtime.

"Always, I never got my complete hours," the 62-year old veteran
day laborer says.  "To avoid paying us 40 hours, they gave us six
hours here, six hours there. Also, if in four days I work 30
hours, they only pay 17 or 18."

On the stinging cold morning of Dec. 10, Mr. Moberg relates, Mr.
Deniz joined other temporary workers outside Chicago's only Wal-
Mart store to announce a class-action lawsuit against
SelectRemedy for repeated failures to pay overtime, the minimum
wage or all the money due to workers, among other charges.

Although SelectRemedy (also known as Real Time Staffing Services,
Inc.) is primarily responsible for the alleged wage theft and for
making workers whole, Wal-Mart and other big warehouse owners who
contract with temp agencies are ultimately also responsible --
legally and practically, according to the attorney filing the
class action:

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          WORKING HANDS LEGAL CLINIC
          77 West Washington St., Ste. 1402
          Chicago, IL  60602
          Telephone: (312) 795-9115

These big companies play the smaller temp agencies against each
other to get the lowest price. As a result, for the temp
agencies, Mr. Williams says, "the only way to make a profit is to
cheat the workers."


SILICONE IMPLANTS: O'Quinn Estate Agrees to Pay $46.5 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Houston Chronicle reports that plaintiffs' lawyer John M.
O'Quinn's estate agreed on last week to pay $46.5 million to a
group of former breast implant clients who filed a class action
alleging his firm overcharged them for expenses.  In 2007, Brenda
Sapino Jeffreys at the Texas Lawyer reports, a three-member
arbitration panel ordered Mr. O'Quinn's firm to pay a total of
$41.5 million in damages to the class in Martha Wood, et al. v.
John M. O'Quinn, PC, et al., after finding his firm breached a
fiduciary duty.  Mr. O'Quinn's firm had appealed the judgment
confirming the arbitration award, but that appeal will end if the
class members accept the $46.5 million settlement.  Mr. O'Quinn,
68, died in a high-speed car crash on Oct. 29, 2009.  


SPRINT NEXTEL: Sued, with Palm, for "Catastrophic Data Loss"
------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Henderson at Courthouse News Service reports that Palm and
Sprint Nextel caused "catastrophic data losses" on Palm Pre and
Palm Pixi smart phones because of a defective Web-based backup
system, a class action claims in San Francisco Federal Court. The
class says Palm's sole backup system relies on "cloud-computing,"
in which users store information on the "technology providers'
massive servers via the Internet."

The class claims Palm touted cloud computing to sell its
products, claiming it would   allow users to send their data to a
new phone or device should theirs be lost, destroyed or
defective.

The service is designed to update every 24 hours. When a new
backup is complete all previously stored information is
overwritten and becomes irretrievable, and neither Palm nor
Sprint operates a secondary backup system, according to the
complaint.

But the class claims that this webOS system frequently loses data
when customers switch from one device to another. They add that,
unlike iPhones and BlackBerries, Palm phones do not sync with
users' personal computer additional software and hardware.

The class claims Palm and Sprint negligently encouraged their
customers to rely on the webOS service, and that the defendants
failed to invest enough resources in developing the technology.

Hundreds of thousands of Palm Pre phones have been sold since it
was released in June, according to the complaint, which adds that
Sprint is "the exclusive wireless carrier for webOS devices in
the United States".

The class seeks damages for breach of contract, consumer law
violations, unfair business practices and unfair competition.

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

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/09/Palm.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.,
          PARISI & HAVENS, LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: 818-990-1299

               - and -  

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Michael J. Aschenbrener, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          KAMBEREDELSON, LLC
          350 North LaSalle St., Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312-589-6370


SWITCH & DATA: M.D. Fla. Shareholder Complaint Attacks CEO
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Broadbased Equities claims
Switch & Data Facilities Co. CEO Keith Olsen is hoarding
information and advancing his personal interests at shareholders'
expense, in Tampa Federal Court.


VCG HOLDING: Faces "Sutton" Complaint over Lowrie's Buy Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
VCG Holding Corp. faces a complaint over an agreement entered
into in connection with Troy Lowrie's proposal to acquire all of
the outstanding shares of common stock of the company, according
to the company's Dec. 7, 2009, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Dec. 3, 2009, the company was served with a complaint filed by
David J. Sutton and Sandra Sutton in the District Court in
Jefferson County, Colorado.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs purport to bring a class action
lawsuit against the company and each of the individual members of
the Board on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated.

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

The Complaint seeks, among other things:

     -- certification of the Plaintiffs as class
        representatives,

     -- an injunction directing the Board to comply with their
        fiduciary duties and enjoining the Board from
        consummating the Proposal,

     -- imposition of a constructive trust in favor of the
        Plaintiffs and the class upon any benefits improperly
        received by the defendants,

     -- an award of the costs and disbursements of maintaining
        the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
        fees, and

     -- such other relief the court deems just and proper.

                      Lowrie Proposal

On Dec. 3, 2009, the Special Committee of the Board of Directors
of VCG Holding entered into a standstill and confidentiality
agreement with the company's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Mr. Lowrie, Lowrie Management, LLLP and Family Dog, LLC.

The Agreement was entered into in connection with Lowrie's
proposal to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock
of the company.

Under the Agreement, Lowrie agreed that it will not, among other
things:

     (a) acquire additional securities of the company,

     (b) enter into any merger or business combination involving
        the company to purchase a material portion of the assets
        of the company or make or participate in any proxy
        solicitation with respect to the foregoing,

     (c) enter into any contract or understanding with any
        person or group with respect to the company's
        securities,

     (d) disclose any intention, plan or arrangement
        inconsistent with the foregoing, or

     (e) advise, assist or encourage any other persons in
        connection with any of the foregoing.

The Agreement will remain in place until the earliest to occur
of:

     (i) 12 months from the date of the Agreement,

    (ii) the date of execution of any definitive agreement with
        respect to the Proposal or

   (iii) 180 days after written notice by Lowrie of the
        cessation of negotiations with respect to the Proposal.

In addition, for 12 months from the date of the Agreement, Lowrie
agreed to protect the Company's confidential information and not
use such confidential information for purposes other than
evaluating and negotiating the Proposal.

On Dec. 4, 2009, Lowrie notified the Special Committee that in
order to allow sufficient time to consider and review the
Proposal, the expiration of the Proposal has been further
extended to 5:00 p.m. MST on Dec. 14, 2009.

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


WESTERN CULINARY: Oregon Court Certifies Class of Students
----------------------------------------------------------
LawyersAndSettlements.com reports that a lawsuit against Western
Culinary Institute in Portland, Oregon alleges that the institute
overstated employment rates and the value of its culinary
education.  The suit has received class action status and could
pave the way for hundreds of additional plaintiffs affected by
the issue.

Western Culinary Institute is owned by Career Education Corp., an
operator of 75 private schools around the country that prepare
students to work in the culinary, medical and design fields,
among others.  The December 7 issue of the Oregonian reports that
the majority of students fund their tuition with the help of
student loans and grants, according to the latest quarterly
report of the institution.

Many of those students cannot repay those loans while struggling
in low-paying jobs.

The problem -- and the basis of the lawsuit filed in March 2008
in the Multnomah County Circuit Court in Portland -- is that
prospective students are not told prior to enrollment that their
diploma would likely earn them only low-wage preparatory and
line-cook jobs.  The original plaintiff in the 2008 lawsuit,
Jennifer Adams, alleges that 70 percent of Western's grads in
2007-2008 earn less than $22,500 per year, even though tuition
can run as high as $41,000 for a full 60-week culinary and
hospitality program.

Ms. Adams maintains that a salary of $22,500 per year could be
secured without Western training and thus without the grants and
loans needed to pay for their education.  The lawsuit alleges
that the school engages in fraud and unfair business practices.

Last week Judge Richard Baldwin of Multnomah County ruled that
the lawsuit could be certified as a class action, potentially
exposing the trade school to additional claims by hundreds of
former students.

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

Attorneys representing Western point out that the judge refused
to allow other claims inferring that the school breached apparent
contractual obligations to provide placement services as
promised. Such a decision would have allowed several thousand
additional claimants to join the action.

Coverage of the filing of Ms. Adams' lawsuit appeared in the
Class Action Reporter on March 11, 2008.  


YTB INTERNATIONAL: No Ruling Yet on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois has
yet to rule on the plaintiffs' motions for leave with the Court
to amend their complaints against YTB International, 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.

On Aug. 8, 2008, a complaint seeking to be certified as a class-
action was filed against the company, three company subsidiaries,
and certain executive officers, in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

On Aug. 14, 2008, a second, substantively similar, complaint was
filed against the same defendants in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois.

The two cases have now been consolidated and are proceeding
together before the same judge.

The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated complaint, seeking
damages of over $100.0 million.

On Feb. 9, 2009, the company filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.

On June 5, 2009, the Court granted the company's motions and
dismissed the class action complaint, but granted the plaintiffs
leave to file an amended complaint that conformed with the
Court's ruling.

On July 15, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
purported to conform to the Court's ruling.

The amended complaint asserts claims similar to those contained
in the dismissed complaint, as well as claims against the company
for alleged violations of Missouri Merchandising Practices Act,
the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act, and the Georgia Sale of
Business Opportunities Act.

On July 20, 2009, the Court, acting on its own motion, struck the
plaintiffs' amended complaint in its entirety based on the
Court's belief that the amended complaint does not pass muster
under the applicable federal pleading standards.

As of July 27, 2009, the plaintiffs filed motions for leave with
the Court to amend their complaints.

To date, the Court has not ruled on these motions.

YTB International, Inc. -- http://www.ytb.com/-- is engaged in  
the travel services business.  It offers an interactive, real-
time travel booking engine with access to deals with travel
industry suppliers to licensees and to small office and home
office entrepreneurs and independent travel agencies.  YTB
conducts its business operations primarily through three wholly
owned subsidiaries: YTB Travel Network, Inc., together with its
subsidiary YTB Travel Network of Illinois Inc., which licenses
and services its referring travel agents (RTAs);
YourTravelBiz.com, Inc., which uses a referral marketing system
to offer and sell Internet business centers (IBCs), and
REZconnect Technologies, Inc., which operates a franchise chain
of travel agencies and also acts as a host agency for traditional
brick and mortar travel companies.


ZUMIEZ INC: Alameda Country Court Denies Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Alameda County Superior Court denied approval of the
agreement entered into by Zumiez Inc., and a former employee to
settle a class action over unpaid overtime wages, according to
the company's Dec. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31,
2009.

On March 5, 2008, a former employee commenced an action against
the company in California state court alleging that the company
failed to:

     -- pay all overtime wages owing to him and other employees
        in California,

     -- provide meal breaks as required by California law,

     -- provide employees with proper itemized wage statements
        (pay stubs) as required by California law, and

     -- pay terminated employees waiting time penalties under
        California Labor Code section 203.

The suit Evan Johnson v. Zumiez, Inc., et al., Case No.
RG08374968.

On July 16, 2009, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement to settle.

The claims made settlement agreement was submitted to the court
for preliminary approval, but the court denied approval without
prejudice and encouraged the parties to restructure and resubmit
the agreement to the court for approval.

The company is now discussing modifications to the settlement
agreement with plaintiff's counsel.

Zumiez Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is a mall-based  
specialty retailer of action sports related apparel, footwear,
equipment and accessories operating under the Zumiez brand name.  
As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 343 stores primarily
located in shopping malls, giving it a presence in 31 states.


ZUMIEZ INC: "Berg" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action, Chandra Berg v. Zumiez Inc., Case No.
BC408410 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.), according to
the company's Dec. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Oct. 31, 2009.

The action alleges causes of action for:

     -- failure to pay overtime wages to present and former
        store managers in California,

     -- failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks to store
        managers,

     -- failure to reimburse retail employees for clothing
        required by the company's dress code,

     -- failure to reimburse retail employees for business
        expenses,

     -- failure to provide store managers with accurate itemized
        wage statements,

     -- failure to pay terminated store managers all wages due
        at the time of termination,

     -- unfair business practices and

     -- declaratory relief.

The company has filed an answer to the Complaint and discovery is
being conducted.

No motion requesting certification of the case as a class action
has been filed.

Zumiez Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is a mall-based  
specialty retailer of action sports related apparel, footwear,
equipment and accessories operating under the Zumiez brand name.  
As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 343 stores primarily
located in shopping malls, giving it a presence in 31 states.

                            *********

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  * * *