CAR_Public/091221.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, December 21, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 251

                            Headlines

AT&T CORP: Two Overtime Suits Filed on Behalf of 5,000 Employees
BARNES & NOBLE: Class Certification Hearing Set for January 20
BARNES & NOBLE: Unit Faces "Minor" Complaint Over Wage Payments
CHICO'S FAS: Court Denies Class Certification in "Haefner" Suit
DOLLAR GENERAL: Continues to Defend "Richter" Suit in Alabama

DOLLAR GENERAL: Continues to Defend FLSA Violations Suit in N.Y.
DOLLAR GENERAL: Still Defending Former Manager's Suit in Alabama
DOLLAR GENERAL: "Cox" Suit over Pregnancy Discrimination Pending
DYNAMEX INC: San Bernardino Plaintiffs Added to Los Angeles Suit
ETERNIT: Asbestos-Related Class Action Suit Begins in Italy

GE HEALTHCARE: Sued in Ala. Over High-Radiation CT Scanners
GENESCO INC: Awaits Final Approval of Customer E-mail Settlement
GENESCO INC: Settlement of "Jacobs" Labor Suit Pending Approval
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Securities Violation Suit
HOME DEPOT: Recalls 2,000 Model HB-50 Hampton Bay Dehumidifiers

JASON EVANS: Recalls 18,300 Boys Hooded Sweatshirts
LEBANON RACEWAY: Stan Chesley Preparing Suit After Dec. 5 Fire
OKK TRADING: Recalls 22,000 "Action Team" Toy Dart Gun Sets
PRECIOUS MOMENTS: Recalls 4,300 Angel Tree Toppers
SMITH & WESSON: Trial in Consolidated Suit Set for February 7

TIMBERLAND CO: Recalls 21,000 Lead-Contaminated Children's Boots
TODSON INC: Recalls 24,000 CO2 Bicycle Tire Inflators
ULTA SALON: Court Approves Settlement in Consolidated Suit
ULTA SALON: Continues to Face FLSA Violations Suit in California
VCG HOLDING: Discloses Filing of Lawsuit to Block Buy-Out Offer

                            *********

AT&T CORP: Two Overtime Suits Filed on Behalf of 5,000 Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Local Tech Wire reports that attorneys representing more than
5,000 current and former AT&T (NYSE: T) workers have filed two
class action lawsuits against the communications giant, alleging
that the employees were not paid overtime.

The suits are seeking $1 billion.

Affected workers were titled as "first-level managers" but had
minimal supervisory roles, the suits say.

Attorneys say the employees were classified as managers by AT&T
in 2007 after it acquired BellSouth in order to avoid paying
overtime.

"If you call somebody a duck and it doesn't quack, it doesn't
swim and it doesn't have wings, it ain't a duck," one of the
attorneys in the case told Reuters.  He added that BellSouth used
to pay the same workers overtime until a policy change in 2007.
Added Jeremy Heisler, the lead counsel in the case: "AT&T is in
disconnect mode when it comes to its so-called managers. The
company knows all too well that its 'Managers' have that title in
name only, and lack the typical managerial responsibilities you
associate with a manager.

"In fact, until the takeover by AT&T two years ago, BellSouth
used to pay all its First Levels overtime," he added in a
statement. "What changed? Nothing but the Company's desire to
squeeze earned wages out of its employees' paychecks."

The suits were filed in federal court in Atlanta and San
Francisco.

Lawyers in the case won court approval in November to represent
other AT&T workers as a class action suit in New England.

"The two class actions seek unpaid overtime wages for First
Levels who worked for PacBell in California, BellSouth's 9-state
region in Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, North
Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina and Kentucky, and
nearly every other state in the union where the phone giant does
business," the law firms involved in the case said in a press
release.

"The suits allege that AT&T violated the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and California state laws by carrying out a
company-wide policy to wrongfully misclassify thousands of its
Level One Managers as exempt from overtime wages."

A copy of the Collective Action Complaint filed in Lawson, et al.
v. BellSouth Telecommunnications, Inc., dba AT&T Southeast, etc.,
Case No. 09-cv-_____ (N.D. Ga.), is available at
http://is.gd/5rmpeand the Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward D. Buckley, Esq.
          BUCKLEY & KLEIN, LLP
          Atlantic Center Plaza, Suite 1100
          1180 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 781-1100

               - and -  

          Steven L. Wittels, Esq.
          Jeremy Heisler, Esq.
          David W. Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP
          1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 723-2947

               - and -  

          Edmond Clark, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF EDMOND CLARK
          83 Scotland Avenue
          Madison, CT 06443-2501
          Telephone: (203) 245-4602

A copy of the Class and Collective Action Complaint filed in
Luque, et al. v. AT&T Corp., Pacific Bell Telephone Co., etc.,
Case No. 09-cv-_____ (N.D. Calif.), is available at
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/ATTwageCalif.docand the Plaintiffs  
are represented by:

          Thomas Marc Litton, Esq.
          SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 421-4774

               - and -  

          Steven L. Wittels, Esq.
          David W. Sanford, Esq.
          Andrew Melzer, Esq.
          SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP
          1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (646) 723-2947

               - and -  

          Michael Ram, Esq.
          Karl Olson, Esq.
          RAM & OLSON LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-4949

               - and -  

          Edmond Clark, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF EDMOND CLARK
          83 Scotland Avenue
          Madison, CT 06443-2501
          Telephone: (203) 245-4602


BARNES & NOBLE: Class Certification Hearing Set for January 20
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Jan. 20, 2010 hearing on the class certification motion in the
matter Hostetter v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al., has
been scheduled, according to Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s Dec. 10, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009.

On Dec. 4, 2008, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court
for the State of California making these allegations against
defendants with respect to hourly managers and/or assistant
managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in the State of
California:

   (1) failure to pay wages and overtime;
   (2) failure to provide meal and/or rest breaks;
   (3) waiting time penalties; and
   (4) unfair competition.

The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number of
any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on
behalf the purported class.

On March 4, 2009, Barnes and Noble filed an answer denying all
claims.

On March 5, 2009, Barnes and Noble removed this matter to
federal court.

Written discovery concerning purported class member wages, hours
worked, and other matters has commenced.

Discovery concerning purported class member wages, hours worked,
and other matters has commenced.

The plaintiffs' class certification motion was filed on Oct. 19,
2009.

The company's response was filed on Nov. 30, 2009, and the
hearing on the class certification motion is set for Jan. 20,
2010.

The Court has set a trial date of Aug. 10, 2010.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. -- http://www.barnesandnoble.com/-- is a
bookseller.  The company's principal business is the sale of
trade books (generally hardcover and paperback consumer titles,
excluding educational textbooks and specialized religious
titles), mass-market paperbacks (such as mystery, romance,
science fiction and other fiction), children's books, bargain
books, magazines, gift, cafe products and services, music and
movies direct to customers.  As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company
operated 778 bookstores and a Website.  Of the 778 bookstores,
726 operate under the Barnes & Noble Booksellers trade name and
52 operate primarily under the B. Dalton Bookseller trade name.


BARNES & NOBLE: Unit Faces "Minor" Complaint Over Wage Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action complaint entitled, "Minor v. Barnes &
Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al.," is pending, according to Barnes
& Noble, Inc.'s Dec. 10, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31,
2009.

On May 1, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court
for the State of California alleging wage payments by
instruments in a form that did not comply with the requirements
of the California Labor Code, allegedly resulting in
impermissible wage payment reductions and calling for imposition
of statutory penalties.

The complaint also seeks restitution of such allegedly unpaid
wages under California's unfair competition law, and an
injunction compelling compliance with the California Labor Code.

The complaint alleges two subclasses of 500 and 200 employees,
respectively (there may be overlap among the subclasses), but
contains no allegations concerning the number of alleged
violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the
purported class.

On June 3, 2009, Barnes & Noble Booksellers filed an answer
denying all claims.

Discovery concerning purported class member payroll checks and
related information has commenced.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. -- http://www.barnesandnoble.com/-- is a
bookseller.  The company's principal business is the sale of
trade books (generally hardcover and paperback consumer titles,
excluding educational textbooks and specialized religious
titles), mass-market paperbacks (such as mystery, romance,
science fiction and other fiction), children's books, bargain
books, magazines, gift, cafe products and services, music and
movies direct to customers.  As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company
operated 778 bookstores and a Website.  Of the 778 bookstores,
726 operate under the Barnes & Noble Booksellers trade name and
52 operate primarily under the B. Dalton Bookseller trade name.


CHICO'S FAS: Court Denies Class Certification in "Haefner" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California, County of San
Diego has issued an order denying the plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the suit, Michele L. Massey Haefner v.
Chico's FAS, 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.

The Complaint, filed in June 2008, alleges that the company, in
violation of California law, requested or required customers to
provide personal identification information in conjunction with
credit card transactions.

The company filed an answer denying the material allegations of
the Complaint.

The parties have exchanged class certification briefs and the
Court has scheduled a hearing on class certification in
September

After the hearing, the Court issued an Order denying the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.

As a result, the case will proceed as a single plaintiff case
only, unless the ruling is overturned on appeal.

Chico's FAS, Inc. -- http://www.chicosfas.com-- is a specialty  
retailer of private branded, casual-to-dressy clothing,
intimates, complementary accessories, and other non-clothing gift
items under the Chico's, White House |Black Market and Soma
Intimates brand names.  The Chico's brand sells designed, private
branded clothing focusing on women 35 and over with a moderate to
high income level.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Continues to Defend "Richter" Suit in Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corp., intends defend a suit styled Cynthia
Richter, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., according to the company's
Dec. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 30, 2009.

The lawsuit was filed on Aug. 7, 2006, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama (Case No. 7:06-cv-01537-LSC)
in which the plaintiff alleges that she and other current and
former Dollar General store managers were improperly classified
as exempt executive employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On Aug. 15, 2006, the Richter plaintiff filed a motion in which
she asked the court to certify a nationwide class of current and
former store managers.

The company opposed the plaintiff's motion.

On March 23, 2007, the court conditionally certified a nationwide
class of individuals who worked for Dollar General as store
managers since August 7, 2003.

The number of persons who will be included in the class has not
been determined.

On May 30, 2007, the court stayed all proceedings in the case,
including the sending of a notice to the class, to evaluate,
among other things, certain appeals pending in the Eleventh
Circuit involving claims similar to those raised in this action.  
That stay has been extended on several occasions, most recently
through Oct. 31, 2009.

Those appeals have been resolved, and the court has ordered that
a list of potential class members be prepared and notice to those
individuals be issued. During the stay, the statute of
limitations was tolled for the potential class members.

The company says its store managers are and have been properly
classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and that this
action is not appropriate for collective action treatment.

Dollar General Corp. -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is a  
discount retailer of general merchandise at everyday low prices.  
Through its stores, the Company offers a focused assortment of
basic consumable merchandise, including health and beauty aids,
packaged food and refrigerated products, home cleaning supplies,
housewares, stationery, seasonal goods, basic clothing and
domestics.  Dollar General stores serve primarily low-, middle-
and fixed-income families.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Continues to Defend FLSA Violations Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corp. continues to defend a suit alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York, according to
the company's Dec. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 30,
2009.

On May 18, 2006, the company was served with a lawsuit entitled
Tammy Brickey, Becky Norman, Rose Rochow, Sandra Cogswell and
Melinda Sappington v. Dolgencorp, Inc. and Dollar General
Corporation, Case No. 6:06-cv-06084-DGL, originally filed on Feb.
9, 2006 and amended on May 12, 2006.

The Brickey plaintiffs seek to proceed collectively under the
FLSA and as a class under New York, Ohio, Maryland and North
Carolina wage and hour statutes on behalf of, among others,
assistant store managers who claim to be owed wages (including
overtime wages) under those statutes.

Dollar General Corp. -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is a  
discount retailer of general merchandise at everyday low prices.  
Through its stores, the Company offers a focused assortment of
basic consumable merchandise, including health and beauty aids,
packaged food and refrigerated products, home cleaning supplies,
housewares, stationery, seasonal goods, basic clothing and
domestics.  Dollar General stores serve primarily low-, middle-
and fixed-income families.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Still Defending Former Manager's Suit in Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corp., continues to defend a suit styled Janet
Calvert v. Dolgencorp, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-00465-VEH, filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,
according to the company's Dec. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Oct. 30, 2009.

The company was filed on March 7, 2006, in which the plaintiff, a
former store manager, alleged that she was paid less than male
store managers because of her sex, in violation of the Equal Pay
Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

The complaint subsequently was amended to include additional
plaintiffs, who also allege to have been paid less than males
because of their sex, and to add allegations that the company's
compensation practices disparately impact females.

Under the amended complaint, Plaintiffs seek to proceed
collectively under the Equal Pay Act and as a class under Title
VII, and request back wages, injunctive and declaratory relief,
liquidated damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On July 9, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion in which they
asked the court to approve the issuance of notice to a class of
current and former female store managers under the Equal Pay Act.

The company opposed plaintiffs' motion.

On Nov. 30, 2007, the court conditionally certified a nationwide
class of females under the Equal Pay Act who worked for Dollar
General as store managers between Nov. 30, 2004 and Nov. 30,
2007.

The notice was issued on January 11, 2008, and persons to whom
the notice was sent were required to opt into the suit by March
11, 2008.

Approximately 2,100 individuals have opted into the lawsuit.

The company will have an opportunity at the close of the
discovery period to seek decertification of the Equal Pay Act
class, and the company expects to file such motion.

The plaintiffs have not yet moved for class certification
relating to their Title VII claims.

The company expects such motion to be filed within the next
several months and will strenuously oppose such a motion.

At this time, it is not possible to predict whether the court
ultimately will permit the Calvert action to proceed collectively
under the Equal Pay Act or as a class under Title VII.

However, the company says the case is not appropriate for class
or collective treatment and that its policies and practices
comply with the Equal Pay Act and Title VII.

Dollar General Corp. -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is a  
discount retailer of general merchandise at everyday low prices.  
Through its stores, the Company offers a focused assortment of
basic consumable merchandise, including health and beauty aids,
packaged food and refrigerated products, home cleaning supplies,
housewares, stationery, seasonal goods, basic clothing and
domestics.  Dollar General stores serve primarily low-, middle-
and fixed-income families.


DOLLAR GENERAL: "Cox" Suit over Pregnancy Discrimination Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cox, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., et al, Case No. LACV-034423
(Iowa Dist. Ct., Dallas Cty.), remains pending, according to
Dollar General Corp.'s Dec. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Oct. 30, 2009.

The company was served with the Cox complaint on July 30, 2008.  
The plaintiff, a former store manager, alleges that the company
discriminates against pregnant employees on the basis of sex and
retaliates against employees in violation of the Iowa Civil
Rights Act.

Cox seeks to represent a class of "all current, former and future
employees from the State of Iowa who are employed by Dollar
General who suffered from, are currently suffering from or in the
future may suffer from" alleged sex/pregnancy discrimination and
retaliation and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well
as equitable, compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Dollar General Corp. -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is a  
discount retailer of general merchandise at everyday low prices.  
Through its stores, the Company offers a focused assortment of
basic consumable merchandise, including health and beauty aids,
packaged food and refrigerated products, home cleaning supplies,
housewares, stationery, seasonal goods, basic clothing and
domestics.  Dollar General stores serve primarily low-, middle-
and fixed-income families.


DYNAMEX INC: San Bernardino Plaintiffs Added to Los Angeles Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action suit against Dynamex Inc.,
alleging violations of the California business statutes has been
added to the lawsuit currently being faced by the company in the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, according to
the company's Dec. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31,
2009.

On July 25, 2008, two independent contractor drivers filed a
purported class action suit in San Bernardino County, California
Superior Court alleging that the company's classification of
California drivers as independent contractors was unlawful, and
that as a consequence they were denied the benefit of various
California wage laws.

The plaintiffs further alleged that such misclassification
constituted unfair competition under California business
statutes.

Because the Complaint in large measure contains the same causes
of action as the on-going 2005 Los Angeles County, California
Superior Court case, the company filed a Special Demurrer and a
Motion to Stay further proceedings pending the outcome of the
earlier action.

Following a November 2008 Hearing, the Court issued a Stay.

Plaintiffs' subsequent attempt to consolidate their action with
the Los Angeles County action was denied.

On Jan. 21, 2009, one of the named Plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed his claims without prejudice in order to attempt to
join the Los Angeles County suit.

The Plaintiff has subsequently been added to the Los Angeles
County suit.

The company says the independent contractor owner-operator
drivers are properly classified as independent contractors and
intends to vigorously defend this litigation. Given the nature
and preliminary status of the claims, however, the company cannot
yet determine the amount or a reasonable range of potential loss
in these matters, if any.

Dynamex Inc. -- http://www.dynamex.com/-- is a provider of same-
day delivery and logistics services in the United States and
Canada.  The company operates in the same-day delivery services
segment, with two primary service offerings: same-day on-demand
delivery services, and same-day local and regional distribution
services, including outsourcing services, such as fleet
management and facilities management.


ETERNIT: Asbestos-Related Class Action Suit Begins in Italy
-----------------------------------------------------------
MesotheliomaCancerNews.com reports that a trial regarding alleged
asbestos contamination by Eternit, a Swiss building materials
firm, began this week.  As reported by AFP, the trial involves a
class-action lawsuit on behalf of 700 individuals who were
sickened or died as a result of the contamination.

As noted by AFP, two former shareholders of Eternit stand accused
of negligence, which reportedly resulted in over 2,000 deaths
from asbestos-related illnesses, and hundreds more illnesses. The
trial is said to be the largest to involve blue asbestos
contamination.  The mineral was banned in the country over a
decade ago.

Jean-Paul Teissonniere, an attorney for the plaintiffs, is quoted
in the report as stating of the trial, "It's a world first.  This
trial will determine whether the judicial system is capable of
handling such a complex case."


GE HEALTHCARE: Sued in Ala. Over High-Radiation CT Scanners
-----------------------------------------------------------
An Alabama woman has filed a class-action lawsuit against the
makers of a CT scan machine for allegedly exposing her and
possibly hundreds of other patients to excess radiation during
medical imaging exams.

Becky Coudert underwent a procedure called a CT brain scan
perfusion scan in September at a hospital in Huntsville and later
developed a bald strip around her head.  According to her federal
lawsuit against GE Healthcare, the company that made the scanner
used in her procedure, Ms. Coudert was exposed to radiation
levels that were up to 14 times the required radiation.

Ms. Coudert's lawsuit accuses GE of negligence for failing to
install warnings on the machines to alert users and patients of
radiation overexposure.  Hospital officials have said as many as
60 other patients at the same facility may also have been
overexposed to radiation.

The suit asks the company to create a fund of at least $5 million
to cover the medical bills and other damages for patients exposed
to excess radiation during the exams. In some cases, the symptoms
of damage done may not be apparent for decades, according to Ms.
Coudert's lawsuit.

Ms. Coudert is represented by:

          Eric James Artrip, Esq.
          WATSON MCKINNEY & ARTRIP, LLP
          203 Greene Street SE
          P.O. Box 18368
          Huntsville, AL 35801-4810
          Telephone: 256-536-7423


GENESCO INC: Awaits Final Approval of Customer E-mail Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement agreement in the purported class-action lawsuit
against Genesco, Inc., alleging violations of the Song-Beverly
Credit Card Act of 1971, California Civil Code Section 1747.08,
awaits final approval.

The suit, filed in the Superior Court of California, San Diego
County, on April 8, 2008, related to requests that customers in
the company's California retail stores voluntarily provide the
company with their e-mail addresses.

The company has filed an answer to the complaint consisting of a
general denial of its allegations and asserting a number of
affirmative defenses and is presently unable to predict whether
or to what extent it may have liability in the case.

On Oct. 13, 2008, the court certified the action as a class-
action suit and preliminarily approved a settlement agreement
pursuant to which the company has issued to each plaintiff class
member a discount coupon good for 25% off up to a $200 purchase
from a Johnston & Murphy store in a single transaction,
exchangeable at the class member's option for a $25 gift card.

The company also agreed to pay attorney's fees and costs and
additional consideration to the named plaintiff totaling
approximately $200,000.

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

Genesco, Inc. -- http://www.genesco.com/-- is a retailer of
branded footwear, licensed and branded headwear, and a
wholesaler of branded footwear.


GENESCO INC: Settlement of "Jacobs" Labor Suit Pending Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a putative class-action suit, Jacobs v. Genesco
Inc., et al., Case No. __________ (Calif. Super. Ct., Shasta
Cty.), remains subject to court approval.

The suit was filed on June 16, 2008, and alleges violations of
the California Labor Code involving payment of wages, failure to
provide mandatory meal and rest breaks, and unfair competition,
and seeking back pay, penalties and declaratory and injunctive
relief.

The company has removed the case to the Federal District Court
for the Eastern District of California.

On Sept. 3, 2008, the court dismissed certain of the plaintiff's
claims, including claims for conversion and punitive damages.

On May 5, 2009, the Company and the plaintiff's counsel reached
an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit on a claims made
basis. The minimum payment by the Company pursuant to the
agreement is $398,000; the maximum is $703,000.

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

Genesco, Inc. -- http://www.genesco.com/-- is a retailer of
branded footwear, licensed and branded headwear, and a
wholesaler of branded footwear.


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Securities Violation Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Herley Industries, Inc., continues to defend a lawsuit alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, according to
the company's Dec. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 1,
2009.

In June and July 2006,  the company was served  with  several  
class-action complaints  against  the  company  and  certain of
its  current  and former officers and directors  in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of  Pennsylvania.  

The claims are made under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's securities  during various
periods before June 14, 2006.

All defendants in the class-action complaints filed motions to
dismiss on April 6, 2007.

On July 17, 2007, the Court issued an order denying the company's
and its former Chairman's motion to dismiss and granted, in part,
the other defendants' motion to dismiss.

Specifically, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against
the other defendants and denied the motion to dismiss the Section
20(a) claim against them.

On July 9, 2008, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification.

On March 4, 2009, all defendants filed an Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

On May 18, 2009, plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their
motion for class certification.

Oral argument regarding the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was held on July 17, 2009.

On Oct. 9, 2009, the Court issued an order granting plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The Court certified a class  consisting  of all purchasers of
Herley stock between  Oct. 1, 2001 and June 14, 2006,  who
sustained  a loss  as a  result  of  that  acquisition.

The parties have completed fact and expert discovery and, on Oct.  
30, 2009, the plaintiffs' and the company each filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment.

Herley Industries, Inc. -- http://www.herley.com/-- is a  
supplier of microwave products and systems to defense and
aerospace entities worldwide.  The company designs and
manufactures microwave components and subassemblies, which are
embedded in a variety of radars, flight instrumentation, weapons
sensors, electronic warfare systems and guidance systems.


HOME DEPOT: Recalls 2,000 Model HB-50 Hampton Bay Dehumidifiers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Home Depot, of Atlanta, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of
about 2,000 Hampton Bay Dehumidifiers.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

An internal component can fail causing the dehumidifier to
overheat, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers.

Home Depot has received 18 reports of the dehumidifiers catching
fire.  One consumer reported a burn injury to his forearm.

The dehumidifiers are beige, have four wheels, and measure 21
inches high, 13-1/2 inches wide and 17-1/2 inches long.  "Hampton
Bay" is printed on the front panel.  Model HB-50 is being
recalled.  The model number is printed on the back interior
panel.  A picture of the recalled product is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10082.html

The recalled appliances were manufactured in China and sold at
The Home Depot from November 2000 through May 2007 for between
$120 and $150.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled
dehumidifiers and contact Home Depot to receive a gift card for
the full amount of the purchase price.  For additional
information, contact The Home Depot at (800) 553-3199 between
8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.homedepot.com/


JASON EVANS: Recalls 18,300 Boys Hooded Sweatshirts
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Jason Evans Associates, LLC, of Hewlett, N.Y., announced a
voluntary recall of about 18,300 Boys Fleece & Flannel Zip Hooded
Sweatshirts manufactured by DMF Sales, of New York, N.Y.  
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The hooded zip sweatshirts have a drawstring through the hood
which can pose a strangulation hazard to children.  In February
1996 CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings
in upper garments such as sweatshirts and jackets.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Boys Fleece, Printed Fleece and Flannel Zip
Hooded Sweatshirts with labels in the neck seam with the brand
name Bay Trading and RN# 30842, in sizes 4 - 18.  Pictures of the
recalled garments are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10080.html

The recalled garments were manufactured in Pakistan and sold at
Burlington Coat Factory from September 2006 through October 2009
for about $12 to 20.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard or return the garment to
either the place of purchase or to Jason Evans for a full refund.  
For additional information contact: Jason Evans toll free at
(888) 683-0063 between 10:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Saturday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/


LEBANON RACEWAY: Stan Chesley Preparing Suit After Dec. 5 Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------
WLWT TV 5 in Cincinnati reports that Stan Chesley, Esq., plans a
class-action lawsuit in connection with a fire that killed two
men and 45 horses.  Mr. Chesley represents a group of horse
owners whose animals died in the Dec. 5 blaze at Lebanon Raceway.
He plans to seek damages on their behalf, saying they're entitled
to the value of the horses and money for their anguish.  State
investigators continue to search for the cause of the fire, the
news report says.

Mr. Chesley can be reached at:

          Stanley M. Chesley, Esq.
          WAITE, SCHNEIDER, BAYLESS & CHESLEY
          1513 Fourth & Vine Tower
          1 West Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 621-0267


OKK TRADING: Recalls 22,000 "Action Team" Toy Dart Gun Sets
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
OKK Trading Inc., of Los Angeles, Calif., today announced a
voluntary recall of about 22,000 "Action Team" Toy Dart Gun Sets
manufactured by Kong Hoi Industrial Co., of Hong Kong, China.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

If a child places the soft, pliable plastic dart in his or her
mouth, they are likely to choke or aspirate the dart into the
throat impairing the child's ability to breathe.  If the dart is
not immediately removed, brain damage or death can occur.

CPSC and OKK Trading have received one report of the November
2007 death of an 8-year-old boy in Port Arthur, Texas.  The child
reportedly was chewing on the toy dart when he inadvertently
swallowed it and it became lodged in his throat blocking his
ability to breathe.

The "ACTION TEAM" play set has a toy gun with three soft rubber
darts, a S.W.A.T. watch, a baton, walkie-talkie, a whistle, and a
badge with a clip and an identification card. The soft, pliable
orange plastic darts have a nearly 2 " inch long shaft and an
approximately _ inch diameter suction cup. The toy gun is black
with an orange nose and trigger and red spring release mechanism.
"Made in China" is printed on one side of the barrel.  A picture
of the recalled product is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10079.html

The recalled toy was manufactured in China and sold at discount
department stores nationwide from December 2006 through March
2008 for about $1.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled dart gun sets away
from children and contact OKK Trading to return the toy for a $3
bounty. OKK Trading will provide a free postage paid envelope for
consumers to return the toy.  For additional information, contact
OKK Trading toll-free at (877) 655-8697 between 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.okktrading.com/


PRECIOUS MOMENTS: Recalls 4,300 Angel Tree Toppers
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Precious Moments Inc. of Carthage, Mo., announced a voluntary
recall of about 4,300 Precious Moments Angel Tree Toppers.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

Undersized wiring can cause the tree topper's switch assembly to
overheat and melt posing a fire hazard.

Precious Moments has received two reported incident involving the
tree topper overheating. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled tree toppers are 10-inch tall vinyl angels with LED
lighted wings.  The angels are white, gold and yellow and they
are holding either a star or a set of bells.  A picture of the
recalled product is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10078.html

The recalled item was manufactured in China and sold at Menards,
Shopko and Blain's Farm and Fleet nationwide from August 2009
through December 2009 for about $18.

Consumers should immediately stop using the tree toppers
and return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.  
For additional information, contact Precious Moments at
(877) 778-7275 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Central Time, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.preciousmoments.com/


SMITH & WESSON: Trial in Consolidated Suit Set for February 7
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a Consolidated Class Action against Smith & Wesson
Holding Corp. alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act
is set to begin on Feb. 7, 2011, according to the company's Dec.
10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009.

The suit is styled In re Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. Securities
Litigation and is a consolidation of these three cases:

     -- William Hwang v. Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., et al.;
     -- Joe Cranford v. Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., et al.;
     -- Joanne Trudelle v. Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., et al.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts (Springfield), and is a purported securities
class action lawsuit brought individually and on behalf of all
persons who purchased the securities of the company between June
15, and Dec. 6, 2007.

The putative plaintiffs seek unspecified damages against the
company, certain of its officers, and its directors for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On Feb. 11, 2008, the plaintiffs in each of the above-referenced
actions filed motions for consolidation of the actions and to
appoint lead class plaintiffs and lead counsel pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

The Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System was
appointed Lead Plaintiff of the putative class.

On May 30, 2008, Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint
seeking unspecified damages against the company and several
officers and directors for alleged violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On Aug. 28, 2008, the named officers and directors moved to
dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint because it fails to
state a claim under the federal securities laws and the PSLRA.

The putative class Lead Plaintiff submitted its Opposition to the
company's motion on Oct. 28, 2008.

The company filed its reply to that Opposition on Dec. 12, 2008.

A hearing was held on the company's motion to dismiss on Jan. 12,
2009.

On March 26, 2009, the company's motion was granted as to Mr.
Monheit and denied as to the remaining defendants.

Discovery is ongoing.

Trial is scheduled to begin on February 7, 2011.

Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. -- http://www.smith-wesson.com/--  
manufactures firearms.  The company manufactures a range of
pistols, revolvers, tactical rifles, hunting rifles, black powder
firearms, handcuffs, and firearm-related products and accessories
for sale to a variety of customers, including gun enthusiasts,
collectors, hunters, sportsmen, competitive shooters, protection
focused individuals, law enforcement and security agencies and
officers, and military agencies in the United States and
throughout the world.


TIMBERLAND CO: Recalls 21,000 Lead-Contaminated Children's Boots
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Timberland Company, of Stratham, N.H., announced a voluntary
recall of about 21,000 Classic Scuffproof Boots.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The logo stamped onto the children's boot's insoles contains
excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint
standard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves children's Timberland 6" Classic Scuffproof
boots.  The boots are wheat-colored leather and were sold in
toddler size 4 through junior size 7.  The model numbers included
in this recall are 34772, 34872 and 34972.  The manufacturer/date
code numbers included in this recall are 6456, 6556, 6656, 6756
and 6856.  The model and manufacturer date code numbers are
printed below the size on a white tag inside the boots.  A
picture of the recalled product is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10076.html

The recalled boots were manufactured in Thailand and sold at shoe
stores and specialty retailers nationwide from June 2009 through
October 2009 for between $50 and $70.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled boots away from
children and contact Timberland to receive free replacement
insoles for the boots.  For additional information, contact
Timberland at (800) 445-5545 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.,
Eastern time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.timberland.com/


TODSON INC: Recalls 24,000 CO2 Bicycle Tire Inflators
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Todson Inc., of North Attleboro, Mass., announced a voluntary
recall about 24,000 CO2 bicycle tire inflators.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The pressurized cartridge containing carbon dioxide (CO2) can
forcefully separate from the pump head, posing a risk of injury
to the consumer.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Zefal CO2 bicycle tire inflators with a
small pressurized carbon dioxide cartridge.  The metal cartridge
is threaded into the inflator head, which allows for the
controlled release of carbon dioxide into the bicycle inner tube.  
The recalled inflators have "Zefal EZ+ CO2 inflator" printed on
the front of the package.  Model number 5602 and UPC number
798661556020 is printed on the back.  A picture of the recalled
product is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10081.html

The recalled device was manufactured in Taiwan and sold
exclusively at Walmart stores nationwide from August 2009 through
November 2009 for about $15.

Consumers should immediately stop using the inflators and return
them to Walmart for a full refund.  For additional information,
contact Todson Inc. at (800) 213- 4561 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.todson.com/


ULTA SALON: Court Approves Settlement in Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
gave its final approval to the settlement entered into between
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., and the plaintiffs in a
consolidated suit, according to the company's Dec. 10, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009.

In December 2007 and January 2008, three putative securities
class action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain
of its current and then-current executive officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Each suit alleged that the prospectus and registration statement
filed pursuant to the company's initial public offering contained
materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material facts.

Each suit claimed violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and/or 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, and the two later filed suits
added claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as well as the associated Rule 10b-5.

In February 2008, two of the plaintiffs filed competing motions
to consolidate the actions and appoint lead plaintiffs and lead
plaintiffs' counsel.

On March 18, 2008, after one of the plaintiffs withdrew his
motion, the suits were consolidated and plaintiffs in the
Mirsky v. ULTA action were appointed lead plaintiffs.

Lead plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on May 19, 2008.

The amended complaint alleged no new violations of the securities
laws not asserted in the prior complaints.

It added no new defendants and dropped one of the then-current
officers as a defendant.

On July 21, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On Sept. 24, 2008, lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
motion to dismiss, and on Oct. 24, 2008, defendants filed their
reply memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss.

On March 19, 2009, defendants' motion to dismiss was denied.

On May 29, 2009, the company and its primary insurance carrier
engaged in a mediation with counsel representing the putative
class.

Although the company continues to deny plaintiffs' allegations,
in the interest of putting this matter behind it, the company and
its insurer reached a settlement with plaintiffs.

On Aug. 7, 2009, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement, approving the form and manner of notice
to putative class members, and setting a final hearing to
determine whether to approve the settlement.

On Nov. 16, 2009, the Court held a final hearing and, no class
members having objected to the settlement or having requested
exclusion from the settlement class, the Court entered a final
order dismissing all three consolidated cases with prejudice.

All amounts paid under the settlement have been paid out of
proceeds of the company's directors and officers liability
insurance coverage.

Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. -- http://www.ulta.com/
-- is a beauty retailer that that provides one-stop shopping for
prestige, mass and salon products and salon services in the
United States.


ULTA SALON: Continues to Face FLSA Violations Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., continues to face an
amended complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, according to the company's Dec. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Oct. 31, 2009.

In July 2009, a putative employment class action lawsuit was
filed against the company and certain unnamed defendants in State
Court in California.

The suit alleges that Ulta misclassified its store General
Managers and Salon Managers as exempt (from the Fair Labor
Standards Act and California Labor Code).

The suit seeks to recover damages and penalties as a result of
this alleged misclassification.

On Aug. 27, 2009 the company filed its answer to the lawsuit and
on Aug. 31, 2009 the company moved the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On Nov. 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
another named plaintiff.

Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. -- http://www.ulta.com/
-- is a beauty retailer that that provides one-stop shopping for
prestige, mass and salon products and salon services in the
United States.


VCG HOLDING: Discloses Filing of Lawsuit to Block Buy-Out Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
On December 11, 2009, VCG Holding Corp. was notified of a
complaint filed by Brandon Ostry in the District Court in
Jefferson County, Colorado.  In the Complaint, the Plaintiff
purports to bring a class action lawsuit against the Company's
Chief Executive Officer, Troy Lowrie and Lowrie Management, LLLP.
The Complaint was filed by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated in connection with the proposal by
Mr. Lowrie, Lowrie Management, LLLP and Family Dog, LLC, to
acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of the
Company.  The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the
consideration in the Proposal is inadequate and that Mr. Lowrie
has conflicts of interest with respect to the Proposal and has
breached his fiduciary duties under Colorado law in connection
with the Proposal.  The Complaint seeks, among other things,
certification of the Plaintiff as a class representative, an
injunction enjoining the consummation of the Proposal, rescinding
the transaction if it is consummated or awarding alleged
recessionary damages, an accounting for alleged damages, profits
and special benefits obtained and for the costs of maintaining
the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees,
and such other relief the court deems just and proper.

                            *********

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  * * *