CAR_Public/091222.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, December 22, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 252

                            Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Continues Litigating Claims in Labor Suit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Continues to Face "Ross" Suit in Ohio
AMCORE FINANCIAL: Accused of Stealing from Health Savings Accts.
APPLIED MATERIALS: Faces Thee Suits Over Planner Semitool Buy
AVERY DENNISON: Settling Tennessee Labelstock Suit for $2 Mil.

BIG LOTS: Court Denies Writ of Mandamus for Case Jurisdiction
BIG LOTS: Defends FLSA Violations Suit in New York
BIG LOTS: Class Certification Denied in Los Angeles Suit
BIG LOTS: Class Certification in Consolidated Suit Denied
CALIFORNIA: Furloughed Workers Sue for Labor Law Violations

COMTECH TELECOMMS: Pompano Plaintiffs Want Cases Consolidated
DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS: Accused of Unconstitutional Searches
DOREL JUVENILE: Recalls 447,000 Infant Car Seats & Carriers
GOOGLE INC: French Court Rules Against Google in Books Case
ICO INC: Shareholder Sues to Get More Money from Wildcat Spider

JEFFERSON COUNTY: Dentist's Tax Suit May Become a Class Action
JO-ANN STORES: $5 Million Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
MERCK & CO: Calif. Court Declines Class Certification Invitation
NETFLIX: Accused in Calif. of Subscriber Privacy Violations
NATIONAL CITY BANK: Sued in Tenn. for Reducing HELOC Credit Lines

PALL CORP: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Ongoing in EDNY
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Recalls 700,000 Packages of Vicks Dayquil
UNITED STATES: Fees in Indian Trust Case "Well Below the Norm"
UTI WORLDWIDE: Freight Forwarding Services Lawsuit Still Pending
WAL-MART STORES: Appeal to "Braun/Hummel" Judgment Still Pending

WAL-MART STORES: Awaits Final Approval of $40 Million Settlement
WAL-MART STORES: Dukes Gender Discrimination Suit Still Pending
WAL-MART STORES: March 10 Trial Set in Kansa EEOC Lawsuit
XTO ENERGY: Shareholder Sues to Get More Money from ExxonMobile

                            *********

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Continues Litigating Claims in Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., are
continuing to litigate the remaining claims in a class-action
lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles.

The suit was filed by Lisa Hashimoto on June 23, 2006.  She,
along with several other plaintiffs, alleged on behalf of a
putative class of California store managers employed in
Hollister and Abercrombie stores that they were entitled to
receive overtime pay as "non-exempt" employees under California
wage and hour laws.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief, unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid benefits, penalties, interest and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The defendants filed an answer to the complaint on Aug. 21,
2006.  The parties engaged in discovery.

On Dec. 10, 2007, the defendants reached an agreement in
principle with the plaintiffs' counsel to settle certain claims
in the action.

The agreement resulted in a written Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement, effective as of Feb. 7, 2008, settling all claims of
Hollister and Abercrombie store managers who served in the
stores from June 23, 2002, to April 30, 2004.

On June 23, 2008, the Superior Court approved that proposed
partial settlement.  The partial settlement does not affect
claims which are alleged to have arisen in the period commencing
on April 30, 2004, but continued to oppose the plaintiffs'
remaining claims.

On Jan. 29, 2009, the Court certified a class consisting of all
store managers who served at Hollister and abercrombie stores in
California from May 1, 2004, through the future date upon which
the action concludes.

No further developments were reported in the company's Dec. 8,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009.

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. -- http://www.abercrombie.com/-- is a
specialty retailer that operates stores selling casual apparel,
such as knit shirts, graphic t-shirts, jeans, woven shirts,
shorts, as well as personal care and other accessories for men,
women and kids under the Abercrombie & Fitch, Abercrombie,
Hollister and RUEHL brands.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Continues to Face "Ross" Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. continues to face a consolidated
securities fraud suit styled Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et
al., Case No. 05-cv-00819 (S.D. Ohio.) (Sargus, J.).

The suit was filed on behalf of a purported class of all persons
who purchased or acquired shares of Class A Common Stock of the
company between June 2, 2005, and Aug. 16, 2005.

The first suit, "Robert Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et
al.," was filed on Sept. 2, 2005.  The suit also named as
defendants the company's officers.

In September and October of 2005, five other purported class-
action suits were filed against the company and other defendants
with the same court.

All six cases seek to allege claims under the federal securities
laws as a result of a decline in the price of the company's
Class A Common Stock in the summer of 2005.

On Nov. 1, 2005, a motion to consolidate all these purported
class-actions into the first case was filed by some of the
plaintiffs.  The company joined in that motion.

On March 22, 2006, the motions to consolidate were granted, and
these actions were consolidated for purposes of motion practice,
discovery and pretrial proceedings.

A consolidated amended securities class action complaint was
filed on Aug. 14, 2006.  On Oct. 13, 2006, all the defendants
moved to dismiss that complaint.

On Aug. 9, 2007, the Court denied the motions to dismiss.  On
Sept. 14, 2007, the defendants filed answers denying the
material allegations of the Complaint and asserting affirmative
defenses.

On Oct. 26, 2007, the plaintiffs moved to certify their
purported class.  After briefings and argument, the motion was
submitted on March 24, 2009, and granted on May 21, 2009.

On June 5, 2009, defendants petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit permission to appeal the class
certification order and on Aug. 24, 2009, the Sixth Circuit
granted leave to appeal.

No further developments were reported in the company's Dec. 8,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Keith W. Schneider, Esq.
         MAGUIRE & SCHNEIDER
         250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-224-1222
         Fax: 614-224-1236
         E-mail: kwschneider@maguire-schneider.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Philip Albert Brown, Esq.
         VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE
         52 East Gay Street
         Columbus, OH 43216-1008
         Phone: 614-464-6400
         Fax: 614-464-6400
         E-mail: pabrown@vssp.com

              - and -

         Roger Philip Sugarman, Esq.
         KEGLER BROWN HILL & RITTER
         65 E. State Street, Suite 1800
         Columbus, OH 43215-4294
         Phone: 614-462-5400
         Fax: 614-462-5422
         E-mail: rsugarman@keglerbrown.com

              - and -

         Michael Roy Szolosi, Sr., Esq.
         MCNAMARA AND MCNAMARA
         88 East Broad Street, Suite 1250
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-228-6131
         E-mail: mrs@mcnamaralaw.us


AMCORE FINANCIAL: Accused of Stealing from Health Savings Accts.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Amcore
Financial stole money from more than 1,000 health savings
accounts, according to a federal class action.  Named plaintiff
Susan Patton claims millions of dollars are missing due to
Amcore's failure to prevent commingling of assets and
misappropriations, and class members have no access to their
accounts because they are frozen due to Amcore's negligence.

Ms. Patton bought her health savings account through (nonparty)
Canopy Financial and it was administered by Amcore.  On Nov. 30,
Canopy co-founder Jeremy Blackburn was charged with using
fraudulent financial statements to raise $75 million for Canopy
-- that criminal complaint was filed five days after Canopy filed
for bankruptcy, according to the complaint.

The class consists of all health savings account owners who
bought accounts through Canopy for which Amcore is the custodian
bank.  The class wants a collective trust set up on Amcore's
health savings accounts and damages for breach of contract and
breach of fiduciary duties.  

A copy of the Complaint in Patton v. Amcore Financial, Inc., Case
No. 09-cv-01038 (S.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/17/Amcore.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven A. Katz, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          505 No. 7th St., Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314-240-4844

               - and -  

          Thomas F. Crosby, Esq.
          WINTERS, BREWSTER, CROSBY & SCHAFER, LLC
          111 West Main Street
          Marion, IL 62959
          Telephone: 618-997-5611


APPLIED MATERIALS: Faces Thee Suits Over Planner Semitool Buy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Materials, Inc. faces three purported class action
lawsuits resulting from its planned acquisition of Semitool,
Inc., according to the company's Dec. 11, 2009, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Oct. 25, 2009.

On Nov. 16, 2009, Applied entered into an agreement to acquire
all of the outstanding shares of Semitool, a public company based
in the state of Montana, for $11 per share in an all-cash tender
offer.

Under the terms of the agreement approved by the Boards of
Directors of both companies, Applied will pay an aggregate
purchase price of approximately $364 million based on the fully-
diluted capitalization of Semitool upon closing the acquisition.  
The acquisition will be conducted through a tender offer for all
of the outstanding shares of Semitool and is conditioned on the
occurrence or absence of certain events, including the tender of
at least 66.67% of Semitool's outstanding stock on a fully-
diluted basis, as well as regulatory approvals and other
customary closing conditions.

Subsequent to announcement of the Offer, three purported class
action lawsuits were filed in state court in the County of
Flathead, State of Montana, against Semitool, Semitool's
directors, Applied and Applied's acquisition subsidiary.

The actions seek certification of a class of all holders of
Semitool common stock (except the defendants and their
affiliates).

The complaints allege, among other things, that Semitool's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize
shareholder value, securing benefits for certain defendants at
the expense or to the detriment of Semitool's public
shareholders, discouraging and/or inhibiting alternative offers,
and failing to disclose material nonpublic information, and that
Applied aided and abetted such alleged breaches.

The actions seek injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from
consummating the Offer and the Merger, damages, and attorneys'
fees.

Applied Materials, Inc. -- http://www.appliedmaterials.com/-- is  
the global leader in Nanomanufacturing Technology(TM) solutions
with a broad portfolio of innovative equipment, services and
software products for the fabrication of semiconductor chips,
flat panel displays, solar photovoltaic cells, flexible
electronics and energy-efficient glass.


AVERY DENNISON: Settling Tennessee Labelstock Suit for $2 Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
         If You Purchased Labelstock after January 1, 1995
                   Please Read this Legal Notice

This notice is to inform you of the proposed partial settlement
of an action entitled Benson v. Avery Dennison Corporation, et
al., brought by class action counsel on behalf of consumers of
labelstock in the States of Kansas, Nebraska, Tennessee and
Vermont.  The lawsuit, which is currently pending in the Circuit
Court for Cocke County, Tennessee at Newport, relates to the
pricing of labelstock.

Who Is Involved?

You are a member of the Settlement Class and your rights are
affected if you are a person who purchased indirectly (i.e.,
other than from the Defendant labelstock manufacturers and their
alleged co-conspirators) labelstock, including products made from
labelstock, during the period from January 1, 1995 to the present
(the "Class Period"), in the States of Kansas, Nebraska,
Tennessee and Vermont (the "Class Jurisdictions"). "Labelstock,"
also known as "Self-Adhesive Labelstock" or "Pressure Sensitive
Labelstock" or "PSL," means products made with paper-based and
film-based labelstock, as described in Plaintiff's Class Action
Complaint.  Labelstock is primarily used to manufacture, among
other products, stickers, name tags, and office labels.

Who Are the Settling Defendants?

Avery Dennison Corporation ("Avery Dennison"); Bemis Company,
Inc. and Morgan Adhesives Company

What Is the Litigation About?

Plaintiff alleges that Avery Dennison, Bemis Company, Inc.,
Morgan Adhesives Company and other Defendants and co-conspirators
participated in an unlawful conspiracy to fix, maintain or
stabilize the price of labelstock at artificially high levels,
and/or to allocate markets and customers for the sale of
labelstock, in violation of antitrust and/or consumer protection
laws of the States of Kansas, Nebraska, Tennessee and Vermont.
Avery Dennison, Bemis Company, Inc., Morgan Adhesives Company and
the other Defendants deny all claims of wrongdoing asserted by
the Plaintiff.

What Are the Terms of the Settlement?

The Court has preliminarily approved two settlements, one with
Avery Dennison ("Avery Settlement") and one with Bemis Company,
Inc. and Morgan Adhesives Company ("Bemis-Morgan Settlement"). If
the proposed settlements are approved by the Court and become
effective, Avery Dennison has agreed to pay Two Million Dollars
($2,000,000.00) and Bemis and Morgan Adhesives have agreed to pay
Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000) into a fund for notice costs,
fees and expenses of Class Counsel, and cy pres distribution, to
be divided and distributed to charitable and/or governmental
organizations in Tennessee and one or more of the Class
Jurisdictions that engage in such activities as the Court may
approve or direct, in any such instance to be expended for public
benefit. Distribution of the Settlement Fund to not-for-profit
organizations is appropriate because any attempt to distribute
the Settlement Fund to individual members of the Settlement Class
would result in prohibitive administrative costs that would
consume any settlement proceeds.

What Are My Legal Rights?

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and the Court
approves the proposed settlement and the settlement becomes
effective, you will be bound by all orders and judgments of the
Court, and any claims you may have against Avery Dennison, Bemis
Company, Inc. and Morgan Adhesives Company only for the conduct
alleged in this action will be resolved and released. How to
Exclude Yourself From the Settlement If you do not wish to be a
member of the Settlement Class, you may exclude yourself by
sending a letter or postcard to the Clerk of the Court, Circuit
Court for Cocke County, Tennessee, 111 Court Avenue, Newport,
Tennessee 37821 which must be received by the Clerk of the Court
by January 29, 2010. You must include your name, address, and
telephone number and a statement that you wish to be excluded.
You must also serve a copy of such statement both upon:

     Counsel for Avery Dennison:

          William Sherman, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004-1304

     Counsel for Bemis Company, Inc. and
     Morgan Adhesives Company:

          Patrick J. Ahern, Esq.
          BAKER & MCKENZIE
          130 East Randolph Drive
          Chicago, Illinois 60601

     Class Counsel:

          Gordon Ball, Esq.
          Bank of America Center, Suite 601
          550 Main Street
          Knoxville, TN 37902

by hand delivery, overnight delivery service, or first-class mail
by that same date.

How to Object to the Settlement

If you remain a member of the Settlement Class, you or your
counsel have the right to appear before the Court and object to
the Settlement. To do so, however, by January 29, 2010 you must
file with the Court a Notice of Intention to Appear and Object,
stating your name, address, and telephone number and describing
the general nature of your objection(s). To be considered timely
filed, this Notice must be received by the Clerk of the Court by
January 29, 2010.  By this same date, you must also serve a copy
of this Notice on counsel [listed above] by hand delivery,
overnight delivery service, or postmarking the Notice by first-
class mail on that date. Your written objection must include (1)
your name, address, and telephone number; (2) information
sufficient to establish your membership in the Settlement Class
(such as receipts for purchases during the Class Period of
labelstock); (3) a statement of your views; and (4) any
supporting documentation you wish to submit. If you wish to
appear and present your objection orally at the fairness hearing
described below, your written objection must contain a notice
that you intend to appear and be heard, a statement of the
positions you intend to present at the hearing and any supporting
arguments. You may, but need not, appear in the lawsuit through
your own attorney. If you do so, you will be responsible for your
own attorney's fees and expenses. The Court will hold a hearing
to determine if the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate on March 12, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. in the Circuit Courtroom
for Cocke County, Tennessee, at Newport. For a copy of the
proposed settlement agreement, contact Class Counsel.

                         *   *   *  

The Class Action Reporter provided an update about this matter on
July 14, 2009.


BIG LOTS: Court Denies Writ of Mandamus for Case Jurisdiction
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
denied Big Lots, Inc.'s writ of mandamus challenging the Court's
jurisdiction to hear multiple individual actions, 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 November 2004, a civil collective action complaint was filed
against the company alleging that the company violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as
exempt employees.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and all
other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid
overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.

On July 5, 2005, the District Court in Louisiana issued an order
conditionally certifying a class of all then-current and former
assistant store managers who have worked for the company since
Nov. 23, 2001.

As a result of that order, notice of the lawsuit was sent to
approximately 5,500 individuals who had the right to opt-in to
the Louisiana matter.

Approximately 1,100 individuals opted to join the Louisiana
matter.

The company filed a motion to decertify the class and the motion
was denied on Aug. 24, 2007.

The trial began on May 7, 2008 and concluded on May 15, 2008.

On June 20, 2008, the District Court in Louisiana issued an order
decertifying the action and dismissed, without prejudice, the
claims of the opt-in plaintiffs.

After this ruling, four plaintiffs remained before the District
Court in Louisiana.

On Jan. 26, 2009, three of the plaintiffs presented their
respective cases before the District Court in Louisiana.

Since then, the claims of one of the plaintiffs in the January
2009 action and the fourth plaintiff (who did not participate in
the January 2009 action) were dismissed with prejudice.

On April 2, 2009, the District Court in Louisiana awarded the two
remaining plaintiffs an aggregate amount of approximately
$100,000 plus attorneys' fees and costs, which, on June 25, 2009,
were determined to be $400,000.

The company appealed both of these decisions.

Subsequent to the District Court in Louisiana's April 2, 2009
decision, approximately 172 of the opt-in plaintiffs filed
individual actions in the District Court in Louisiana.

On Aug. 13, 2009, the company filed a writ of mandamus
challenging the District Court in Louisiana's jurisdiction to
hear these cases.

This writ was denied on Oct. 20, 2009.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national  
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BIG LOTS: Defends FLSA Violations Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc., intends to defend a civil collective action
complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In April 2009, a civil collective action complaint was filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York, alleging that the company violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as
exempt employees.

In addition, the plaintiff seeks class action treatment under New
York law relating to those assistant store managers working in
the State of New York.

The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of himself and all
other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid
overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.

The company believes, according to its Dec. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009, the Fair Labor Standards Act claims
alleged in the this matter are the same claims alleged in the
cases filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana Louisiana Matter.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national  
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BIG LOTS: Class Certification Denied in Los Angeles Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County has denied
class certification in a lawsuit alleging violation of certain
California wage and hours laws, 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 September 2006, a class action complaint was filed against the
company alleging that the company violated certain California
wage and hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as
exempt employees.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf
of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages for
alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, wages not paid
upon termination, improper wage statements, missed rest breaks,
missed meal periods, reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused
vacation time, and attorneys' fees and costs.  
On Oct. 29, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs' class
certification motion, with prejudice.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national  
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BIG LOTS: Class Certification in Consolidated Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
Class certification in a consolidated suit against Big Lots,
Inc., has been denied, 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 February 2008, three alleged class action complaints were
filed against the company by a California resident ("Caron
matters").

The first was filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange
County.  This action is similar in nature to the lawsuit filed
September 2006 pending in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County

This enabled the company to successfully coordinate this matter
with the Seals matter in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County.

The second and third matters, filed in the United States District
Court, Central District of California, and the Superior Court of
California, Riverside County, respectively, allege that the
company violated certain California wage and hour laws for missed
meal and rest periods and other wage and hour claims.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf
of a California statewide class consisting of all other
individuals who are similarly situated, damages resulting from
improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal
periods, non-payment of wages at termination, reimbursement of
expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The company believes these two matters overlapped and the company
successfully consolidated the two cases before one court.  

On Aug. 25, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs' class
certification motion, without prejudice.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national  
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


CALIFORNIA: Furloughed Workers Sue for Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action
accuses California of violating labor laws by ordering state
workers to work during furlough days, and promising them a day
off later.  The class of prison and correctional workers reported
their grievances to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis in June; now they
want action.

The California Correctional Peace Officers Association, a major
political force in California, claims that Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger and his administration are violating federal laws
on wages and hours, overtime and record keeping. They seek
declaratory judgment and costs.

California instituted furlough days as part of its long, after
failing in its effort to control a multibillion-dollar budget
shortfall.

A copy of the Complaint in Newton, et al. v. Schwarzenegger, et
al., Case No. 09-cv-05887 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/17/ArnoldFurlough.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel M. Lindsay, Esq.
          James P. Harrison, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Ragan, Esq.
          Leanne M. Kent, Esq.
          CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOC.
          Legal Department
          755 Riverpoint Drive, Suite 200
          West Sacramento, CA 95605-1634
          Telephone: 916-372-6060


COMTECH TELECOMMS: Pompano Plaintiffs Want Cases Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit
styled Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System,
etc., v. Comtech Telecommunications Corp. et al. (Case No.
09-cv-3007), to consolidate their complainy with the case styled
Lawing v. Comtech Telecommunications Corp. (Case No. 09-cv-3182),
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

The company, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer are named as defendants.

The Complaints, filed in July 2009, allege that the company
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making materially false and misleading statements with respect to
revenue and earnings guidance for fiscal year 2009.

The plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of purchasers of our
stock between Sept. 17, 2008 and March 9, 2009.

The essence of the Complaints is that the company allegedly
failed to disclose certain adverse facts that were allegedly
known to exist at the time the company issued the revenue and
earnings guidance at issue in the Complaints.

The company has, to date, only been served with a complaint by
the Pompano Beach Police and Firefighters' Retirement System.

On Sept. 10, 2009, the District Court entered a scheduling order
in the Pompano Beach lawsuit, and pursuant to that order, Pompano
Beach filed a motion seeking consolidation of the two related
actions and appointment as lead plaintiff under the procedure set
out in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

That motion has not yet been decided, according to the company's
Dec. 8, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended OCt. 31, 2009.

Comtech Telecommunications Corp. -- http://www.comtechtel.com/--  
designs, develops, produces and markets products, systems and
services for communications solutions.  The company conducts its
business through three business segments: telecommunications
transmission, mobile data communications and radio frequency (RF)
microwave amplifiers.  It sells its products to a diverse
customer base in the global commercial and government
communications markets.  On Aug. 1, 2008, the Company acquired
Radyne Corporation.


DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS: Accused of Unconstitutional Searches
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action in Ann Arbor
Federal Court claims the Detroit Public Schools
unconstitutionally search students, their backpacks and purses
"on a daily basis at Mumford High School," without reasonable
suspicion, and in violation of a 2006 consent judgment,  

A copy of the Complaint in McBurrows, et al. v. Detroit Public
Schools, Case No. 09-cv-14863 (E.D. Mich.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/17/CivRts.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark P. Francher, Esq.
          Daniel S. Korobkin, Esq.
          Michael J. Steinberg, Esq.
          Kary L. Moss, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN
          2966 Woodward Ave.
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: 313-578-6800

               - and -  

          Amos E. Williams, Esq.
          615 Griswold, Suite 1115
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: 313-963-5222


DOREL JUVENILE: Recalls 447,000 Infant Car Seats & Carriers
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in cooperation
Dorel Juvenile Group Inc., of Columbus, Ind., announced a recall
of about 447,000 Dorel Infant Car Seat/Carriers.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

When used as an infant carrier, the child restraint handle to the
seat can loosen and come off, posing a fall hazard to infants.

Dorel has received 77 reports of the child restraint handle fully
or partially coming off the car seat/carrier resulting in at
least three injuries to infants including bumps, bruises and a
head injury.

This recall involves Safety 1st, Cosco, Eddie Bauer and Disney
branded infant car seat/carriers with these model numbers and
that were manufactured from January 6, 2008 through April 6,
2009:

      Model No.        Product Description
      ---------        -------------------
      22-057 DBY       Safety 1st Sojourn Travel System
      22-085 DWA       Safety 1st Sojourn Travel System
      22-057 CLN       Safety 1st Sojourn Travel System
      22-057 HRT       Safety 1st Sojourn Travel System
      22-322 HRR       Safety 1st Sojourn Travel System
      22-322 PTK       Safety 1st Sojourn Travel System
      22-057 LPH       Safety 1st Sojourn Travel System
      22-085 LYN       Safety 1st Sojourn Travel System
      22-322 KDL       Safety 1st Eurostar Travel System
      22-322 LXI       Safety 1st Eurostar Travel System
      22-322OLY        Safety 1st Eurostar Travel System
      22-322PRS        Safety 1st Eurostar Travel System
      22-322 MAI       Safety 1st Eurostar Travel System
      22-325 COB       Safety 1st Eurostar Travel System
      22-095 RBK       Safety 1st Eurostar Travel System
      22-380 LGA       Safety 1st Lite Wave Travel System
      22-380 MSA       Safety 1st Lite Wave Travel System
      22-627 WAV       Safety 1st Vector Travel System
      22-325 PAC       Safety 1st Vector Travel System

      22-300 FZN       Cosco Sprint Travel System
      22-300 OSF       Cosco Sprint Travel System
      22-300 CSF       Cosco Sprint Travel System
      22-300 JJV       Cosco Sprint Travel System
      22-300 THD       Cosco Sprint Travel System
      22-300 TWD       Cosco Sprint Travel System

      22-627 AWF       Disney Propack Travel System
      22-355 LBF       Disney Propack Travel System
      22-305 NAB       Disney Propack Travel System
      22-305 PPH       Disney Propack Travel System
      22-355 PWK       Disney Propack Travel System

      22-627 CGT       Eddie Bauer Adventurer Travel System
      22-627 FRK       Eddie Bauer Adventurer Travel System
      22-627 SNW       Eddie Bauer Adventurer Travel System
      22-627 WPR       Eddie Bauer Adventurer Travel System
      22-627KGS        Eddie Bauer Endeavor Travel System
      22-655BYTE       Eddie Bauer Endeavor Travel System
            
The model number and manufacture date are located on a label on
the side of the car seat/carrier.  They were sold with Travel
Systems.  The stroller portion of the travel system is not
affected by this recall.  A picture of the recalled product is
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10084.html

The recalled product was manufactured in China and sold at
department and juvenile product stores nationwide from January
2008 through December 2009 for between $120 and $220.

Consumers should not use the handle of the car seat/carrier
until the repair kit has been installed.  The product can
continue to be used as a car seat when properly installed in the
vehicle. Contact Dorel Juvenile Group to receive a free repair
kit.  For additional information, contact Dorel Juvenile Group at
(866) 762-3316 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.djgusa.com/safety_notice


GOOGLE INC: French Court Rules Against Google in Books Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Greg Keller and Nicolas Vaux-Montagny at The Associated Press
report that court in Paris, France, ruled last week that Google
Inc. is breaking French law with its policy of digitizing books,
handing the U.S. Internet giant a $14,300 (10,000 euro)-a-day
fine until it rids its search engine of the literary extracts.

A judge also ordered Google to pay $430,000 (300,000 euro) in
damages and interest to French publisher La Martiniere, which
brought the case on behalf of a group of French publishers.

The attorney for Google, Alexandra Neri, said Google plans to
appeal the decision.

Google's plans to scan millions of books to make them available
online has drawn criticism from publishers and libraries in both
the U.S. and Europe.

Even if the case doesn't have much financial impact on Google or
force a big change in its book-scanning strategy, it is a
reminder that its ambitions are increasingly colliding with fears
that the company is getting too powerful.

The head of the French publisher's union said he was "completely
satisfied" with the verdict.

"It shows Google that they are not the kings of the world and
they can't do whatever they want," said Serge Eyrolles, president
of France's Syndicat National de l'Edition. He said Google had
scanned 100,000 French books into its database - 80 percent of
which were under copyright.

Eyrolles said French publishers would still like to work with
Google to digitize their books, "but only if they stop playing
around with us and start respecting intellectual property
rights."

Philippe Colombet, the head of Google's book scanning project in
France, said the company disagrees with the judgment.

"French readers now face the threat of losing access to a
significant body of knowledge and falling behind the rest of
Internet users," Mr. Colombet said in a conference call with
reporters. "We believe that displaying a limited number of short
extracts from books complies with copyright legislation both in
France and the U.S. -- and improves access to books," Mr.
Colombet said.

Mr. Colombet declined to answer questions posed by the AP
reporters about whether Google would remove the books from its
database or pay the fine.  "We are going to study the judgment
carefully over the coming days," he said.

The judgment will have negligible impact on Internet users
outside of France, and French books from publishers Google has
agreements with will remain searchable, even in France.  Mr.
Colombet could not say how many French books Google has scanned
overall, or how many French publishers it has agreements with.

He said Google has agreements with 30,000 publishers around the
world, including 9,000 in Europe.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has made catching up on France's
digital delay one of the national priorities by earmarking ?750
million of a EUR35 billion ($51 billion) spending plan announced
earlier this week for digitizing France's libraries, film and
music archives and other repositories of the nation's recorded
heritage.

Earlier this week a consortium of French technology companies
announced a plan to create a book scanning project they said
would be better than Google's, but only in three years time.

Google defended its publication of excerpts of copyright-
protected material at a trial in September.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs said that using select excerpts
without permission "is a bad representation of the works."

U.S. authors and publishers also sued Mountain View, California-
based Google. The parties have settled, but are renegotiating
details after the U.S. Justice Department concluded that the
original deal probably violates antitrust law.

The top U.S. copyright official and the governments in Germany
and France also have raised objections about the settlement
overstepping its bounds.


ICO INC: Shareholder Sues to Get More Money from Wildcat Spider
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that ICO Inc. is selling itself
through an unfair process to Wildcat Spider, at an unfair price
of $105 million, shareholders claim in Harris County Court,
Houston.

A copy of the derivative Complaint in Mraud v. Kemp, et al., Case
No. 2009-79556 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Harris Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/17/CCAICO.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Willie Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, LLP
          8117 Preston Road, Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Telephone: 214-706-9314

               - and -  

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad St., 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-363-7500


JEFFERSON COUNTY: Dentist's Tax Suit May Become a Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
WBRC reports that lawyers for a Mountain Brook, Ala., dentist are
trying to turn their lawsuit against Jefferson County, Ala., into
a class-action filing.

Dr. Jeffrey Weissman is suing the county over a newly approved
occupational tax.  His attorneys claim it is unconstitutional for
the county to tax certain professionals.

If the suit is successful, architects, lawyers, accountants,
doctors, engineers and others who work in the county would be
exempt from paying.  The 0.45% tax goes into effect January 1,
2010.

The lawsuit was filed in Jefferson County Circuit Court, and Dr.
Weissman is represented by:

          E. Clayton Lowe Jr., Esq.
          LOWE & GRAMMAS LLP
          1952 Urban Center Pkwy
          Birmingham, AL 35242-2594
          Telephone: (205) 380-2400

               - and -  

          Wilson F. Green, Esq.
          BATTLE FLEENOR GREEN WINN & CLEMMER LLP
          2316 University Boulevard, Suite 200
          Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
          Telephone: (205) 397-8160


JO-ANN STORES: $5 Million Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California gave its
preliminary approval to the $5 million settlement in the
purported wage and hour class-action suit, Patti Blair et al. v.
Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. et al., Case No. BC394795, according to the
company's Dec. 8, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009.

In the complaint, as amended, six former company employees,
individually and on behalf of the purported class members,
allege that certain current and former California store team
leaders employed by the company since July 21, 2004, were
classified improperly as exempt employees (and thus not paid for
overtime work), and that current and former hourly employees
employed by the company's California stores since July 21, 2004,
missed rest and meal breaks for which they were not properly
compensated and at times worked off the clock without
compensation.

The amended complaint alleges other violations of California law
arising from the alleged wage and hour violations.  The amended
complaint seeks substantial monetary damages, injunctive relief
and attorney's fees.

On May 19, 2009 the court certified this matter to proceed as a
class action.

In September 2009, an agreement in principle, which has been
executed by the company, was negotiated with counsel for the
plaintiff.

In November 2009, the court granted preliminary approval of the
negotiated settlement.

The negotiated settlement provides for the payment by the company
of up to $5.0 million, depending on the number of claims that are
filed by the purported class members.

Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. -- http://www.joann.com/-- is a specialty  
retailer of fabrics and crafts, serving customers in their
pursuit of apparel and craft sewing, crafting, home decorating
and other creative endeavors.  The company's retail stores
(operating as Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft stores and Jo-Ann stores)
and Website (www.Joann.com) feature a variety of merchandise
used in sewing, crafting and home decorating projects, including
fabrics, notions, crafts, frames, paper crafting material,
artificial floral, home accents, finished seasonal and home decor
merchandise.  As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated
764 stores in 47 states (554 small-format stores and 210 large-
format stores).


MERCK & CO: Calif. Court Declines Class Certification Invitation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Fellow at Courthouse News Service reports that a California
appeals court upheld a decision denying class-action status to a
lawsuit demanding that Merck reimburse consumers who bought its
higher-priced Vioxx painkiller instead of a safer, generic drug
before Vioxx was pulled from the market due to health concerns.

The proposed class sought damages for anyone who bought Vioxx
since its release in 1999 until it was pulled from the market in
2004, after a study revealed that the drug posed heart health
risks.

In the wake of the damaging study, Merck launched a "campaign to
downplay or outright ignore the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx,"
the ruling states.

The Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles affirmed the
lower court's decertification of the class action, saying too
many individual factors were involved.

"Some patients would still take Vioxx today if it were on the
market; some physicians would still prescribe it regardless of
risks," Justice Walter Croskey wrote.

The plaintiffs claimed that, had they known the risks of Vioxx,
they would have instead bought naproxen, a safer generic pain
reliever.

But the appeals court rejected naproxen as the basis for a common
claim, explaining that not all Vioxx users switched to the
generic naproxen after Vioxx was taken off the market; some went
to other name-brand drugs.

"The failure of naproxen as a viable class-wide comparator . . .
defeats the claim for class-wide restitution," Justice Croskey
wrote.

Determining class damages -- the difference in price between
Vioxx and a generic version -- requires a patient-specific
inquiry, the appeals court ruled.

And the decision to prescribe Vioxx was an individual physician
decision that varies from patient to patient, the judges added.

As a result, Justice Croskey wrote, "the trial court properly
concluded that restitution could not be calculated on a class-
wide basis."

A copy of the slip opinion in In re Vioxx Class Cases, No.
B216521 (Calif. Ct. App., 2nd App. Dist.) is available at
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B216521.PDF


NETFLIX: Accused in Calif. of Subscriber Privacy Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog Newsletter reports that a
lawsuit was filed in San Jose, Calif., last week concerning a
closeted lesbian's privacy and Netflix, the movie rental company.

The woman, an Ohio resident who, for purposes of the lawsuit has
requested anonymity, sued Netflix alongside others hoping to sue
on behalf of a potential class, claiming that the company
divulged personal information which allowed thousands to discern
her sexual preference.  A copy of the Complaint in Doe, et al. v.
Netflix, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-05903 (N.D. Calif.), is available
at:

     http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/12/doe-v-netflix.pdf

In 2006, the Law Blog Newsletter relates, Netflix initiated a
contest in which it would pay $1 million to the first person or
team of people to make certain improvements to its recommendation
system - the system by which the company recommends movies to
subscribers based on their previous movie selections.

As part of the contest -- as explained in a Wired article at
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/netflix-privacy-lawsuit/
-- the company sent more than 50,000 contestants two huge troves
of data.  One contained 100 million movie ratings, the date of
each rating, a unique ID number for the subscriber and
information about the movie.

The suit argues that, based on this information alone,
individuals' identities could be figured out. In fact, according
to the complaint, two University of Texas researchers did just
that by comparing Netflix users' "anonymous" reviews to ones
posted on a different Web site, the Internet Movie Database Web
site.  Through such comparisons, the Texas researchers were able
to unearth personal information, like users' sexual orientation
and religious beliefs.

The plaintiffs allege that Netflix violated a handful of
California laws, in addition to the federal Video Protection
Privacy Act. Interestingly, the VPPA was passed in the wake of
the Robert Bork confirmation hearings, during which Bork's video
store gave a list of his rentals to a Washington reporter.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs' and class members'
movie data and ratings have now become a permanent, public record
on the Internet.

In addition to damages, the also asking the court to stop Netflix
from launching its promised second contest to improve the
recommendations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          David A. Stampley, Esq.
          KAMBEREDELSON, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-920-3072

               - and -  

          Joseph H. Malley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY
          1045 North Zang Blvd.
          Dallas, TX 75208
          Telephone: 214-943-6100

               - and -  

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


NATIONAL CITY BANK: Sued in Tenn. for Reducing HELOC Credit Lines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that National City Bank unfairly
reduced limits on home equity credit lines across the country "in
a transparent attempt to limit its exposure to the troubled
United States housing market," according to a class action in
Memphis Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Raeth v. National City Bank, Case No.
09-cv-02812 (W.D. Tenn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/16/BanksNatCity.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dale Tuttle, Esq.
          Robert Cox, Esq.
          GLASSMAN, EDWARDS, WADE & WYATT, P.C.
          26 N. Second Street
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 527-4673

               - and -  

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          Steven Lezell, Esq.
          KAMBEREDELSON, LLC
          350 North LaSalle, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370


PALL CORP: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Ongoing in EDNY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Pall
Corp. is ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

Initially, four putative class actions were filed against the
Company and certain members of its management team alleging
violations of the federal securities laws relating to the
Company's understatement of certain of its U.S. income tax
payments and of its provision for income taxes in certain prior
periods.

These lawsuits were filed between Aug. 14, 2007, and Oct. 11,
2007, with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York.

The plaintiffs principally alleged that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading public statements about the company's financial
results, financial statements, income tax liability, effective
tax rate and internal controls.  They seek unspecified
compensatory damages, costs and expenses.

On Oct. 15, 2007, various plaintiffs and groups of plaintiffs
filed motions seeking to consolidate the cases and to be
appointed lead plaintiff.  

By Order dated May 28, 2008, the Court consolidated the cases
under the caption "In re Pall Corp. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 07-CV-3359 (E.D.N.Y.) (JS) (ARL)," appointed a lead
plaintiff and ordered that the lead plaintiff file a
consolidated amended complaint.  

The lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on
Aug. 4, 2008.  The lead plaintiff seeks to act as representative
for a class consisting of purchasers of the company's stock
between April 20, 2007, and Aug. 2, 2007, inclusive.  

The consolidated amended complaint names the company, Eric
Krasnoff and Lisa McDermott as defendants and alleges violations
of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.  

It alleges that the defendants violated these provisions of the
federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading public statements about the company's financial
results and financial statements, including the company's income
tax liability, effective tax rate, internal controls and
accounting practices.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory damages, costs and expenses.  

The company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
on Sept. 19, 2008.

The company filed its reply brief to the lead plaintiff's
opposition to its motion to dismiss on Dec. 2, 2008.

By Memorandum and Order dated September 21, 2009, the Court
denied the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint and granted the lead plaintiff leave to amend the
consolidated amended complaint by filing a second amended
complaint.

On Oct. 9, 2009, the company moved for certification for
interlocutory appeal, and the Court denied the motion by
Memorandum and Order entered Nov. 25, 2009, according to the
company's Dec. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commision for the quarter ended Oct. 31,
2009.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          58 South Service Road
          Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: malba@csgrr.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Lewis J. Liman, Esq.
          CLEARY, GOTTLIEB, STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 212-225-2000
          Fax: 212-255-3949
          E-mail: maofiling@cgsh.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Recalls 700,000 Packages of Vicks Dayquil
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Procter & Gamble Co., of Cincinnati, Ohio, announced a
voluntary recall of about 700,000 packages of Vicks Dayquil Cold
& Flu 24-Count Bonus Pack Liquicaps.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The cold and flu medicine contains acetaminophen and is not in
child-resistant packaging and lacks the statement, "This Package
for Households Without Young Children," as required by the Poison
Prevention Packaging Act.  This medicine could cause serious
health problems or death to a child if several of the capsules
are swallowed.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.  

The recall involves Vicks Dayquil Cold & Flu 24-Count Bonus Pack
Liquicaps. The medicine comes in orange packaging with the green
Vicks symbol and has the following UPC#: 3 23900 01087 1. No
other Vick's product is included in this recall.  A picture of
the recalled product is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10085.html

The recalled medicine was manufactured in Canada and sold at drug
stores, grocery stores and other retailers nationwide between
September 2008 and December 2009 for about $5.

Consumers should keep this product out of the reach of
children. Consumers who purchased the product with the
expectation that it would be in child-resistant packaging can
contact Procter & Gamble for a full refund or a replacement
coupon.  Adult consumers can continue to use the product as
directed.  For additional information, contact Procter & Gamble
at (800) 251-3374 between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday or log on to their Web site at
http://www.vicks.com/


UNITED STATES: Fees in Indian Trust Case "Well Below the Norm"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarella at The National Law Journal reports that the
lawyers suing the government over Indian trust funds in Cobell,
et al. v. Kempthorne, et al., Case No. 96-cv-01285 (D.C.)
(Robertson, J.), agreed to a range of legal fees that is well
below the norm for class actions in hope of making the deal more
palatable to the class, according to a lead attorney for the
plaintiffs.

The Justice Department earlier this month reached a tentative
settlement with the plaintiffs after the suit dragged on for more
than 13 years with no end in sight.  The more than 300,000 class
members are seeking an historical accounting of the government's
handling of billions of dollars in royalties flowing from Indian
land.

The $1.41 billion settlement, a far cry from the billions the
plaintiffs had been seeking, requires authorization from Congress
-- and, ultimately, approval from the presiding trial judge,
James Robertson, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia. Justice attorneys and counsel for the plaintiffs say
Robertson was integral in supervising settlement negotiations,
which ramped up in July following an appellate court ruling that
kicked the case back to the trial court.

The plaintiffs lawyers, including a team of Kilpatrick Stockton
attorneys and D.C. solo practitioner Dennis Gingold, agreed to
argue for fees in the range of $50 million to nearly $100 million
-- roughly between about 3 and 7 percent of the $1.4 billion
settlement.  The lawyers in the case declined to say whether they
asked for more than $100 million.  Class action lawyers in
Washington have said that the Cobell case -- based on the length
and complexity of the litigation-could have earned the lawyers
more than $100 million.

Sen. John Barrasso, R-N.Y., raised the question of legal fees at
yesterday's Senate Indian Affairs Committee oversight hearing.
Convincing the class members to support hundreds of millions in
attorney fees could have proven a challenge.

"I think all parties understand that the norm award in most class
actions would be higher than the range.  The parties had
discussions about it and agreed to this range. We think that the
interest of the class is served by it," said Kilpatrick Stockton
partner Keith Harper, a lead attorney in the case.  "Obviously
there is concern about attorneys fees. I think it's fair to say
this is well below the norm.  But we felt it was important to
make sure that nothing held up the deal for the class. That's got
to be our singular focus.  That has always been our focus."


UTI WORLDWIDE: Freight Forwarding Services Lawsuit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide Inc. and several other global logistics providers
continue to face a purported class-action suit that was filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, alleging antitrust violations.

The suit was filed on Jan. 3, 2008, under the caption,
"Precision Associates, Inc. v. Panalpina World Transport
(Holding) Ltd."  It alleges that the defendants engaged in
various forms of anti-competitive practices and seeks an
unspecified amount of treble monetary damages and injunctive
relief under U.S. antitrust laws (Class Action Reporter Jan. 14,
2008).

Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are:

     -- Panalpina, Inc.;
     -- Kuhne + Nagel International AG;
     -- Kuehne + Nagel, Inc.;
     -- Expeditors International of Washinton, Inc.;
     -- EGL, Inc.;
     -- EGL Eagle Global Logistics, LP;
     -- Deutsche Bahn AG;
     -- Schenker AG;
     -- Schenker, Inc.;
     -- Deutsche Post AG;
     -- DHL EXpress (USA), Inc.;
     -- UTi Worldwide, Inc.; and
     -- Spedlogswiss a/k/a The Association of Swiss Forwarders.

Precision Associates, Inc., James Barnes and Anything Goes LLC
d/b/a Mail Boxes Etc., bring this action under the provisions of
Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons (excluding governmental
entities, defendants, their subsidiaries and affiliates, and
their co-conspirators) who directly purchased Freight Forwarding
Services in the U.S. from any of the defendants or any
subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator, at any
time during the period from Jan. 1, 2001, to the present.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a contract, conspiracy or combination to raise, fix,
         stabilize, or maintain the prices of Freight Forwarding
         Services sold in the United States;

     (b) whether the alleged contract, conspiracy or combination
         violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

     (c) the duration and extent of the contract, conspiracy or
         combination alleged;

     (d) whether the defendants and their co-conspirators took
         affirmative steps to conceal the contract, conspiracy
         or combination;

     (e) whether each of the defendants was a participant in the
         contract, conspiracy or combination alleged;

     (f) whether the defendants' conduct caused the prices of
         Freight Forwarding Services to be set at an
         artificially high and non-competitive level;

     (g) the effect of defendants' contract, conspiracy or
         combination upon interstate commerce;

     (h) the appropriate measure of damages; and

     (i) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
         declaratory and/or injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs pray:

     -- that the court determine that the Sherman Act claim
        contained may be maintained as a class action under Rule
        23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure;

     -- that the unlawful contract, conspiracy or combination
        alleged be adjudged and decreed to be a per se restraint
        of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 of the
        Sherman Act;

     -- that plaintiffs and the class recover damages, as
        provided by law, and that a joint and several judgment
        in favor of plaintiffs and the class be entered against
        the defendants in an amount to be trebled in accordance
        with the antitrust laws;

     -- that defendants, their affiliates, successors,
        transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors,
        partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other
        persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, be
        permanently enjoined and restrained from in any manner:

        (1) continuing, maintaining, or renewing the contract,
            conspiracy or combination alleged, or from entering
            into any other conspiracy alleged, or from entering
            into any other contract, conspiracy or combination
            having a similar purpose of effect, and from
            adopting or following any practice, plan, program or
            device having a similar purpose or effect; and

        (2) communicating or causing to be communicated to any
            other person engaged in the distribution or sale of
            Freight Forwarding Services, information concerning
            prices or other terms or conditions of sale of any
            such products except to the extent necessary in
            connection with bona fide sale transactions between
            the parties to such communication;

     -- that plaintiffs and members of the class be awarded pre-
        and post-judgment interest and that interest be awarded
        at the highest legal rate from and after the date of
        service of the initial complaint in this action;

     -- that plaintiffs and members of the class recover their
        costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees
        as provided by law; and

     -- that plaintiffs and members of the class have such
        other, further, and different relief as the case may
        require and the court may deem just and proper under the
        circumstances.

The suit is Precision Associates, Inc., et al. v. Panalpina
World Transport (Holding) Ltd. et al., Case No. CV 08 0042
(E.D.N.Y.).

No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 8, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP
          500 Fifth Avenue, Floor 58
          New York, NY 10110
          Phone: (212) 608-1900
          Fax: (212) 719-4677
          E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com

Representing the defendants are:

          August C. Venturini, Esq.
          VENTURINI & ASSOCIATES
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 545
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: 212-826-6800
          Fax: 212-949-6162
          E-mail: acv@venturini-law.com

               - and -

          James Joseph Calder, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          575 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-940-6460
          Fax: 212-940-3871
          E-mail: james.calder@kattenlaw.com

               - and -

          Breon S. Peace, Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 212-225-2059
          Fax: 212-225-3999
          E-mail: bpeace@cgsh.com


WAL-MART STORES: Appeal to "Braun/Hummel" Judgment Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s appeal to a $188 million judgment in the
matter, Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., continues to
remain pending.

The case is containing class-action allegations in which the
plaintiffs are current and former hourly associates who allege
that the company forced or encouraged them to work "off the
clock," failed to provide rest breaks or meal periods, or
otherwise failed to pay them correctly.  It generally seeks
unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both.

A trial was commenced in the matter on September 2006, in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  The plaintiffs allege that the
company failed to pay class members for all hours worked and
prevented class members from taking their full meal and rest
breaks.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the jury awarded back-pay damages to the
plaintiffs of approximately $78 million on their claims for off-
the-clock work and missed rest breaks.  The jury found in favor
of the company on the plaintiffs' meal-period claims.

On Nov. 14, 2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in the
approximate amount of $188 million, which included the jury's
back-pay award plus statutory penalties, prejudgment interest and
attorneys' fees.

The company believes it has substantial factual and legal
defenses to the claims at issue, and on Dec. 7, 2007, the company
filed its Notice of Appeal.

No further developments 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.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- serves   
customers and club members more than 200 million times per week
at more than 8,000 retail units under 53 different banners in 15
countries.  The company operates in three business segments:
Walmart U.S. and Sam's Club in the United States, and Walmart
International in 14 countries and Puerto Rico.  In January 2009,
the company acquired 57% of D&S S.A.


WAL-MART STORES: Awaits Final Approval of $40 Million Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is awaiting approval from the the Superior
Court of Middlesex County, Massachusetts, of a settlement
agreement disposing of all claims asserted in Salvas v. Wal-Mart
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.

The plaintiffs in the suit allege that class members worked off
the clock and were not provided meal and rest breaks in
accordance with Massachusetts law, and seek compensatory damages
in the amount of $30 million, plus statutory treble damages,
interest, costs of court and attorneys' fees.

The trial court granted class certification in December 2004,
then decertified the class in November 2006.

In September 2008, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
reversed the decertification and remanded the case for trial.

On Oct. 19, 2009, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
disposing of all claims asserted in the litigation, which is
subject to approval by the trial court.

If the proposed settlement is approved, the amount to be paid by
Wal-Mart will be approximately $40 million.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- serves   
customers and club members more than 200 million times per week
at more than 8,000 retail units under 53 different banners in 15
countries.  The company operates in three business segments:
Walmart U.S. and Sam's Club in the United States, and Walmart
International in 14 countries and Puerto Rico.  In January 2009,
the company acquired 57% of D&S S.A.  


WAL-MART STORES: Dukes Gender Discrimination Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. continues to face a gender-discrimination
class-action lawsuit, Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

The purported class-action suit was commenced in June 2001 and
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  It was brought on behalf of all past and present
female employees in all of the company's retail stores and
warehouse clubs in the U.S.

The complaint alleges that the company has engaged in a pattern
and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training, and job assignments.  It seeks, among other things,
injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

On June 21, 2004, the district court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The class, which was certified by the district court for purposes
of liability, injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive
damages, and lost pay, subject to certain exceptions, includes
all women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail
store at any time since Dec. 26, 1998, who have been or may be
subjected to the pay and management track promotions policies and
practices challenged by the plaintiffs.

The class as certified currently includes approximately
1.6 million present and former female associates.

The company believes that the district court's ruling is
incorrect.

On Aug. 31, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
granted the company's petition for discretionary review of the
ruling.

On Feb. 6, 2007, a divided three-judge panel of the court of
Appeals issued a decision affirming the district court's
certification order.

On Feb. 20, 2007, the company filed a petition asking that the
decision be reconsidered by a larger panel of the court.  On Dec.
11, 2007, the three-judge panel withdrew its opinion of Feb. 6,
2007, and issued a revised opinion.   As a result, Wal-Mart's
Petition for Rehearing En Banc was denied as moot.

Wal-Mart filed a new Petition for Rehearing En Banc on Jan. 8,
2008.

On Feb. 13, 2009, the court of appeals issued an Order granting
the Petition.  The court of appeals heard oral argument on the
Petition on March 24, 2009.

No further updates regarding the matter 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.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- serves   
customers and club members more than 200 million times per week
at more than 8,000 retail units under 53 different banners in 15
countries.  The company operates in three business segments:
Walmart U.S. and Sam's Club in the United States, and Walmart
International in 14 countries and Puerto Rico.  In January 2009,
the company acquired 57% of D&S S.A.


WAL-MART STORES: March 10 Trial Set in Kansa EEOC Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky has
set a March 1, 2010 trial in a lawsuit filed by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission against Wal-Mart 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.

The lawsuit was filed by the EEOC on Aug. 24, 2001, on behalf of
Janice Smith and all other females who made application or
transfer requests at the London, Kentucky, distribution center
from 1998 to the present, and who were not hired or transferred
into the warehouse positions for which they applied.

The complaint alleges that the company based hiring decisions on
gender in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as
amended.

The EEOC can maintain this action as a class without
certification.

The EEOC seeks back pay and front pay for those females not
selected for hire or transfer during the relevant time period,
plus compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.

The EEOC has asserted that the hiring practices in question
resulted in a shortfall of 245 positions.

The claims for compensatory and punitive damages are capped by
statute at $300,000 per shortfall position.

The amounts of back pay and front pay that are being sought have
not been specified.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- serves  
customers and club members more than 200 million times per week
at more than 8,000 retail units under 53 different banners in 15
countries.  The company operates in three business segments:
Walmart U.S. and Sam's Club in the United States, and Walmart
International in 14 countries and Puerto Rico.  In January 2009,
the company acquired 57% of D&S S.A.


XTO ENERGY: Shareholder Sues to Get More Money from ExxonMobile
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that XTO Energy, a natural gas
company, is selling itself too cheaply to ExxonMobil, a $41
billion deal in which XTO shareholders will get 0.71 shares of
ExxonMobil for every share of XTO stock, shareholders say in
Tarrant County Court, Fort Worth.

A copy of the Complaint in Israni v. XTO Energy Inc., et al.,
Cause No. 017 242424 09 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Tarrant Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/16/XTO.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly Steckler, Esq.
          Kelly Reddell, Esq.
          BARRON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: 214-521-3605

               - and -  

          Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL
          273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: 610-660-8000

                            *********

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  * * *