CAR_Public/091230.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, December 30, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 256

                            Headlines

5.11 TACTICAL: Recalls 19,000 Spanlink-Made Promotional Knives
AIRVANA INC: Shareholder Sues in Del. to Block Sale of Company
AMERICAN INVESTORS: Nine-Figure Settlement in RICO Class Action
APPLE INC: Upgrades iMac Screen Firmware Without Any Liability
APPLIED MINERALS: Final Settlement Hearing Set for Jan. 19

BEARINGPOINT INC: Securities Litigation Documents to be Preserved
CALIFORNIA: Caltrans Settles N.D. Calif. Curb & Sidewalk Lawsuit
CINTAS CORP: Settles Los Angeles Living Wage Lawsuit for $6.5 Mil
COMCAST CORP: Settles Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Suit for $16 Mil.
COMCAST CORP: Conn. Suit Complains About VoIP Modem Rental Fees

EUROPEAN AUTOWORKS: Accused of Junk Fax Practices in Minn. Action
IKEA HOME: Recalls 600 LEOPARD Highchairs
LABOR READY: Notice of Settlement re Cash Dispensing Machine Fees
LAMARTEK INC: Recalls 16,000 Dive Rite Wings
MIVA INC: M.D. Fla. Dismisses Consolidated Securities Litigation

NISSAN: Bubbling Infinity Dashboard Suit Filed in Missouri
PXRE GROUP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Complaint
SEARS ROEBUCK: Wachtell Wins Dismissal of Kmart Merger Litigation
SKYLINE HOMES: Hagens Berman Amends Waterproofing Lawsuit
WATTS REGULATOR: Recalls 900 Temperature & Pressure Relief Valves

                            *********

5.11 TACTICAL: Recalls 19,000 Spanlink-Made Promotional Knives
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
5.11 Tactical(R), of Modesto, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 19,000 promotional knives manufactured by
Spanlink International Corp.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The knife can fail to lock into its open position, posing a
cutting hazard to consumers.

One minor cut was reported by a store employee.

The recalled folding knives, Style No. 51041019, have a black
handle with a pocket clip and are approximately five inches in
length when closed and seven and three-quarters inches in length
when the blade is open.  Pictures of the recalled knives are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10088.html

The recalled items were manufactured in China and given away as a
free promotional item commencing in September 2009 and ending in
December 2009.

Consumers should stop using the knives immediately and either
return the knives to their local 5.11 Tactical retailer or
contact 5.11 Tactical directly to arrange for the return and
exchange of the knives for a substitute promotional item at no
cost to them.  For additional information, contact 5.11 Tactical
Customer Service at (866) 451-1726 or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.511tactical.com/


AIRVANA INC: Shareholder Sues in Del. to Block Sale of Company
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Airvana is selling itself
too cheaply to 72 Mobile Holdings, which is owned by S.A.C.
Private Capital Group, GSO Capital Partners, Sankaty Advisors,
and Zelnick Media, for $7.65 a share or $530 million,
shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Israni v. Airvana, Inc., et al., Case
No. 5135 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/22/SCA.pdf

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          Citizens Bank Center
          919 Market Street, Suite 1401
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Joseph Russello, Esq.
          Carolina C. Torres, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100

               - and -

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


AMERICAN INVESTORS: Nine-Figure Settlement in RICO Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon P. Duffy at The Legal Intelligencer reports that a
federal judge has granted final approval of a class action RICO
settlement estimated to be worth at least $184 million and
possibly as much as $530 million to a class of mostly elderly
investors who say they were lured by deceptive marketing
practices to purchase long-term annuities that often had maturity
dates far beyond their own life expectancies.

In her 75-page opinion in In re American Investors Life Insurance
Co. Annuity Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, U.S.
District Judge Mary A. McLaughlin also awarded nearly $17.7
million in attorney fees and $550,000 in expenses to the team of
plaintiffs lawyers led by Jerome M. Marcus and Jonathan Auerbach
of Marcus & Auerbach in Wyncote, Pa., and John R. Hargrove of
Hargrove Pierson & Brown in Boca Raton, Fla.

Judge McLaughlin was assigned to preside over several class
actions brought on behalf of more than 387,000 investors that
accused AILI of conspiring with sales agents, trust attorneys and
annuity marketing firms to entice older investors to purchase
annuities that simply weren't suitable given the investors' ages
and the substantial "surrender charges" incurred for early
withdrawal.

The main thrust of the suits was that the investments were
"highly illiquid," meaning that the investors' funds would be
tied up for long periods. In approving the settlement, Judge
McLaughlin found that the plaintiffs lawyers had persuaded AILI
to cure that problem by modifying the policies.

"The settlement relief liquifies the annuities and allows class
members to receive immediate payments and bonuses," Judge
McLaughlin wrote.

Under the terms of the settlement, AILI denied any wrongdoing,
but agreed to modify significant aspects of the annuity policies,
most notably removing surrender charges for class members whose
policies are in deferral while allowing them to obtain the
accumulated value of their annuity over a period ranging between
two and seven years.

Class members who can establish fraud can receive even greater
relief by opting to pursue a claim that challenges the specific
marketing practices used in their case.

In an expert report, Baylor University business professor William
Reichenstein, who has studied annuities for 20 years, estimated
that the settlement is worth at least $184 million and possibly
as much as $530 million, depending on the reaction of the class
to the policy changes.

In his first report, Mr. Reichenstein had supported the
plaintiffs' RICO claims, opining that, given their features,
illiquidity and possible rates of return, the annuities at issue
in this case were "per se unsuitable" for their purchasers.

In a report filed along with the settlement papers, Mr.
Reichenstein noted that 96 percent of the policy account values,
totaling $17 billion, are in deferral. He then opined that a
minimum of 10 percent and a maximum of 35 percent of the class
would receive some form of relief offered by the settlement.

Mr. Reichenstein then calculated a range of potential value for
the settlement based on predictions for the percentage of class
members who would take advantage of the option to withdraw up to
10 percent of the value without penalty.

At a fairness hearing, plaintiffs lawyers told Judge McLaughlin
the settlement value would surpass Mr. Reichenstein's low
estimate because, by the time of the hearing, the class
participation was already higher than what the professor had
anticipated.

In declaring the settlement to be fair, Judge McLaughlin pointed
to the low percentage of objections and exclusions, noting that
only 12 of the 387,263 class members objected to the settlement,
and that only 840 were excluded.

Judge McLaughlin also noted that the plaintiffs faced significant
risks if they pressed ahead and insisted on taking the case to
trial.

"Even if this action survived summary judgment, the trial would
be complex and risky. It would involve intricate actuarial and
financial analysis of the defendants' annuities and an inevitable
battle of the experts," Judge McLaughlin wrote.

Turning to the issue of the fees, Judge McLaughlin found that the
plaintiffs lawyers had logged more than 16,000 hours over five
years, racking up a lodestar of more than $7.9 million without
any guarantee of payment.

The requested fee of $17.9 million was a reasonable one, Judge
McLaughlin found, because it amounted to just 3 to 9 percent of
the estimated value of the settlement and resulted in a
"multiplier" of 2.3 times the plaintiffs lawyers' ordinary
billing rates.

Judges within the Third Circuit, Judge McLaughlin noted, have
approved fees ranging from 6.5% to 14.5% in cases where the
settlements were valued between $90.1 million and $1.8 billion.

"Class counsel's sought fee award of 3 percent to 9 percent of
the settlement amount fits comfortably within the range of
approved fee amounts for similar cases," Judge McLaughlin wrote.

Lead defense counsel is James F. Jorden, Esq., at Jorden Burt in
Washington, D.C.


APPLE INC: Upgrades iMac Screen Firmware Without Any Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Diaz at TechCrunch.com reports that Law360 says a
California federal judge dismissed a potential class action
lawsuit which alleged that Apple propagated their popular iMac
screens without disclosing certain manufacturing defects to its
customers, saying that the allegations were too general to be
considered.

The lawsuit stated that unwanted vertical lines would appear on
the devices after the warranty period had expired and that Apple
"internally recognizes and concedes" the defect, but did nothing
to warn consumers.

While the class action suit was dismissed, the judge did state
that the common-law claim regarding Apple's deliberate
conciliation could be amended to add more detail, and thus
decrease the scope of the suit.

Coincidentally, or maybe not so Mr. Diaz says, Apple released a
firmware update to address problems which have arisen on the 27
iMac screens. The firmware is stated to "address issues that may
cause image corruption or display flickering."


APPLIED MINERALS: Final Settlement Hearing Set for Jan. 19
----------------------------------------------------------
Applied Minerals, Inc. (OTCBB: AMNL) f/k/a Atlas Mining Company
announced that the Securities and Exchange Commission had
approved the Company's offer of settlement to claims by the SEC
arising out of the conduct of Atlas Mining Company's former CEO,
Chairman, and President William Jacobson.  The SEC settlement
imposes no fine or other monetary sanction to be paid by the
Company.

The settlement with the SEC removes the last major issue
confronting the Company left over from the prior management.
With the SEC settlement, and final court approval of the
previously announced class action settlement expected on January
19, 2010, the Company's management team is free to focus on the
continued execution of its business plan into 2010, unencumbered
with the legacy issues of the past.

Details of the SEC Settlement:

In an SEC administrative proceeding, the Company consented,
without admitting or denying the facts, to the entry of a cease-
and-desist order barring future violations of certain
registration and reporting provisions of the federal securities
laws.  The SEC's cease-and-desist order specifically recognizes
the remedial efforts undertaken by the new management of the
Company.

The SEC explains that after Jacobson's violations came to light
in 2008, the Company promptly undertook "significant remedial
efforts."  These efforts included undertaking an internal
investigation and reporting its findings to the SEC; replacing
all members of the management team of the Company, including
hiring a new CEO and CFO; changing all members of the Board of
Directors; changing its independent auditor; adopting a Code of
Conduct and Ethics for its senior officers; implementing internal
control and corporate governance policies; and implementing
additional remedial measures to improve its financial reporting
and disclosure controls, including the appointment of a financial
expert to the Board of Directors.  As of August 14, 2009, the
Company had brought itself current on all due and/or delinquent
periodic reports and continues to be current on such reports.

                     About Applied Minerals Inc

Applied Minerals Inc., formerly the Atlas Mining Company, is the
producer of halloysite clay from their wholly owned Dragon Mine
Property in Utah.  Halloysite is aluminosilicate clay that forms
naturally occurring nanotubes. In addition to serving the
traditional halloysite markets for use in technical ceramics and
catalytic applications, the company has targeted niche
applications that they feel will benefit from the tubular
morphology of their Halloysite. These include: carriers of active
ingredients in paints, coatings and building materials,
agricultural applications and high performance fillers in plastic
composites.


BEARINGPOINT INC: Securities Litigation Documents to be Preserved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
entered an order confirming BearingPoint, Inc.'s Second Modified
Amended Joint Plan Under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.  The
Confirmation Order provides that "[n]otwithstanding anything in
the Plan or herein, all of the Debtors' books, records and other
documents relating to the securities class action entitled In re
BearingPoint, Inc., Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:05-cv-00454 (E.D. Va.) . . . shall be maintained by the Debtors
or the Liquidating Trustee, as applicable, in the same manner as
such are currently maintained, for a period of sixty (60) days
following the effective date of the Plan, or as otherwise agreed
to by the Debtors or the Liquidating Trustee, as applicable, and
the Lead Plaintiffs . . . or as otherwise ordered by the
Bankruptcy Court; provided, however, that all rights of the Lead
Plaintiffs with respect to the disposition of the Debtors' books,
records and other documents relating to the Securities Litigation
are preserved."


CALIFORNIA: Caltrans Settles N.D. Calif. Curb & Sidewalk Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caltrans has reached an agreement on the settlement of a class
action lawsuit filed by Californians for Disability Rights (CDR)
and California Council for the Blind (CCB) to improve access to
pedestrian facilities such as curbs and sidewalks for persons
with disabilities.

The proposed settlement agreement has been submitted to the
federal court.  The court must preliminarily approve the terms of
the agreement and then conduct a hearing before it is binding.
There will be a public notice period, and all interested parties
and the U.S. Department of Justice will be given an opportunity
to review the settlement and provide input to the court.  Final
court approval of the settlement is not expected before April
2010.

"This settlement is a win-win.  It is a victory for all
Californians -- taxpayers and the disability community who have a
right to equal access to all walkways," said Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger. "It would be inexcusable to continue to delay
these modifications. Instead of debating this through the legal
process for the next decade, costing millions of taxpayer
dollars, we are taking action to get this work completed."

The terms of the settlement provide, among other things, that:

"Caltrans is committed to addressing the mobility needs of all
Californians and takes seriously its responsibilities under the
Americans with Disabilities Act," said Caltrans Director Randy
Iwasaki.

The action, filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), alleged that Caltrans discriminated against persons with
mobility and/or visual disabilities by denying them full and
equal access to sidewalks, crosswalks, park and ride lots and
other pedestrian facilities owned or maintained by Caltrans. The
lawsuits were filed in both federal and state court in 2006 and
2008.

A copy of the settlement agreement in Californians for Disability
Rights, Inc., et al., v. California Department of Transportation,
et al., Case No. 06-cv-05125 (N.D. Calif.) (Armstrong, J.), is
available at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4cb6


CINTAS CORP: Settles Los Angeles Living Wage Lawsuit for $6.5 Mil
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Beggs at American Laundry News reports that Cintas Corp.
has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging that it
violated the City of Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance, and
Workers United/SEIU, which claims to represent 70% of laundry
workers in California, says the settlement will cost the company
a record $6.5 million.

More than 500 Southern California Cintas laundry workers are due
to receive back wages, the union says.

The lawsuit -- Ayon, et al. v. Cintas Corp. -- involved three
Cintas rental facilities that rented goods to the City of Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power under contract, says
Cintas, which agreed to the settlement on Dec. 11.

"While Cintas firmly believes that it fully complies with all
federal and state wage and hour laws, including the Los Angeles
Living Wage Ordinance (LWO) which was the subject of the case,
the Company has decided to resolve the claims through a mediated
settlement, in order to avoid the additional expense and
distraction of ongoing litigation," Cintas says in a prepared
statement.

"The company's focus is to maintain the strong relationships we
have with our employee-partners while providing the outstanding
service our customers have grown to expect from Cintas," says
Cintas CEO Scott Farmer in the statement. "Resolving this claim
will enable us to do just that."

The mediated settlement, which still must be approved by the Los
Angeles Superior Court, provides $3.3 million in back wages and
interest for more than 500 Cintas laundry workers at the
company's Ontario, Pico Rivera and Whittier sites. Cintas will
pay an additional $250,000 in penalties and more than $2.6
million in legal fees for the five-year class-action case,
according to Workers United/SEIU.

"We are overjoyed that Cintas is finally paying us the money we
earned," says Blanca Arrellega, a worker at Cintas' Whittier
facility, in the union's press release. "Five years was too long
to wait to get what we worked so hard for."

Los Angeles has a city ordinance that requires private businesses
entering a contract to perform work for the city to pay a "living
wage" to their employees who perform the work.

Cintas contends that Regulation 5, the portion of Los Angeles'
LWO at the heart of the employee lawsuit, didn't apply to its
workers because they didn't work the minimum number of hours per
month on those goods.

"Cintas' evidence was that Cintas employee-partners on average
spent far less than 20 hours per month, and in most cases only
minutes per week, on goods leased to the Los Angeles Department
of Water and Power, making the LWO inapplicable according to
Regulation 5," Cintas says.

The Los Angeles settlement comes almost a year after Cintas was
required to pay roughly $1.2 million in back wages, interest and
penalties to hundreds of Northern California Cintas workers and
the State of California in a case where Cintas was found to have
violated the City of Hayward's Living Wage Ordinance (Amaral vs.
Cintas).


COMCAST CORP: Settles Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Suit for $16 Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation has agreed to settle a consumer class action
that challenged the company's practice of secretly blocking
certain Internet traffic while claiming to provide unlimited
Internet access.  The lawsuit alleges that Comcast impaired the
use of some "Peer-to-Peer" file sharing traffic on Comcast's
High-Speed Internet network.  Under the terms of the settlement,
Comcast has agreed to pay up to $16 million, less settlement
costs, to eligible Class members.

P2P protocols facilitate the sharing and transfer of content such
as high-definition movies and audio files between groups of
users.  P2P protocols are different than most streaming video
services like YouTube and Netflix, which do not use P2P and are
not involved in this case.

"This settlement is a great result for Comcast customers,"
Lexington Law Group partner Mark Todzo states.  "It creates an
efficient and effective mechanism that will put money back in the
customers' hands without them individually going to court."

The action is currently pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and is being
handled by Lexington Law Group together with the leading
nationwide class-action firm Scott+Scott LLP.

Comcast customers may be eligible to get a refund or credit if
they live in the United States or its Territories with a current
or former Comcast High-Speed Internet account and either:

* Used or attempted to use Comcast service to use the Ares,
   BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols any
   time from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008 and were unable
   to share files or have reason to believe that the speed at
   which files were shared was impaired; and/or

* Attempted but were unable to use Comcast service to use
   Lotus Notes to send emails any time from March 26, 2007 to
   October 3, 2007.

Comcast customers who wish to make a claim for settlement
benefits should call 1-877-567-2754, or visit
http://www.P2PCongestionSettlement.com/-- maintained by Rust
Consulting -- for more information.

The Lexington Law Group is a public interest law firm
specializing in consumer protection and environmental cases. Its
cases have resulted in the removal of toxic chemicals from
thousands of everyday products and recovery of millions of
dollars for the benefit of consumers.

Scott+Scott LLP is a law firm with significant experience in
prosecuting national class actions.  The firm currently is
litigating major consumer, securities, antitrust, insurance and
employee-related actions throughout the United States.
Scott+Scott LLP represents injured consumers, pension funds,
foundations and other entities worldwide.

The Plaintiff Class is represented by:

          Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
          Eric S. Somers, Esq.
          LEXINGTON LAW GROUP LLP
          1627 Irving Street
          San Francisco, CA 94122
          Telephone: 415-759-4111

               - and -

          David R. Scott, Esq.
          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-233-4565

Comcast is represented by:

          Seamus C. Duffy, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE AND REATH LLP
          One Logan Square
          18th & Cherry Sts.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996


COMCAST CORP: Conn. Suit Complains About VoIP Modem Rental Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Comcast violates antitrust
law by refusing to provide digital voice-phone service to
customers unless they rent a modem at additional cost. The class
action plaintiffs say Comcast won't sell the modem, and won't let
them use one which is available for sale elsewhere, in New Haven
Federal Court.

A copy of the Class Action Complaint in Fromer v. Comcast
Corporation, et al., Case No. 09-cv-_____ (D. Conn.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/22/Antitrust.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Medico, Esq.
          Frank Napolitano, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF MEDICO AND NAPOLITANO, LLC
          7 Benedict Place
          Greenwich, CT 06830
          Telephone: 203-661-8151

               - and -

          William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
          5 Revere Drive, Suite 200
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: 845-498-7500


EUROPEAN AUTOWORKS: Accused of Junk Fax Practices in Minn. Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Hanners at the St. Paul Pioneer Press reports that Andrew
Percic, who runs a restaurant in Minneapolis that uses its fax
machine to take lunch orders, had enough of the unsolicited ads
clogging his machine.  Mr. Percic has sued a Bloomington, Minn.,
auto repair company and believes enough other businesses got the
company's unwanted missives that the litigation should qualify as
a class-action suit.

In language equating an unsolicited fax to an assault, Mr.
Hanners relates, Mr. Percic's lawyers say that a 2005 fax from a
company named Autopia violated the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and that damages are in order.

"Unsolicited faxes damage their recipients," the suit contends.
"A junk fax recipient loses the use of its fax machine, paper and
ink toner. An unsolicited fax wastes the recipient's valuable
time that would have been spent on something else.  A junk fax
interrupts the recipient's privacy."

Moreover, the suit claims, such faxes "prevent fax machines from
receiving authorized faxes, prevent their use for authorized
outgoing faxes, cause undue wear and tear on the recipients' fax
machines and require additional labor to attempt to discern the
source and purpose of the unsolicited message."

The suit originally was filed in state court in Hennepin County
but was removed to U.S. District Court in Minneapolis on the
request of European Autoworks Inc., the Greenwich, Conn.-based
company that owns Autopia.

The case is Percic Enterprises, Inc. v. European Autoworks, Inc.,
Case No. 09-cv-03629 (D. Minn.) (Davis, J.).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
          Brant D. Penney, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: 651-287-2100

The Defendant is represented by:

          William A. LeMire, Esq.
          Christopher D. Newkirk, Esq.
          ARTHUR CHAPMAN KETTERING SMETAK & PIKALA, PA
          81 S. 9th St., Ste. 500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3214
          Telephone: 612-339-3500


IKEA HOME: Recalls 600 LEOPARD Highchairs
-----------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
IKEA Home Furnishings, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a
voluntary recall of about 600 LEOPARD Highchairs.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The snap locks used to secure the seat to the frame can break and
allow the seat and child to drop through the frame, posing a fall
hazard to young children. Detached snap locks can pose a choking
hazard to young children.

IKEA has received 11 reports worldwide of failing snap locks,
including one report of a child falling through the frame and
suffering bruised legs.  In addition, the firm has one report of
a child mouthing a detached snap lock.  No incidents have been
reported in the United States.

This recall involves all colors of the LEOPARD highchairs sold as
a seat and a frame individually. The seat and tray has an
adhesive label affixed to the underside with the words LEOPARD
and "Made in Italy," an eight-digit article number and a five-
digit supplier number (19589).  Pictures of the recalled product
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10089.html

The recalled highchairs were manufactured in Italy and sold
exclusively at IKEA stores nationwide from October 2009 through
November 2009 for about $60. The frame sold for $40 and the seat
for $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the highchairs and return
them to any IKEA store for a full refund.  For additional
information, contact IKEA toll-free at (888) 966-4532 anytime, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.ikea-usa.com/


LABOR READY: Notice of Settlement re Cash Dispensing Machine Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you were a temporary worker at any Labor Ready branch in New
York State at any time between November 17, 2000 and November 16,
2006 (in the case of Buffalo, New York branch # 1772, between
January 1, 2001, and November 16, 2006), and were paid in cash
through a Labor Ready cash dispensing machine, you are entitled
to a payment.  This notice is to advise you concerning a
Settlement with the Attorney General of New York regarding
temporary workers who worked for Labor Ready Northeast, Inc. in
New York State.  If you were a temporary worker at any Labor
Ready branch in New York State at any time between November 17,
2000, and November 16, 2006 (in the case of Buffalo, New York
branch # 1772, between January 1, 2001 and November 16, 2006),
and were paid in cash through a Labor Ready cash dispensing
machine, you are entitled to a payment.  The Settlement requires
Labor Ready to pay each Eligible Employee (as defined above) 250%
(two and a half times) the total amount that was deducted as CDM
fees from that person's wages.  The fee for each use of the CDM
machine was between $1.00 and $1.99.  The amount you will receive
depends on how long you worked for Labor Ready, how often you
used the CDM machine, and what Labor Ready records show was the
total amount deducted as CDM fees from your wages.  A notice of
restitution was sent to the last known address of Eligible
Employees.  That Notice explains how to request payment under the
Settlement.  If you are an Eligible Employee but did not get the
Notice, please contact:

          NYAG v Labor Ready Class Action Processing
          c/o Simpluris, Inc.
          PO Box 679560
          Orlando, FL 32867-9560

Questions?  Call Simpluris at 877-723-7134, or the New York
Attorney General's Office, Assistant Attorney General Seth
Kupferberg, 212-416-8856.


LAMARTEK INC: Recalls 16,000 Dive Rite Wings
--------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lamartek Inc., dba Dive Rite of, Lake City, Fla., announced a
voluntary recall of about 16,000 Dive Rite Wings.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The over pressure valve springs in the diving equipment could
rust and fail allowing the buoyancy compensator devices to leak,
posing a drowning hazard to divers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The Dive Rite Wings affected in this recall include these models:

          -- Travel,
          -- Venture,
          -- Rec,
          -- Trek,
          -- Classic,
          -- Nomad and
          -- Super Wings.

The wings were sold in red, blue or black. Springs were used on
wings that have an opaque white or blue tinted bladder and welded
in flanges.  Wings with a black bladder are not affected.  Only
the Dive Rite wings that have a serial number range from 42000
through 72000 are affected by this recall.  The serial numbers
can be found on a white tag attached along a seam of the wing.
Pictures of the recalled product are available at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10086.html

The recalled items were manufactured in the United States and
sold at diving equipment retailers and distributors nationwide
from June 2006 through October 2008 for about $359.

Consumers should immediately stop using recalled diving
equipment and return it to an authorized distributor or dealer
for a free replacement of the overpressure valve spring.  For
additional information, contact your local dealer or Dive Rite at
(800) 495-1046 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.diverite.com/


MIVA INC: M.D. Fla. Dismisses Consolidated Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vertro, Inc.'s motion to dismiss In re MIVA, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-cv-00201 (M.D. Fla.) (Steele, J.), has
been granted and summary judgment has been entered in favor of
the defendants in this consolidated shareholder securities class
action.  MIVA was formerly known as Findwhat.com, Inc.

The Court ruled that plaintiffs could not prevail on their claims
of alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against Vertro and the individual defendants and on
their claims that the individual defendants also violated Section
20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of Vertro.  Vertro had
previously disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2009, that the Magistrate Judge issued a report
recommending Vertro's motion for summary judgment be granted.
Plaintiffs have filed a notice of their intention to appeal this
decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Vertro, Inc. (NASDAQ: VTRO) is a software and technology company
that owns and operates the ALOT product portfolio. ALOT's
products are designed to 'Make the Internet Easy' by enhancing
the way consumers engage with content online. Through ALOT,
Internet users can discover best-of-the-web third party content
and display that content through customizable toolbar, homepage
and desktop products. ALOT has millions of live users across its
product portfolio. Together these users conduct high-volumes of
type-in search queries, which are monetized through third-party
search and content agreements.

Coverage of the shareholder litigation appeared in the Class
Action Reporter on Nov. 25, June 10, Apr. 15, 2009, and prior.


NISSAN: Bubbling Infinity Dashboard Suit Filed in Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that dashboards in 2003-08
Infiniti FX35 and FX45 are prone to "bubbling," a class action
claims in Jackson County Court, Independence, Mo.

A copy of the Complaint in Hope, et al. v. Nissan North America,
Inc., Case No. 0916-CV38388 (Mo. Cir. Ct., Jackson Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/22/Nissan.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          L. Benjamin Mook, Esq.
          MOOK & MOOK, P.C.
          103 N. Main St.
          Excelsior Springs, MO 64465
          Telephone: 816-630-3300

               - and -

          Michael W. Blanton, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL W. BLANTON
          11150 Overbrook Rd., Suite 350
          Leawood, KS 66211-2298
          Telephone: 913-661-9600

               - and -

          Kevin D. Stanley, Esq.
          THE STANLEY LAW FIRM
          1100 Main St., Suite 2550
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: 816-221-2320


PXRE GROUP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in
Condra v. PXRE Group, Ltd., No. 09-1370, upheld the decision of
the U.S. District Court dismissing a securities fraud class
action case regarding the losses that PXRE, a reinsurance
company, would be exposed to in the wake of Hurricane Katrina as
well as the company's procedures for calculating loss.

On appeal, the disgruntled investors argued that the District
Court erred in dismissing their complaint on the basis that it
failed to raise a strong inference of scienter so as to survive a
motion to dismiss.  Specifically, investors asserted that the
District Court erred by (1) holding that the Chief Actuary's
opinion was insufficient to infer sceinter, (2) finding that the
magnitude of PXRE's understatement of losses, absolutely and
relative to its peers, did not support an inference of scienter,
and (3) discounting defendants' motive and opportunity in making
their alleged misstatements about PXRE's losses.

"In a thorough, well-reasoned opinion, the District Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, holding that plaintiffs failed to
sufficiently plead scienter under either of the two prongs of the
scienter test required. . . .  After considering plaintiffs'
complaint and all of the arguments on appeal, we dismiss
plaintiffs' claims substantially for the reasons stated by the
District Court's careful order and opinion of March 4, 2009."

See In re PXRE Group, Ltd., Sec. Litig., 600 F. Supp. 2d 510
(S.D.N.Y. 2009).


SEARS ROEBUCK: Wachtell Wins Dismissal of Kmart Merger Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Longstreth at The Am Law Litigation Daily reports that the
plaintiffs in a long-running class action against Sears, Roebuck
& Co. over its merger with Kmart Corp. had reason to be
optimistic.  Their case survived a motion to dismiss, and they
managed to win class certification. But they suffered a
potentially fatal setback last week when Chicago federal district
court judge Robert Gettleman granted Sears's motion for summary
judgment.

The plaintiffs alleged that Sears and its CEO, Alan Lacy, had
made misleading statements by failing to disclose merger
discussions with Kmart before and through the class period
leading up to the deal's consummation in November 2004.  Sears
and Lacy, represented by Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, had
argued that they had no duty to disclose the negotiations. Judge
Gettleman found that the case had to be decided on the facts, so
he let it proceed through discovery.  But when the record became
complete, he found that the defendants had not made any material
omissions or misleading statements.

Judge Gettleman also granted summary judgment to Sears Holdings
chairman Edward Lampert and investment fund ESL Partners, which
became a controlling shareholder of Sears.  The plaintiffs had
alleged that ESL had a duty to make a securities filing regarding
its intent to effect change in the ownership of Sears prior to
the class period. Judge Gettleman disagreed.

Lee Squitieri & Fearon, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said he
would likely file a motion for reconsideration.

Representing Sears and Lacy were Paul Vizcarrondo, Jr. of
Wachtell and Christopher King of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal.
ESL and Lampert had Craig Pimis and Tom Yannucci of Kirkland &
Ellis.


SKYLINE HOMES: Hagens Berman Amends Waterproofing Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman served a First Amended Complaint in Mitchell v.
Skyline Homes, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-02241 (E.D. Calif.), a class
action lawsuit on behalf of homeowners for allegedly failing to
provide proper water protection for its line of manufactured
homes.  According to the amended complaint, Skyline Homes
designed, built and sold manufactured homes without adequate
weather-resistant barriers on exterior walls.  A copy of the
First Amended Complaint is available at http://is.gd/5yk5L

Homeowners of Skyline's manufactured homes claim to have
experienced moisture-related problems including bugs, mold,
mildew and rot due to the lack of weather-resistant sheets
typically placed between the home's exterior walls and siding.
This violates state and federal building codes for manufactured
homes, which clearly regulates the design, construction and
structural durability so that buildings can withstand normal
elements and use.  Skyline also guarantees manufacturing defects
for at least 15 months, stating these defects will be corrected
without charge and within a reasonable timeframe.

Hagens Berman says that Skyline failed to comply with state and
federal building codes as well as neglected to uphold warranties
for manufacturing defects, the suit contends.  If you have a
Skyline manufactured home in California that has been affected by
water damage due to the lack of weather-resistant sheets, please
visit:

     http://www.hbsslaw.com/Skyline.htm

and join the case.  California homeowners can also contact
attorney Jeff Friedman at 510-725-3000 or by email at
jefff@hbsslaw.com.

                 About Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com/-- is
a shareholder-rights law firm with offices in San Francisco,
Seattle, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, and Phoenix. Since 1993,
HBSS has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for
institutional and individual investors defrauded by unscrupulous
management of publicly held corporations through tenacious legal
representation.


WATTS REGULATOR: Recalls 900 Temperature & Pressure Relief Valves
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Watts Regulator Co., of North Andover, Mass., announced a
voluntary recall of about 900 One-inch 140X-9 Temperature and
Pressure Relief Valves.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The relief valve can fail to reduce pressure and avert failure or
rupture of the water heater tank and associated valves, posing
rupture and burn hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the one-inch 140X-9 Temperature and Pressure
Relief valves, which are typically used in large water heaters
for commercial buildings or possibly for large homes. The valves
bear item codes 0259844 (75 psi/210-degree F); 0259924 (100
psi/210-degree F); 0259708 (150 psi/210-degree F); 0259925 (125
psi/210-degree F); and 0259930 (150 psi/210-degree F). The
affected date codes are 0641R through 0930R. The date code is
printed after the model number "M15" on a green metal tag
fastened to the pressure relief valve.  Pictures of the recalled
product are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10087.html

The recalled items were manufactured in the United States and
sold by authorized distributors nationwide from October 2006
through July 2009 for between $250 and $280.  The valves were
typically sold as replacement parts for large water heaters used
in commercial locations or possibly large homes.

Consumers should immediately contact Watts Regulator to schedule
a free repair.  For more information, contact Watts Regulator
toll-free at (888) 272-4649 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
Eastern time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.watts.com/

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2009.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *