CAR_Public/100113.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, January 13, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 8

                            Headlines

AIR FRANCE 358: $12 Million Settlement Approved by Toronto Judge
CALIFORNIA: Trial in ProtectMarriage.com Case Set for March 2011
CALIFORNIA: Female Prison Guards Complain About Workplace
CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN: Catholic Order Charged with Slavery
CREDIT SUISSE: $24-Billion RICO Class Action Suit Filed in Idaho

EQUITY LIFESTYLE: California Court Dismisses Amended Suit
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Faces Amended Complaint in Washington
FAIR FINANCE: Lawyer Says Investor Suit Won't Be Resolved Quickly
GENZYME CORP: Shareholder Lawsuits Filed in D. Mass.
GIORDANO'S ENTERPRISES: Chicago Pizza Chain Labor Suit Continues

IMAX CORP: WCM's Motion to be Lead Plaintiff in Suit Denied
IMAX CORP: Class Certification Motion Still Pending in Ontario
INTESA SAMPAOLO: Class Action Suit Contests Italian Bank's Fees
KOHLBERG CAPITAL: Securities Fraud Complaints Filed in S.D.N.Y.
MERIX CORP: Discovery in Oregon Consolidated Complaint Ongoing

MERIX CORP: Faces Amended Complaint on Planned Viasystems Merger
MPS GROUP: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Class Action Lawsuits
RENTECH INC: Says Shareholder Suits Are Without Merit
SERVICE CORP: Continues to Defend "Conley Investment" Suit
SERVICE CORP: Class Certification Still Pending in "Garcia" Suit

SERVICE CORP: "Sands" Suit in California in Preliminary Stages
SERVICE CORP: Appellate Court Denies Reconsideration Motion
SERVICE CORP: Defends Wage and Hour "Prise" Suit in Pennsylvania
SERVICE CORP: "Stickle" Wage and Hour Suit Remains Pending
SERVICE CORP: Defends "Welch" Wage and Hour Lawsuit in Calif.

SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL: Accused, with State Farm, of Overcharging
TOYS "R" US: Accused of Price-Fixing In E.D. Pa. Lawsuit
UNICREDIT SPA: Class Action Suit Contests Italian Bank's Fees
UNITED STATES: Class Sought in S.D. Tex. Customs & Border Lawsuit
WALGREEN CO: Faces Second Amended Complaint in Illinois

                            *********

AIR FRANCE 358: $12 Million Settlement Approved by Toronto Judge
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that many of the passengers who were aboard an
Air France jet that overshot a runway at Toronto's Pearson
International Airport more than four years ago will receive
compensation through a class action lawsuit.

A Toronto judge has approved a $12-million class action
settlement with 184 passengers who were aboard Flight 358, which
crashed and burned beyond the runway when it landed in a violent
thunderstorm in August 2005.

Air France will pay $10 million, and will be released from those
passengers' claims stemming from the incident, according to a
summary of the judgment.

Airbus and Goodrich, the company that made the emergency
evacuation system on the plane, will pay $1.65 million, and will
also have claims against them in the suit released.

Air France Flight 358 was carrying 297 passengers and 12 crew
members on a flight from Paris. The plane ran off the runway into
a ravine, where it burst into flames.

Some of the passengers were forced to jump from the plane because
the evacuation slides weren't working properly.

A lawyer representing the claimants:

          J.J. Camp, Q.C.
          CAMP FIORANTE MATTHEWS
          4th Floor, Randall Building
          555 West Georgia Street
          Vancouver, BC V6B 1Z6
          CANADA
          Telephone: (604) 689-7555


said he expects an additional $2-million settlement from the
Greater Toronto Airport Authority, which operates Pearson
airport, will be approved by the court.

Mr. Camp said a small group of passengers who suffered serious
physical or psychological injuries will be eligible for the
maximum payout of $175,000.  Passengers who weren't seriously
harmed in the crash will receive the minimum payment, which will
be between $5,000 to $10,000, Mr. Camp said.

Passengers aboard the flight were from 17 different countries,
but Mr. Camp said most of the claimants were from Canada and
France. He said he expects passengers will receive settlement
payouts in the first quarter of 2010.

Mr. Camp said the lawsuit against NAV Canada, which provides air
traffic control and air navigation services, will continue
because NAV Canada didn't want to settle.

The class action settlement deals with 184 passengers, but many
of the other passengers have filed separate claims or settled
their cases with Air France outside the class action lawsuit.


CALIFORNIA: Trial in ProtectMarriage.com Case Set for March 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------
                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
             FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

                           CLASS NOTICE

ATTENTION: AS A DISTRICT ATTORNEY WITH ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY
           UNDER THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT OF 1974, YOU ARE HEREBY
           NOTIFIED THAT:

The case of ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen, Case No. 09-cv-00058,
now pending in the United States District Court in the Eastern
District of California, is an action on behalf of
ProtectMarriage.com, NationalOrganization for Marriage
California, and the Class of Major Donors against several
California state and local officials, including a Defendant Class
consisting of all district attorneys with enforcement authority
under the Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "PRA"), Cal. Gov't
Code Sec. 81000 et seq.  The lawsuit alleges that various
provisions of the PRA violate the Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed
by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
of America.

1. What is this case about?

The Plaintiffs' action arises under 42 U.S.C.   1983 and the
First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.  The Plaintiffs allege that various provisions of
the PRA violate their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States of America. The Plaintiffs
seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and have asked the Court
to enjoin Defendants with enforcement authority under the PRA
from commencing criminal or civil actions for failing to comply
with the provisions Plaintiffs allege are unconstitutional.
The Defendants, including Jan Scully, the District Attorney for
Sacramento County, California (the Class Representative for the
Class of District Attorneys) have denied that the PRA violates
Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights.

2. Why am I receiving this notice?

On August 27, 2009, the Court ordered that this litigation may
proceed as a class action for all purposes.  The classes
certified by the Court consist of:

   * A Plaintiff Class of Major Donors, consisting of all
     individuals and organizations that have contributed $10,000  
     or more to Plaintiffs ProtectMarriage.com or National
     Organization for Marriage California.

   * A Defendant Class of District Attorneys, consisting of all
     district attorneys in the State of California who are
     granted the authority to enforce provisions of the PRA.

   * A Defendant Class of Elected Attorneys, consisting of all
     Elected City Attorneys in the State of California that are
     granted the authority to enforce provisions of the PRA.

This notice is provided for the purpose of informing you of the
pendency of this litigation and the certification of the class of
which you may be a member and your right to be excluded from the
class if you wish.

3. Why is the lawsuit a class action?

The Court certified this lawsuit as a class action on August 27,
2009, finding that it meets the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, which governs class actions in federal
courts.  Specifically, the Court found that:

   * There are more fifty-eight California district attorneys
     empowered to enforce the PRA.

   * There are legal questions and facts that are common to each
     of them;

   * The claims against Jan Scully are typical of the claims
     against the rest of the Class;

   * Jan Scully and the lawyers representing her will fairly and
     adequately represent the Class' interests;

   * The common legal questions and facts are more important than
     questions that affect only individuals; and

   * This class action will be more efficient than having many
     individual lawsuits.

By establishing the Class and issuing this Notice, the Court is
not suggesting that the Class of District Attorneys will win or
lose this case.  Rather, the Court is simply acknowledging that
those district attorneys in the State of California who are
granted the authority to enforce provisions of the PRA meet the
requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for
certification as a defendant class.  The Plaintiffs will have the
opportunity to prove their claims, and the Defendants will have
an opportunity to present their defense, at a trial starting on
March 14, 2011.

4. How will the case be prosecuted?

This is a class action, which means the Class Representative (Jan
Scully, District Attorney for Sacramento County, California) will
defend the lawsuit on behalf of herself and the Class of District
Attorneys.  As long as the case isn't resolved by a settlement or
otherwise, the Plaintiffs will have to the opportunity to prove
their claims at a trial.  The Defendants will likewise have the
opportunity to present their defense. The trial is set to start
on March 14, 2011, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California, 501 I Street, Sacramento,
California, in Courtroom 7, 14th Floor.  During the trial, a
Jury or the Judge will hear all of the evidence to help them
reach a decision about whether the Plaintiffs or Defendants are
right about the claims in the lawsuit.

5. How do I participate in this class?

Under the Court's order, you are a member of the certified Class
of District Attorneys.  If you wish to remain in the class you
need do nothing at this time. Your rights will be represented by
the class representative for the Defendant Class of Elected
Attorneys, Jan Scully, the District Attorney for Sacramento
County, California, and her counsel:

          Terence J. Cassidy, Esq.
          Kristina M. Hall, Esq.
          PORTER SCOTT, P.C.
          350 University Ave., Ste. 200
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 929-1481
          Facsimile: (916) 927-3706

If you remain in the class, you will be bound by any judgments
entered in the case whether favorable or not favorable.

[5]. What if I have further questions?

Visit the website, http://www.telladf.org/ProtectMarriageCase
where you will find the Court's Order Certifying the Class, the
Complaint that the Plaintiffs submitted, the Defendants' Answer
to the Complaint, as well as an Exclusion Request form. You may
also speak to one of the lawyers by calling (812) 232-2434,
or by writing to:

          Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom
          1 S. Sixth St.
          Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510


CALIFORNIA: Female Prison Guards Complain About Workplace
---------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that in a
federal class action, female prison guards claim the California
Department of Corrections does not protect them from inmates who
harass them for confiscating pornography -- and the women say
their supervisors join in the harassment.

Since at least 2007, female officers and employees claim, lax
enforcement of the Department's policies on public display of
sexually explicit material has put them in danger by making them
a target for hostile and aggressive inmates.

Yvette Daniels, correctional counselor at N.A. Chaderjian Youth
Correctional Facility in San Joaquin County, says she repeatedly
confiscated pornographic magazines, video games and movies from
inmates, in accordance with policy, and turned them in to her
superior Mark Miranda.

Mr. Miranda then gave the stuff back to the inmates and told them
that Ms. Daniels was the only officer who had a problem with
inmates having pornography, according to the complaint.
     
In August 2007, Ms. Daniels says, she complained of Mr. Miranda's
unprofessional behavior, unfair treatment, discrimination, sexual
harassment, retaliation and hostile work environment after
Miranda repeatedly told a juvenile offender, "M-----f-----, you
were messing with a fat girl," in Ms. Daniels's presence.

At one point, Ms. Daniels was so scared of an inmate that had
turned against her and had a history of problems with female
authority figures that she had a lieutenant accompany her when
she attempted to counsel him, the complaint states.
     
Ms. Daniels says she submitted 15 complaints against Mr. Miranda
and his superior, Rich Alvarado.  All were ignored, she says.  
Ms. Daniels says she eventually was transferred to another, less
desirable, facility.

At least two other female employees, Maria Aguilar and Karen
Currie, have complained of similar experiences but they say the
prisons department ignored all their complaints.

The class seeks an injunction and damages for sexual
discrimination and retaliation.

A copy of the Complaint in Daniels v. California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, Case No. 09-at-02090 (E.D.
Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/05/PrisonPorn.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Pamela Y. Price, Esq.
          Jeshawna R. Harrell, Esq.
          PRICE AND ASSOCIATES
          1611 Telegraph Avenue, Ste. 1450
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 452-0292

               - and -  

          John L. Burris, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS
          7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Telephone (510) 839-5200


CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN: Catholic Order Charged with Slavery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that members of two
Catholic religious orders trafficked in children for decades,
taking poor kids from their parents in Britain and Malta and
promising to educate them in Australia, then putting them to a
life of forced labor and physical and sexual abuse, according to
a class action Complaint filed in Ellul, et al. v. The
Congregation of Christian Brothers, The Order Of The Sisters Of
Mercy, Mercy International Association and Catholic Religious
Order, Case No. 09-cv-10590 (S.D.N.Y.) (Crotty, J.).  

Three former "child migrants" say the Congregation of Christian
Brothers and the Order of the Sisters of Mercy took subsidies
from the British, Australian and Maltese governments for the
children's upkeep and education, but kept the money for
themselves and gave the children nothing save hardship and pain,
forcing them to beg for scraps of food and root around in pig
troughs for sustenance.

The plaintiffs say the religious orders took them from their
homes under false pretenses and forced them into a horrific life
of unending work, ignorance, violence and rape.

Emmanuel Ellul, one of the named plaintiffs, says he was 14 when
the Christian Brothers took him from Malta to Australia,
ostensibly to be educated and returned to his family in a few
years.

On arriving, however, Mr. Ellul says he became a "working boy" on
commercial farms controlled by the Brothers, where he was fed
"starvation" rations, separated from his siblings, his birth
certificate and his passport, and subjected to "conditions
amounting to slavery."

Mr. Ellul, now in his 60s, says the Christian Brothers told him
his parents were dead, and he was beaten if caught speaking his
native Maltese -- though the Brothers refused to teach him
English.
     
Australian officials estimate that as many as 10,000 "child
migrants," some as young as 3 years old, emigrated from Britain
to Australia between 1947 and 1967, many without the consent of
their poor and absent parents. More than 300 children were taken
from the British colony of Malta and forced to become "working
boys," according to the complaint.

In 2001 the Australian government released a report acknowledging
that "the vast majority of child migrants were not orphans, that
many were taken without parental consent and were subject to
forced child labor on a massive scale in commercial contexts
doing extremely arduous or backbreaking work of an adult nature,"
the complaint states.

In November 2009, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd issued a
formal apology to the child migrants for the abuse they suffered.

"Sorry -- for the tragedy, the absolute tragedy, of childhoods
lost -- childhoods spent instead in austere and authoritarian
places, where names were replaced by numbers, spontaneous play by
regimented routine, the joy of learning by the repetitive
drudgery of menial work," Mr. Rudd said.

"Sorry -- for all these injustices to you, as children, who were
placed in our care. As a nation, we must now reflect on those who
did not receive proper care.  We look back with shame that many
of you were left cold, hungry and alone and with nowhere to hide
and nobody to whom to turn."

The class, including named plaintiffs Emmanuel Ellul, Valerie
Carmack and Hazel Goulding, sued the Congregation of Christian
Brothers and the Order of the Sisters of Mercy, alleging child
trafficking, forced child labor, slavery, unjust enrichment and
other charges.  They want a jury trial and unspecified damages.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Neal Arthur DeYoung, Esq.
          Himanshu Rajan Sharma, Esq.
          SHARMA & DEYOUNG LLP
          286 Madison Avenue, Suite 2002
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-516-1907


CREDIT SUISSE: $24-Billion RICO Class Action Suit Filed in Idaho
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Henderson at Courthouse News Service reports that a RICO
class action claims Credit Suisse, "a foreign banking leviathan,"
extracted billions of dollars from the Idaho, Montana and Nevada
economies by operating a loan scheme to defraud more than 3,000
investors in four high-end golf and ski resorts. The class seeks
$24 billion in damages, claiming Credit Suisse caused
catastrophic damage to interstate commerce, the real estate
market and the investors.

The two named plaintiffs sued on behalf of members of Tamarack
Resort in Idaho, the Yellowstone Club in Montana, Lake Las Vegas
in Nevada, and Ginn Sur Mer in the Bahamas.

Named plaintiffs L.J. Gibson and Beau Blixseth claim Credit
Suisse worked with "the world's most trusted" real estate
appraisal firm, co-defendant Cushman & Wakefield, in a "loan to
own" program.

The class claims Credit Suisse used Cushman & Wakefield's
appraisals to inflate the value of the resort properties. This
gave Credit Suisse an opportunity to earn enormous up-front fees
and eventually to force foreclosure or take control of the
properties at prices significantly below market value, according
to the 81-page complaint.

The class claims that during Yellowstone's bankruptcy proceedings
in May 2009, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Ralph Kirscher commented that
"the naked greed in this case combined with Credit Suisse's
complete disregard for the [developer] or any other person or
entity who was subordinated to Credit Suisse's first lien
position, shocks the conscience of this Court."

Still quoting the bankruptcy judge, the plaintiffs add, "While
Credit Suisse's new loan product resulted in enormous fees to
Credit Suisse in 2005, it resulted in financial ruin for several
residential resort communities. Credit Suisse lined its pockets
on the backs of the unsecured creditors."

The class claims that the real losers were not with the
"unsecured creditors" but the would-be homeowners and developers.

And the class claims that Credit Suisse's "loan to own" scheme
was allegedly funded in part by another scheme it ran assisting
Iranian agencies to avoid international economic sanctions.

The class seeks $8 billion in economic damages and $16 billion in
punitive damages.

A copy of the Complaint in Gibson, et al. v. Credit Suisse AG, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-00001 (D. Idaho), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/05/CreditSuisse.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert C. Huntley, Esq.
          815 Washington St.
          P.O. Box 2188
          Boise, ID 83701
          Telephone: 208-388-1230

               - and -  

          James C. Sabalos, Esq.
          3900 Essex Lane, Suite 730
          Houston, TX 77027
          Telephone: 949-355-6084

               - and -  

          Philip H. Stillman, Esq.
          508 Meadowmist Court, Suite B
          Olivenhain, CA 92024
          Telephone: 888-235-4279

               - and -  

          Michael J. Flynn, Esq.
          P.O. Box 690
          Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
          Telephone: 858-775-7624

               - and -  

          John Flood, Esq.
          802 N. Carancahue, Suite 900
          Corpus Christi, TX 78470
          Telephone: 361-654-8877

               - and -  

          Peter Chase Neumann, Esq.
          136 Ridge Street
          Reno, VN 89501
          Telephone: 775-786-3750

               - and -  

          Chris Flood, Esq.
          914 Preston, Suite 800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: 713-223-8877


EQUITY LIFESTYLE: California Court Dismisses Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The California state court has dismissed an amended complaint
against Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc., according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Oct. 16, 2008, the company was served with a class action
lawsuit in California state court filed by a single named
plaintiff.  The suit alleges that, at the time of the PA
Transaction, the company and other named defendants willfully
failed to pay former California employees of Privileged Access
and its affiliates who became employees of the company all of the
wages they earned during their employment with PA, including
accrued vacation time.

The suit also alleges that the company improperly "stripped"
those employees of their seniority.

The suit asserts claims for alleged violation of the California
Labor Code; alleged violation of the California Business &
Professions Code and for alleged unfair business practices;
alleged breach of contract; alleged breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing; and for alleged unjust enrichment.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, compensatory and
statutory damages; restitution; pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest; attorney's fees, expenses and costs; penalties; and
exemplary and punitive damages.

The complaint does not specify a dollar amount sought.

On Dec. 18, 2008, the company filed a demurrer seeking dismissal
of the complaint in its entirety without leave to amend.

On May 14, 2009, the Court granted the company's demurrer and
dismissed the complaint, in part without leave to amend and in
part with leave to amend.

On June 2, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

On July 6, 2009, the company filed a demurrer seeking dismissal
of the amended complaint in its entirety without leave to amend.

On Oct. 20, 2009, the Court granted the company's demurrer and
dismissed the amended complaint, in part without leave to amend
and in part with leave to amend.

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. --
http://www.equitylifestyle.com/-- is an integrated owner and  
operator of lifestyle-oriented properties.  The company leases
individual developed areas (sites) with access to utilities for
placement of factory built homes, cottages, cabins or
recreational vehicles (RVs).  As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company
owned or had an ownership interest in a portfolio of 309
Properties located throughout the United States and Canada
consisting of 112,074 residential sites.  These Properties are
located in 28 states and British Columbia.  In August 2008, the
company announced the acquisition of substantially all of the
assets and certain liabilities of Privileged Access, LP.  The
company's Properties are designed for several home options of
various sizes and designs that are produced off-site, installed
and set on designated sites (Site Set) within the Properties.  
These homes can range from 400 to over 2,000 square feet.


EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Faces Amended Complaint in Washington
-------------------------------------------------------
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc., faces an amended complaint
filed in the Washington state court, according to the company's
Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Dec. 16, 2008, the company was served with a class action
lawsuit in Washington state court filed by a single named
plaintiff, represented by the same counsel as the plaintiff in
the California class action.  The complaint asserts on behalf of
a putative class of Washington employees of PA who became
employees of the company substantially similar allegations as are
alleged in the California class action.

The company moved to dismiss the complaint.

On April 3, 2009, the court dismissed:

     (1) the first cause of action, which alleged a claim under
         the Washington Labor Code for failure to pay accrued
         vacation time;

     (2) the second cause of action, which alleged a claim under
         the Washington Labor Code for unpaid wages on
         termination;

     (3) the third cause of action, which alleged a claim under
         the Washington Labor Code for payment of wages less
         than entitled; and

     (4) the fourth cause of action, which alleged a claim under
         the Washington Consumer Protection Act..

The court did not dismiss the fifth cause of action for breach of
contract, the sixth cause of action of the breach of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing; and the seventh cause of action for
unjust enrichment.

On May 22, 2009, the company filed a motion for summary judgment
on the causes of action not previously dismissed, which was
denied.

With leave of court, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
the material allegations of which the company denied in an answer
filed on Sept. 11, 2009.

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. --
http://www.equitylifestyle.com/-- is an integrated owner and  
operator of lifestyle-oriented properties.  The company leases
individual developed areas (sites) with access to utilities for
placement of factory built homes, cottages, cabins or
recreational vehicles (RVs).  As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company
owned or had an ownership interest in a portfolio of 309
Properties located throughout the United States and Canada
consisting of 112,074 residential sites.  These Properties are
located in 28 states and British Columbia.  In August 2008, the
company announced the acquisition of substantially all of the
assets and certain liabilities of Privileged Access, LP.  The
company's Properties are designed for several home options of
various sizes and designs that are produced off-site, installed
and set on designated sites (Site Set) within the Properties.  
These homes can range from 400 to over 2,000 square feet.


FAIR FINANCE: Lawyer Says Investor Suit Won't Be Resolved Quickly
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Leonard at The Daily Record reports that an attorney for a
Columbus, Ohio, law firm representing investors in a class action
lawsuit against Fair Finance Co. said litigation against the
company and its directors "is not going to be resolved quickly."

Dave Meyer, of David P. Meyer & Associates Co., said litigation
like a class action lawsuit takes time and asked investors be
patient with the legal process.

"What I can tell you is this is not going to be resolved
quickly," he said.  "The lawsuit is going to take some time.
There's no way I can give some estimation."

Mr. Meyer, who said his law firm specializes in representing
investors who were victims of securities fraud, filed a class
action lawsuit against Akron-based Fair Finance on Dec. 4, with
Indianapolis law firm Maddox Hargett & Caruso.

They allege Fair Finance violated Ohio law and misrepresented
important facts about securities to investors. The complaint
further alleges current co-owners Tim Durham and Jim Cochran
promoted the same values and business model the company
originally had, but actually began to "deceive investors into
investing tens of millions of their hard-earned life savings in
the company even though the new owners had no intentions of
continuing to operate the business as the Fair family had for so
many years."

Instead, the complaint alleges, Messrs. Durham and Cochran used
Fair Finance "as their own personal bank."

Since the announcement of the class action lawsuit, Mr. Meyer
said his firm has received more than 300 calls from worried Ohio
investors wondering if they could join the lawsuit. It's one of
two lawsuits the Akron-based company is facing, as Critchfield,
Critchfield & Johnston of Wooster filed a lawsuit Dec. 21.

Mr. Meyer said he has had some contact with Fair Finance's
attorneys.  He described the early conversations as "just
logistics at this point" and "substantive discussions."

A civil complaint filed Nov. 24 by the U.S. Attorney's Office for
the Southern District of Indiana accused Mr. Durham, his
companies and associates of defrauding customers by getting them
to buy investment certificates, and that the money was used to
make interest and redemption payments to earlier investors. It
was the same day Fair Finance's Akron headquarters was raided by
the FBI.

The civil complaint was later dismissed, however the
investigation is ongoing. No one has been charged with criminal
wrongdoing.

News about the class action lawsuit filed in Summit County, Ohio,
appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 9, 2009.


GENZYME CORP: Shareholder Lawsuits Filed in D. Mass.
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors inflated the price
Genzyme shares through false and misleading statements about its
new drugs, shareholders claim in Boston Federal Court.

Ball v. Termeer, et al., Case No. 09-cv-12198 (D. Mass.)
(O'Toole, J.), was filed on Dec. 28, 2009, and Panzini, et ux. v.
Termeer, et al., Case No. 09-cv-12170 (D. Mass.) (O'Toole, J.),
was filed on Dec. 22, 2009, by:

          David Pastor, Esq.
          GILMAN AND PASTOR, LLP
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: 617-742-9700


GIORDANO'S ENTERPRISES: Chicago Pizza Chain Labor Suit Continues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Milhizer at the Chicago Daily Law Bulleting reports that when
a restaurant faces accusations that it's illegally profiting from
a wage deduction used to cover the costs of feeding its workers,
an Illinois appeals panel has held that the restaurant can't try
to fend off a potential class-action lawsuit by securing claim
waivers from its workforce while the suit waits for a ruling on
class certification.

The 1st District Appellate Court answered this matter of first
impression in a dispute brought by a former Giordano's worker in
Lewis, et al. v. Giordano's Enterprises, et al., No. 1-08-2944.

The popular pizza chain, the news story relates, has a policy of
deducting 25 cents per hour from its hourly employees' wages to
cover the cost of providing those workers with food and drinks
during their shifts.  The deduction is legal as long as the
company doesn't profit from it.

But former employee Mina V. Lewis accused the restaurant chain of
profiting from the deduction in violation of the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law and the Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Ms. Lewis moved for class certification in Cook County Circuit
Court, and the matter was set for a ruling in November 2007.

A few days before that scheduled ruling, the restaurant requested
an emergency motion to delay the certification so that it could
try to negotiate a settlement. Over Lewis' objection, Circuit
Judge LeRoy K. Martin Jr. granted the motion, and he also
approved a second delay.

During the delay period, Giordano's obtained signatures from more
than 350 current employees who agreed to accept $10 to release
the restaurant from all potential claims resulting from the
violations that Lewis alleged.

Ms. Lewis then convinced Judge Martin to bar the restaurant from
obtaining additional waivers.

In retrospect, Judge Martin said that he shouldn't have granted
the two delays because the restaurant engaged in "little or no"
good-faith settlement negotiations, and it appeared that the
defendants used the delay to obtain the releases.

Judge Martin then certified the class in two categories: workers
who get tips and those who don't get tips but at least earn
minimum wage. Martin then asked the Illinois Appellate Court to
decide whether waivers like the one that Giordano's secured
should be declared void when a motion for class certification is
pending.

A three-member panel of state appellate justices held Wednesday
that the releases are invalid.  The 24-page opinion was written
by Justice Patrick J. Quinn, with concurrence from Justices
Michael J. Murphy and Sharon Johnson Coleman.

In its analysis, the panel noted that its research revealed no
other Illinois cases like this one when disputes are brought
under the state's wage laws.

So the panel looked for guidance under the U.S. Fair Labor
Standards Act. Examining federal case law, the justices held that
the courts have generally held that private releases of wage
claims aren't permitted.

Giordano's couldn't persuade the panel to use an Illinois case
from 2006 as a guide.

In Kim v. Citigroup Inc., 368 Ill. App. 3d 298, a financial
consultant agreed to participate in a company program that paid
part of his salary with stock that was subject to a two-year
vesting period. The deal was that the employee would forfeit the
stock if he left the company or was fired for cause before the
stock vested.

In that case, the plaintiff voluntarily left before the stock was
vested and then brought a class-action suit against Citigroup to
recover the cash that he would have been paid if he had not
participated in the plan. The plaintiff lost in appellate court
when justices ruled that the deduction was valid under the Wage
Payment Act.

In Giordano's case, the justices held that Kim isn't the
controlling precedent, in part because the workers in Kim were
paid substantially more than minimum wage, and they voluntarily
entered the company stock program.

The justices also rejected Giordano's argument that prohibiting
private settlements in bona fide wage disputes interferes with an
individual's freedom to contract.

The panel said that the freedom isn't unlimited and cited case
law to say that contracts "that are contrary to public policy
will not be enforced." The panel said that the two statutes in
question here were enacted to protect employees.

Ms. Lewis was represented by:

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Law Office of James X. Bormes P.C.
          8 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 1316
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312-201-0575

               - and -  

          Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
          Peter E. Converse, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          CONVERSE & BROWN LLC
          105 West Adams Street, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312-789-9700

Mr. Bormes called the ruling a "big decision because it applies
to all releases for Illinois wage law claims."  He also said that
the decision can apply beyond the hospitality industry and can
affect any hourly worker who has a wage claim.

To explain his point, Mr. Bormes addressed the issue as if the
decision had gone against his client.

"If the court said, 'Yeah you can get a private release,' every
employer -- every three months, six months, once a year -- would
pay an additional $10 and get a release.  And any wage violations
that [the employer] may have committed would be wiped out," Mr.
Bormes said.

Going forward on the merits of the lawsuit, the plaintiff will
now argue that the 25-cent hourly deduction exceeds the
restaurant's cost to provide the meals.

Giordano's was represented by:

          Robert W. Fioretti, Esq.
          John Benton Lower, Esq.
          Charles A. Brizzolara, Esq.
          Maureen K. Zaeske, Esq.
          Michael D. Wong, Esq.
          FIORETTI & LOWER LTD.
          222 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 1550
          Chicago, IL 60606-6000
          Telephone: 312-568-5490

Mr. Lower said that he respects the court's ruling and the
clarity that the decision provides.

Most hourly Giordano's employees work six-hour shifts, Mr. Lower
said, so the debate will address whether the company is turning a
profit by deducting $1.50 per day to provide a meal and unlimited
drinks.

Mr. Lower added his firm started representing Giordano's after
the restaurant secured the waivers from its current employees.


IMAX CORP: WCM's Motion to be Lead Plaintiff in Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Court of Appeals has denied the request of Westchester
Capital Management, Inc., to be the lead plaintiff in a
consolidated amended class action complaint against IMAX Corp.,
according to the company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

The company and certain of its officers and directors were named
as defendants in eight purported class action lawsuits filed
between Aug. 11, 2006 and Sept. 18, 2006, alleging violations of
U.S. federal securities laws.

These eight actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On Jan. 18, 2007, the Court consolidated all eight class action
lawsuits and appointed Westchester Capital Management, Inc. as
the lead plaintiff and Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP as lead
plaintiff's counsel.

On Oct. 2, 2007, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint.  The amended complaint, brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the company's common stock between
Feb. 27, 2003 and July 20, 2007, alleges primarily that the
defendants engaged in securities fraud by disseminating
materially false and misleading statements during the class
period regarding the company's revenue recognition of theater
system installations, and failing to disclose material
information concerning the company's revenue recognition
practices.

The amended complaint also added PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the
company's auditors, as a defendant.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and
expenses.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
Dec. 10, 2007.  On Sept. 16, 2008, the Court issued a memorandum
opinion and order, denying the motion.

On Oct. 6, 2008, the defendants filed an answer to the amended
complaint.  On Oct. 31, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification.

Fact discovery on the merits commenced on Nov. 14, 2008 and is
ongoing.

On March 13, 2009, the Court granted a second prospective lead
plaintiff's request to file a motion for reconsideration of the
Court's order naming Westchester Capital Management, Inc. as the
lead plaintiff and issued an order denying without prejudice
plaintiff's class certification motion pending resolution of the
motion for reconsideration.

On June 29, 2009, the Court granted the motion for
reconsideration and appointed Snow Capital Investment Partners,
L.P. as the lead plaintiff and Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel.

Westchester Capital Management, Inc., appealed this decision, but
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied its
petition on Oct. 1, 2009.  

IMAX Corp. -- http://www.imax.com/-- together with its wholly  
owned subsidiaries, is an entertainment technology company
specializing in motion picture technologies and large-format film
presentations.  Its principal business is the design and
manufacture of large-format digital and film-based theater
systems, sale or lease of such systems, and the conversion of
two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) Hollywood feature
films for exhibition on such systems worldwide.


IMAX CORP: Class Certification Motion Still Pending in Ontario
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has yet to decide whether
to approve the request of the plaintiffs for certification of the
action against IMAX Corp. as a class proceeding, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

A class action lawsuit was filed on Sept. 20, 2006 in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice against the company and certain of its
officers and directors, alleging violations of Canadian
securities laws.

This lawsuit was brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired
the company's securities between Feb. 17, 2006 and Aug. 9, 2006.  
The lawsuit is in an early stage and seeks unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs and expenses.

The plaintiffs require leave of the Court before they are
permitted to proceed with certain claims they have made pursuant
to the Securities Act (Ontario) and have filed a motion to obtain
leave, along with a separate motion for certification of the
action as a class proceeding.

The company has opposed both of these motions and a hearing on
the motions took place during the week of Dec. 15, 2008.

IMAX Corp. -- http://www.imax.com/-- together with its wholly  
owned subsidiaries, is an entertainment technology company
specializing in motion picture technologies and large-format film
presentations.  Its principal business is the design and
manufacture of large-format digital and film-based theater
systems, sale or lease of such systems, and the conversion of
two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) Hollywood feature
films for exhibition on such systems worldwide.


INTESA SAMPAOLO: Class Action Suit Contests Italian Bank's Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Armorel Kenna at Bloomberg News reports that Intesa Sanpaolo SpA
and UniCredit SpA, Italy's two biggest banks, may face the
country's first class-action lawsuit over overdraft fees charged
by the lenders after new legislation went into late last month.

Consumer group Codacons yesterday presented a complaint over
Intesa Sanpaolo's fee to a court in Turin, and for UniCredit in
Rome. The banks could face 6.25 billion euros ($9 billion) in
claims if the almost 25 million Italians affected by the fees
sign up for the suit, the group said on its Web site today.
The 2003 bankruptcy of Parmalat Finanziaria SpA, which wiped out
the savings of more than 100,000 Italian stock and bondholders,
prompted the push for class-action legislation. The new law is
only retroactive to August of last year, meaning investors in
Parmalat won't be able to take advantage of the measure.

Italian banks charged higher fees on loans and credit lines to
make up for overdraft fees canceled by the government in July,
the country's Antitrust Authority ruled on Dec. 29. The higher
charges are in some instances 15 times more than the ones they
replaced, Codacons said.

Codacons invited account holders to register on its Web Site
yesterday after presenting the lawsuit and said if the courts
admit the case they will be able to claim compensation for
damages.

UniCredit is Italy's largest bank, followed by Intesa Sanpaolo.
Both are based in Milan.


KOHLBERG CAPITAL: Securities Fraud Complaints Filed in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kohlberg Capital inflated
the price of its securities through false and misleading
statements, investors claim in Manhattan Federal Court.

Angeleri v. Pearson, et al., Case No. 09-cv-10609 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Cedarbaum, J.), was filed on Dec. 31, 2009, by:

          Phillip C. Kim, Esq.
          Laurence Matthew Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
          350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060

Fagin v. Kohlberg Capital Corp., Case No. 10-cv-00080 (S.D.N.Y.),
was filed on Jan. 6, 2010, by:

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          Marc Ian Gross, Esq.
          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK BLOCK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100


MERIX CORP: Discovery in Oregon Consolidated Complaint Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a consolidated class action complaint against Merix
Corp. is ongoing, according to the company's Jan. 5, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Nov. 28, 2009.

Four purported class action complaints were filed against Merix
and certain of its executive officers and directors on June 17,
2004, June 24, 2004 and July 9, 2004.

The complaints were consolidated in a single action entitled In
re Merix Corporation Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. CV 04-
826-MO, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.

After the court granted the company's motion to dismiss without
prejudice, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
That complaint alleged that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making certain inaccurate and misleading
statements in the prospectus used in connection with the January
2004 public offering of approximately $103.4 million of the
company's common stock.  In September 2006, the Court dismissed
that complaint with prejudice.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  
In April 2008, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
second amended complaint seeking an unspecified amount of
damages.

The company sought rehearing which was denied and rehearing en
banc was also denied.

The company obtained a stay of the mandate from the Ninth Circuit
and filed a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court on
Sept. 22, 2008.

On Dec. 15, 2008, the Supreme Court denied the certiorari
petition and the case was remanded back to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon.

On May 15, 2009, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all
investors who purchased in the public offering and who were
damaged thereby.

On Nov. 5, 2009, the court partially granted the certification
motion and certified a class consisting of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common
stock from an underwriter directly pursuant to the company's Jan.
29, 2004 offering, who held the stock through May 13, 2004, and
who were damaged thereby.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.

Merix Corporation -- http://www.merix.com/-- is a global  
manufacturing service provider of printed circuit boards (PCBs)
for original equipment manufacturer (OEM) customers and their
electronic manufacturing service (EMS) providers.  The company's
products include multi-layer rigid PCBs, which are the platforms
used to interconnect microprocessors, integrated circuits and
other components that are essential to the operation of
electronic products and systems.  The company's markets include
automotive, defense and aerospace, communications, computing,
industrial, networking, peripherals, and test end markets.  It
has manufacturing facilities in Huiyang and Huizhou, in the
People's Republic of China.


MERIX CORP: Faces Amended Complaint on Planned Viasystems Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merix Corp. faces a consolidated amended class action complaint
over its sale to Viasystems Group, Inc., according to the
company's Jan. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 28, 2009.

Merix, its board of directors and Viasystems are named as
defendants in two putative class action lawsuits brought by
alleged Merix shareholders challenging the company's proposed
merger with Viasystems.

The shareholder actions were both filed in the Circuit Court of
the State of Oregon, County of Multnomah.

The actions are called:

     (i) Asbestos Workers Philadelphia Pension Fund v. Merix
         Corporation, et al., filed Oct. 13, 2009,
         Case No. 0910-14399 and

    (ii) W. Donald Wybert v. Merix Corporation, et al., filed on
         or about Nov. 5, 2009, Case No. 0911-15521.

Both shareholder actions generally allege, among other things,
that each member of the company's board of directors breached
fiduciary duties to Merix and its shareholders by authorizing the
sale of Merix to Viasystems for consideration that does not
maximize value to shareholders.

The complaints also allege that Viasystems and Merix aided and
abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the
members of the company's board of directors.  The shareholder
actions seek equitable relief, including to enjoin the defendants
from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms.

On Nov. 23, 2009, the court entered an order consolidating the
cases into one matter.

On or about Dec. 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint, which substantially repeats the
allegations of the original complaints, adds Maple Acquisition
Corp., the Viasystems subsidiary formed for the merger,as a
defendant and also alleges that Merix did not make sufficient
disclosures regarding the merger.

Merix Corporation -- http://www.merix.com/-- is a global  
manufacturing service provider of printed circuit boards (PCBs)
for original equipment manufacturer (OEM) customers and their
electronic manufacturing service (EMS) providers.  The company's
products include multi-layer rigid PCBs, which are the platforms
used to interconnect microprocessors, integrated circuits and
other components that are essential to the operation of
electronic products and systems.  The company's markets include
automotive, defense and aerospace, communications, computing,
industrial, networking, peripherals, and test end markets.  It
has manufacturing facilities in Huiyang and Huizhou, in the
People's Republic of China.


MPS GROUP: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Class Action Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
MPS Group, Inc. and the other named defendants have entered into
a memorandum of understanding with plaintiff's counsel regarding
the settlement of two putative class action lawsuits filed in
response to the announcement of the proposed merger of MPS Group
with Adecco Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Jaguar Acquisition
Corp., a Florida corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of
Adecco, according to the company's Jan. 5, 2010, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S.

Under the terms of the memorandum, MPS Group, the other named
defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the lawsuits,
subject to court approval.  If the court approves the settlement
contemplated in the memorandum, the lawsuits will be dismissed
with prejudice.  MPS Group and the other defendants deny all of
the allegations in the lawsuits and believe that the existing
disclosures regarding the proposed merger are appropriate under
the law.  Nevertheless, MPS Group and the other defendants have
agreed to settle the putative class action lawsuits in order to
avoid costly litigation and reduce the risk of any delay to the
closing of the merger.

Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum, MPS Group has agreed to
provide additional information to its shareholders through a
publicly available filing, in order to supplement the proxy
statement previously provided to shareholders in connection with
the special shareholders meeting concerning the proposed merger.

In return for the additional disclosures, the plaintiffs in both
actions have agreed to the dismissal of their respective actions
and to a stay of the proceedings, subject to the execution and
approval of a final settlement agreement.  In addition, the
company has agreed to the payment of the legal fees and expenses
of plaintiffs' counsel, in an amount to be negotiated by the
parties.  This payment will not affect the amount of merger
consideration to be paid in the merger.

MPS Group, Inc. -- http://www.mpsgroup.com/-- is a leading  
provider of staffing, consulting, and solutions in the
disciplines of information technology, finance and accounting,
law, engineering, marketing and creative, property, and
healthcare.  MPS Group delivers its services to businesses and
government entities in the United States, Europe, Canada,
Australia, and Asia.  A Fortune 1000 company with headquarters in
Jacksonville, Florida, MPS Group trades on the New York Stock
Exchange.


RENTECH INC: Says Shareholder Suits Are Without Merit
-----------------------------------------------------
Rentech, Inc. (NYSE AMEX: RTK) confirmed receipt of the purported
class-action lawsuits were filed and announced on December 29,
2009 and December 30, 2009, against the Company and certain of
its officers and or directors alleging that during the periods of
February 8, 2008, through December 15, 2009, and May 9, 2008,
through December 14, 2009, respectively, the Company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding Rentech's
business, operations and prospects.

The lawsuits seek unspecified damages on behalf of alleged
classes of purchasers of the Company's stock during the periods.
The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend these actions.

News about the filings appeared in yesterday's edition of the
Class Action Reporter.

Rentech, Inc. -- http://www.rentechinc.com/-- incorporated in  
1981, provides clean energy solutions. The Company's Rentech-
SilvaGas biomass gasification process can convert multiple
biomass feedstocks into synthesis gas (syngas) for production of
renewable fuels and power. Combining the gasification process
with Rentech's unique application of proven syngas conditioning
and clean-up technology and the patented Rentech Process based on
Fischer-Tropsch chemistry, Rentech offers an integrated solution
for production of synthetic fuels from biomass. The Rentech
Process can also convert syngas from fossil resources into ultra-
clean synthetic jet and diesel fuels, specialty waxes and
chemicals. Final product upgrading is provided under an alliance
with UOP, a Honeywell company. Rentech develops projects and
licenses these technologies for application in synthetic fuels
and power facilities worldwide. Rentech Energy Midwest
Corporation, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, manufactures
and sells nitrogen fertilizer products including ammonia, urea
ammonia nitrate, urea granule, and urea solution in the corn-belt
region of the central United States.


SERVICE CORP: Continues to Defend "Conley Investment" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to defend a suit
styled Conley Investment Counsel v. Service Corporation
International, et al.; Civil Action 04-MD-1609; in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division (2003 Securities Lawsuit), according to the company's
Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.


The 2003 Securities Lawsuit resulted from the transfer and
consolidation by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
of three lawsuits:

     (1) Edgar Neufeld v. Service Corporation International,
         et al.; Cause No. CV-S-03-1561-HDM-PAL; in the U.S.
         District Court for the District of Nevada;

     (2) Rujira Srisythemp v. Service Corporation International,
         et al.; Cause No. CV-S-03-1392-LDG-LRL; in the U.S.
         District Court for the District of Nevada; and

     (3) Joshua Ackerman v. Service Corporation International,
         et al.; Cause No. 04-CV-20114; in the U.S. District
         Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The 2003 Securities Lawsuit names as defendants SCI and several
of SCI's current and former executive officers or directors.
The 2003 Securities Lawsuit is a purported class action alleging
that the defendants failed to disclose the unlawful treatment of
human remains and burial sites at two cemeteries in Fort
Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, Florida.

No discovery has occurred and the company cannot quantify its
ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of damages.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--  
is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network
of funeral homes and cemeteries.  The company operates through
two business segments: funeral and cemetery.  SCI conducts both
funeral and cemetery operations in the United States and Canada,
and funeral operations in Germany.


SERVICE CORP: Class Certification Still Pending in "Garcia" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class has yet to be certified in the suit styled Reyvis Garcia
and Alicia Garcia v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., Osiris Holding of
Florida, Inc, a Florida corporation, d/b/a Graceland Memorial
Park South, f/k/a Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc., according to
Service Corporation International's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The suit was filed in December 2004, in the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida,
Case No.: 04-25646 CA 32.

Plaintiffs are the son and sister of the decedent, Eloisa Garcia,
who was buried at Graceland Memorial Park South in March 1986,
when the cemetery was owned by Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc.  
Initially, the suit sought damages on the individual claims of
the plaintiffs relating to the burial of Eloisa Garcia.

Plaintiffs claimed that due to poor record keeping, spacing
issues and maps, and the fact that the family could not afford to
purchase a marker for the grave, the burial location of the
decedent could not be readily located.  Subsequently, the
decedent's grave was located and verified.

In July 2006, plaintiffs amended their complaint, seeking to
certify a class of all persons buried at this cemetery whose
burial sites cannot be located, claiming that this was due to
poor record keeping, maps, and surveys at the cemetery.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a third amended class action
complaint and added two additional named plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, as well
as equitable and injunctive relief.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--  
is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network
of funeral homes and cemeteries.  The company operates through
two business segments: funeral and cemetery.  SCI conducts both
funeral and cemetery operations in the United States and Canada,
and funeral operations in Germany.


SERVICE CORP: "Sands" Suit in California in Preliminary Stages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to defend a suit
styled F. Charles Sands, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Eden Memorial Park, et al.; Case No.
BC421528; in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles - Central District, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

This case was filed in September 2009 against SCI and certain
subsidiaries regarding the company's Eden Memorial Park cemetery
in Mission Hills, California.

The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of cemetery plot owners
and their families.

The plaintiff claims the cemetery damaged and desecrated burials
in order to make room for subsequent burials.

The case is in its preliminary stages.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--  
is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network
of funeral homes and cemeteries.  The company operates through
two business segments: funeral and cemetery.  SCI conducts both
funeral and cemetery operations in the United States and Canada,
and funeral operations in Germany.


SERVICE CORP: Appellate Court Denies Reconsideration Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' motion
to reconsider the ruling denying class certification in a suit
against Service Corporation International, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The company is named as a defendant in an antitrust case filed in
2005.

The case is Cause No 4:05-CV-03394; Funeral Consumers Alliance,
Inc. v. Service Corporation International, et al.; in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas - Houston
(Funeral Consumers Case).

This was a purported class action on behalf of casket consumers
throughout the United States alleging that the company and
several other companies involved in the funeral industry violated
federal antitrust laws and state consumer laws by engaging in
various anti-competitive conduct associated with the sale of
caskets.

Based on the case proceeding as a class action, the plaintiffs
filed an expert report indicating that the damages sought from
all defendants range from approximately $950 million to $1.5
billion, before trebling.  The company denies that it engaged in
anticompetitive practices related to the company's casket sales
and it has filed reports of its experts, which vigorously dispute
the validity of the plaintiffs' damages theories and
calculations.

As of Nov. 5, 2009, the company has successfully contested the
class action allegations.

In November 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued recommendations
that motions for class certification be denied in the Funeral
Consumers Case.

In March 2009, the District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's
recommendations and denied class certification.

In June 2009, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the
plaintiffs' motion requesting permission to appeal the District
Court's ruling denying class certification.

Also in June 2009, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied
plaintiffs motion requesting that the court reconsider its
ruling.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--  
is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network
of funeral homes and cemeteries.  The company operates through
two business segments: funeral and cemetery.  SCI conducts both
funeral and cemetery operations in the United States and Canada,
and funeral operations in Germany.


SERVICE CORP: Defends Wage and Hour "Prise" Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to defend a suit
styled Prise, et al., v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., and Service
Corporation International; Cause No. 06-164; in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The suit was filed by two former Alderwoods (Pennsylvania), Inc.,
employees in December 2006 and purports to have been brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of all Alderwoods
and SCI-affiliated employees who performed work for which they
were not fully compensated, including work for which overtime pay
was owed.  The court has conditionally certified a class of
claims as to certain job positions for Alderwoods employees.

Plaintiffs allege causes of action for violations of the FLSA,
failure to maintain proper records, breach of contract,
violations of state wage and hour laws, unjust enrichment, fraud
and deceit, quantum meruit, negligent misrepresentation, and
negligence.  Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, unpaid wages,
liquidated, compensatory, consequential and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--  
is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network
of funeral homes and cemeteries.  The company operates through
two business segments: funeral and cemetery.  SCI conducts both
funeral and cemetery operations in the United States and Canada,
and funeral operations in Germany.


SERVICE CORP: "Stickle" Wage and Hour Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to defend a suit
styled Stickle, et al. v. Service Corporation International, et
al.; Case No. 08-CV-83; in the U.S. District Court for Arizona,
Phoenix Division, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Counsel for plaintiffs filed this case on Jan. 17, 2008, against
SCI and various related entities and individuals asserting FLSA
and other ancillary claims based on the alleged failure to pay
for overtime.

In September 2009, the Court conditionally certified a class of
claims as to certain job positions of SCI affiliated employees.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--  
is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network
of funeral homes and cemeteries.  The company operates through
two business segments: funeral and cemetery.  SCI conducts both
funeral and cemetery operations in the United States and Canada,
and funeral operations in Germany.


SERVICE CORP: Defends "Welch" Wage and Hour Lawsuit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to defend a suit
styled Shauna Welch v. California Cemetery & Funeral Services,
LLC; Case No. BC 396793; in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of Los Angeles, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In August 2008, the plaintiff filed a class action on behalf of
employees of a subsidiary in California for alleged violations of
the California Labor Code and the Business & Professions Code.

The plaintiff specifically alleges that she and the putative
class are unable to negotiate their paychecks without paying a
fee and/or without being subject to a waiting period since
paychecks are issued from an out-of-state bank.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--  
is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network
of funeral homes and cemeteries.  The company operates through
two business segments: funeral and cemetery.  SCI conducts both
funeral and cemetery operations in the United States and Canada,
and funeral operations in Germany.


SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL: Accused, with State Farm, of Overcharging
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that South Broward Hospital
District dba Memorial Healthcare System, and State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co. made accident victims pay too much out
of pocket, a class action claims in Broward County Court, Fort
Lauderdale.

A copy of the Complaint in Nicholson v. South Broward Hospital
District, Case No. 09-67268 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th J. Cir., Broward
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/05/Insure.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Lynch, Esq.
          HUNTER, WILLIAMS & LYNCH, P.A.
          Gables Square, Suite 1150
          75 Valencia Avenue
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: 305-371-1404

               - and -  

          Gary M. Paige, Esq.
          John Ameen, Esq.
          PAIGE, TROP & AMEEN, P.A.
          4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 425 South
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: 954-981-7150


TOYS "R" US: Accused of Price-Fixing In E.D. Pa. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that Babies
"R" Us bullied its manufacturers to fix resale prices on "high-
end" baby products, such as strollers, car seats, breast pumps
and bedding, to "thwart" competition from Internet retailers,
according to an antitrust class action in Philadelphia Federal
Court. "As part of their agreement with [Babies "R" Us], the
manufacturers ... demonstrated their compliance by threatening,
intimidating, individually negotiating with, cajoling, exhorting
and requiring that the retailers raise and maintain retail prices
at the manufacturers' suggested retail price," the complaint
states. But Babies R Us allegedly exempted itself from its own
guidelines.

The class claims consumers were forced to pay inflated prices due
to Babies R Us's scheme.

Babies "R" Us, a branch of Toys "R" Us, opened in 1996 with six
stores, bought 76 baby superstores in 1997 and grew at an average
rate of 15 stores per year between 1998 and 2009, the class
claims.

"A 2006 market research report called '[Babies "R" Us] the
mightiest infant-specialty retailer on the planet,'" which gave
it "great influence" over manufacturers, the class claims. It
adds, "manufacturers could experience enormous sales growth
simply by selling to" Babies "R" Us.

But with profits threatened by Internet competitors, Babies "R"
Us began pushing its manufacturers to set minimum price
guidelines for its competitors, doggedly monitoring other
retailers' product pricing, the class claims. The class says that
Babies "R" Us would refuse to sell certain manufacturers'
products or cancel orders if it discovered that other retailers
were offering discounts.

"Internet retailers of high-end baby and juvenile products are
highly efficient competitors because, among other reasons, their
operating expenses are low," the complaint states. But those
retailers were often cut off by manufacturers in attempt to
appease Babies "R" Us, the class claims.

The class claims that manufacturers would close retailers'
accounts, deny them credit or stop shipments if they continued to
offer discounts. And it claims that manufacturers exempt Babies
"R" Us from the pricing policies and guidelines that it has
imposed on other retailers.

The manufacturers bent over backward for Babies "R" Us, knowing
they would suffer greatly if they lost the account, the complaint
states.

As a result, consumers were not offered competitive pricing for
baby products and "paid more . . . than they would have without
the restraints," the class claims.

The lawsuit follows a similar class action in the same court
against Toys "R" Us and "Babies "R" Us that was certified in July
2009 by U.S. District Judge Anita Brody. Toys "R" Us has also
been sued by Internet retailers and is being investigated by the
Federal Trade Commission, ABC News reported in October.

The manufacturers named as co-defendants include Britax Child
Safety, Kids Line, Maclaren USA, Medela, and Peg Perego USA.

The class demands damages and an injunction for Sherman Antitrust
Act violations and restraint of trade.

A copy of the Complaint in Elliott, et al. v. Toys "R" Us, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 09-cv-06151 (E.D. Pa.) (Brody, J.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/04/ToysRUS.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
          1818 Market St., Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-496-0300
          
               - and -  

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          60 West Randolph Street, Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: 312-762-9237

               - and -  

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          George W. Sampson, Esq.
          Ivy D. Arai, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Fifth Ave., Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: 206-623-7292

               - and -  

          Mary Jane Fait, Esq.
          Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          55 West Monroe St., Suite 1111
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312-984-0000

               - and -  

          Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
          Michael S. Tarringer, Esq.
          CAFTERTY FAUCHER, LLP
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 3610
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-864-2800

               - and -  

          Ann D. White, Esq.
          ANN D. WHITE LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          One Pitcairn Place, Suite 2400
          165 Township Line Road
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: 215-481-0274

               - and -  

          Stephen M. Sohmer, Esq.
          THE SOHMER LAW FIRM
          One Passaic Avenue     
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: 973-227-7080

               - and -  

          Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP
          1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216
          Weston, FL 33326
          Telephone: 954-515-0123

               - and -  

          Richard A. Lockridge, Esq.
          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          Robert J. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: 612-339-6900

               - and -  

          Patrick L. Rocco, Esq.
          SHALOV STONE & BONNER LLP
          163 Madison Ave.
          P.O. Box 1277
          Morristown, NJ 07962-1277
          Telephone: 973-775-8997

               - and -  

          Ralph M. Stone, Esq.
          Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr.
          SHALOV STONE & BONNER LLP
          485 Seventh Ave., Suite 1000
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: 212-239-4340

               - and -  

          Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
          Joseph Gentile, Esq.
          SARRAF GENTILE LLP
          485 Seventh Ave., Suite 1005
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: 212-868-3610

               - and -  

          Krishna B. Narine, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KRISHNA B. NARINE, P.C.
          7839 Montgomery Avenue
          Elkins Park, PA 19027
          Telephone: 215-782-3241

               - and -  

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
          Frances E. Baillon, Esq.
          REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          E-1250 First National Bank Building
          332 Minnesota St.
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: 651-287-2100

               - and -  

          Lee Albert, Esq.
          MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER LLP
          275 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-682-1818

               - and -  

          Matthew Heffner, Esq.
          Matthew Hurst, Esq.
          SUSMAN HEFFNER & HURST LLP
          Two First National Plaza
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312-346-3466


UNICREDIT SPA: Class Action Suit Contests Italian Bank's Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Armorel Kenna at Bloomberg News reports that Intesa Sanpaolo SpA
and UniCredit SpA, Italy's two biggest banks, may face the
country's first class-action lawsuit over overdraft fees charged
by the lenders after new legislation went into late last month.

Consumer group Codacons yesterday presented a complaint over
Intesa Sanpaolo's fee to a court in Turin, and for UniCredit in
Rome. The banks could face 6.25 billion euros ($9 billion) in
claims if the almost 25 million Italians affected by the fees
sign up for the suit, the group said on its Web site today.
The 2003 bankruptcy of Parmalat Finanziaria SpA, which wiped out
the savings of more than 100,000 Italian stock and bondholders,
prompted the push for class-action legislation. The new law is
only retroactive to August of last year, meaning investors in
Parmalat won't be able to take advantage of the measure.

Italian banks charged higher fees on loans and credit lines to
make up for overdraft fees canceled by the government in July,
the country's Antitrust Authority ruled on Dec. 29. The higher
charges are in some instances 15 times more than the ones they
replaced, Codacons said.

Codacons invited account holders to register on its Web Site
yesterday after presenting the lawsuit and said if the courts
admit the case they will be able to claim compensation for
damages.

UniCredit is Italy's largest bank, followed by Intesa Sanpaolo.
Both are based in Milan.


UNITED STATES: Class Sought in S.D. Tex. Customs & Border Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jazmine Ulloa at The Brownsville Herald reports that immigration
attorneys are seeking class-action status for a lawsuit against
U.S. Customs and Border Protection that could have widespread
implications along the U.S.-Mexico border.  The issue involves
U.S. citizens who say they were held for long hours at ports of
entry in South Texas and denied entry into the country after they
presented birth certificates registered by midwives.

CBP officials are apparently referring U.S. citizens to further
inspection if their documents show their births were attended by
midwives in the United States, court records in the lawsuit
state. Officers are accused of interrogating people for hours, on
suspicion of holding fraudulent documents, and of threatening
them to sign "confessions," which say they were falsely
registered as born in Texas, according to court filings.

Once those detained are declared inadmissible into the country,
CBP officials confiscate all of their documents and return them
to Mexico, immigration attorneys said.

"Most people are totally unaware of this risk, which is why they
fall into this trap," said:

          Elisabeth Lisa Brodyaga, Esq.
          17891 Landrum Park Road
          San Benito, TX 78586
          Telephone: 956-421-3226

one of the lead attorneys in Castro, et al. v. Freeman, et al.,
Case No. 09-cv-00208 (S.D. Tex.) (Tagle, J.).

"We still do not know how often it is happening.  The problem is
that when it happens to someone they end up in Mexico, cut off
from access to counsel."

CBP officials are not at liberty to discuss any cases under
litigation, CBP spokesman Eddie Perez said.  But in general, the
process at the port of entry can be cumbersome for officials, he
said.

"We try to cover every base.  We want to make sure every person
we process is clear to enter," Mr. Perez said. "Sometimes that
process is long; sometimes it is short."

The lawsuit follows a series of complications for people
delivered by midwives in the Rio Grande Valley and along the
Texas-Mexico border, the most recent of which came to light with
the implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative,
now in effect since June.

The travel security measure requires all U.S. citizens to present
passport books, passport cards or other initiative-compliant
documents when crossing into the country from Mexico by land.

But for years the U.S. Department of State had been arbitrarily
rejecting hundreds of passport applications from people whose
births were attended by midwives, citing a history of forgeries
for Mexican-born children in South Texas dating back to the
1960s, immigration attorneys said.

Immigration attorneys say they saw a steady stream of cases in
which the department sent applicants in bureaucratic circles,
asking them to provide all sorts of additional proof of their
citizenship - from birth announcements to high school yearbook
pictures. The problem finally incited a class-action lawsuit
filed against the Department of State by the American Civil
Liberties Union and immigration attorneys representing citizens
denied passports.

In a settlement agreement last year, the department agreed to
instate new procedures and training for officers taking passport
submissions. But while the settlement won victories for some
applicants, many people's passport requests remain in limbo, said
immigration attorney Jaime Diez, who is working on the case with
Ms. Brodyaga.

And now the contest over U.S. citizenship for those still waiting
for passports is playing out at international bridges. For many
born with the assistance of midwives, the same issues that have
held back their applications with the Department of State are
causing CBP officers to suspect they hold fraudulent documents,
immigration attorneys said.

"But these are issues that should be handled in a courtroom, not
the port of entry, where people do not have access to counsel nor
their constitutional rights," Mr. Diez said.

At international bridges, people apply for entry into the United
States and are not considered U.S. citizens. Thus, people do not
have constitutional rights and are more vulnerable, attorneys
said.

Some who are still waiting for their passports and may face
interrogation at ports of entry are those whose applications were
denied outright by the Department of State because a convicted
midwife issued their birth certificate. Since 1960, 75 Texas
midwives have been convicted of falsely registering Mexican-born
babies as U.S. citizens.

Most of the women made declarations in court admitting they had
committed fraud, but most of their clients were not notified of
their statements in the past and are just now battling the
allegations in court, Mr. Diez said.

"The problem is determining which birth certificates are false
and which are not," he said. "(Immigration officials) should not
assume that every child these women delivered was born in
Mexico."

Others whose applications remain in question are U.S. citizens,
mostly seniors, who have delayed birth certificates, or documents
registered a few days after their births as was customary in the
past. And those who might have the highest risk to confront
obstacles at international bridges are U.S. citizens who were
also registered for Mexican birth certificates by their parents,
a common practice along the border for years, especially among
families who wished to raise their children in Mexico.

Trinidad Muraira de Castro, a litigant in the lawsuit against
CBP, obtained such falsified Mexican birth certificates for her
daughters, Laura Nancy and Yuliana Trinidad de Castro, seeking to
enroll them in a Matamoros school, Brodyaga said. In statements,
she and her daughters describe how CBP officers kept them for
about 11 hours at the Brownsville and Matamoros International
Bridge after Yuliana presented a birth certificate issued by a
midwife and her passport application receipt - documents that
fall under WHTI requirements and should enable her to cross.

They were taken into rooms for individual questioning and
harassed, the women write in their statements. Out of fear,
Trinidad signed a false confession stating that her daughters
were born in Matamoros, she wrote.

"The instant case is not an isolated instance, but a window into
the cases of dozens, if not hundreds, of similarly situated
persons," immigration attorneys contend in court documents.

The American Civil Liberties Union has not yet become involved
with this case. For now, however, attorneys are advising passport
applicants who have unsolved issues with the Department of State
and have not received their documents to refrain from crossing.

"This issue is tearing families apart," Mr. Diez said.
"Unfortunately, I feel we are only seeing the beginnings of this
problem."


WALGREEN CO: Faces Second Amended Complaint in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
Walgreen Co. faces a second amended complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, according
to the company's Jan. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30,
2009.

On April 16, 2008, the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 7
Pension Fund filed a putative class action suit against the
company and its former and current chief executive officers in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The plaintiffs amended the complaint on Oct. 16, 2008, which upon
the company's motion the District Court dismissed on Sept. 24,
2009.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs moved for the District Court to
reconsider the dismissal and to allow plaintiffs leave to further
amend the complaint.

The District Court granted plaintiffs' motion on Nov. 11, 2009.

The second amended complaint was then filed on behalf of
purchasers of company common stock during the period between June
25, 2007 and Oct. 1, 2007.

As in the first amended complaint, the second amended complaint
charges the company and its former and current chief executive
officers with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, claiming that the company misled investors
by failing to disclose (i) declining rates of growth in generic
drug sales and (ii) increasing selling, general and
administrative expenses in fourth quarter of 2007, which
allegedly had a negative impact on earnings.

Walgreen Co. -- http://www.walgreens.com/-- is engaged in retail  
drugstore business. As of August 31, 2009, the Company operated
7,496 locations in 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico and Guam.  During the fiscal year ended Aug. 30, 2009, the
company opened or acquired 691 locations.  Total locations do not
include 337 convenient care clinics operated by Take Care Health
Systems, Inc. within the company's drugstores.  The company's
drugstores are engaged in the retail sale of prescription and
non-prescription drugs and general merchandise.  General
merchandise includes, among other things, household items,
personal care, convenience foods, beauty care, photofinishing,
candy, and seasonal items.  Walgreens offers customers the choice
to have prescriptions filled at the drugstore counter, as well as
through the mail, by telephone and through the Internet.

                            *********

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 2010.  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  * * *