CAR_Public/100114.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, January 14, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 9

                            Headlines

AMERICAN MUTUAL: Multi-Billion Mutual Fund Fee Case is Dismissed
BAPTIST MEMORIAL: Court Declines to Certify Nurses' Class
BARNES & NOBLE: "Minor" Complaint Against Unit in Discovery
BARNES & NOBLE: "Hostetter" Certification Hearing on January 20
BAYER CORP: 8th Cir. Declines to Certify W.Va. Plaintiff Class

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces "Luque" Labor Suit in Los Angeles
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Defends "Giradin" Suit in San Diego
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement Agreement in EEOC Suit Ongoing
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Enters Discussions to Settle Two Suits
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Motion to Compel Arbitration Pending

CYNOSURE INC: No Ruling Yet on Plaintiffs' Certification Motion
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Investor Class Action Suit Filed in E.D.N.Y.
H&R BLOCK: Settles Nationwide IRA Lawsuit for $20.2 Million
INTEGRYS ENERGY: PEC Unit Continues to Defend Suit in Illinois
MICROSOFT CORP: New Italian Law Sparks Lawsuit in Florence

MOODY INTERNATIONAL: Overtime Lawsuit Filed in E.D. Tex.
MPS GROUP: Agrees to Settle Adecco Merger Class Action Lawsuits
ONEOK PARTNERS: Ruling on Plaintiffs' Certification Plea Pending
PURPOSE FINANCIAL: Defends Suit Over "Payday Lending" Business
QUALCOMM INC: Court Dismisses Amended CDMA Purchasers' Suit

SCHERING-PLOUGH: Settles Carlines Class Action for $165 Million
STONE ENERGY: New Motion for Class Certification Still Pending
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Kahn Suit in Michigan Remains Pending
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Mediation in Lawnmower Suits Still Ongoing
WESTPORT NATIONAL: Individuals Pursue Madoff Claims Individually

                            *********

AMERICAN MUTUAL: Multi-Billion Mutual Fund Fee Case is Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
RiskMetricks.com's Securities Litigation Watch blog reports that
the case pending against Capital Research and Management Company
and American Funds Distributors, Inc., alleged that the advisory
and 12b-1 (or distribution) fees which defendants received from
the mutual funds they advised, and their investors, were
excessive.

In a 108-page ruling issued on Dec. 28, 2009, in In re American
Mutual Funds Fee Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-05593 (C.D. Calif.),
after a bench trial this past summer, the Honorable Gary Feess
found that "Plaintiffs have failed to sustain their burden of
proving that CRMC charged fees that were 'so disproportionately
large that [they bore] no reasonable relationship to the services
rendered and could not have been the product of arm's-length
bargaining'" - the so-called Gartenberg standard.

A copy of Judge Feess' Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law is
available at http://slw.riskmetrics.com/American_Funds_Opinion.pdf

An article covering this ruling is available from the American
Lawyer at:

      http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/digestFriendlyTAL.jsp?id=1202437645873

Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy represents the defendants and
Milberg and Weiss & Lurie are lead counsel for the plaintiffs.


BAPTIST MEMORIAL: Court Declines to Certify Nurses' Class
---------------------------------------------------------
Tom Wilemon at The Daily News reports that a last-ditch attempt
to gain class-action status in Clarke, et al. v. Baptist Memorial
HealthCase Corp., et al., Case No. 06-cv-02377 (W.D. Tenn.)
(Mays, J.) -- a lawsuit alleging that Memphis hospitals conspired
to suppress nurse wages -- has failed.

U.S. District Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr., denied a motion to allow
a substitute plaintiff. He issued the order last week after
ruling in September that the two originally named plaintiffs did
not adequately represent nurses in the Memphis area.

One of those plaintiffs, Suzanne C. Clarke, had worked for Nurse
Alliance, an advocacy group affiliated with Service Employees
International Union. The other, Conise P. Dillard, had filed for
bankruptcy.

Mays in his order stated that the lawyers suing the hospitals
failed to meet deadlines for adding another plaintiff even as
questions arose about the suitability of the two named
plaintiffs.

"Maintaining a viable class representative should have been a
first priority," Mays wrote. "Here it was not."

Dropped the ball
Clarke and Dillard alleged that Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare
and Baptist Memorial Hospital, along with other hospitals in
Memphis not specifically named in the complaint, regularly
exchanged non-public information about wages and suppressed
competition for nurses. The women filed the suit in 2006. Their
lawyers later asked the court to make the case a class action -
upping the stakes in the legal dispute.

The lawyers suing the hospitals sought to add another nurse, Anna
Bachelder, as a plaintiff after the judge denied the petition for
class certification.

Thousands of registered nurses could have benefitted from a
class-action suit, but Memphis hospitals could have lost millions
if it was successful.

"This suit is no longer a proposed class action," Mays stated in
his order. "It is now a suit by two parties seeking redress for
their individual claims."

Representatives of the two hospitals said the order is an
important victory.

"Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare is pleased that Judge Mays
denied the motion for intervention of a new class
representative," said David Jacqua of Butler, Snow, O'Mara,
Stevens & Cannada PLLC, the local law firm representing
Methodist. "It has been and continues to be our position that the
lawsuit was without merit."

Ayoka Pond, a spokeswoman for Baptist, said her hospital also
contends the lawsuit is without merit. Baptist actively competes
for nurses, she said.

"We offer a competitive salary and benefits structure for all our
employees because we highly value them and their contributions to
our mission of healing, preaching and teaching," Pond said. "We
use industry-standard, legal practices to determine fair,
competitive compensation packages. Also, Baptist actively
recruits and attracts nurses from across our region because we
want the very best staff to continue to provide high-quality,
compassionate care for our patients."

Besides noting the passage of court deadlines for adding an
additional plaintiff, Mays in his order stated that lawyers suing
the hospitals were seeking to "relitigate the issue of class
certification with the benefit of hindsight."

The law firm of the lead attorney for the plaintiff, Daniel A.
Small of Washington, D.C., has filed similar suits against
hospitals in Chicago, Detroit, San Antonio and Albany, N.Y.

Small did not return a phone call to The Daily News before press
time.

The firms representing the nurses are Cohen Milstein Hausfeld &
Toll PLLC with offices in D.C. and New York; James & Hoffman of
D.C.; Cohen Gilbert & Laduca of D.C.; The Furth Firm LLP of San
Francisco; Apperson, Crump & Maxwell PLC of Memphis; Levin
Fishbein Sedran & Berman of Philadelphia; Keller Rohrback LLP of
Seattle; and Gustafson Gluek PLLC of Minneapolis.

Methodist is represented by Butler Snow's Memphis office and
Hogan & Hartson LLP of D.C.

Baptist is represented by Harris Shelton Dunlap Cobb & Ryder of
Memphis and Jones Day of D.C.


BARNES & NOBLE: "Minor" Complaint Against Unit in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery concerning purported class member payroll checks and
related information in a purported class-action complaint
entitled, "Minor v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al.," has
commenced, according to Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s Dec. 10, 2009 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plaintiffs' class certification motion was filed on Oct. 19,
2009.  The company's response was filed on Nov. 30, 2009, and the
hearing on the class certification motion is scheduled for Jan.
20, 2010.

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

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


BAYER CORP: 8th Cir. Declines to Certify W.Va. Plaintiff Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien at LegalNewsline.com reports that a three-judge
panel of federal appellate judges will not allow a class action
against Bayer Corp. to proceed in a state court in West Virginia.

After a federal court in Minnesota had denied certification of a
West Virginia class led by George McCollins in a multi-district
litigation proceeding in 2008, a pair of West Virginians filed a
state court action that Bayer wanted stopped.

The Minnesota federal court granted the injunction, and the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed Tuesday. The
lawsuits involve Bayer's prescription cholesterol lowering
medication Baycol, which was taken off the market in 2001 after
being linked to 31 deaths.

"Bayer has demonstrated success on the merits by showing that
respondents cannot relitigate the legal conclusions in the
McCollins order," the opinion says.

"Respondents argue that because their individual claims for
damages are so small, as a practical matter they cannot litigate
them without class status. They have no absolute right to
litigate their claims as a class, however, only a right,
preserved by the district court's narrowly tailored injunction,
to litigate their own claims."

The issue started in 2001 when McCollins and two other West
Virginians filed a class action in Cabell County Circuit Court.
The case was removed to the MDL court, and by 2008 McCollins was
the only member remaining from West Virginia.

"He had not experienced the side effect that led to Baycol's
withdrawal from the market; undisputed record evidence showed
that he had physically benefitted from the drug," the opinion
says.

"Rather than suing for physical damages, he sought refunds for
economic loss caused by the defendants' breach of warranties and
violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection
Act."

A class seeking a nationwide refund was denied certification, as
the court determined that plaintiffs must show that they suffered
an injury or no benefit from the drug.  McCollins' class was also
denied certification.

"Holding that under the WVCCPA, McCollins would need to
'demonstrate Baycol was something other than what he bargained
for' and that McCollins could not meet this burden since Baycol
in fact lowered his cholesterol and resulted in no side effects,
the court also granted summary judgment to
the defendants on his individual claims," the opinion says.

Kevin Smith and Shirley Sperlazza sought to certify a class in
West Virginia, but Bayer asked the federal court to enjoin them
from doing so.

Bayer called them "absent putative class members" from McCollins'
proposed class.

"(T)he district court concluded that Baycol plaintiffs cannot
state a claim under the WVCCPA without proof of harm or injury,"
the opinion says.

"Economic loss alone is insufficient. Certification under the
state rule would undermine this conclusion of substantive state
law properly made by the district court."

Judges Duane Benton, Lavenski Smith and Diana Murphy decided the
case.

Additional coverage about the Eight Circuit's ruling is available
from Jon Hood at ComsumerAffairs.com at:

     http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/01/lawsuits_refiled.html


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces "Luque" Labor Suit in Los Angeles
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Inc. faces a class action lawsuit alleging
that it failed to pay proper vacation wages to hourly restaurants
at termination, 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. 29, 2009.

On Aug. 5, 2009, two former hourly restaurant employees in the
State of California filed a class action lawsuit in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court styled Luque v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc.; Case No. BC415640, against the company
alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws with
respect to alleged failure to pay proper vacation wages at
termination, failure to furnish wage statements, and violations
of the California Business and Professions Code, among others
claims.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of penalties and other
monetary payments on behalf of the respective plaintiffs and
other purported class members.

The plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees for themselves.

The Cheesecake Factory Inc. --
http://www.thecheesecakefactory.com/-- operates 160 upscale,  
full-service casual dining restaurants, 146 under The Cheesecake
Factory mark in 34 states and the District of Columbia, 13 under
the Grand Lux Cafe mark in nine states, and one unit of its
concept, RockSugar Pan Asian Kitchena in California.  The company
also operates two bakery production facilities in Calabasas
Hills, California and Rocky Mount, North Carolina that produce
baked desserts and other products for its restaurants and for
other foodservice operators, retailers and distributors.  In
addition, the company licensed two bakery cafes under The
Cheesecake Factory Bakery Cafe mark to another foodservice
operator.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Defends "Giradin" Suit in San Diego
-------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Inc. is defending a lawsuit alleging that
it failed to pay proper wages, 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. 29, 2009.

On Jan. 20, 2009, one former hourly restaurant employee in the
State of California filed a lawsuit in the San Diego County
Superior Court styled Giradin v. The Cheesecake Factory, Inc.;
Case No. 37-2009-00081696-CU-OE-CTL, against the company alleging
violations of California's wage and hour laws with respect to
alleged failure to pay proper wages, failure to furnish accurate
wage statements and violations of the California reporting time
laws, among others claims.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of penalties and other
monetary payments on behalf of the respective plaintiff and other
purported class members.  The plaintiff also seeks attorneys'
fees.

The Cheesecake Factory Inc. --
http://www.thecheesecakefactory.com/-- operates 160 upscale,  
full-service casual dining restaurants, 146 under The Cheesecake
Factory mark in 34 states and the District of Columbia, 13 under
the Grand Lux Cafe mark in nine states, and one unit of its
concept, RockSugar Pan Asian Kitchena in California.  The company
also operates two bakery production facilities in Calabasas
Hills, California and Rocky Mount, North Carolina that produce
baked desserts and other products for its restaurants and for
other foodservice operators, retailers and distributors.  In
addition, the company licensed two bakery cafes under The
Cheesecake Factory Bakery Cafe mark to another foodservice
operator.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement Agreement in EEOC Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a suit against The Cheesecake Factory Inc.
alleging that the company engaged in unlawful employment
practices are executing final documentation of an agreement to
settle all claims, 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. 29, 2009.   

On June 30, 2008, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for
the Phoenix District Office filed a complaint with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona stylized as Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission vs. The Cheesecake Factory,
Inc.

The complaint (No. CV08-1207-PHX-NVW) alleges that since November
2004, the company engaged in unlawful employment practices by
permitting a class of male employees, including three named
former employees, to be sexually harassed by male co-workers,
creating a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The complaint also alleges, among other claims, that the company
knew or should have known of the alleged sexual harassment and
failed to act reasonably to prevent or correct such alleged
sexual harassment.  The complaint in Case No.CV08-1207-PHX-NVW
seeks injunctive relief and monetary compensation, including for
emotional pain and suffering, among other damages.

The company filed its answer to the complaint on Dec. 24, 2008.

Two of the purported class members are subject to binding
arbitration with respect to a portion of the claims arising in
Case No. CV08-1207-PHX-NVW.

The parties have agreed to a full settlement of all claims of all
parties in this matter, which has resulted in a dismissal, with
prejudice, of such arbitration proceedings.

The parties are currently executing final documentation of
settlement.  The company has reserved $345,000 for estimated
settlement costs in this matter.

The Cheesecake Factory Inc. --
http://www.thecheesecakefactory.com/-- operates 160 upscale,  
full-service casual dining restaurants, 146 under The Cheesecake
Factory mark in 34 states and the District of Columbia, 13 under
the Grand Lux Cafe mark in nine states, and one unit of its
concept, RockSugar Pan Asian Kitchena in California.  The company
also operates two bakery production facilities in Calabasas
Hills, California and Rocky Mount, North Carolina that produce
baked desserts and other products for its restaurants and for
other foodservice operators, retailers and distributors.  In
addition, the company licensed two bakery cafes under The
Cheesecake Factory Bakery Cafe mark to another foodservice
operator.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Enters Discussions to Settle Two Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Inc. has entered into discussions to
settle two suits filed by former hourly restaurant employees,
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. 29, 2009.

On Jan. 9, 2007, two former hourly restaurant employees in the
State of California filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court against the company alleging violations of
California's wage and hour laws with respect to alleged failure
to pay proper wages, improper payroll deductions, and violations
of the California meal and break period laws, among others
claims.

The suit is styled Guardado v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc. et al; Case No. BC360426.

This case was previously stayed by the parties through December
2008, pending the California Supreme Court's decision to review
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego County
(No. S166350, 2008).

Subsequently, the parties entered into mediation proceedings
that, as of Nov. 5, 2009, have not been successful.

On Feb. 23, 2009, an additional lawsuit with similar allegations
was filed by another hourly restaurant employee in Santa Clara
County Superior Court and styled Benitez v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No. 109CV135687.

In April, 2009, the company gave notice to the respective courts
in Case No. 109CV135687 and Case No. BC360426 that such cases may
be related matters.

The parties have resumed discovery and will continue settlement
discussions as part of ongoing mediation efforts in Case No.
BC360426, and have commenced preliminary settlement discussions
in Case No. 109CV135687.

These lawsuits seek unspecified amounts of penalties and other
monetary payments on behalf of the respective plaintiffs and
other purported class members.

The respective plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees for
themselves.

The Cheesecake Factory Inc. --
http://www.thecheesecakefactory.com/-- operates 160 upscale,  
full-service casual dining restaurants, 146 under The Cheesecake
Factory mark in 34 states and the District of Columbia, 13 under
the Grand Lux Cafe mark in nine states, and one unit of its
concept, RockSugar Pan Asian Kitchena in California.  The company
also operates two bakery production facilities in Calabasas
Hills, California and Rocky Mount, North Carolina that produce
baked desserts and other products for its restaurants and for
other foodservice operators, retailers and distributors.  In
addition, the company licensed two bakery cafes under The
Cheesecake Factory Bakery Cafe mark to another foodservice
operator.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Motion to Compel Arbitration Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
A motion to compel arbitration in a lawsuit against The
Cheesecake Factory Inc. remains pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, 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. 29, 2009.

On Aug. 29, 2006, five present and former hourly restaurant
employees in the States of Tennessee, Texas and Arizona filed a
lawsuit against the company alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act with respect to alleged minimum wage violations,
improper payroll deductions and requiring work "off the clock,"
among other claims.

The suit is styled Smith v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants,
Inc. et al; Case No. 3-06-0829.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of penalties and other
monetary payments on behalf of the plaintiffs and other purported
class members.  The plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees for
themselves.

A motion to compel arbitration is currently pending in front of
the court.

The Cheesecake Factory Inc. --
http://www.thecheesecakefactory.com/-- operates 160 upscale,  
full-service casual dining restaurants, 146 under The Cheesecake
Factory mark in 34 states and the District of Columbia, 13 under
the Grand Lux Cafe mark in nine states, and one unit of its
concept, RockSugar Pan Asian Kitchena in California.  The company
also operates two bakery production facilities in Calabasas
Hills, California and Rocky Mount, North Carolina that produce
baked desserts and other products for its restaurants and for
other foodservice operators, retailers and distributors.  In
addition, the company licensed two bakery cafes under The
Cheesecake Factory Bakery Cafe mark to another foodservice
operator.


CYNOSURE INC: No Ruling Yet on Plaintiffs' Certification Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County has yet to
rule on the plaintiff's class certification motion in a suit
against Cynosure, 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.

In May 2005, Dr. Ari Weitzner, individually and as putative
representative of a purported class, filed a complaint against
the company under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
or the TCPA in Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County
seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys
fees.

The complaint alleges that the company violated the TCPA by
sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the plaintiff
and other recipients without the prior express invitation or
permission of the recipients.  Under the TCPA, recipients of
unsolicited facsimile advertisements are entitled to damages of
up to $500 per facsimile for inadvertent violations and up to
$1,500 per facsimile for knowing or willful violations.

Based on discovery in this matter, the plaintiff alleges that
approximately three million facsimiles were sent on the behalf by
a third party to approximately 100,000 individuals.

On February 6, 2008, several months after the close of discovery,
the plaintiff served a motion for class certification, which the
company opposed on numerous factual and legal grounds, including:

     -- that a nationwide class action may not be maintained in
        a Massachusetts state court by Dr. Weitzner, a New York
        resident;

     -- individual issues predominate over common issues;

     -- a class action is not superior to other methods of
resolving TCPA claims; and

     -- Dr. Weitzner is an inadequate class representative.

The company believes that it has many merits defenses, including
that the faxes in question do not constitute "advertising" within
the meaning of the TCPA and many recipients had an established
business relationship with the company and are thereby deemed to
have consented to the receipt of facsimile communications.

The Court held a hearing on the plaintiff's class certification
motion on June 17, 2008.

No decision on the motion has been rendered.

Cynosure, Inc. -- http://www.cynosure.com/-- develops and  
markets aesthetic treatment systems that are used by physicians
and other practitioners to perform non-invasive procedures to
remove hair, treat vascular lesions, rejuvenate skin through the
treatment of shallow vascular lesions and pigmented lesions, as
well as multi-colored tattoos, temporarily reduce the appearance
of cellulite, treat wrinkles, skin texture, skin discoloration
and skin tightening, and to perform minimally invasive procedures
for LaserBodySculpting for the removal of unwanted fat.  Its
systems incorporate a range of laser and other light-based energy
sources, including Alexandrite, pulse dye, Nd:Yag and diode
lasers, as well as intense pulsed light. Cynosure sells 18
different aesthetic treatment systems. Its flagship products are
the Apogee Elite system; the Cynergy system; the TriActive
LaserDermology system; the Affirm and Affirm carbon dioxide (CO2)
systems, Smartlipo and Smartlipo MPX systems, and the Accolade
system.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Investor Class Action Suit Filed in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Genworth Financial Wealth
Management, Inc. (formerly Genworth Financial Asset Management),
Genworth Financial, Inc. and an executive officer was commenced
by Leeds Morelli & Brown, P.C. in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all
persons or entities who invested in GFAM's BJ Group Services
Portfolios between December 22, 2003, and December 22, 2009.

The complaint in Goodman, et al. v. Genworth Finanical Wealth
Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-05603 (E.D.N.Y.)
(Lindsay, J.), charges Genworth and Gurinder S. Ahluwalia with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint
alleges that the fraudulent scheme was perpetrated by Defendants
through Genworth's marketing, solicitation, sale and management
of the Portfolio. The scheme was facilitated by Defendants, who
knowingly, recklessly and/or with intent to deceive disseminated
to prospective and current investors materially misleading
representations regarding the Portfolio and its "exclusive"
management agreement with Robert "Bob" Brinker. As alleged in the
complaint, at times during the Class Period, nearly 65% of the
Portfolio was invested in funds not being recommended by Brinker
but rather in funds that paid Defendants higher administrative
and service fees. The complaint further alleges various breaches
of fiduciary duties by the Defendants.

This action seeks to recover damages on behalf of investors who
invested in Genworth BJ Group Services Portfolios. Plaintiff is
represented by Leeds, Morelli & Brown P.C., a law firm possessing
experience in prosecuting class actions on behalf of victims in
federal and state courts throughout the United States. Leeds,
Morelli & Brown, P.C. has been responsible for collectively
recovering millions of dollars on behalf of class members in
prior actions.

If you invested in Genworth's BJ Group Services Portfolios during
the Class Period, you may move the court no later than March 8,
2010, to serve as a lead plaintiff of the class. In order to
serve as a lead plaintiff, you must meet certain legal
requirements. You do not need to seek appointment as a lead
plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.

If you want to obtain a copy of the complaint or want more
information about Leeds, Morelli & Brown, P.C. or this action, or
if you want to obtain a Certification form to serve as a lead
plaintiff, please visit www.lmblaw.com and contact Jeffrey K.
Brown, Esq. by calling the firm at 1-800-585-4658. If you wish to
receive an investor package or if you wish to discuss this
action, have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests with respect to this matter, or if you have any
information you wish to provide to us, please contact:

          Jeffrey K. Brown Esq.
          Lenard Leeds, Esq.
          Matthew Ian Marks, Esq.
          Rick Ostrove, Esq.
          LEEDS, MORELLI & BROWN, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (800) 585-4658
          E-mail: jbrown@lmblaw.com

               - and -  

          James E. Tullman, Esq.
          Joseph Harry Weiss, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          551 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10176
          Telephone: 212-682-3025

H&R BLOCK: Settles Nationwide IRA Lawsuit for $20.2 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel at Reuters reports that H&R Block Inc will pay
as much as $20.2 million to settle a New York lawsuit accusing it
of fraudulently marketing retirement accounts that caused
hundreds of thousands of mostly lower-income clients to lose
money.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said the accord calls for
the largest U.S. tax preparer to refund $11.4 million to $19.4
million of fees to customers nationwide who opened one of its
Express IRAs, a type of individual retirement account.

H&R Block will also pay $750,000 in fines and other costs to the
state, and convert Express IRAs into new retirement accounts that
do not charge fees, Cuomo said. The size of the refund depends on
the number of claims made, he said.

The attorney general said H&R Block has also settled private
class-action lawsuits based on the same allegations, and which
are pending in the federal court in Kansas City, Missouri, where
the company is based.

New York had accused H&R Block of steering more than 600,000
customers to Express IRAs, without disclosing hidden fees that
wiped out the interest that 85 percent of them could earn. Eliot
Spitzer, Cuomo's predecessor, had first sued H&R Block over the
marketing of Express IRAs in March 2006.

"H&R Block's aggressive peddling of fee-laden retirement accounts
that were virtually guaranteed to lose money needlessly cost
families across the country millions of their hard-earned
dollars," Cuomo said in a statement on Monday.

Gene King, an H&R Block spokesman, called the New York settlement
"satisfactory for all parties." He had no immediate comment on
the class-action settlement. Details of that accord were not
immediately available. Lawyers for the class-action plaintiffs
did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

other remedies. His lawsuit had said the median Express IRA
account had a $323 balance, too low for investors to offset such
charges as $10 annual maintenance fees, $15 set-up fees, $15 "re-
contribution" fees and $25 termination fees.

Among the defendants in the New York case was H&R Block Financial
Advisors Inc, which the company sold in 2008 to Ameriprise
Financial Inc. Ameriprise did not immediately return a call
seeking comment.

The case is New York v. H&R Block Inc, New York State Supreme
Court, No. 401110/2006.


INTEGRYS ENERGY: PEC Unit Continues to Defend Suit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Integrys Energy Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Peoples Energy Corp.,
continues to defend a purported class action suit alleging
violations of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act, 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 February 2004, a purported class action suit was filed in Cook
County Circuit Court against Peoples Energy Corporation, The
Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company, and North Shore Gas Company
by customers of PGL and NSG, alleging among other things,
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act related to matters at issue in the utilities'
fiscal year 2001 Gas Charge reconciliation proceedings.

In the suit, styled Alport et al. v. Peoples Energy Corporation,
the plaintiffs seek disgorgement and punitive damages.

PGL and NSG have been dismissed as defendants and the only
remaining counts of the suit allege violations of the Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by PEC and that PEC
acted in concert with others to commit a tortious act.

PEC denies the allegations and is vigorously defending the suit.  
On July 30, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and PEC responded in opposition of this motion.

On Oct. 20, 2009, the court held a hearing on the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

Integrys Energy Group, Inc. -- http://www.integrysgroup.com/--  
is a diversified holding company with regulated utility
operations operating through six wholly owned subsidiaries,
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, The Peoples Gas Light and
Coke Company, North Shore Gas Company, Upper Peninsula Power
Company, Michigan Gas Utilities Corporation, and Minnesota Energy
Resources Corporation; nonregulated operations serving
competitive energy markets through its wholly owned nonregulated
subsidiary, Integrys Energy Services; and also a 34% equity
ownership interest in American Transmission Company LLC (an
electric transmission company operating in Wisconsin, Michigan,
Minnesota, and Illinois).


MICROSOFT CORP: New Italian Law Sparks Lawsuit in Florence
----------------------------------------------------------
Silvia Ognibene and Sara Rossi at Reuters reports that the Aduc
consumer defense association would present its case at a court in
Florence.  

The move against Microsoft, the world's biggest software company,
comes after a law took effect allowing consumer associations to
file suit for groups of consumers.

"Individual cases affect a limited number of users," Aduc
Chairman Vincenzo Donvito told Reuters.

"Therefore, as there is a large number of users involved, and
with the importance of the free market issue, we have decided to
take a collective legal action against Microsoft."

Italian law provides for compensation for costs and not punitive
damages.  Microsoft was not available to comment.

Aduc has won a pilot case in a Florence court on reimbursement of
the cost of Windows for consumers who had to buy it pre-installed
on computers.


MOODY INTERNATIONAL: Overtime Lawsuit Filed in E.D. Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------
Several technical services workers have filed a federal lawsuit
against The Woodlands, Texas-based Moody International Americas,
Inc., over claims that the company required them to work in
excess of 40 hours each week without paying overtime compensation
as required by federal law.

Dallas attorney Charles W. "Trey" Branham III of the Law Offices
of Charles W. Branham, III, L.P. filed the Fair Labor Standards
Act class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas in Lufkin on behalf of current and
former Moody International employees John Williams, Herbert "Jay"
Fontenot and Tye Adair.

Mr. Williams, of Lubbock, Texas, works for Moody International as
a pipeline inspector. His pay records show he often works 100 or
more hours each week including one week when he worked 160 hours.
The federal Fair Labor Standards Act mandates that employers pay
overtime to non-exempt hourly employees who work more than 40
hours per week at a rate equal to one-and-a-half times their
regular straight-time pay rate. Mr. Fontenot and Mr. Adair worked
as inspectors and technicians for the company, and have asserted
similar claims.

Moody International is a subsidiary of UK-based Moody
International Limited, which provides services to companies in
oil and gas, power, mining and other industries.

"I'm concerned that what happened to John and the others in this
case happened to other Moody International employees as well,"
Mr. Branham says. "With thousands of technical workers in the
U.S., it could be that these three are just the tip of the
iceberg."

Mr. Branham says Moody International's own employee handbook may
become a key piece of evidence, including statements about the
payment of overtime that may run counter to federal law.
The Law Offices of Charles W. Branham, III, L.P. is a Dallas-
based trial law firm representing businesses and individuals in
cases involving intellectual property, contract disputes, labor
disputes, securities law and personal injury. More information is
available at http://www.branhamlegal.com/

For more information on the unpaid overtime case against Moody
International or to speak with Mr. Branham, please contact Mark
Annick at 800-559-4534 or mark@androvett.com


MPS GROUP: Agrees to Settle Adecco Merger Class Action Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
MPS Group, Inc. (NYSE:MPS), a leading provider of specialty
staffing, consulting and business solutions, and 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., and Jaguar
Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Adecco.

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.
This additional information, which should be read in conjunction
with the proxy statement, is set forth in a current report on
Form 8-K that MPS Group has filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC").

In return for the additional disclosures contained in the current
report on Form 8-K, 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 -- 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.


ONEOK PARTNERS: Ruling on Plaintiffs' Certification Plea Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The ruling of the 26th Judicial District, District Court of
Stevens County, Kansas, on the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration on the denial of class certification remains
pending, according to ONEOK Partners, L.P.'s Nov. 5, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

                     Price I Litigation

ONEOK and its division, Oklahoma Natural Gas, the company's
subsidiaries Mid-Continent Market Center, L.L.C., ONEOK Field
Services Company, L.L.C., ONEOK WesTex Transmission, L.L.C. and
ONEOK Hydrocarbon, L.P. (formerly Koch Hydrocarbon, LP, successor
to Koch Hydrocarbon Company), as well as approximately 225 other
defendants, are defending against a lawsuit claiming underpayment
of gas purchase proceeds.

The suit is styled Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al.
(f/k/a Quinque Operating Company, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et
al.), Case No. 99C30.

The plaintiffs initially asserted that the defendants understated
both the volume and the heating content of the purchased gas, and
sought class certification for gas producers and royalty owners
throughout the United States.

The Court refused to certify the class that resulted in the
plaintiffs amending their petition to limit the purported class
to gas producers and royalty owners in Kansas, Colorado and
Wyoming, and limiting the claim to undermeasurement of volume.  

                    Price II Litigation

Twenty one groups of defendants, including ONEOK and its
division, Oklahoma Natural Gas, the company's subsidiaries Mid-
Continent Market Center, L.L.C., ONEOK Field Services Company,
L.L.C., ONEOK WesTex Transmission, L.L.C. and ONEOK Hydrocarbon,
L.P. (formerly Koch Hydrocarbon, LP, successor to Koch
Hydrocarbon Company), are defending against a lawsuit claiming
underpayment of gas producers and royalty owners by allegedly
understating the heating content of purchased gas in Kansas,
Colorado and Wyoming.

The suit is styled Will Price and Stixon Petroleum, et al. v. Gas
Pipelines, et al., Case No. 03C232.

This action was filed by the plaintiffs after the Court denied
the initial motion for class status in Price I.

Price II was consolidated with Price I to determine whether
either or both cases may properly be certified.

Oral arguments on the plaintiffs' motion to certify this suit as
a class action were conducted on April 1, 2005.

On Sept. 18, 2009, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motions for
class certification, which, in effect, limited the named
plaintiffs to pursuing individual claims against only those
defendants who purchased or measured their gas.

On Oct. 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's denial of class certification.

Briefing, oral arguments and a ruling by the Court on this motion
are pending.

ONEOK Partners, L.P. -- http://www.oneok.com/-- is engaged in  
the gathering, processing, storage and transportation of natural
gas in the United States.  In addition, the company owns premier
natural gas liquids systems, connecting natural gas liquid (NGL)
supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky Mountain regions with key
market centers.  The company operates through four business
segments: Natural Gas Gathering and Processing segment primarily
gathers and processes unprocessed natural gas; Natural Gas
Pipelines segment primarily owns and operates regulated
interstate and intrastate natural gas transmission pipelines and
natural gas storage facilities; Natural Gas Liquids Gathering and
Fractionation segment primarily gathers, treats and fractionates
NGLs and stores and markets NGL products, and Natural Gas Liquids
Pipelines segment primarily owns and operates Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC)-regulated interstate natural gas
liquids gathering and distribution pipelines.


PURPOSE FINANCIAL: Defends Suit Over "Payday Lending" Business
--------------------------------------------------------------
Purpose Financial Holdings, Inc. continues to defend a purported
class action lawsuit over the conduct of its "payday lending"
business, according to the company's Jan. 4, 2010, Form 10-12B
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The company is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit
entitled Knox, et al., vs. First Southern Cash Advance, et al.,
No. 5 CV 0445, filed in the Superior Court of New Hanover County,
North Carolina, on Feb. 8, 2005.

The plaintiffs allege that in conducting a so-called "payday
lending" business, certain of the company's Retail Micro-Loans
segment subsidiaries violated various laws governing consumer
finance, lending, check cashing, trade practices and loan
brokering.

The plaintiffs further allege that CompuCredit Corporation is the
alter ego of the company's subsidiaries and is liable for their
actions.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages of up to $75,000 per class
member, and attorney's fees.

The company says that the claims are similar to those that have
been asserted against several other market participants in
transactions involving small balance, short-term loans made to
consumers in North Carolina.

Purpose Financial Holdings, Inc. is wholly owned subsidiary of
CompuCredit Holdings Corp.  Following the spin-off, the company
will be an independent publicly traded company, providing micro-
loan products and services to individuals in the U.S. and United
Kingdom markets via retail storefront locations and the Internet.


QUALCOMM INC: Court Dismisses Amended CDMA Purchasers' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
in San Diego has dismissed an amended purported class action
complaint against QUALCOMM, Inc., for lack of standing, according
to the company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Sept. 27, 2009.

In November 2008, a complaint was filed in San Diego Federal
Court on behalf of a purported class of individuals who purchased
CDMA devices or service, seeking damages and injunctive relief
under federal or state antitrust and unfair competition laws and
common law as a result of the company's licensing practices.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and on March
3, 2009, the court granted that request.

On April 2, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint re-
asserting some, but not all, of the claims in its original
complaint.

On August 10, 2009, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint for lack of standing.

However, the court may reopen the case in the event an appeals
court reverses a decision in an unrelated case involving
different parties but raising a similar standing issue.

QUALCOMM, Inc. -- http://www.qualcomm.com/-- designs,   
manufactures, and markets digital wireless telecommunications
products and services based on its code division multiple access
technology and other technologies.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Settles Carlines Class Action for $165 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersAndSettlements.com reports that a $165 million settlement
has been approved by a US District judge in the investor class
action brought against Schering Plough. The suit alleged that the
pharmaceutical company made fraudulent statements to investors
about its allergy medicine, Clarinex.

Specifically, the suit alleged that between May 2000 and February
2001 Schering-Plough made false statements that did not
adequately disclose "serious and widespread deficiencies" in its
quality and manufacturing operations. This, in turn, risked delay
of FDA approval of Clarinex, a successor drug to Claritin. Then,
on February 15, 2001, the FDA cited manufacturing deficiencies at
Schering-Plough's Puerto Rico and New Jersey facilities, and
subsequently withheld approval of Clarinex. The following day the
company's shares fell 15 percent.

According to media reports, as many as 280,000 investors could be
affected by the settlement. The lawsuit has been underway for
seven years. Legal fees of $37.95 million were also approved as
part of the settlement.


STONE ENERGY: New Motion for Class Certification Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A new motion for class certification in a consolidated complaint
against Stone Energy Corp. remains pending, 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 consolidated putative class action is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against
Stone, David Welch, Kenneth Beer, D. Peter Canty and James Prince
purporting to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The consolidated complaint alleges a putative class period to
commence on May 2, 2001 and to end on March 10, 2006 and contends
that, during the putative class period, defendants, among other
things, misstated or failed to disclose:

     (i) that Stone had materially overstated Stone's financial
         results by overvaluing its oil reserves through
         improper and aggressive reserve methodologies;

    (ii) that the company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

   (iii) that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         company's proved reserves, assets and future net cash
         flows were materially overstated at all relevant times.

On Oct. 1, 2007, the Federal Court ordered that:

     (i) the claims asserted against defendants Kenneth Beer and
         James Prince pursuant to Section 10(b) of the
         Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
         thereunder and

    (ii) claims asserted on behalf of putative class members who
         sold their Company shares prior to October 6, 2005 be
         dismissed.

The remaining claims are still pending.

On or about May 12, 2008, then Lead Plaintiff El Paso Fireman &
Policeman's Pension Fund filed a motion to certify the Securities
Action as a class action.  Defendants filed an opposition to the
Class Certification Motion on June 27, 2008.
Defendants also filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and
a related Motion to Amend Answer to the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on or about June 11, 2008.

In a memorandum ruling filed on Feb. 27, 2009, the Court held
that El Paso Fireman & Policeman's Pension Fund did not have
capacity to sue or be sued and dismissed it from the lawsuit.

Subsequently, the Court denied the Class Certification Motion as
moot.  El Paso Fireman & Policeman's Pension Fund is appealing
its dismissal.

On Sept. 30, 2009, the City of Knoxville Employees' Pension Board
was appointed as the new lead plaintiff.

On Oct. 30, 2009, the City of Knoxville Employees' Pension Board
filed a new motion for class certification.

Stone Energy Corp. -- http://www.stoneenergy.com/-- is an  
independent oil and natural gas company engaged in the
acquisition and subsequent exploration, development, and
operation of oil and gas properties located primarily in the Gulf
of Mexico.  The company also has operations in the Appalachia
region. On August 28, 2008, the Company completed the acquisition
of Bois d'Arc Energy, Inc.  As of Feb. 23, 2009, it has secured
leasehold interests in approximately 24,000 net acres and has two
wells which are on production.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Kahn Suit in Michigan Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit against Tecumseh Products Co.
is still pending as the plaintiffs continues to seek
reimbursement of attorney fees and costs, 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. 10, 2008, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed by
Alan Kahn in Lenawee County, Michigan against five of Tecumseh's
directors, alleging a breach of fiduciary duty by the defendant
directors and seeking injunctive relief and damages for the
company's proposed recapitalization plan.

The injunctive relief sought in the suit was granted in the
Herrick Foundation lawsuit, and the circuit court consolidated
the two cases.  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Feb.
20, 2009.  Mr. Kahn's attorneys have acknowledged that this
claim, like the Herrick Foundation litigation, is moot based upon
the results of the company's annual meeting of shareholders.

However, the plaintiffs have not yet dismissed the complaint
because they are seeking reimbursement of attorney fees and
costs.

Tecumseh Products Co. -- http://www.tecumseh.com/-- is an  
independent, global manufacturer of hermetically sealed
compressors for residential and commercial refrigerators,
freezers, water coolers, dehumidifiers, window air conditioning
units and residential and commercial central system air
conditioners and heat pumps.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Mediation in Lawnmower Suits Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation in a class action suit against Tecumseh Products Co.
remains ongoing, 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 nationwide class-action lawsuit filed against the company and
other defendants alleging that the horsepower labels on the
products the plaintiffs purchased, which included products
manufactured by the company's former Engine & Power Train
business, were inaccurate.

The suit is Ronnie Phillips et al v. Sears Roebuck Corporation et
al., No. 04-L-334 (20th Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, IL).

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class of all persons in
the United States who, beginning Jan. 1, 1995 through the
present, purchased a lawnmower containing a two stroke or four
stroke gas combustible engine up to 20 horsepower that was
manufactured by defendants.

On March 30, 2007, the Court issued an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss, and on May 8, 2008 the Court
issued an opinion that:

     (i) dismissed all the claims made under the Racketeer
         Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act with prejudice;

    (ii) dismissed all claims of the 93 non-Illinois plaintiffs
         with instructions to re-file amended claims in
         individual state courts; and

   (iii) ordered that any amended complaint for the three
         Illinois plaintiffs be re-filed by May 30, 2008.

Since that time, eleven plaintiff's firms have filed 64 class
action matters in 48 states and the District of Columbia,
asserting claims on behalf of consumers in each of those
jurisdictions with respect to lawnmower purchases from Jan. 1,
1994 to the present.

The company has joined the joint defense group with other
lawnmower and component manufacturers who are defendants.

Fact gathering is underway but discovery has not yet commenced.

Mediation in the case began in May of 2009.

The parties have made reasonable progress in settlement
discussions, but certain key terms among the parties remain
unresolved.

Tecumseh Products Co. -- http://www.tecumseh.com/-- is an  
independent, global manufacturer of hermetically sealed
compressors for residential and commercial refrigerators,
freezers, water coolers, dehumidifiers, window air conditioning
units and residential and commercial central system air
conditioners and heat pumps.


WESTPORT NATIONAL: Individuals Pursue Madoff Claims Individually
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Redding Pilot reports that a federal judge has ruled that a
lawsuit may proceed against Connecticut Community Bank, the
parent corporation of Westport National Bank, to recover
depositors' retirement funds in a Westport National Bank account
managed by Bernard Madoff.

Backus v. Connecticut Community Bank, Case No. 09-cv-01256 (D.
Conn.) (Dorsey, J.), was brought by 26 retirement plans and IRA
owners who had retirement fund accounts at Westport National
Bank. The bank had more than 200 separate IRA and retirement fund
depositors, with more than $60 million being managed by Madoff as
of December 2008, when Madoff's Ponzi scheme was exposed. All of
the depositors lost their retirement funds. In a ruling issued in
federal court in New Haven late last month, U.S. District Court
Judge Peter C. Dorsey denied the bank's motion to dismiss the
action.

The Backus plaintiffs had sought permission to proceed as a class
action on behalf of all Westport National Bank depositors who
placed their money with Madoff, according to a press release.
Although Judge Dorsey denied the bank's motion to dismiss, he
ruled that the case cannot proceed as a class action and that
each individual Westport National Bank depositor must bring a
separate claim.

David Golub of the Stamford law firm of Silver Golub & Teitell,
who is lead counsel for the 26 Backus plaintiffs and another 30
individual IRA owners and retirement plans who deposited money
with the bank, noted the ruling had a significant impact on the
rights of the Westport National Bank depositors who have not yet
brought an action against the bank.

"It is important that individuals and retirement plans that lost
money at Westport National Bank understand that the judge's
ruling requires that each individual and retirement fund trustee
bring an individual action or join in an existing action to
recover their money," he said.

Mr. Golub said depositors outside Connecticut are also affected
by this ruling, including those living in Massachusetts, Florida,
California, and Maryland.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David S. Golub, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Levine, Esq.
          Craig Yankwitt, Esq.
          SILVER, GOLUB & TEITELL
          184 Atlantic St., Po Box 389
          Stamford, CT 06904
          Telephone: 203-325-4491

               - and -  

          J. Daniel Sagarin, Esq.
          Andrew W. Skolnick, Esq.
          David A. Slossberg, Esq.       
          HURWITZ SAGARIN SLOSSBERG & KNUFF LLC
          147 North Broad St., PO Box 112
          Milford, CT 06460-0112
          Telephone: 203-877-8000

The Defendant is represented by:

          Scott D. Corrigan, Esq.  
          WIGGIN & DANA, LLP
          450 Lexington Ave., Suite 3800
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-551-2605

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Freiman, Esq.
          Joseph C. Merschman, Esq.
          WIGGIN & DANA
          265 Church Street
          P.O. Box 1832
          New Haven, CT 06508-1832
          Telephone: 203-498-4584

               - and -  

          Donald E. Frechette, Esq.
          Michael Thomas Grant, Esq.
          EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER & DODGE
          20 Church Street, 20th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: 860-541-7713

                            *********

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  * * *