CAR_Public/100119.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, January 19, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 12

                            Headlines

APOLLO GROUP: "Juric" Suit in California in Discovery Phase
APOLLO GROUP: Certification Motion in "Sabol" Due February 15
APOLLO GROUP: Motion to Dismiss "Tranchita" Suit Pending in Ill.
APOLLO GROUP: Class Action Allegations Removed in "Davis" Suit
APOLLO GROUP: March 22 Certification Hearing Set for Calif. Suit

APOLLO GROUP: Motion to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit Pending
APOLLO GROUP: No Hearing Yet in Appeal to Ruling in Arizona Suit
CALAMP CORP: Pursuing Dismissal of Misrepresentation Lawsuit
CARAMINA FURNITURE: Recalls 1,000 "Diane" Drop-Side Cribs
CITIGROUP INC: Moves to Dismiss Bonus Pay Class Action

IMMUCOR INC: Faces "Schlenker" Securities Suit in Pennsylvania
IMMUCOR INC: Continues to Defend City of Pontiac's Complaint
IMMUCOR INC: Plaintiffs' Motion for Interim Lead Counsel Pending
MATTRESS WORLD: Recalls 750 MWQ and MWFOBXQ Mattress Sets
MONSANTO CO: No Hearing Date Yet in Class Certification Motion

MONSANTO CO: April 2011 Trial Date Set in "Bibb" Suit
MONSANTO CO: Plaintiffs' File Appeal to Discrimination Ruling
PIER 1: Recalls 67,000 Ceramic Santa Tea Light Holders
PIER 1: Recalls 40,000 Silver & Gold Glitter Tea Lights
PUTNAM FUNDS: Madison County Class Action Dismissed on Appeal

TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Riverside Unit Still Defends "Shellman" Suit

                            *********

APOLLO GROUP: "Juric" Suit in California in Discovery Phase
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Apollo Group, Inc. and its
subsidiary, University of Phoenix, filed by former employee Dejan
Juric, is in discovery, according to the company's Jan. 7, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009.

On April 3, 2009, former employee Dejan Juric filed a lawsuit in
California State Court in Los Angeles against the company and the
University of Phoenix.  The suit is alleging wage and hour claims
for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime and certain other
violations.

The company filed an answer denying all of the asserted claims on
May 4, 2009 and then removed the case to the Federal District
Court in Los Angeles.

The matter is currently in discovery.

Under the District Court's current Scheduling Order, the deadline
for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was Jan. 11, 2010,
and the hearing on the motion is set for March 22, 2010.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu-- is a private  
education provider.  The company offers educational programs and
services at the high school, undergraduate and graduate levels
online and on-campus through its wholly owned subsidiaries, The
University of Phoenix, Inc. (University of Phoenix), Institute
for Professional Development (IPD), The College for Financial
Planning Institutes Corporation (CFP), Western International
University, Inc. (Western International University), and Insight
Schools, Inc. (Insight Schools), and through its 80.1% owned
subsidiary, Apollo Global, Inc. (Apollo Global).  The company has
also established a Canadian institution, Meritus University
(Meritus), which began operations in September 2008.


APOLLO GROUP: Certification Motion in "Sabol" Due February 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Apollo Group,
Inc. and its subsidiary, University of Phoenix, filed in the
Federal District Court in Philadelphia, have until Feb. 15, 2010,
to file their Motion for Conditional Certification, according to
the company's Jan. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30,
2009.

The action was filed on July 31, 2009, by plaintiffs Erik Sabol,
Rebecca Odom, Geraldine Andrews, and John Lyons.  The plaintiffs
are former employees and allege wage and hour claims for failure
to pay minimum wages and overtime and certain other violations.

The company filed an answer denying the asserted claim on Sept.
29, 2009.

The matter is in discovery.

Under the District Court's current Scheduling Order, the deadline
for Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification is Feb. 15,
2010.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu-- is a private  
education provider.  The company offers educational programs and
services at the high school, undergraduate and graduate levels
online and on-campus through its wholly owned subsidiaries, The
University of Phoenix, Inc. (University of Phoenix), Institute
for Professional Development (IPD), The College for Financial
Planning Institutes Corporation (CFP), Western International
University, Inc. (Western International University), and Insight
Schools, Inc. (Insight Schools), and through its 80.1% owned
subsidiary, Apollo Global, Inc. (Apollo Global).  The company has
also established a Canadian institution, Meritus University
(Meritus), which began operations in September 2008.


APOLLO GROUP: Motion to Dismiss "Tranchita" Suit Pending in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois remains pending, according to the company's Jan. 7,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009.

The action was filed on Aug. 10, 2009, by Anthony Tranchita
alleging wage and hour claims for failure to pay minimum wages
and overtime and certain other violations.

On Sept. 2, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss, or in
the alternative to stay or transfer, the case based on the
previously filed action by Erik Sabol, et al., in the Federal
District Court in Philadelphia.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu-- is a private  
education provider.  The company offers educational programs and
services at the high school, undergraduate and graduate levels
online and on-campus through its wholly owned subsidiaries, The
University of Phoenix, Inc. (University of Phoenix), Institute
for Professional Development (IPD), The College for Financial
Planning Institutes Corporation (CFP), Western International
University, Inc. (Western International University), and Insight
Schools, Inc. (Insight Schools), and through its 80.1% owned
subsidiary, Apollo Global, Inc. (Apollo Global).  The company has
also established a Canadian institution, Meritus University
(Meritus), which began operations in September 2008.


APOLLO GROUP: Class Action Allegations Removed in "Davis" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adonijah Davis filed an amended complaint removing the class
action allegations against Apollo Group, Inc. and its subsidiary,
University of Phoenix, and electing to proceed on a single
plaintiff basis, according to the company's Jan. 7, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009.

The action was filed on Sept. 28, 2009, by former employee
Adonijah Davis in Federal District Court in Tampa, Florida.

On Nov. 2, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative to stay or transfer, the case based on the previously
filed action by Erik Sabol, et al., in the Federal District Court
in Philadelphia.

On Nov. 17, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
removing the class action allegations and electing to proceed on
a single plaintiff basis.  As a result, the Court denied the
company's motion to dismiss as moot on Nov. 18, 2009.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu-- is a private  
education provider.  The company offers educational programs and
services at the high school, undergraduate and graduate levels
online and on-campus through its wholly owned subsidiaries, The
University of Phoenix, Inc. (University of Phoenix), Institute
for Professional Development (IPD), The College for Financial
Planning Institutes Corporation (CFP), Western International
University, Inc. (Western International University), and Insight
Schools, Inc. (Insight Schools), and through its 80.1% owned
subsidiary, Apollo Global, Inc. (Apollo Global).  The company has
also established a Canadian institution, Meritus University
(Meritus), which began operations in September 2008.


APOLLO GROUP: March 22 Certification Hearing Set for Calif. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A March 22, 2010, class certification hearing has been set for
the lawsuit filed by former University of Phoenix, Inc. (UPX)
students against Apollo Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

On Dec. 9, 2008, three former University of Phoenix students
filed a complaint against Apollo Group and UPX in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

The complaint alleges that with regard to students who dropped
from their courses shortly after enrolling, University of
Phoenix improperly returned the entire amount of the students'
undisbursed federal loan funds to the lender.

The students purport to be bringing the complaint on behalf of
themselves and a proposed class of similarly-situated student
loan borrowers.

On Jan. 21, 2009, the plaintiffs voluntarily filed a dismissal
"without prejudice to re-filing."

The plaintiffs then filed a similar complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles) on Feb. 5, 2009.

The company filed an answer denying all of the asserted claims on
March 30, 2009.

Under the District Court's current Scheduling Order, trial is set
for October 2010.

The matter is currently in discovery.

The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification and an
amended complaint on July 14, 2009.

The hearing on class certification is set for March 22, 2010.

According to the company's Jan. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Nov. 30, 2009, Apollo Group does not know how many students may
fall into this category, or whether there
is a proper basis for the lawsuit to proceed as a class-action
lawsuit.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu-- is a private
education provider.  The company offers educational programs and
services at the high school, undergraduate and graduate levels
online and on-campus through its wholly owned subsidiaries, The
University of Phoenix, Inc. (University of Phoenix), Institute
for Professional Development (IPD), The College for Financial
Planning Institutes Corporation (CFP), Western International
University, Inc. (Western International University), and Insight
Schools, Inc. (Insight Schools), and through its 80.1% owned
subsidiary, Apollo Global, Inc. (Apollo Global).  The company
has also established a Canadian institution, Meritus University
(Meritus), which began operations in September 2008.


APOLLO GROUP: Motion to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in a securities
class-action lawsuit alleging that executives of Apollo Group
Inc. backdated stock option grants for five years remains pending
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, according
to the company's Jan. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30,
2009.

The class-action complaint, captioned, "Teamsters Local 617
Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-02674-RCB," was filed on Nov. 2, 2006, and purported to
represent a class of shareholders who purchased the company's
stock between Nov. 28, 2001, and Oct. 28, 2006 (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 3, 2008).

The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly failing to
disclose alleged deficiencies in the company's stock option
granting policies and practices.  The plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages and other relief.

On Jan. 3, 2007, other shareholders, through their separate
attorneys, filed motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff
and approval of their designated counsel as lead counsel to
pursue the action.  The court later appointed The Pension Trust
Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff and approved the
lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel.

On Nov. 23, 2007, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging that the defendants made misrepresentations concerning
the company's stock option granting policies and practices,
traded while in possession of material non-public information,
violated duties of care, candor and loyalty, and engaged in
self-dealing.

The Lead Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, and
civil conspiracy to commit fraud, and seeks unstated
compensatory and punitive damages and other relief on behalf of
the purported class.

Aside from the company, other named defendants are:

      -- John G. Sperling,
      -- Todd S. Nelson,
      -- Kenda B. Gonzales,
      -- Daniel E. Bachus,
      -- John M. Blair,
      -- Hedy F. Govenar,
      -- Brian E. Mueller,
      -- Dino J. DeConcini,
      -- Peter V. Sperling, and
      -- Laura Palmer Noone.

All defendants filed motions to dismiss the case on Jan. 22,
2008.

On March 31, 2009, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice
as to Daniel Bachus, Hedy Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Dino J.
DeConcini, and Laura Noone.  The Court also dismissed the case
as to John Sperling and Peter Sperling, but granted plaintiffs
leave to file an amended complaint against them.  Finally, the
Court dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims concerning misconduct
before November 2001 and all of the state law claims for
conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty.

On April 30, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint, which alleges similar claims for alleged securities
fraud against the same defendants.

On June 15, 2009, all defendants filed another motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint, which is currently pending with
the Court.

Discovery in this case has not yet begun.

The suit is Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v.
Apollo Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 06-cv-02674 (D. Ariz.)
(Broomfield, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         E-mail: ramzia@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

         Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
         Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
         1 N La Salle St., Ste. 2225
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Phone: 312-377-1181
         Fax: 312-377-1184
         E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael J. Farrell, Esq.
         Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC
         Collier Ctr., 201 E. Washington, Ste. 1100
         Phoenix, AZ 85004-2385
         Phone: 602-262-5900
         Fax: 602-495-2618
         E0mail: mfarrell@jsslaw.com

              - and -

         Joseph E. Floren, Esq.
         Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
         101 Park Ave.
         New York, NY 10178-0060
         Phone: 212-309-6000


APOLLO GROUP: No Hearing Yet in Appeal to Ruling in Arizona Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to set a
hearing date on the plaintiffs' appeal to a ruling in a
consolidated lawsuit, In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT, according to the
company's Jan. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009.

In October 2004, three class-action complaints were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.  The court
consolidated the three pending class action complaints under the
caption, "In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT," and a consolidated class action
complaint was filed on May 16, 2005, by the lead plaintiff.

The Lead Plaintiff represents a class of the company's
shareholders who acquired their shares between Feb. 27, 2004,
and Sept. 14, 2004.

The consolidated complaint specifically named the company, Todd
S. Nelson, Kenda B. Gonzales, and Daniel E. Bachus, as
defendants.

On March 1, 2007, by stipulation and order of the Court, Daniel
E. Bachus was dismissed as a defendant from the case.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the Act by the company for defendants'
allegedly material false and misleading statements in connection
with its failure to publicly disclose the contents of a
preliminary U.S. Department of Education program review report.

The case proceeded to trial on Nov. 14, 2007.  On Jan. 16, 2008,
the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs awarding
damages of up to $5.55 for each share of common stock in the
class suit, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The class shares are those purchased after Feb. 27, 2004, and
still owned on Sept. 14, 2004.

The judgment was entered on Jan. 30, 2008, subject to an
automatic stay until Feb. 13, 2008.

On Feb. 13, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion to stay
execution of the judgment pending resolution of its motions for
post-trial relief, which were also filed on Feb. 13, 2008,
provided that the company post a bond in the amount of $95.0
million.

On Feb. 19, 2008, the company posted the $95-million bond with
the Court.

Oral arguments occurred on Aug. 4, 2008 as part of the company's
post-trial motions, during which the District Court vacated the
earlier judgment based on the jury verdict and entered judgment
in favor of Apollo and the other defendants.

The $95.0 million bond posted in February was subsequently
released on Aug. 11, 2008.

The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Aug. 29, 2008.

The appeal has been fully briefed by both parties and was
originally scheduled for hearing on Jan. 13, 2010.

Plaintiffs' lawyers recently filed a request to extend the
hearing date, which was granted.

The consolidated action is In Re: Apollo Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-02147 (Ariz.) (Teilborg, J.)

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert D. Mitchell, Esq.
         Mitchell & Forest
         2355 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 618
         Phoenix, AZ 85016
         Phone: 602-468-1411
         Fax: 602-468-1311
         E-mail: robertmitchell@mitchelllaw.com

              - and -

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         E-mail: ramzia@lerachlaw.com

Representing the company is:

          Wayne W. Smith, Esq.
          Orange County Office
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          Phone: 949-451-4108
          Fax: 949-475-4709


CALAMP CORP: Pursuing Dismissal of Misrepresentation Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
CalAmp Corp. continues to pursue the dismissal of a class action
lawsuit filed against the company, the former owner of its
Aercept business unit and one of Aercept's distributors.

The class has not been certified in the lawsuit filed in
November 2008.

The lawsuit alleges that Aercept made misrepresentations when
the plaintiff purchased analog vehicle tracking devices in 2005,
which was prior to CalAmp's acquisition of Aercept in an asset
purchase.

The tracking devices ceased functioning in early 2008 due to
termination of analog service by the wireless network operators.

The company is seeking dismissal of the lawsuit on the basis
that the assertion of successor liability is not supported by
the law or the facts.

No further updates were reported in the company's Jan. 7, 2010,
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Nov. 28, 2009.

CalAmp Corp. -- http://www.calamp.com/-- is a provider of
wireless communications solutions that enable anytime/anywhere
access.  The company has two segments: Wireless DataCom Division
and Satellite Division.  CalAmp's Wireless DataCom Division
services the public safety, industrial monitoring and controls,
and mobile resource management market segments with wireless
solutions built on communications technology platforms that
include licensed narrowband, unlicensed broadband and cellular
networks.  CalAmp's Satellite Division supplies outdoor customer
premise equipment to the United States Direct Broadcast
Satellite (DBS) market.


CARAMINA FURNITURE: Recalls 1,000 "Diane" Drop-Side Cribs
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Caramia Furniture and Mother Hubbard Cupboard's, of Ontario,
Canada, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,000 Diane Drop-
Side Cribs.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The slats on the cribs drop-side can detach from the top and
bottom rails, posing fall and entrapment hazards to the child.

The firm has received 18 reports of slats detaching from the
rails of the crib.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Caramia "Diane" drop-side cribs.  The cribs
were manufactured between September 2002 and June 2004.  A label
affixed to the inside of the headboard or footboard lists the
manufacturing dates.  A picture of the recalled product is
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10113.html

The recalled cribs were manufactured in Slovenia and sold at Buy
Buy Baby and juvenile product and mass merchandise stores
nationwide from September 2002 through December 2005 for between
$240 and $370.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Diane crib
and contact Caramia Furniture to receive a free replacement drop
side.  The free replacement will be available beginning March
2010.  For additional information, contact Caramia toll-free at
(877) 728-0342 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.caramiafurniture.com/


CITIGROUP INC: Moves to Dismiss Bonus Pay Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Halah Touryalai at Penton Media's Registered Rep. Advisorland
reports that Citigroup filed a motion last week to dismiss a
class action lawsuit filed against the firm over the terms of its
financial advisor bonus pay agreements.  The firm filed the
motion with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The original lawsuit was brought on behalf of six former
Citigroup brokers who allege that the payback terms on their
upfront bonuses violate contract law, and that they do not owe
the firm any money.  Lawyers for the brokers argued that clauses
in their employment contracts are unfair and one-sided that no
reasonable or informed person would agree to them. In addition,
they said, broker employment contracts that contain such clauses
are themselves "illusory," or unenforceable under contract law.

In its motion, Citi argues that the brokers have litigated this
issue before with FINRA and lost.  Having chosen to litigate it
before FINRA, Citi says the brokers have waived any right to have
the court decide the issue.

There's "a good chance" the court will dismiss the complaint
filed by the brokers and rule that FINRA already made a decision
on the case, says the layer representing the Plaintiffs:

          Thomas B. Lewis, Esq.
          Stark & Stark
          993 Lenox Drive
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: 609-985-7321
          
Mr. Lewis says it could take two to six months for a judge to
write a decision.  "Realistically it's an issue that's subject to
FINRA's jurisdiction," he says. "The plaintiffs tried to get out
of the FINRA arbitration by getting class action status for the
case. But courts are reluctant to get involved if there is FINRA
jurisdiction."

But if the court decides that class action status for the case is
legitimate, Citi has other arguments. For one, Citi says the
plaintiffs received over $1.4 million in upfront loans, and each
signed a promissory note agreeing to immediately repay the
balance on the loans. This makes the brokers' claims baseless and
they should be dismissed by the court, the Citi filing says.
"Specifically, Plaintiffs' allegation that the promissory notes
are unenforceable because they are not supported by consideration
and are illusory is preposterous on its face considering that
Plaintiffs received over $1.4 million in interest-free loan
proceeds," Citigroup writes in its response.

Citi says the plaintiffs other arguments are also without merit.
"As for Plaintiffs' theory that accelerating the payment of loan
balances on termination constitutes an unconscionable penalty,
courts have routinely rejected such theories as a matter of law.
Plaintiffs' theory that CGMI made it impossible for them to
perform under the contract or otherwise frustrated the purpose of
the loan arrangement also lacks merit because the very events
Plaintiffs claim rendered performance impossible, i.e., their
resignation, was contemplated by the parties and specifically
addressed in the promissory note."


IMMUCOR INC: Faces "Schlenker" Securities Suit in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
Immucor, Inc. faces a class action lawsuit filed by Thomas
Schlenker in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

In September 2009, Mr. Schlenker sued the company and ten of its
current and former directors and officers, also alleging that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

This plaintiff also seeks to certify a class of purchasers of the
company's securities for the same class period.

The company has not yet responded to the complaint, according to
the company's Jan. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30,
2009.

Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com/-- develops,
manufactures and sells a line of reagents and automated systems
that detect and identify certain properties of the cell and
serum components of human blood for the purpose of blood
transfusion.  The company has manufacturing facilities in the
United States and Canada and sells its products through its
direct sales network in the United States, Canada, Western
Europe and Japan, as well as through third-party distributors in
other markets.  As of May 31, 2009, the company had received
orders for a total of 603 Echo instruments worldwide, including
121 orders in Europe including distributors, 470 orders in the
United States and Canada, and 12 orders in Japan.  On Aug. 4,
2008, Immucor acquired BioArray Solutions Ltd.


IMMUCOR INC: Continues to Defend City of Pontiac's Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Immucor, Inc., continues to defend a class action complaint filed
by the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement
System, according to the company's Jan. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Nov. 30, 2009.

In August 2009, the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement
System filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia against the company and nine
of its current and former directors and officers, alleging that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of purchasers of the
company's Common Stock between Oct. 19, 2005 and April 23, 2009.

The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that
the company was operating in violation of United States antitrust
laws.

As of Jan. 7, 2010, the company says that it has not yet
responded to the complaint.

Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com/-- develops,
manufactures and sells a line of reagents and automated systems
that detect and identify certain properties of the cell and
serum components of human blood for the purpose of blood
transfusion.  The company has manufacturing facilities in the
United States and Canada and sells its products through its
direct sales network in the United States, Canada, Western
Europe and Japan, as well as through third-party distributors in
other markets.  As of May 31, 2009, the company had received
orders for a total of 603 Echo instruments worldwide, including
121 orders in Europe including distributors, 470 orders in the
United States and Canada, and 12 orders in Japan.  On Aug. 4,
2008, Immucor acquired BioArray Solutions Ltd.


IMMUCOR INC: Plaintiffs' Motion for Interim Lead Counsel Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the plaintiffs to appoint interim lead counsel in
purported class-action lawsuits against Immucor, Inc., remains
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, according to the company's Jan. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009.

Since May 18, 2009, a series of 30 lawsuits have been filed in
10 different U.S. District Courts against the company, Ortho-
Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Health Care
Systems, Inc. alleging that the defendants conspired to fix
prices at which blood reagents are sold, asserting claims under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief, treble damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

All of these complaints make substantially the same allegations
and seek to certify a class of persons and entities who
purchased blood reagents from any of the defendants between
Jan. 1, 2000 and the present.

Most of the complaints limit the proposed class to persons and
entities in the United States, but some do not contain that
limitation.

Certain of the plaintiffs have filed motions with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation asking that these cases be
centralized in a single U.S. District Court; arguments on these
motions are scheduled to be heard July 30, 2009.

In August 2009, these cases were ordered to be centralized in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  
That court now has before it motions to appoint interim lead
counsel for plaintiffs.

There has been no discovery in any of these cases, and no court
has made a determination whether any of the plaintiffs' claims
have merit or should be allowed to proceed as a class action.

Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com/-- develops,
manufactures and sells a line of reagents and automated systems
that detect and identify certain properties of the cell and
serum components of human blood for the purpose of blood
transfusion.  The company has manufacturing facilities in the
United States and Canada and sells its products through its
direct sales network in the United States, Canada, Western
Europe and Japan, as well as through third-party distributors in
other markets.  As of May 31, 2009, the company had received
orders for a total of 603 Echo instruments worldwide, including
121 orders in Europe including distributors, 470 orders in the
United States and Canada, and 12 orders in Japan.  On Aug. 4,
2008, Immucor acquired BioArray Solutions Ltd.


MATTRESS WORLD: Recalls 750 MWQ and MWFOBXQ Mattress Sets
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Mattress World, of Dallas, Texas, announced a voluntary recall of
about 750 mattress sets.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The mattress sets fail to meet the mandatory federal open flame
standard and pose a fire hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Mattress World renovated twin, full, queen
and king mattress sets sold in blue floral, white floral and
taupe floral.  This recall applies only to mattresses with tags
attached to the mattress and foundation (box spring) containing
this information:

     Manufacturer: Mattress World
     Date of Manufacture: May 29, 2009 through September 4, 2009
     Prototype ID: MWQ or MWFOBXQ

Pictures of the recalled mattress sets are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10109.html

The recalled mattress sets were manufactured in the United States
and sold at various furniture stores in Arkansas, Louisiana,
Oklahoma and Texas from May 2009 through September 2009 for
between $35 and $105.

Consumers should immediately contact Mattress World to receive a
full refund.  For additional information, contact Mattress World
at (877) 819-0725 between 9:00 a.m and 5:00 p.m., Central Time,
Monday through Friday or e-mail the firm at
mattressworld@live.com


MONSANTO CO: No Hearing Date Yet in Class Certification Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri has
yet to set a date for the class certification hearing in a
consolidated class action suit against Pioneer Hi-Bred
International, Inc., and Monsanto Co., according to Monsanto's
Jan. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009.

Starting the week of March 7, 2004, a series of purported class
action cases were filed in 14 different state courts against
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., and the company.

The suits allege that the company conspired with Pioneer to
violate various state competition and consumer protection laws by
fixing and artificially inflating the prices and fees for the
company's various biotechnology traits and seeds containing those
traits and imposing certain use restrictions.

All of these cases have been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and consolidated,
except for one case that was pending in state court in Tennessee,
which has been dismissed.

A hearing was held on Oct. 15, 2009, to determine the schedule of
proceedings regarding Pioneer's announced intention to settle the
claims for payment of $2 million.

On Dec. 8, 2009, the Court declined to grant preliminary
settlement class approval to the purported Pioneer settlement.

The Court will conduct a single hearing to determine all class
certification issues.

Monsanto Co. -- http://www.monsanto.com/-- along with its  
subsidiaries, is a worldwide provider of agricultural products
for farmers.


MONSANTO CO: April 2011 Trial Date Set in "Bibb" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
An April 4, 2011, trial date has been set for the class action
styled Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et al., according to the
company's Jan. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009.

On Dec. 17, 2004, 15 plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit, styled Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al., in the
Putnam County, West Virginia, state court against Monsanto,
Pharmacia and seven other defendants.

Monsanto is named as the successor in interest to the liabilities
of Pharmacia.

The alleged class consists of all current and former residents,
workers, and students who, between 1949 and the present, were
allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans contamination in counties
surrounding Nitro, West Virginia.

The complaint alleges that the source of the contamination is a
chemical plant in Nitro, formerly owned and operated by Pharmacia
and later by Flexsys, a joint venture between Solutia and Akzo
Nobel Chemicals, Inc.

Akzo Nobel and Flexsys were named defendants in the case but
Solutia was not, due to its then pending bankruptcy proceeding.
The suit seeks damages for property cleanup costs, loss of real
estate value, funds to test property for contamination levels,
funds to test for human exposure, and future medical monitoring
costs.

The complaint also seeks an injunction against further
contamination and punitive damages.

Monsanto has agreed to indemnify and defend Akzo Nobel and the
Flexsys defendant group.

The class action certification hearing was held on Oct. 29, 2007.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the trial court issued an order certifying the
Carter and Allen (now Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et al.,
because Bibb replaced Allen as class representative) cases as
class action matters.

The court has set a trial date of April 4, 2011, for the Bibb
class action.

Monsanto Co. -- http://www.monsanto.com/-- along with its  
subsidiaries, is a worldwide provider of agricultural products
for farmers.


MONSANTO CO: Plaintiffs' File Appeal to Discrimination Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action against Monsanto Co. filed a notice
of appeal of the summary judgment order on the age discrimination
claims, according to the company's Jan. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Nov. 30, 2009.

On June 23, 2004, two former employees of Monsanto and Pharmacia
filed a purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois against Monsanto and the
Monsanto Company Pension Plan (Pension Plan).

The suit claims that the Pension Plan has violated the age
discrimination and other rules under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 from Jan. 1, 1997 (when the Pension
Plan was sponsored by Pharmacia, then known as Monsanto Company)
and continuing to the present.

In January 2006, a separate group of former employees of
Pharmacia filed a similar purported class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against
Pharmacia, the Pharmacia Cash Balance Plan, and other defendants.

On July 7, 2006, the plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to add
Monsanto and the Pension Plan as additional defendants.

On Sept. 1, 2006, the Court consolidated these lawsuits with two
purported class action lawsuits also pending in the same Court
against the Solutia Company Pension Plan, under Walker v.
Monsanto, the first filed case.  The court conducted a class
certification hearing on Sept. 12, 2007.

Prior to the hearing, all parties agreed the case should proceed
as a class action and also agreed on a definition of the
respective classes.  The classes were certified by court order on
May 22, 2008.

On July 11, 2008, all parties filed dispositive motions on the
issue of liability, which motions were heard by the court on May
6, 2009.

On June 11, 2009, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of
Monsanto and the other defendants on the age discrimination
claims.  The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs on a separate claim regarding post-termination
interest, which was subsequently settled for an immaterial
amount.

The Court entered judgment on the entire case on Sept. 29, 2009.

On Oct. 27, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
summary judgment order on the age discrimination claims.

Monsanto Co. -- http://www.monsanto.com/-- along with its  
subsidiaries, is a worldwide provider of agricultural products
for farmers.


PIER 1: Recalls 67,000 Ceramic Santa Tea Light Holders
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., of Fort Worth,
Texas, announced a voluntary recall of about 67,000 Ceramic Santa
Tea Light Holders -- about 61,500 United States and about 5,500
in Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The flame from tea lights can ignite these tea light holders,
posing a fire hazard.

Pier 1 has received three reports of the tea light holders
burning.  No injuries have been reported.

The Ceramic Santa Tea Light Holder is red and white and designed
in the image of Santa Claus. The tea light holder measures
approximately 7-1/2 inches tall and 3-1/2 inches wide with a red
metal hat and an opening in the back to place a tea light candle.
SKU number 2417274 is printed on the bottom of the tea light
holder.  A picture of the recalled product is available at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10111.html

The recalled items were manufactured in China and sold at Pier 1
Imports in the U.S. and Canada from September 2009 through
December 2009 for about $10.

Consumers should stop using the Ceramic Santa Tea Light Holder
immediately and return it to their nearest Pier 1 Imports retail
store for a full refund or merchandise credit.  For additional
information, contact Pier 1 Imports at (800) 245-4595 between
8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.pier1.com/


PIER 1: Recalls 40,000 Silver & Gold Glitter Tea Lights
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., of Fort Worth,
Texas, announced a voluntary recall of about 40,000 Silver
Glitter Tea Lights and Gold Glitter Tea Lights.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The flame from the tea lights can ignite the glitter on the
candle, posing a fire hazard.

Pier 1 has received three reports of the glitter burning.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves two styles of tea lights:

     -- a clear box of 24 silver glitter tea lights with
        SKU 2410335 and

     -- a clear box of 24 gold glitter tea lights with
        SKU 2410322.

The SKU number is located on the bottom of the packaging.  
A picture of the recalled product is available at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10112.html

The recalled items were manufactured in Vietnam and sold at
Pier 1 Imports in the U.S. and Canada from September 2009
through December 2009 for about $10.

Consumers should immediately stop using the tea lights and return
them to their nearest Pier 1 Imports retail store for a full
refund or merchandise credit.  For additional information,
contact Pier 1 Imports at (800) 245-4595 between 8:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.pier1.com/


PUTNAM FUNDS: Madison County Class Action Dismissed on Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Knef at The Madison Record reports that the Fifth District
Appellate Court has ordered that a Madison County mutual funds
class action be dismissed.

In a ruling handed down Wednesday, the court reversed Circuit
Judge Barbara Crowder who in 2007 denied a defense motion for
judgment on the pleadings in a case against international mutual
fund defendants Putnam Funds Trust, Putnam Investment, Evergreen
International Trust and Evergreen Investment Management. The
defendants had argued that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by
the Securities Litigation Act.

The appellate court remanded the case with directions to dismiss.

Justices considered five certified questions on appeal, but they
answered only the first -- whether the case was precluded by the
Securities Litigation Act - in the affirmative.

"We decline to answer the remaining certified questions because
to answer them would have no practical effect on this
litigation," wrote Justice Stephen Spomer. Justices Melissa
Chapman and Bruce Stewart concurred.

Plaintiffs Carl Kircher and Robert Brockway as investors sued in
2003, claiming in part that the defendants exposed them, as long-
term shareholders, to market timing traders who regularly
purchased and redeemed the defendants' shares as a part of
profitable trading strategy.

Korein Tillery represented the class.


TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Riverside Unit Still Defends "Shellman" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Riverside Cement Co.,
continues to defend a purported class-action complaint, Virginia
Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al.,
according to the company's Jan. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Nov. 30, 2009.

The "Shellman" lawsuit was filed in late April 2008, in the
Riverside County Superior Court of the State of California.

The lawsuit purports to be a class action complaint for medical
monitoring for a putative class defined as individuals who were
allegedly exposed to chrome 6 emissions from the company's
Crestmore cement plant.

The complaint alleges an increased risk of future illness due to
the exposure to chrome 6 and other toxic chemicals.

The suit requests, among other things, establishment and funding
of a medical testing and monitoring program for the class until
their exposure to chrome 6 is no longer a threat to their health,
as well as punitive and exemplary damages.

Since the Shellman lawsuit was filed, five additional putative
class action lawsuits have been filed in the same court.  The
putative class in each of these cases is the same as or a subset
of the putative class in the Shellman case, and the allegations
and requests for relief are similar to those in the Shellman
case.

As a consequence, the court has stayed four of these lawsuits
until the Shellman lawsuit is finally determined.

Texas Industries, Inc. -- http://www.txi.com/-- is a supplier of  
heavy construction materials in the United States through its
three business segments: cement, aggregates and consumer
products.  The company's cement segment produces gray portland
cement and specialty cements.  Its cement production and
distribution facilities are concentrated primarily in Texas and
California.  The company's aggregates segment produces natural
aggregates, including sand, gravel and crushed limestone, and
specialty lightweight aggregates.  Its consumer products segment
produces primarily ready-mix concrete and, to a lesser extent,
packaged products.  The company is a supplier of natural
aggregates and ready-mix concrete in Texas and northern
Louisiana, and to a lesser extent, in Oklahoma and Arkansas.

                            *********

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  * * *