CAR_Public/100120.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, January 20, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 13

                            Headlines

ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: Seeks to Dismiss "Plumbers" Suit in Illinois
BRYAN PAUL: Fla. Migrant Workers Settle Class Action Wage Suit
BURLINGTON COAT: Unit Faces Amended Labor Complaint in Calif.
CARMAX INC: Units Continue to Face Claims in Consolidated Suit
FLORIDA POWER: Suit Alleges Negligence from Cold Weather Outages

JENNIFER CONVERTIBLES: Still Reviewing Plaintiff's New Proposal
LIFE PARTNERS: Plaintiff Withdraws Breach of Contract Complaint
MATHSTAR INC: Oral Arguments for Motion to Dismiss on February 9
MICRON TECH: Appealing Reversal of Quebec Ruling in DRAM Suit
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: SRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Canada
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Price-Fixing Lawsuits in Canada
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Calif. DRAM Antitrust Cases Pending
PERFORMANCE CAPITAL: Faces Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
RED HAT: Court Approval of Settlement Agreement Remains Pending

SKYPE INC: Proposed Class Action Settlement Offers $4 Vouchers
SONY CORP: 2nd Cir. Revives Online Music Antitrust Lawsuit
SUNAIR SERVICES: Faces Suit over Planned Merger with Massey
SUNAIR SERVICES: Florida Court Stays Proceeding Until February
TYSON FOODS: $5 Million "Raised Without Antibiotics" Settlement

WD-40 COMPANY: Continues to Seek Dismissal of Drimmer Suit

                            *********

ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: Seeks to Dismiss "Plumbers" Suit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions Inc. has filed a motion to
dismiss an amended complaint filed by the Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund,
according to the company's Jan. 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Nov. 30, 2009.

On Aug. 4, 2009, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois against the company, Glen
Tullman and William Davis by the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local
Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund on behalf of a purported
class consisting of stockholders who purchased Allscripts common
stock between May 8, 2007 and Feb. 13, 2008.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, the company,
Glen Tullman and William Davis made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's financial condition
and prospects, and on that basis the complaint asserts violations
of federal securities laws.

The plaintiff seeks to recover the price declines in Allscripts'
common stock that occurred on Nov. 8, 2007, when the company
released its third quarter 2007 financial results, and on Feb.
13, 2008, when the company released full year 2007 results.

On Oct. 5, 2009, David Robb moved for appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and for approval of selection of lead and liaison
counsel.  On Oct. 13, 2009, David Robb was appointed lead
plaintiff , and on Nov. 25, 2009, an amended complaint was filed.

On Jan. 11, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.

Headquartered in Chicago, Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions
Inc. -- http://www.allscripts.com/-- uses innovation technology  
to bring health to healthcare.  More than 160,000 physicians, 800
hospitals and nearly 8,000 post-acute and homecare organizations
utilize Allscripts to improve the health of their patients and
their bottom line.  The company's award-winning solutions include
electronic health records, electronic prescribing, revenue cycle
management, practice management, document management, hospital
care management, emergency department information systems and
homecare automation.  Allscripts is the brand name of Allscripts-
Misys Healthcare Solutions, Inc.


BRYAN PAUL: Fla. Migrant Workers Settle Class Action Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Kennedy at The Ledger reports from Tampa, Fla., that a class
action settlement has been approved in a lawsuit on behalf of
migrant workers who contended they were underpaid while picking
citrus in Polk County.

The settlement, approved Wednesday in federal court, includes a
total payment of $56,500 for up to 166 individuals who worked for
LaBelle-based Bryan Paul Citrus during the 2006-07 harvest
season.

The workers, who were hired from Mexico to pick citrus in the
Lake Wales area using temporary employment visas, were not paid a
minimum wage of $8.56 per hour as required by their contracts,
the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law, according to court
filings.

The lawsuit also alleged that Bryan Paul manipulated payroll
records and failed to reimburse workers for travel expenses.  
The workers were hired for Bryan Paul by N&R Services.

Bryan Paul officials agreed to the settlement but have not
admitted fault in the case.  Stephen Senn, Esq., a lawyer for
Bryan Paul, confirmed the settlement details last week, but said
the company had no comment.

The workers were represented by the Migrant Farmworker Justice
Project, an advocacy group that is part of the Florida Legal
Services legal aid organization.

The Migrant Farmworker Justice Project did not seek and will not
receive lawyer fees as part of the settlement, said Alejandro
Reyes, Esq., a lawyer representing workers in the lawsuit.

"This was a fair reasonable result for our clients," Mr. Reyes
told The Ledger. "The sums may not seem large, but for workers in
Mexico who earn the U.S. equivalent of $10 a day, the money will
have an impact."


BURLINGTON COAT: Unit Faces Amended Labor Complaint in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. faces an amended
complaint alleging failure to pay employees all their hourly
wages, according to Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings,
Inc.'s Jan. 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 28, 2009.

A putative class action lawsuit, entitled May Vang, and all
others similarly situated, v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse
Corporation, Case No. 09-CV-08061-CAS, was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California on Sept. 17, 2009.

The named plaintiff purports to assert claims on behalf of all
current, former and future employees in the United States and the
State of California for the relevant statutory time period.  
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Nov. 16, 2009.

The amended complaint asserts claims for failure to pay all
earned hourly wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
failure to pay all earned hourly wages in violation of the
California Labor Code, providing compensatory time off in lieu of
overtime pay, forfeiture of vacation pay, failure to provide meal
and rest periods, secret payment of lower wages than required by
statute or contract, failure to provide accurate, written wage
statements, and unfair competition.

The complaint seeks certification as a class with respect to the
FLSA claims, certification of a class with respect to California
law claims, appointment of class counsel and class
representative, civil penalties, statutory penalties, declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, actual damages, liquidated damages,
restitution, pre-judgment interest, costs of suit and attorney's
fees.

Burlington Coat Factory -- http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/
-- is a nationally recognized retailer of branded apparel, shoes
and accessories for men, women and children.  The company
currently serves its customers through its 442 stores in 44
states and Puerto Rico.  As of Oct. 16, 2009, the Company
operates 442 stores under the names "Burlington Coat Factory
Warehouse" (424 stores), "MJM Designer Shoes" (15 stores),
"Cohoes Fashions" (two stores), and "Super Baby Depot" (one
store) in 44 states and Puerto Rico.


CARMAX INC: Units Continue to Face Claims in Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto
Superstores West Coast, Inc. continue to face the remaining
claims in a consolidated lawsuit regarding the sales consultant
putative class.

On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class-action
lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and
CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.

Subsequently, two other lawsuits, "Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax
Auto Superstores California, LLC," and "Justin Weaver v. CarMax
Auto Superstores California, LLC," were consolidated as part of
the Fowler case.

The allegations in the consolidated case involve:

   (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation
       in lieu thereof;

   (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees
       related to meal and rest breaks and overtime;

   (3) failure to pay overtime;

   (4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
       provisions; and

   (5) unfair competition.

The putative class consists of sales consultants, sales managers,
and other hourly employees who worked for the company
in California from April 2, 2004, to the present.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages,
interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive
relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees.

On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class claims with
respect to the sales manager putative class.  On June 16,
2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to
comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions.
The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication
with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the
sales consultant putative class.  The plaintiffs have indicated
that they will appeal the court's ruling regarding the sales
consultant overtime claim.

In addition to the plaintiffs' overtime claim, the claims
currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales
consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and
rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay
wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and
rest breaks; and (3) unfair competition.

On June 16, 2009, the court entered a stay of these claims
pending the outcome of a California Supreme Court case involving
related legal issues.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages,
interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive
relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees.

No further updates were reported in CarMax, Inc.'s Jan. 11, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009.

CarMax, Inc. -- http://www.carmax.com/-- is a holding company  
and its operations are conducted through its subsidiaries.  The
company is a retailer of used cars.


FLORIDA POWER: Suit Alleges Negligence from Cold Weather Outages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Al Pefley at Channel 12 News in West Palm Beach, Fla., reports
that a lot of Florida Power and Light customers in south Florida
who lost power and shivered in the freezing cold are taking FPL
to court.

Attorneys for tens of thousands of FPL customers in Broward and
Palm Beach County have just filed a class-action lawsuit,
accusing FPL of negligence.

The lawsuit says that ". . . old, undersized or otherwise
inadequate FPL transformers were incapable of handling the energy
load imposed upon them. . . ."

And lawyers argue although the cold temperatures were extreme,
FPL should have been better prepared to keep its equipment
working. They say scores of transformers shut down or burned out.

"FPL's attempts to address the wholesale outages were
insufficient, band-aid approaches. . . ," the lawsuit says.

One Boynton Beach woman who lost power for three days says she
and her ailing husband, who's confined to a wheelchair, may join
the class-action suit against FPL.

"We shivered all night by candlelight. It didn't help much. It
was 29-degrees in my house. It was terrible! You know for myself,
I bundled up good. I tried to bundle up my husband, he had layers
and layers on," said Cicely Dorfman, a retiree from Boynton
Beach.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages.

FPL released a written statement in response to the lawsuit.

"This frivolous lawsuit is utterly without merit. Our
transformers are designed to meet normal weather conditions in
Florida, but even under the record-setting cold weather we
experienced, they held up well," said Sarah Marmion, FPL
spokesperson.

The lawsuit was filed by attorneys Scott Gelfand of Coral Springs
and Joel Kaplan of Miami.


JENNIFER CONVERTIBLES: Still Reviewing Plaintiff's New Proposal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Convertibles, Inc., is still reviewing the new proposal
offered by the plaintiff to settle a putative class action,
according to the company's Jan. 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Nov. 28, 2009.

On July 16, 2009, a complaint styled as a putative class action
was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court of the
Northern District of California by an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages for alleged violations of
the California Labor Code, the California Business and
Professions Code and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Such alleged violations include, among other things, failure to
pay overtime, failure to reimburse certain expenses, failure to
provide adequate rest and meal periods and other labor related
complaints.

Before engaging in discovery and extensive pre-trial proceedings,
the parties participated in an early mediation.

The plaintiff offered to settle for 20% of the company's
outstanding common stock in an amount guaranteed to be worth at
least $2 million on the date of distribution.  If the value of
the stock as of the date of distribution is less than $2 million
the company would distribute cash to make up the difference
between the value of the stock and $2 million.

In addition, the company would pay $400,000 over a five-year
period.

During November 2009, the company proposed a counter offer for
$300,000 in cash over a five-year period, with $100 to be paid up
front and the balance to be secured by the company's assets, and
between 600,000 and 800,000 shares of stock.  The number of
shares to be issued would be shares sufficient to reach a value
of $1 million as of the time of issuance, subject to a cap of
800,000 shares and a minimum distribution of 600,000 shares,
regardless of the actual value at the time of issuance.

The plaintiff rejected the company's counter offer but made a new
proposal, which included the stock component proposed by the
company, and increased the cash component to a total of $1.5
million paid in equal installments over a five-year period, with
$300,000 to be paid up front and the balance to be secured.

The company has determined that it is probable that it has some
liability.  Based on the offer and counter offer, the company
estimates the liability ranges between $1.3 million and $2.5
million, with no amount within that range a better estimate than
any other amount.  Accordingly, in accordance with existing GAAP,
the company has accrued $1,300 as of Nov. 28, 2009 and Aug. 29,
2009.  Such amount is included in accrued expenses and other
current liabilities on the respective accompanying consolidated
balance sheets.

Jennifer Convertibles, Inc. -- http://www.jenniferfurniture.com/
-- is an owner and licensor of a group of sofabed specialty
retail stores and leather specialty retail stores in the United
States, with stores located throughout the Eastern seaboard, in
the Midwest, on the West Coast and in the Southwest.  As of Aug.
30, 2008, its stores included 157 Jennifer Convertibles stores
and 14 Jennifer Leather stores.  Of these 171 stores, the company
owned 149 and licensed 22, including 21 owned and operated by a
related private company, the related company, and one owned by a
third party operated by the related company. Its operations are
classified into two operating segments: Jennifer and Ashley.  The
Jennifer segment owns and licenses the sofabed specialty retail
stores.  The Ashley segment is a big box, full-line home
furniture retail store.


LIFE PARTNERS: Plaintiff Withdraws Breach of Contract Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a putative class action case against Life
Partners Holdings, Inc., has withdrawn his complaint, according
to the company's Jan. 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30,
2009.

On June 9, 2006, a putative class action case entitled Earl
Parchia et al. v. Life Partners, Inc., Case No. 2006-2258-4, was
filed against the company in the 170th District Court of McLennan
County, Texas.

This action alleged breach of contract in connection with
advising purchasers of premiums that come due on policies in
which the escrow for premiums has been exhausted.

The class was never certified and, on Oct. 16, 2009, Plaintiff
amended his complaint withdrawing all claims of a class action.

On Dec. 8, 2009, Plaintiff withdrew his complaint and the matter
was resolved without incurring any settlement expense.

Life Partners Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.lphi.com/-- is  
engaged in facilitating viatical and life settlement transfers.
Life Partners is the parent company of Life Partners, Inc.  LPI
conducts business under the registered service mark Life
Partners.  The company's revenues are principally derived from
fees for facilitating the purchase of viatical and life
settlement contracts.  A viatical settlement is the sale of a
life insurance policy by a terminally ill person to another
party.  By selling the policy, the insured receives an immediate
cash payment to use as he or she wishes.  The purchaser takes an
ownership interest in the policy at a discount to its face value
and receives the death benefit under the policy when the viator
dies.


MATHSTAR INC: Oral Arguments for Motion to Dismiss on February 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument about MathStar, Inc.'s motions to dismiss the
Counterclaim and Amended Counterclaim filed by Tiberius Capital
II, LLC, is scheduled for Feb. 9, 2010, according to the
company's Jan. 11, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

                     Tiberius Complaint

On Oct. 8, 2009, legal counsel for Tiberius Capital II, LLC, sent
by e-mail to MathStar's legal counsel a copy of a Complaint
labeled "Draft -- Subject to Completion".

The Tiberius Complaint named Tiberius, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, as plaintiff.  It named
MathStar, Feltl and Company, Inc., Sajan, Perkins Capital
Management, Inc., Richard C. Perkins, Merrill A. McPeak, Benno G.
Sand, John C. Feltl and Joseph P. Sullivan , as defendants
(Minnesota Parties).

Mr. Perkins, Mr. McPeak and Mr. Sand (MathStar Directors) are
members of MathStar's Board of Directors.

The Tiberius Complaint stated that Tiberius was bringing a class
action lawsuit on behalf of a class consisting of all those who
purchased MathStar's securities between May 11, 2009 and Sept.
30, 2009.

The caption on the Tiberius Complaint stated that it was to be
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The Tiberius Complaint alleged:

     (1) violations of Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange
         Act of 1934 and the Rules of the SEC thereunder against
         the Minnesota Parties except Sajan for alleged failure
         to report that such Minnesota Parties were acting as a
          "group" for purposes of purchasing MathStar's shares
         of common stock;

     (2) breaches of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and the
         Rules of the SEC thereunder against the Minnesota
         Parties except Sajan for alleged misstatements in
         MathStar's proxy statement filed with the SEC on
         June 17, 2009 and in connection with MathStar's annual
         meeting of stockholders held on July 10, 2009;

     (3) violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
         Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder against
         the Minnesota Parties except Sajan for alleged
         misstatements made in the Proxy Statement and in an
         alleged fraud on the market by such Minnesota Parties;

     (4) violations of Section 14 of the Exchange Act and
         Rule 14e-3 promulgated by the SEC thereunder against
         the Minnesota Parties except Sajan for actions taken by
         such Minnesota Parties in connection with an alleged
         "creeping" tender offer;

     (5) control party liability under Section 20(a) of the
         Exchange Act against the MathStar Directors for alleged
         violations of Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the Exchange
         Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder;

     (6) breach of fiduciary duty against the MathStar
         Directors; and

     (7) civil conspiracy against the Minnesota Parties.

In the Tiberius Complaint, Tiberius requested that the Court
enter a judgment in favor of Tiberius and the Class and against
the Minnesota Parties declaring that MathStar violated "Section
10b-5, Section 13d, Section 14a and Section 14e" of the Exchange
Act and rules promulgated thereunder, including Regulation FD;
enter judgment in favor of Tiberius and the Class and against the
MathStar Directors in the amount of $10,000,000 in compensatory
and punitive damages; award Tiberius all of its costs incurred in
connection with the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees;
and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems to be
just and equitable.

                      Minnesota Complaint

On Oct. 14, 2009, the Minnesota Parties filed a Complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota captioned
MathStar, Inc., Feltl and Company, Inc., Sajan, Inc., Perkins
Capital Management, Inc., Richard C. Perkins, Merrill A. McPeak,
Benno G. Sand, John C. Feltl and Joseph P. Sullivan, Plaintiffs,
v. Tiberius Capital II, LLC, Defendant (Minnesota Complaint).

In the Minnesota Complaint, the Minnesota Parties state that
Tiberius is threatening to bring a class action lawsuit against
them, as set forth in the Tiberius Complaint.  The Minnesota
Complaint also alleges a claim of tortious interference with
prospective economic advantage against Tiberius on behalf of
MathStar, Sajan and Feltl and Company, Inc.

The Minnesota Complaint requests judgment in favor of the
Minnesota Parties declaring that their actions described in the
Minnesota Complaint were lawful; declaring that the Minnesota
Parties have not violated any legal duties to Tiberius; declaring
that the proposed Tiberius Complaint is without merit; awarding
money damages to MathStar, Sajan and F&C in an amount to be
determined at trial to compensate such Minnesota Parties for
Tiberius' tortious interference with their economic advantage;
awarding the Minnesota Parties their costs, disbursements and
reasonable attorneys' fees; and awarding the Minnesota Parties
such other and further relief as the Court deems to be just,
proper and equitable.  The Minnesota Complaint was served on
Tiberius on Oct. 21, 2009.

On Nov. 9, 2009, Tiberius served and filed its Answer and
Counterclaim denying liability under the Minnesota Complaint and
asserting substantially the same claims set forth in the Tiberius
Complaint and, in addition, asserting common law claims for fraud
against the Minnesota Parties except Sajan and against all of the
Minnesota Parties for wrongful interference with the
prospectively advantageous, successful completion of its tender
offer for MathStar's shares of common stock.

On Dec. 8, 2009, Tiberius served and filed an Answer and Amended
Counterclaim in which it added a jurisdictional allegation and
asserted claims for declaratory relief under its other claims.

The Minnesota Parties filed timely motions to dismiss the
Counterclaim and Amended Counterclaim on several grounds.

The motions are in the briefing stage and currently are set for
oral argument on Feb. 9, 2010.  A case scheduling conference is
set for Jan. 14, 2010 before the Magistrate Judge.

MathStar, Inc. -- http://www.mathstar.com/-- was a fabless  
semiconductor company engaged in the development, marketing and
selling of its programmable platform field programmable object
arrays (FPOA) chips and design tools required to program its
chips.  On May 20, 2008, the company suspended research and
development activities. As of September 30, 2008, the Company had
ceased all operations in Minnesota.  As of Dec. 31, 2008,
MathStar had engaged a third party investment banking firm to
explore the sale of intellectual property and patents and
potential merger and acquisition alternatives.


MICRON TECH: Appealing Reversal of Quebec Ruling in DRAM Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., is appealing the decision of the British
Columbia Court of Appeal reversing the decision of the Superior
Court, District of Montreal, Province of Quebec, according to the
company's Jan. 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 3,
2009.

Three purported class-action lawsuits over DRAM have been filed
in Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, alleging
violations of the Canadian Competition Act.

The three cases have been filed in these Canadian courts:
Superior Court, District of Montreal, Province of Quebec;
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ontario; and Supreme Court of
British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, British Columbia.

The suits allege violations of the various jurisdictions'
antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition laws
relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products and seek treble
monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest and
attorneys' fees.

In May and June 2008 respectively, the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification was denied in the British Columbia and
Quebec cases.  The plaintiffs have filed an appeal of those
decisions.

On Nov. 12, 2009, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed
the denial of class certification and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a  
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND
flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing,
consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities fraud class-action suit against
Micron Technology, Inc. is still pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Idaho.

On Feb. 24, 2006, a putative class-action complaint was filed
against the company and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho, alleging claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Four
substantially similar complaints subsequently were filed in the
same court.

The cases purport to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the company's stock from Feb. 24, 2001, to Feb. 13,
2003.

The five lawsuits have been consolidated and a consolidated
amended class action complaint was filed on July 24, 2006.

The complaint generally alleges violations of federal securities
laws based on, among other things, claimed misstatements or
omissions regarding alleged illegal price-fixing conduct.  It
seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses.

On Dec. 19, 2007, the Court issued an order certifying the class
but reducing the class period to purchasers of the company's
stock during the period from Feb. 24, 2001, to Sept. 18, 2002

No further updates regarding the case were reported by the
company in its Jan. 12, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 3,
2009.

The suit is City of Roseville et al. v. Micron Technology, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 06-cv-00085 (D. Idaho) (Lynn Winmill, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Bruce S. Bistline, Esq.
         Gordon Law Offices
         623 W. Hays
         Boise, ID 83702-5512
         Phone: (208) 345-7100
         Fax: 1-208-345-0050
         E-mail: bbistline@gordonlawoffices.com  

              - and -

         Mary Blasy, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         100 Pine St., Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: (415) 288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534
         E-mail: maryb@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Douglas W. Greene, Esq.
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Phone: 206-883-2529
         Fax: 208-883-2699
         E-mail: dgreene@wsgr.com

              - and -

         Richard H. Greener Esq.
         Greener Banducci Shoemaker, P.A.
         950 W. Bannock St. 900
         Boise, ID 83702
         Phone: (208) 319-2600
         E-mail: rgreener@greenerlaw.com


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: SRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., along with other Static Random Access
Memory (SRAM) suppliers, continues to face a number of purported
antitrust class-action lawsuits in Canada over the sale of SRAM.

Three purported class action lawsuits alleging price-fixing of
SRAM products were filed in Canada, asserting violations of the
Canadian Competition Act.  These cases assert claims on behalf of
a purported class of individuals and entities that purchased SRAM
products directly or indirectly from various SRAM suppliers.

The company reported no developments in the matter in its Jan.
12, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 3, 2009.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a  
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND
flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing,
consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Price-Fixing Lawsuits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. continues to face three purported class-
action lawsuits filed in Canada that allege price-fixing of
Flash products.

The suits assert violations of the Canadian Competition Act.

These cases assert claims on behalf of a purported class of
individuals and entities that purchased Flash memory directly
and indirectly from various Flash memory suppliers.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Jan. 12,
2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 3, 2009.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a  
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND
flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing,
consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Calif. DRAM Antitrust Cases Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal in connection to several
purported antitrust class-action lawsuits against Micron
Technology, Inc., and other suppliers of dynamic random access
memories (DRAM) that were transferred to California for
consolidated proceedings remains pending.

A number of purported class action price-fixing lawsuits have
been filed against the company and other DRAM suppliers.

Four cases have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California asserting claims on behalf of a
purported class of individuals and entities that indirectly
purchased DRAM and/or products containing DRAM from various DRAM
suppliers during the time period from April 1, 1999 through at
least June 30, 2002.

The complaints allege price fixing in violation of federal
antitrust laws and various state antitrust and unfair competition
laws and seek treble monetary damages, restitution, costs,
interest and attorneys' fees.

In addition, at least sixty-four cases have been filed in various
state courts asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of
indirect purchasers of DRAM.

Cases have been filed in these states:  Arkansas, Arizona,
California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and West Virginia, and also in the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

The complaints purport to be on behalf of a class of individuals
and entities that indirectly purchased DRAM and/or products
containing DRAM in the respective jurisdictions during various
time periods ranging from April 1999 through at least June 2002.

The complaints allege violations of the various jurisdictions'
antitrust, consumer protection and/or unfair competition laws
relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products and seek joint
and several damages, trebled, as well as restitution, costs,
interest and attorneys' fees.

A number of these cases have been removed to federal court and
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) for consolidated pre-trial
proceedings.

On Jan. 29, 2008, the Northern District of California Court
granted in part and denied in part the company's motion to
dismiss plaintiff's second amended consolidated complaint.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion seeking certification for
interlocutory appeal of the decision.

On Feb. 27, 2008, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.

On June 26, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit agreed to consider plaintiffs' interlocutory
appeal.

No further developments in the matter were reported in the
company's Jan. 12, 2010 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 3, 2009.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a  
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND
flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing,
consumer, networking and mobile products.


PERFORMANCE CAPITAL: Faces Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Capital Management, LLC, faces a purported class
action lawsuit over its debt collection practices.

On Nov. 10, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, Boston Division, on behalf of Ronald A.
Luippold and a broad proposed class of debtors.

Plaintiffs make broad, general assertions that the company
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Title 15 of the
United States Code Section 1692 et seq. with respect to its debt
collection practices.

Plaintiffs seek statutory and punitive damages as well as
attorney's fees and court costs.

The company says that this lawsuit has been referred to legal
counsel.

The merits of the case have not yet been determined and no class
has been certified, according to the company's Jan. 13, 2010,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Performance Capital Management, LLC -- http://www.pamco.net/--  
buys portfolios of charged-off credit card debt and other
delinquent receivables (such as commercial loans and auto,
secured and unsecured consumer installment loans) at an
undervalued price from federal and state banking and savings
institutions, loan agencies, and other sources.  It then works to
collect on the debt.  The company also provides collections
services for third parties.  Performance Capital Management
occasionally sells its acquisitions or portions of them to
capitalize on market conditions or to dispose of underperforming
assets.


RED HAT: Court Approval of Settlement Agreement Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The approval of an agreement to settle a class action lawsuit
against Red Hat, Inc., remains pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, according to the
company's Jan. 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30,
2009.

In the summer of 2004, 14 class action lawsuits were filed
against the company and several of its former officers on behalf
of investors who purchased the company's securities during
various periods from June 19, 2001 through July 13, 2004.

All 14 suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina.

In each of the actions, plaintiffs sought to represent a class of
purchasers of the company's common stock during some or all of
the period from June 19, 2001 through July 13, 2004.  All of the
claims arose in connection with the company announcement on July
13, 2004 that it would restate certain of its financial
statements.

One or more of the plaintiffs asserted that certain former
officers (Individual Defendants) and the company violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by issuing the financial
statements that the company subsequently restated.

One or more of the plaintiffs sought unspecified damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, an accounting of
certain profits obtained by the Individual Defendants from
trading in the Company's common stock, disgorgement by the
company's former chief executive officer and former chief
financial officer of certain compensation and profits from
trading in the company's common stock pursuant to Section 304 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and other relief.

As of Sept. 8, 2004, all of these class action lawsuits were
consolidated into a single action referenced as Civil Action No.
5:04-CV-473BR and titled In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

On May 6, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint.

On July 29, 2005, the company, on behalf of itself and the
Individual Defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the action for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  Also
on that date, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, another defendant,
filed a separate motion to dismiss.

On May 12, 2006, the Court issued an order granting the motion to
dismiss the Securities Exchange Act claims against several of the
Individual Defendants, but denying the motion to dismiss the
Securities Exchange Act claims against the company, its former
chief executive officer and former chief financial officer.  The
Court dismissed the claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in their
entirety, and also granted PwC's motion to dismiss.

On Nov. 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

Subsequent to the filing of that motion, several plaintiffs
withdrew as potential class representatives, and the company
opposed the certification of the remaining proposed class
representatives.

On May 11, 2007, the Court entered an order denying class
certification and denying all other pending motions as moot.
Thereafter, on July 13, 2007 Charles Gilbert filed a renewed
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of
selection of lead counsel.

On Nov. 13, 2007, the Court entered an Order allowing Gilbert's
motion, appointing him lead plaintiff and adding him as a party
plaintiff and appointing lead counsel.  On Jan. 14, 2008,
Gilbert's counsel filed a motion to certify the action as a class
action.

On Aug. 28, 2009, the Court entered an Order certifying the
action as a class action, appointing Gilbert as the class
representative, and defining the class as "all purchasers of the
common stock of Red Hat, Inc. between Dec. 17, 2002, and July 12,
2004, inclusive and who were damaged thereby," excluding company
insiders.

On Dec. 15, 2009, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement in principle to settle this matter, subject, among
other matters, to completion of a final written settlement
agreement and court approval.

Red Hat, Inc. -- http://www.redhat.com/-- is the world's leading  
open source solutions provider and a component of the S&P 500, is
headquartered in Raleigh, NC with over 65 offices spanning the
globe.


SKYPE INC: Proposed Class Action Settlement Offers $4 Vouchers
--------------------------------------------------------------
If you are a United States resident who purchased Skype Credit
that, on at least one occasion prior to December 31, 2009,
expired after 180 days of inactivity, a proposed class action
settlement may affect your rights. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE
CAREFULLY.

     -- Plaintiffs Holly Barker and Brian Carness have filed
lawsuits against defendants Skype Communications, S.a.r.l.
("Skype Communications"), Skype Technologies S.A., Skype, Inc.
and eBay Inc., on its own behalf and as successor by merger to
Skype Delaware Holdings, Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants")
challenging the Skype Credit expiration policy. Plaintiffs allege
that Skype User Accounts and Skype Credit constitute "gift
certificates" that cannot expire or be subject to inactivity fees
under various states' laws and that Defendants unlawfully applied
the Skype Credit expiration policy against their Skype Credit
balances after 180 days of inactivity in supposed violation of
these various states' laws, including applicable "gift
certificate," consumer protection and/or unfair and deceptive
practices laws.

     -- Defendants deny that they did anything wrong whatsoever,
and contend that plaintiffs' claims are meritless. No court has
decided which side is right, and both sides have agreed to
resolve the cases and provide relief to the Settlement Class
instead of litigation. There is a proposed settlement on behalf
of a nationwide class of current and former United States
resident purchasers of Skype Credit from Skype Communications,
which, if approved, will provide that Skype Communications shall
discontinue its Skype Credit expiration policy and implement a
Reactivation Policy whereby Skype Credit will no longer expire
after 180 days of inactivity, but rather be deemed "inactive" and
subject to reactivation. In addition, Skype Communications, on
behalf of itself and the other Defendants, has agreed to pay a
Settlement Amount of $1,850,000 in full and complete settlement
of the Released Claims, which shall include: (i) attorneys' fees
and costs and named plaintiffs' incentive awards not to exceed
$1,000 each, which collectively shall not exceed 25% of the
Settlement Amount subject to Court approval; and (ii)
availability, on a claims made basis, of an electronic voucher
for $4.00 of Skype Credit per claimant from the Net Settlement
Amount.

     -- If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your legal
rights are affected and you have a choice to make right now:

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS

     * SUBMIT CLAIM FOR VOUCHER

Participate in settlement and receive voucher for $4.00 of Skype
Credit. Go to the Administrative Site at
www.creditexpirationclassaction.com and complete an Internet
claim form.

     * OBJECT TO SETTLEMENT

Object to the settlement or any of its terms, and ask the
District Court not to approve the settlement. Appear at a Final
Fairness Hearing on March 12, 2010. To object to the settlement,
to plaintiffs' counsels' request for attorneys' fees and costs or
to plaintiffs' request for incentive awards, you must file with
the District Court (700 Stewart St., Seattle, WA 98101), by no
later than February 16, 2010, written objections setting forth:
(i) your name, address and telephone number; (ii) your Skype ID
or User Name(s); (iii) a sentence confirming, under penalty of
perjury, that you are a person in the Settlement Class; (iv) the
factual basis and legal grounds for your objection; (v) the
identity of witnesses you intend to call to testify; and (vi)
copies of exhibits you intend to offer into evidence at the Final
Fairness Hearing. Copies of all objections also must be mailed to
each of the following, postmarked by the last day to file the
objection:

     Plaintiffs' Counsel:

          Roger Townsend, Esq.
          BRESKIN, JOHNSON & TOWNSEND, PLLC
          1111 Third Avenue, Suite 2230
          Seattle, WA 98101

     and counsel for Defendants:

          Julia B. Strickland, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067

     * ASK TO BE EXCLUDED

Get out of this action. Get no benefits from the settlement. Keep
your rights to sue. If you ask to be excluded or "opt out," you
will not share in the settlement benefits and you will not be
permitted to object to the terms of the proposed settlement. But,
you will keep any rights you have to sue Defendants separately
for the same legal claims asserted in the actions. To be
excluded, you must mail a written "opt out" request to the
Settlement Administrator at P.O. Box 2277, Faribault, MN 55021-
2400, with a postmark of no later than February 16, 2010, setting
forth the following: (i) your name, address, telephone number;
(ii) your Skype ID or User Name(s); (iii) a sentence confirming,
under penalty of perjury, that you are a person in the Settlement
Class; and (iv) the following statement: "I request to be
excluded from the class settlement in Barker v. Skype, Inc., et
al, United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Case No. 2:09-cv-01364-RSM."

This is a Summary Notice. For further information about the
proposed Settlement, including copies of the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement and other court documents, visit
http://www.creditexpirationclassaction.com/or contact  
Plaintiffs' Counsel.


SONY CORP: 2nd Cir. Revives Online Music Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel at The Am Law Litigation Daily reports that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived a class
action suit against Sony, Bertelsmann, Universal, Time Warner,
EMI, Capitol and other music companies in Starr v. Sony, No.
08-5637.  

The three-judge Second Circuit panel revived an antitrust class
action by consumers who accuse Sony, Bertelsmann, Time Warner,
and several other record companies of conspiring to fix online
record prices. The plaintiffs, represented by lead counsel Lovell
Stewart Halebian, claim that the record labels engaged in illegal
parallel conduct by forming joint ventures that set artificially
high prices and forcing online music retailers to contract with
all of the labels on the same terms.

Manhattan federal district court judge Loretta Preska dismissed
the case in October 2008. She found that under Twombly standards,
parallel conduct didn't mean illegal conduct. The plaintiffs'
"bald allegation that the joint ventures were shams is conclusory
and implausible," Judge Preska found.

The Second Circuit disagreed. Writing for all three judge on the
panel, Judge Robert Katzmann cited seven plaintiffs' allegations
of collusion between the record companies.  "The present
complaint succeeds where Twombly's failed because the complaint
alleges specific facts sufficient to plausibly suggest that the
parallel conduct alleged was the result of an agreement among the
defendants," the opinion says.

It's easy to forget, in the months since the notorious Iqbal
ruling expanded the Supreme Court's Twombly pleading standard
into a broad swath of civil litigation, that Twombly was an
antitrust case. And that's why the Second Circuit's ruling in
Starr is important, said Gary Jacobson of Lovell Stewart, who
argued for the plaintiffs.

"There's been much uncertainty in the wake of Twombly on pleading
standards in antitrust cases," he said. "Twombly said allegations
of parallel conduct are not sufficient by themselves. The Second
Circuit has begun to clarify what further allegations you need to
include to get over that bar."

But what about online music prices? Are we finally going to get
to pay less than 99 cents for a song? "We're a long way from
talking about that," Jacobson said. "But yes, that's the idea."

Kenneth Logan of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, who represents Sony
and several other labels, argued at the Second Circuit for the
defendants. Howrey represents Bertelsmann in the litigation.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore represents Time Warner. "We're each
reading and digesting the opinion," Logan told us. "Eventually
we'll huddle up and decide what to do next."


SUNAIR SERVICES: Faces Suit over Planned Merger with Massey
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sunair Services Corp. faces a putative class action lawsuit over
its proposed merger Massey Services, Inc., according to the
company's Jan. 13, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

On Oct. 9, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit for Broward
County, State of Florida, Civil Division regarding the proposed
Merger between the company and Massey.

The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of the public
holders of Sunair's common stock, and names as defendants,
Sunair, each of Sunair's directors, Massey and Merger Sub.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Sunair's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by adopting the
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated Sept. 28, 2009, between
Sunair, Massey and Merger Sub, and by approving the Merger
described therein.

The complaint further alleges that the proposed Merger provides
Sunair's public shareholders with inadequate consideration for
their shares of Sunair's common stock and that Sunair and Massey
aided and abetted the alleged breaches by Sunair's directors.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, class action status, an
injunction preventing the completion of the Merger (or rescinding
the Merger if it is completed), rescissory damages and the
payment of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On Dec. 3, 2009, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, served an emergency motion for a temporary
injunction in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit for Broward County, State of Florida.

On Dec. 11, 2009, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for a
temporary injunction.

Plaintiff has objected to the court's Order denying plaintiff's
motion for a temporary injunction and defendants have filed a
response to the same.

Sunair Services Corp. -- http://www.sunairservices.com/-- was  
operating in two business segments: Lawn and Pest Control
Services and Telephone Communications.  The company's Lawn and
Pest Control Services segment provides lawn care and pest control
services to both residential and commercial customers.  Its
Telephone Communications segment installs and maintains telephone
and fixed wireless systems and was sold in September 2008.  In
October 2008, Sunair announced that it has sold all of its
interest in Telecom FM Limited to Telecom FM Holdings.  In
December 2009, Massey Services, Inc. acquired Sunair Services
Corp.


SUNAIR SERVICES: Florida Court Stays Proceeding Until February
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
stayed a putative class action lawsuit against Sunair Services
Corp. until February 2010, according to the company's Jan. 13,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Nov. 17, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida regarding
the proposed Merger between the company and Massey Services, Inc.

The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of the public
holders of Sunair's common stock, and names as defendants,
Sunair, each of Sunair's directors, Massey and Merger Sub. The
Complaint alleges, among other things, that Sunair's directors
breached their fiduciary duties by adopting the Merger Agreement
between Sunair, Massey and Merger Sub, and by approving the
Merger described therein.

The Complaint further alleges that Sunair and Massey knowingly
aided and abetted the alleged breaches by Sunair's directors.
Additionally, the Complaint alleges that Defendants violated
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, class action status, an
injunction preventing the completion of the merger (or rescinding
the merger if it is completed), rescissory damages and the
payment of attorneys' fees and expenses.

A motion to stay the proceedings was filed on Nov. 25, 2009.

An Order staying the proceedings in this case was entered staying
the case until February 2010 pending the resolution of the first
class action filed on Oct. 9, 2009.

Sunair Services Corp. -- http://www.sunairservices.com/-- was  
operating in two business segments: Lawn and Pest Control
Services and Telephone Communications.  The company's Lawn and
Pest Control Services segment provides lawn care and pest control
services to both residential and commercial customers.  Its
Telephone Communications segment installs and maintains telephone
and fixed wireless systems and was sold in September 2008.  In
October 2008, Sunair announced that it has sold all of its
interest in Telecom FM Limited to Telecom FM Holdings.  In
December 2009, Massey Services, Inc. acquired Sunair Services
Corp.


TYSON FOODS: $5 Million "Raised Without Antibiotics" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Nati Elkin at PoultryMed.com reports that Tyson Foods Inc.
has settled a consumer class action suit targeting its chicken
"Raised Without Antibiotics" claim.

An agreement filed on Dec. 1, 2010, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland provides that individual consumers
will receive as much as $50 apiece.  Tyson must shell out $5
million.  Less $600,000 for administrative costs, $4.4 million is
available to parties who bought certain products between certain
dates in 2007 and 2009.

A hearing to review the settlement is scheduled for Friday.  
The case originated in January 2008 when poultry competitors
Perdue Farms and Sanderson Farms sued Tyson alleging its raised-
without-antibiotics labeling constituted false advertising. Six
months later, Tyson withdrew the labels from its chicken.
Consumer suits followed.

At issue were ionophores, a chicken feed additive used by all
three companies that is classified by the USDA as an antibiotic.
Because ionophores have not been shown to pose a significant risk
to humans, Tyson wanted to advertise its chicken as being without
harmful antibiotics. The USDA approved the longer, qualified
phrase for use in marketing materials in December of 2007, but
Tyson's competitors sued one month later.


WD-40 COMPANY: Continues to Seek Dismissal of Drimmer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
WD-40 Co. continues to seek dismissal of the complaint styled
Drimer v. WD-40 Company, Case No. 06-00900, filed in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of California, according to the
company's Jan. 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30,
2009.

The suit was was filed on April 19, 2006.  After several of the
plaintiff's factual claims were dismissed by way of motion, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Sept. 20, 2006, seeking
class action status and alleging that the company misrepresented
that its 2000 Flushes Bleach and 2000 Flushes Blue Plus Bleach
ATBCs are safe for plumbing systems and unlawfully omitted to
advise consumers regarding the allegedly damaging effect the use
of the ATBCs has on toilet parts made of plastic and rubber.

The amended complaint sought to remedy such allegedly wrongful
conduct:

    (i) by requiring the company to identify all consumers who
        have purchased the ATBCs and to return money as may be   
        ordered by the court; and

   (ii) by the granting of other equitable relief, interest,
        attorneys' fees and costs.

On Aug. 24, 2007, the company successfully defeated the
plaintiff's attempt to have the case certified as a class action.  

The plaintiff has appealed the District Court's decision, and the
case was argued at the appellate level in April 2009.

On Aug. 19, 2009, the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed
the District Court's certification decision, and on Sept. 10,
2009, the case was remanded to the District Court.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN AND BALINT
          2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100

               - and -  

          Robert Joseph Solis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT J. SOLIS
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1370
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-1900

WD-40 Company is represented by:

          Shannon Sweeney, Esq.
          BAKER AND MCKENZIE
          101 West Broadway, Suite 1200
          San Diego, CA 92101-8213
          Telephone: (619) 236-1441

                            *********

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

Class Actionp 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  * * *