/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100121.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, January 21, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 14


A-L FINANICAL: Sued in Calif. for Auto Financing Overcharges
BANDER LAW FIRM: Debtors Allege Unauthorized Bankruptcy Filings
CLOSET WORLD: Class Action Labor Lawsuit Filed in Los Angeles
DIRECTV INC: N.D. Ill. Suit Says Account Set-Up & Billing Bogus
EASTERN LOS ANGELES: Sued for Halting Autism Patient Treatment

EL POLLO LOCO: Class Action Labor Suit filed in Los Angeles
EXICA INC: Accused of Mislabeling Venturi Essential Wine Aerator
FORD MOTOR: N.D. Ill. Lawsuit Says Diesel Engines are Defective
GREGORY STILES: Class Action against Chiropractor is Dismissed
MACY'S INC: Calif. Lawsuit Accuses Retailer of Selling Fake Gems

MAG INSTRUMENT: Sued, with Home Depot, for Flashlight Mislabeling
MDL 1431: 8th Cir. Says No to West Virginia Baycol Class
MDL 2089: Four Firms Named as Interim Baggage Fee Class Counsel
MERIDIAN RESOURCE: Shareholder Sues in Houston to Block Sale
ORSU METALS: Notice of $2.2 Mil. Securities Litigation Settlement

SEQUENOM INC: Settles Shareholder Litigation for $14 Mil. & Stock
STEPHEN BEAN: Junk Fax Lawsuit Filed in E.D. Mich.
TD BANK: Accused in D.C. Suit of Improper Overdraft Charges
TRI-COUNTY LEXUS: N.J. Lawsuit Complains About Credit Inquiry Fee
US AIRWAYS: Employee Race Discrimination Suit Filed in E.D. Pa.

US BANCORP: E.D. Mo. Lawsuit Complains of Excess Refinancing Fees
VANDERBILT CAPITAL: Investors Sue Following $40 Million Loss
XE SERVICES: Iraqis Sign Up For Government-Led Class-Action Suit

* KamberEdelson Changes Its Name to Edelson McGuire, LLC


A-L FINANICAL: Sued in Calif. for Auto Financing Overcharges
Courthouse News Service reports that A-L Financial Corp.
overcharges for extensions or deferrals on auto financing
agreements, a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.

BANDER LAW FIRM: Debtors Allege Unauthorized Bankruptcy Filings
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that
attorneys with Los Angeles based Bander Law Firm bailed out on
clients after charging $8,500 to get their mortgage payments
reduced, then filed bankruptcy on the clients' behalf without
their knowledge, a class action claims in Superior Court.
Homeowners trying to reduce their mortgage payments say they met
in February 2009 with attorneys Timothy Umbreit and Joel Bander,
who promised to negotiate with the lenders.
The Bander attorneys charged a flat, nonrefundable fee of $8,500
and then sent a letter claiming that negotiations were under way
with lenders and servicing agents, according to the complaint.
That letter was the "first and last correspondence" between the
attorneys and clients, the complaint states.
The class claims that in September last year the Bander attorneys
filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy on behalf of the clients, who found
this out only when they received notice from creditors that their
accounts were being closed.
"At no point," the clients says, did they "ever authorize or even
discuss the option of filing bankruptcy."
The clients seek refunds and other damages, alleging malpractice,
breach of contract, negligence and breach of faith.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tamar Arminak, Esq.  
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS, P.C.
          Engine Co. No. 28
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 625-3900

CLOSET WORLD: Class Action Labor Lawsuit Filed in Los Angeles
Courthouse News Service reports that Closet World faces a class
action labor complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court.

DIRECTV INC: N.D. Ill. Suit Says Account Set-Up & Billing Bogus
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action
claims DirecTV opens satellite TV accounts for consumers who have
fraud alerts on their credit accounts, then places the burden on
them to close the account or pay for services they never ordered.
DirecTV has been sued at least 308 times in the past 5 years,
often for its billing procedures, many of them class actions,
according to the Courthouse News database.

The latest complaint, in Chicago Federal Court, claims DirecTV
uses bogus computer "confirmation" calls to victims that do not
work properly and forces the consumer to call the company on her
own dime.

Named plaintiff Brianna Greene claims DirecTV opened an account
in her name but without her knowledge on Jan. 2, then an
automatic telephone dialing system to call her cell phone three
days later.

Ms. Greene said she had never provided DirecTV or any of its
representatives with her cell phone number, which she believes
the company secured by reviewing her credit report, by hiring a
skip trace company, or through the company whose automated system
called her phone.
DirecTV's call featured a prerecorded message that said an
account had been opened on her behalf, and told her that she did
not open the account, she should push "0."  Ms. Green says
pressed 0 several times, but was never connected to an operator.
To reach a human being, she had to dial the 800 number that
appeared on her cell phone after the call.

Ms. Greene says the told her the account had been opened, that a
fraud alert had been received from one or more credit bureaus,
and that DirecTV would send her a form to fill out to complete
her "cancellation" of the fraudulent account.
New DirecTV customers have a 15-day "grace period" to cancel an
account with no penalty other than to pay for the service they
actually received, Ms. Greene says.
She claims that in requiring victims of fraud to fill out an
affidavit, DirecTV places a higher burden of proof and
inconvenience upon victims than upon ordinary customers who
actually ordered, and wish to cancel, a new account.

Ms. Greene seeks class damages for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Greene v. DirecTV, Inc., Case No.
10-cv-00117 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729-5288

EASTERN LOS ANGELES: Sued for Halting Autism Patient Treatment
Attorneys with Public Counsel and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
filed a class action lawsuit and request for a preliminary
injunction last week on behalf of children with autism against
the Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center (ELARC) for unlawfully
terminating the most effective treatment for their condition.  
ELARC, a nonprofit agency through which the state provides
statutorily-required services to people with disabilities,
suddenly and illegally eliminated funding for the treatment,
known as "DIR," after more than 10 years of providing it to
hundreds, if not thousands, of mostly low-income children with

Autism, a severe neurological disorder, is the fastest-growing
developmental disability in California and the nation; today, 1
in 110 children born in the United States have some form of
autism.  The "DIR" or Developmental, Individual Difference,
Relationship-based treatment, as ELARC has long acknowledged,
provides the children in the lawsuit with the only effective
means by which they may grow into or continue to be healthy and
functioning members of society.

"DIR treatment is what stands between these children and a life
of dependence," said Laura Faer, the Directing Attorney of Public
Counsel's Children's Rights Project. "At an economic low point
for California, this agency could not have made a poorer choice
for these children or for the state's finances.  DIR is cost-
effective, changes lives, and prevents state-funded
hospitalization and institutionalization."  

For twelve-year-old Benito R., DIR is the only treatment that has
worked to control his violent, aggressive behavior.  

"DIR treatment is making a huge difference," said Benito's
mother, a low-income single mom who works full time. "Without
this help, I would never be able to take Benito out into the
world, even to do simple things like grocery shopping for fear of
what might happen.  I'm worried that he will revert back to the
way he was, aggressive, dangerous and unable to interact even
with me."

Like the other class members, Benito is entitled to these
services under California's Lanterman Act, which was enacted to
prevent the institutionalization of developmentally disabled
persons.  In particular, the Act prohibits the unilateral
termination of authorized and necessary services.

"Raising a child with autism on a limited income is hard enough,"
said Brian Capra, Staff Attorney at Public Counsel. "ELARC has
broken the law meant to protect those families and children and
done so in a way that leaves them without options.  It's
inexplicable and wrong."

ELARC's termination of DIR is based on a misapplication of the
so-called "Trailer Bill," which was passed by the California
legislature last July, and prohibits Regional Centers like ELARC
from, among other things, funding "experimental treatments."
"Far from being 'experimental,' DIR has successfully treated
thousands of children with autism in 33 states and in countries
throughout the world," said John Sharer of the law firm of
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.  "Over the past 20 years, it has
substantially improved the quality of their lives and has
transformed many of these children into fully-functioning, well-
adjusted members of society."

ELARC is also the only regional center, out of seven in Los
Angeles County, to have misinterpreted the new legislation in
this way.  Attorneys for the case have learned that DIR programs
are still being provided to children at the other Regional
Centers in LA County and throughout California.

"ELARC's actions have no basis in law, and they will cause
irreparable and irreversible harm to these children," said Katie
Marquart, attorney with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. "These children
already face tremendous daily struggles.  ELARC's action will
unnecessarily result in devastating consequences for their
psychological, emotional and physical well-being.  It is for
these reasons that today we ask the Court to immediately enjoin
ELARC and stop it from eliminating this vital program."

                        About Public Counsel

Public Counsel is the largest pro bono public interest law firm
in the world. Founded in 1970, Public Counsel is dedicated to
advancing equal justice under law by delivering free legal and
social services to the most vulnerable members of our community,
including abused and abandoned children, homeless families and
veterans, senior citizens, victims of consumer fraud and
nonprofit organizations serving low-income communities.

                    About Developmental, Individual
           Difference, Relationship-based (DIR) Treatment

The DIR treatment plan for autism focuses on the individual
differences among children with autism, including understanding
the child's emotional, social, behavioral, and intellectual
level; individual differences in motor, sensory and language
functioning and the child and family functioning and interaction
patterns.  It places a premium on forging a close bond between
the parent and the child and the clinician and the child.

EL POLLO LOCO: Class Action Labor Suit filed in Los Angeles
Courthouse News Service reports that El Pollo Loco faces a class
action labor complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court.

EXICA INC: Accused of Mislabeling Venturi Essential Wine Aerator
Courthouse News Service reports that Exica Inc. and Area 55 sold
a "Venturi Essential Wine Aerator" by misrepresenting it as made
in the USA, though it was made in China, a class action claims in
San Diego Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Roehrig v. Exica, Inc., et al., Case
No. 37-2010-00050074-CU-BT-NC (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego
Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Tracy J. Jones, Esq.
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101          
          Telephone: 619-325-0492

FORD MOTOR: N.D. Ill. Lawsuit Says Diesel Engines are Defective
Courthouse News Service reports that Ford has made cars with
defective 6-liter diesel engines, concealed the defects and
refused to fix them since 2003, a class action claims in Chicago
Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Custom Underground, Inc., et al. v.
Ford Motor Company, Case No. 10-cv-00127 (N.D. Ill.), is
available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Latturner, Esq.
          Daniel Edelman, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          120 South LaSalle St., Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200

               - and -  

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          Cory S. Fein, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN, P.C.
          1331 Lamar, Suite 1070
          Houston TX 77010-3027
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400

               - and -  

          Mitchell A. Toups, Esq.
          Post Office Box 350
          Beaumont TX 77704-0350
          Telephone: (409) 838-0101

GREGORY STILES: Class Action against Chiropractor is Dismissed
The Canadian Press reports that a judge has ruled a lawsuit
against a chiropractor and the agency that regulates them doesn't
meet the criteria needed to be certified as a class-action suit.
The attempt was led by Sandra Nette, who alleges that adjustments
to her upper neck ruptured arteries, which in turn disrupted
blood flow to her brain and caused several paralyzing strokes.
The suit sought to include other Albertans who suffered injuries
after undergoing manipulation of the upper cervical spine since
June 12, 1998.

Justice Paul Belzil ruled that the suit fails to meet any of the
criteria necessary for a class-action.
He said the definition of who could be involved is vague and that
it would be extremely costly and complicated to try to hear a
number of very individual cases together.

He also expressed concerns about whether Mrs. Nette and her
husband could represent others who have been injured.

"While I accept, without hesitation, that the plaintiffs are
well-intentioned, I am concerned that the catastrophic injuries
sustained by Sandra Nette and the impact of these injuries on her
husband, David Nette, make it inappropriate for them to be
representative plaintiffs."

In her statement of claim, Mrs. Nette alleges she went for
treatment at chiropractor Gregory Stiles' office and had her neck

She claims that after the session she felt dizzy as she was
driving home and pulled over to call her husband for help. As he
was carrying her into a hospital's emergency bay, she collapsed
and went into convulsions, suffering permanent neurological

The claim alleges that Mrs. Nette's life has been devastatingly
damaged as a result of the chiropractor's manipulation of the
vertebrae in her upper neck.

The claim also argues that there is no scientific justification
for chiropractors to use spine manipulations.

Judge Belzil ruled that it's not possible for an individual to
sue the Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors, and
said that the courts are not the place to settle scientific
disputes in disciplines that have been recognized by provincial

"Dr. Stiles was licensed to practice chiropractic by ACAC under
the governing legislation and provided treatment to Sandra
Nette," he wrote.

"While unquestionably a cause of action exists, if he negligently
provided treatment to her, to recognize a cause of action beyond
that would amount to nothing more than an attempt to resolve a
scientific dispute in a court of law, and would also amount to an
attack on the legislative competence of the province in enacting
the (health professions act)."

Mrs. Nette's lawyer:

          Philip S. Tinkler, Esq.
          2900 Manulife Place
          10180 - 101 Street
          Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3V5
          Telephone: (780) 423-7100

said his clients are considering whether to appeal and how to
proceed with their individual claim.

"They are obviously disappointed in the result and they're
considering their options," Mr. Tinkler told the Canadian Press.

The Government of Alberta was originally named in the suit, but
was dropped because the suit gave no reason why it should be

MACY'S INC: Calif. Lawsuit Accuses Retailer of Selling Fake Gems
Robert Kahn at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action accuses Macy's of selling bogus rubies, amethysts and
sapphires. "Gems that were represented to be natural 'rubies'
were in fact heavily glass filled and often heavily lead glass
treated," said the complaint.

Other rubies arriving from wholesalers were a mixture of ruby and
composite ruby which in turn created a treatment and care issue
in that a composite ruby could not be re-polished or re-cut for
restoration purposes, and is damaged by a variety of cleaning
solvents," according to the complaint in San Francisco County

According to the complaint:

     * the origin of some rubies was mislabeled, and they came
       "from a banned source;"

     * "Stones were being passed as untreated 'green amethyst'
       when in fact this stone is in reality Praseolite (a heated
       form of quartz) while only purple amethyst is in fact real
       amethyst, natural and therefore of a much higher value;

     * "Sapphires were fracture filled with glass;

     * "Black sapphires were being passed off as 'black

     * "Many diamonds were enhanced by laser drilling or filling
       of surface cavities and fractures with a hardened
     * "Diamonds were irradiated or heated to induce color and
       then represented to be natural black diamonds; and

     * "Various stones and gems were filled with so much lead
       that they violated California laws."

Named plaintiff Mimi Lowe claims that Macy's employees and
consultants warned it that "it had a duty to disclose the value
of the stones compared to the traditionally enhanced or natural
stones to the consumer and that failure to make such disclosures
was a fraud."

She adds that some of the treatment to which the gems were
subjected loses its effects over time.

She seeks punitive damages for intentional misrepresentation,
negligent misrepresentation, unfair competition, unjust
enrichment, breach of warranty and other charges.

A copy of the Complaint in Lowe v. Macy's, Inc., et al., Case No.
CGC-10-495868 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), is
available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Brandi, Esq.
          Terence D. Edwards, Esq.
          354 Pine Street, Third Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-989-1800

MAG INSTRUMENT: Sued, with Home Depot, for Flashlight Mislabeling
Courthouse News Service reports that Mag Instrument and Home
Depot sell flashlights falsely labeled as made in the USA, a
class action claims in San Diego Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Stewart v. Mag Instrument, Inc., Home
Depot U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2009-00104259-CU-BT-CTL
(Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.) (Taylor, J.), is available


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John H. Donboli, Esq.
          JL Sean Slattery, Esq.
          DEL MAR GROUP, LLP
          2002 Jimmy Durante Blvd., Suite 100
          Del Mar, CA 92014
          Telephone: 858-793-6244

MDL 1431: 8th Cir. Says No to West Virginia Baycol Class
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld an order barring
Baycol users in West Virginia from trying to certify in state
court a class action demanding refunds based on the cholesterol-
reducing drug's link to a severe and potentially fatal muscle
disorder. Baycol was yanked from the market in August 2001, after
it was linked to 31 deaths.

That same month, Baycol users filed a class action in state court
in West Virginia against drug makers Bayer and GlaxoSmithKline.
The lead plaintiff had not experienced any health problems from
Baycol, so he sued for economic damages instead, alleging breach
of warranty and violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit
and Protection Act.

The case was removed to district court and later combined with
other class actions in a multidistrict litigation court.

The judge presiding over the nationwide refund action denied
class certification, saying the plaintiffs "would have to
demonstrate that they were either injured by Baycol, or that
Baycol did not provide them any health benefits," so their claims
weren't similar enough to proceed as a class.

Not long after, two other Baycol users sought certification of a
West Virginia economic class action in state court.

Bayer asked a federal judge to bar the plaintiffs from rehashing
the certification issue in state court. The district court
complied, issuing an injunction.

A three-judge panel in St. Louis upheld the order, saying the
federal court's ruling barred any motion for class certification
in state court.

Judge Diana Murphy pointed out that the plaintiffs can still
appeal or pursue their claims individually.

"These safeguards satisfy due process and are sufficient to bind
them in personam to the district court's certification decision,"
Murphy wrote.

A copy of the ruling is available at:


MDL 2089: Four Firms Named as Interim Baggage Fee Class Counsel
Tresa Baldas at The National Law Journal reports that as airline
baggage fees went up again this week, lawsuits by angry
passengers challenging the hikes loom ahead.  In In re
Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2089;
Master Docket No. 09-md-2089 (N.D. Ga.) (Batten, J.), where a
dozen baggage fee lawsuits have been consolidated into one, a
federal judge last week appointed a four-firm team as interim
class counsel in the multidistrict antitrust litigation against
Delta Air Lines and AirTran Airlines.

The airline carriers are accused of colluding to charge fliers a
$15 fee on the first checked bag in highly competitive markets
where neither wished to risk losing business by doing so alone.

On Tuesday, Delta increased its fee again to $23 for the first
bag and $32 for the second bag. AirTran did not.

The higher fees come a week after U.S. District Judge Timothy
Batten of the Northern District of Georgia on Jan. 5 appointed
four firms to handle the multidistrict litigation:

     -- Washington, D.C.'s Kotchen & Low;

     -- Charleston, S.C.'s Richardson, Patrick,
        Westbrook & Brickman;

     -- Jacksonville, Fla.'s McCulley McCluer; and

     -- Atlanta's Conley Griggs.

The four firms filed the original complaint in May 2009, which
triggered several other tag-along cases making virtually
identical claims.

Judge Batten formed the team due to a conflict among several
firms competing to handle the litigation. In his Jan. 5 order, he
explained, "[T]hese firms have performed all of the substantive
work -- spanning seven months -- in identifying, investigating,
and drafting the claims that have now been largely adopted by
other attorneys in the tag-along actions. Additionally, these
firms have extensive antitrust and class action experience, and
have abundant resources to effectively litigate this action."

The plaintiffs' lawyers declined to comment on whether the new
baggage fee increases would impact their litigation.  Daniel
Kotchen, Esq., a partner at Kotchen & Low, would only say, "We're
excited to litigate the case. We believe it's a strong case."

A similar lawsuit seeking class action status is pending in
federal court in Nevada, where a California woman alleges that
Delta and AirTran's parent company, AirTran Holdings, colluded in
imposing the baggage fees.

US Airways last year raised its maximum fees to the same levels
as Delta's new fees. Continental Airlines has also done so this

Delta said that it raised fees in essence because it needed the
money.  "The increase is a result of the continued cost pressures
on our business," spokeswoman Susan Elliott said.

Meanwhile, baggage fees aren't just ticking off airline
passengers.  In Massachusetts, several Logan Airport skycaps are
suing United Air Lines, arguing that its $2 checked baggage fee
violates minimum wage laws by depriving them of tips.  The suit
follows an August 2009 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
ruling that said a $2-per-bag fee imposed by American Airlines
had deprived skycaps of tips and that upheld a federal jury award
of $325,056 for the skycaps.

MERIDIAN RESOURCE: Shareholder Sues in Houston to Block Sale
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Meridian
Resource Corp. are selling out too cheaply to Alta Mesa Holdings,
for 29 cents a share or $27 million, shareholders claim in Harris
County Court, Houston.  

A copy of the Complaint in Leider v. Ching, et al., Case No.
2010-01279 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Harris Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Willie Briscoe, Esq.
          8117 Preston Road, Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Telephone: 214-706-9314

               - and -  

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Eric M. Andersen, Esq.
          30 Broad Street, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-363-7500

ORSU METALS: Notice of $2.2 Mil. Securities Litigation Settlement
In 2008, a class action was commenced in Ontario against European
Minerals Corporation f/k/a Orsu Metals Corporation and certain of
its current and former senior officers and/or directors (the
"Defendants"). The Plaintiff in the action alleges that EPM's
financial statements, released during the Class Period, were
materially false and/or misleading as the result of incorrect
accounting for a forward sales contract into which EPM had
entered as a requirement of its financing facilities. The alleged
result of the incorrect accounting was that EPM's financial
statements significantly understated its liabilities and
overstated its earnings during the Class Period.

A proposed settlement has been reached in the class action which
is subject to the approval of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice (the "Court"). The Settlement Agreement provides that the
Defendants will pay $2.2 million (the "Settlement Amount") in
full and final settlement of all claims, including class counsel
fees, disbursements, taxes and administration expenses in return
for releases and a dismissal of the class action.

The settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and is not an
admission of liability, wrongdoing or fault on the part of any of
the Defendants, all of whom have denied, and continue to deny,
the allegations against them.


The Settlement Agreement must be approved by the Court before it
can be implemented. Class Members may, but are not required to,
attend at the settlement approval motion which will be held on
February 17, 2010 at 10:00 a.m., at the Courthouse, 80 Dundas
Street, London, Ontario.

If the Settlement Agreement is approved, another notice to Class
Members will be published which will provide instructions on how
to make a claim to receive compensation from the settlement
amount and how to opt out of the class if the Class Member does
not wish to share in, or be bound by, the settlement.

Class Members who do not oppose the proposed settlement do not
need to appear at the motion or take any other action at this
time to indicate their desire to participate in the proposed


In addition to seeking the Court's approval of the Settlement
Agreement, Class Counsel (as identified below) will seek the
Court's approval of their legal fees not to exceed 25% of the
Settlement Amount, plus disbursements and applicable taxes
("Class Counsel Fees"). Class Counsel will also seek appointment
of an Administrator for the Settlement Agreement whose fees,
together with any other amounts incurred or payable relating to
approval, notification, implementation and administration of the
Settlement Agreement ("Administration Expenses"), will also be
paid from the Settlement Amount. Class Counsel Fees and
Administration Expenses will be deducted from the Settlement
Amount before it is distributed to Class Members.


The remainder of the Settlement Amount, after deduction of Class
Counsel Fees and Administration Expenses (the "Net Settlement
Amount") will be distributed to Class Members in accordance with
the Distribution Protocol, which is Schedule "A" to the
Settlement Agreement.

"Excluded Persons" are precluded from receiving compensation
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and include the Defendants,
EPM's past or present parents, subsidiaries, affiliates,
officers, directors, legal representatives, heirs, predecessors,
successors and assigns, and any member of the individual
Defendants' families and any entity in which any of them has or
had an interest.

The amount of each Class Member's actual compensation from the
Net Settlement Amount will depend upon: (i) the number and the
price of EPM securities purchased by the Class Member during the
Class Period; (ii) when the Class Member sold the EPM securities
purchased during the Class Period and the price at which such
securities were sold; (iii) whether the Class Member continues to
hold some or all of their EPM securities purchased during the
Class Period; and (iv) the total number of claims for
compensation filed with the Administrator.

A copy of the Settlement Agreement including the Distribution
Protocol, may be found at http://www.classaction.ca/


If the courts approve the proposed settlement, all Class Members
will be bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement, unless
they exclude themselves from the class ("opt out"). This means
that they will not be able to bring or maintain any other claim
or legal proceeding against the Defendants or any other person
released by the Settlement Agreement in relation to the matters
alleged in the class action.

If you do not want to be bound by the Settlement Agreement you
must opt out. Please note, however, that by opting out you will
also be barred from making a claim and receiving compensation
from the Settlement Amount.


If you wish to comment on, or make objection to, the Settlement
Agreement, you must do so in writing. All objections must be
received by Class Counsel:

          Michael G. Robb, Esq.
          SISKINDS LLP
          680 Waterloo Street
          London, Ontario
          Telephone: 519-672-2121
          E-mail: michael.robb@siskinds.com

no later than February 5, 2010.  Class Counsel will forward all
such submissions to the Court.

A written objection should include the following information:

(a) the objector's name, address, telephone number, fax number
(where applicable) and email address;

(b) a brief statement outlining the nature of, and reason for,
the objection;

(c) documents establishing that the objector purchased securities
of EPM during the Class Period; and

(d) a statement as to whether the objector intends to appear at
the Approval Motion in person or by legal counsel, and, if by
legal counsel, the name, address, telephone number, fax number
and email address of such legal counsel.


If there is a conflict between the provisions of this notice and
the Settlement Agreement, the terms of the Settlement Agreement
will prevail.



SEQUENOM INC: Settles Shareholder Litigation for $14 Mil. & Stock
Sequenom, Inc. (Nasdaq: SQNM), entered into a settlement
agreement last wee that will resolve the consolidated securities
class action lawsuits, In re Sequenom, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No: 3:09-cv-00921-LAB-WMC (S.D. Calif.).  

The defendants have agreed to pay $14 million, which will be
funded by insurance proceeds. Additionally the company has agreed
to issue to the plaintiffs' class a number of shares of Sequenom
common stock.  These shares shall constitute 9.95% of the total
shares then outstanding, subject to certain limitations.  The
company has also agreed to adopt or continue its implementation
of changes and additions to certain corporate governance
policies, protocols and practices. The terms of the settlement
are subject to approval by the United States District Court.

The settlement agreement contains no admission of liability, but
the company is settling the lawsuit to avoid potentially lengthy,
costly, distracting and time-consuming litigation.

Additional details about the proposed settlement can be found in
the settlement agreement, a copy of which is attached as an
exhibit to the company's current report on Form 8-K that has been
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and is
available at:


The settlement agreement remains subject to approval by the
United States District Court for the Southern District of

In the securities litigation, the Shareholder-Plaintiffs are
represented by:

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104

               - and -  

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          850 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022

               - and -  

          Justin B. Farar, Esq.
          1801 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067

and the Defendants are represented by:

          William E. Grauer, Esq.
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121-9109

               - and -

          Meryl L. Young, Esq.
          Jared Toffer, Esq.
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612

               - and -  

          Robert E. Gooding, Jr., Esq.
          Roman E. Darmer, II, Esq.
          Jennifer Bagosy, Esq.
          HOWREY LLP
          4 Park Plaza, Suite 1700
          Irvine, CA 92614

               - and -  

          Keith P. Bishop, Esq.
          Lawrence D. Lewis, Esq.
          Jeren Wei, Esq.
          1900 Main Street, 5th Floor
          Irvine, CA 92614

               - and -  

          Thomas Anthony Zaccaro, Esq.
          515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071

               - and -  

          Morgan J. Miller, Esq.
          4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92121
Dr. Harry Hixson, interim CEO and chairman of the board, stated
that, "we are pleased to have reached an agreement with
plaintiffs to settle this litigation, and we believe that this
outcome is in the best interest of the company and its
shareholders. I look forward to closing this chapter for the
company and focusing on meeting our 2010 milestones, which
include the launch of a number of molecular diagnostic tests."

Sequenom, Inc. (NASDAQ: SQNM) -- http://www.sequenom.com/-- is a  
life sciences company committed to improving healthcare through
revolutionary genetic analysis solutions.  Sequenom develops
innovative technology, products and diagnostic tests that target
and serve discovery and clinical research, and molecular
diagnostics markets.  The company was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in San Diego, California.  SEQUENOM(R) is a
registered trademark of Sequenom, Inc.

STEPHEN BEAN: Junk Fax Lawsuit Filed in E.D. Mich.  
Paul Egan at The Detroit News reports that companies that send
unsolicited faxes are the target of class-action lawsuits filed
Monday in federal court in Detroit.

"A junk fax recipient loses the use of its fax machine, paper,
and ink toner," alleges one of the lawsuits, filed by a
Bloomfield Hills investment firm against a Texas insurance agency
that allegedly sends unsolicited faxes quoting insurance rates.

"An unsolicited fax also causes the recipient to waste valuable
time it would have spent on something else.

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

The lawsuits, which still must be certified as class actions,
were filed under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which
Congress passed in 1991.

Brian Wanca, an Illinois attorney representing lead plaintiff
Imhoff Investment LLC of Bloomfield Hills, said the law makes it
illegal to fax unsolicited advertising and entitles fax
recipients to damages of $500 per fax. A judge can triple those
damages if it's found the violation was knowing and willful, Mr,
Wanca said.

Records show similar suits have brought judgments and settlements
of more than $10 million since the law was passed.

Stephen Bean, who does business as Stephen Bean & Associates and
atermlifequote.com, one of four defendants sued Monday, did not
return a telephone message left at his Houston, Texas, office.
But the fax titled "Affordable Life Insurance" that Bean
allegedly sent out suggests he is prepared for the possibility of
legal action.

A disclaimer at the bottom of the fax titled "Warning," says: "We
report to the state bar association and file criminal and civil
charges against lawyers and others who 'Fax Bait' or attempt
extortion against sponsors or us. We receive fax numbers and
permission to fax from Web pages, yellow pages, or businesses

The fax lists a number to call to be removed from the fax list.

But Mr. Wanca said the disclaimer does not meet Federal
Communications Commission requirements. Taking fax numbers from
Web pages or phone directories is not permitted, he said, adding
that express permission to fax is required.

TD BANK: Accused in D.C. Suit of Improper Overdraft Charges
Courthouse News Service reports that TD Bank charges its 6.5
million customers overdraft fees when they are not overdrawn, and
refuses to let them opt out of this "service," a class action
claims in D.C. Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Mascaro v. TD Bank, Inc., et al., Case
No. 10-cv-00040 (D.C.) (Huvelle, J.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: 202-973-0900

TRI-COUNTY LEXUS: N.J. Lawsuit Complains About Credit Inquiry Fee
Courthouse News Service reports that Tri-County Lexus charges $15
for a "credit inquiry fee" and $8.50 for an "online registration
fee" but does not pay that money to anyone and simply it, a class
action claims in Passaic County Court, N.J.

A copy of the Complaint in Desvignes v. Tri-County Lexus, Docket
No. L-5542-09 (N.J. Super. Ct., Passiac Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Rudnick, Esq.
          CARTON & RUDNICK
          262 Highway 35
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: 732-842-2070

US AIRWAYS: Employee Race Discrimination Suit Filed in E.D. Pa.
Courthouse News Service reports that US Airways, Piedmont
Airlines, and PSA Airlines discriminate against black employees
at Philadelphia International Airport, the NAACP and workers
claim in a class action in Philadelphia Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in NAACP v. Salters, et al., Case No.
10-cv-_____ (E.D. Pa.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian R. Mildenberg, Esq.
          David S. Mildenberg, Esq.
          123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1610
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: (215) 545-4870

US BANCORP: E.D. Mo. Lawsuit Complains of Excess Refinancing Fees
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims US
Bancorp and JLB Corp. dba Golden Oak Lending charged twice for
identical services in refinancing a home loan, in St. Louis
Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Hargis v. US Bancorp, et al., Case No.
10-cv-00027 (E.D. Mo.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christian G. Montroy, Esq.
          1136 Washington Avenue, Suite 908
          St. Louis, MO 63103
          Telephone: 800-333-5297

VANDERBILT CAPITAL: Investors Sue Following $40 Million Loss
Evan Prieskop at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action claims Vanderbilt Capital Advisors and others, including
Aldus Equity, put more than $40 million of the New Mexico
Educational Retirement Fund into an unsound "pay to play"
investment scheme involving "individuals with powerful political
connections to New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson." Aside from
some "small dividends," the complaint states, "the entire $40
million principal investment was lost."

The class claims Vanderbilt invested teachers' pension funds into
"a highly speculative, risky, and leveraged investment . . . for
the political or financial gain of the perpetrators of the
schemes and/or those involved in political fundraising for or on
behalf of, inter alia, Governor Richardson."

Gov. Richardson is not named as a party to the case.
The single named plaintiff, Donna Hill, claims that an unnamed
former aide to Richardson joined others to create a risky
investment instrument, gathering together sub-prime (Alt-A)
mortgages and similar bad investments.

Ms. Hill says that the former aide then joined with sitting
members of the Educators Retirement Board to talk the board into
purchasing the instrument by painting it as a sound investment.
A few months after the deal was made, members of the Vanderbilt
investment group made donations to Bill Richardson's presidential
campaign totaling more than $15,000, according to the complaint
in Santa Fe County Court.
The complaint also blames Aldus Equity and its principals as
liable for losses incurred by the retirement fund.

It claims that in October 2009 Saul Meyer, of Aldus Equity,
"pleaded guilty to securities fraud in New York arising from his
conduct involving a public pension fund kickback scheme there. It
claims that Meyers' plea allocution included the statements, "On
numerous occasions, however, contrary to my fiduciary duty, I
ensured that Aldus recommended certain proposed investments that
were pushed on my by politically connected individuals in New
Mexico. . . .  I did this knowing that these politically
connected individuals or their associates stood to benefit
financially or politically from the investments and that the
investments were not necessarily in the best economic interest of
New Mexico."
The class claims Mr. Meyer's allocution included the statement:
"From in or about January 2003 through in or about February 2009,
acting in concert with others, I made false representations of
material facts and concealed material information while engaged
in inducing the promoting the exchange, sale, negotiation and
purchase [of] investment transactions involving . . . the New
Mexico Educational Retirement Board in the state of New Mexico.
As a result of this, I along with Hank Morris and others
wrongfully obtained agreements and fees relating to these

Ms. Hill claims that those individuals include the unnamed former
Richardson aide who participated in the Vanderbilt scheme.

The named defendants are Vanderbilt Capital Advisors LLC,
Vanderbilt Financial LLC, Vanderbilt Financial Trust, Pioneer
Investment Management USA, Bruce Malott, Gary Bland, Veronica
Garcia, Douglas M. Brown, Patrick A. Livney, Osbert M. Hood,
Stephen C. Bernhardt, Kurt W. Florian Jr., Anthony J. Koenig Jr.,
Mark E. Bradley, Ron D. Kessinger, Robert P. Nault, James R.
Stern, New England Pension Consultants LLC, Aldus Equity, Saul
Meyer, and The New Mexico Educational Retirement Fund.

Ms. Hill seeks class damages for breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty and fraud.  

A copy of the Complaint in Hill v. Vanderbilt Capital Advisors
LLC, et al., Case No. D101CV201000060 (N.M., Santa Fe Cty., 1st
J. Dist.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon H. Rowe, III, Esq.
          1200 Pennsylvania NE, Suite 2B
          Albuquerque, NM 87110
          Telephone: 505-232-2800

               - and -  

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          Michael G. Lenett, Esq.
          507 C Street, N.E.
          Washington, D.C. 20002
          Telephone: 202-789-3960

               - and -  

          Richard D. Greenfield, Esq.
          Marguerite R. Goodman, Esq.
          250 Hudson St., 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: 917-495-4446

XE SERVICES: Iraqis Sign Up For Government-Led Class-Action Suit
The Associated Press reports that Iraq's government has started
collecting signatures for a class-action lawsuit from victims who
were wounded or lost family in incidents involving the U.S.
private security firm formerly known as Blackwater.

The head of the prime minister's legal consultation office said
Monday the government will seek compensation for a string of
incidents, including the 2007 killing of 17 civilians in Nisoor

The official, Fadhil Mohammed Jawad, says there is no deadline to
receive the authorizations. He refused to give a date for the

On Dec. 31, a U.S. federal judge threw out criminal charges
against the company, now known as Xe Services, regarding the
Nisoor Square killings, citing mistakes by prosecutors.

Separately, Courthouse News Service reports that Blackwater, now
called Xe, has settled a series of federal lawsuits accusing the
U.S. securities contractor of allowing the murder of innocent
civilians and rewarding mercenaries who "killed Iraqis as sport."  
One lawsuit -- see http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/15/ErikPrince.pdf
-- claimed that Blackwater founder Erik Prince "personally
intended that his private army of men kill and wound innocent

In another -- see http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/08/05/JohnDoe2Declaration.pdf
-- an ex-employee said it appeared that Prince "and his employees
murdered, or had murdered, one or more persons who had provided
information, or who were planning to provide information, to the
federal authorities about the ongoing criminal conduct."
The State Department canceled Blackwater's contract after
determining that contractors had opened fire in a Baghdad traffic
square in September 2007, killing 17 Iraqi civilians.

The incident led to multiple grand-jury proceedings.

Mr. Prince has since resigned from the company, which now
operates as Xe Services LLC in North Carolina.
Xe released a statement saying the company was "pleased" that a
settlement had been reached.
"This enables Xe's new management to move the company forward
free of the costs and distraction of ongoing litigation, and
provides some compensation to Iraqi families," the company said.

Susan Burke, an attorney for alleged victims and their families,
filed a motion to have seven cases dismissed in federal court in
North Carolina.

Courthouse News Service reports that the terms of the settlement
were not disclosed.

* KamberEdelson Changes Its Name to Edelson McGuire, LLC
The national class action law firm previously known as
KamberEdelson, LLC, is changing its name to Edelson McGuire, LLC.
Myles McGuire, Esq., the firm's newest named partner, has been
with the firm and its predecessor for six years.

"Six years ago, Myles knocked on my door and told me he wanted to
join me in building the top consumer class action law practice in
the country.  Partnering up with Myles was one of the best
choices I have made and making him a named partner was one of the
easiest choices the firm has made," explained Jay Edelson, Esq.,
the firm's managing partner.

The firm has racked up a string of high-profile successes over
the last three years, including a $30 million settlement
involving the Thomas the Tank lead paint recalls, mobile content
settlements totaling over $100 million (including a $36 million
settlement approved last week), and privacy settlements against
Amazon and Sears.  The firm represents former governor Rod
Blagojevich and his wife, Patti Blagojevich in civil matters. It
also advises statewide and national politicians on consumer
issues relating to the federal bailout of banks, cellular
telephony, and privacy concerns.

Currently, Edelson McGuire is leading the efforts to sue national
banks such as JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, and Wells Fargo over
claims that they illegally suspended the home credit lines of
tens of thousands of Americans.

The firm simultaneously announced the addition of legendary labor
and entertainment attorney Barry Jay Reiss, Esq., to the firm.
Reiss has previously served as an officer at leading companies
such as CBS Records, Arista Records, MCA, and ColumbiaHouse
Company represented such musical groups as U2.  He also served as
a labor attorney for the Teamsters and was the East Coast General
Counsel of MCA-Universal where he oversaw film, television,
music, and book publishing.

"Barry's wealth of experience and integrity make him a terrific
addition to the firm," Mr. Edelson said. "We look forward to his
leadership in growing our emerging labor and entertainment

Mr. Reiss, who is located in New York, will serve as Edelson
McGuire's New York presence.  The firm also has lawyers in
Florida, California and Illinois.

Recently, the attorneys formerly comprising KamberEdelson's New
York office, led by Scott A. Kamber, Esq., have launched the firm
KamberLaw, joined by a newly formed Los Angeles office.  Kamber
has been lead counsel in numerous technology and privacy class
actions since the first Internet privacy settlement in the 1990s
and, most recently, in the pending Facebook Beacon settlement.

"Scott and I continue to be good friends, both personally and
professionally and I look forward to continuing that
relationship, said Mr. Edelson.  "We both are strongly committed
to the protection of consumer rights and the fact that we have
different visions for our respective firms will do nothing to
change that."

Edelson McGuire, which has tripled in size in two years despite a
tough legal climate, also announced the addition of attorney
William C. Gray, Esq., who will be an associate in its Chicago
office.  Gray, a cum laude Harvard Law School graduate,
previously was an associate at Sidley & Austin.

                      About Edelson McGuire

Edelson McGuire, LLC -- http://www.edelson.com/-- formerly known  
as KamberEdelson LLC, is a commercial litigation and legal and
political consulting firm with attorneys in Illinois, New York,
California, and Florida.  The firm's attorneys have been
recognized as leaders in these fields by state and federal
legislatures, national and international media groups, the courts
and their peers.  They have testified before the United States
Senate on class action issues and have repeatedly been asked to
work on federal and state legislation and policy issues involving
banking, cellular telephony and consumer privacy.  Their
attorneys have appeared on hundreds of national and international
television and radio programs to discuss their cases and class
action and consumer protection issues more generally.  Their
class settlements are collectively worth over one billion dollars
and have changed the consumer protection policies of numerous


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,

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  * * *