CAR_Public/100209.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, February 9, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 27

                            Headlines

AMERICAN AIRLINES: D. Mass. Certifies Skycap Class for Lost Tips
AWB LTD: Australian Shareholder Class Trial Begins Tomorrow
BRINKER INT'L: Labor Suit Ruling Remains Under High Court Review
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Washington Suit Complains About Cramming
D.R. HORTON: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of "Yeatman" Suit

D.R. HORTON: Final Settlement Agreement in "Wilson" Suit Pending
EXPERIAN GROUP: Free Credit Reports Not Free, Calif. Suit Says
FAMILY DOLLAR: Mo. Suit Complains About Work Policy and Practice
GOOGLE INC: Justice Dept. Criticizes Revised Author Settlement
HARLEYSVILLE NATIONAL: Shareholder Lawsuit Filed in E.D. Pa.

LODGIAN INC: Faces Suit in Georgia Over Plan Merger with LSREF
LODGIAN INC: Faces Suit Over Planned LSREF Merger in Delaware
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Plaintiffs Ask for $700,000 in Fees
PANTRY INC: Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion Still Pending
PANTRY INC: Continues to Defend "Chism" Suit in Alabama

PANTRY INC: Wants to Transfer "Gee" Suit to Alabama
PANTRY INC: Defends "Amason" Suit Over FACTA Violations
QUEST RESOURCE: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Okla.
QUEST RESOURCE: Cherokee Subsidiary Evaluating Settlement Offer
RENTECH INC: Faces Three Shareholder-Related Suits in California

SCHYLLING ASSOC: Paying $200,000 to Resolve Lead Paint Problem
SEQUENOM INC: Court Gives Preliminarily Approval to Settlement
TOYOTA MOTOR: Beasley Allen Files Class Action Suit in S.D. Fla.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Cohen & Malad Files Class Action Suit in Indiana
TOYOTA MOTOR: President Akio Toyoda Apologizes for Global Recalls

UNITED STATES: Pentagon Accused of Not Paying Departure Bonuses
UNITRIN INC: Units Continue to Face Hurricane-Related Lawsuits

                            *********

AMERICAN AIRLINES: D. Mass. Certifies Skycap Class for Lost Tips
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that skycaps across the country who
claim they lost tips after American Airlines imposed $2 curbside
baggage fees can now join a Boston lawsuit.

U.S. District Court Judge William Young on Thursday certified a
nationwide class in DiFiore, et al. v. American Airlines, Case
No. __-cv-____ (D. Mass.).

The class action lawsuit comes 18 months after a federal jury
awarded nine current and former American Airlines skycaps from
Massachusetts $325,000 for tips they lost as a result of the
baggage fees.

The class certification means that hundreds of American Airlines
skycaps at 85 airports around the country are now part of the
case seeking damages.

One of the Plaintiff's lawyers:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: 617-994-5800

told the Boston Globe that damages could amount to millions.

An American Airlines spokesman said the company "respectfully
disagrees with the court's decision."

The Class Action Reporter previously reported about this
litigation on April 9, 2008.  


AWB LTD: Australian Shareholder Class Trial Begins Tomorrow
-----------------------------------------------------------
The herald Sun, via AAP, reports that a class action against
agribusiness company AWB Ltd involving more than 1000
shareholders seeking compensation for its failure to disclose
Iraqi kickbacks begins in the Federal Court on Wednesday.

Members of the action say they collectively lost over $100
million when AWB shares plummeted after the Cole inquiry found in
2006 that AWB paid more than $290 million to the former Iraqi
regime between 1999 and 2003.

No shareholder class action has yet reached judgment in
Australia, with settlements between parties the usual outcome.

The trial, to be held in Sydney, was to begin today but was
pushed back one day due to a court delay.

The court hearing comes almost three years after the class action
was first filed in the Federal Court by retired farmers and
former AWB shareholders, husband and wife John and Kaye Watson.

Many other institutions and investors who bought AWB 'B Class'
securities after March 11, 2002 and retained them until January
13, 2006, have since joined the action.

They will allege AWB breached its continuous disclosure
obligations by failing to inform the market it paid fees to the
Iraqi regime, disguised as transport fees, in exchange for access
to the country's lucrative wheat markets.

AWB also engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by making
representations to the market about the nature of its dealings
with Iraq and its integrity, they claim.

Investors would not have bought AWB shares, or paid a lower price
for the shares, if this alleged non-disclosure and misleading
conduct had not occurred, lawyers for the claimants will argue.

The class action is being run by Maurice Blackburn lawyers and
funded by the listed litigation fund IMF Australia Ltd.

The trial has been set to run for five weeks.


BRINKER INT'L: Labor Suit Ruling Remains Under High Court Review
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc., is awaiting a decision from
California's highest court in a decertified class-action suit
related to meal and rest breaks.  

Certain current and former hourly restaurant employees filed a
lawsuit against Brinker in California Superior Court alleging
violations of California labor laws with respect to meal and rest
breaks.  The lawsuit seeks penalties and attorney's fees and was
certified as a class action in July 2006.

On July 22, 2008, the California Court of Appeal decertified the
class action on all claims with prejudice.

On Oct. 22, 2008, the California Supreme Court granted a writ to
review the decision of the Court of Appeal.

No further updates on the case were reported in the company's
Feb. 1, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 23, 2009.

Brinker International, Inc. -- http://www.brinker.com/-- is  
principally engaged in the ownership, operation, development, and
franchising of the Chili's Grill & Bar, Maggiano's Little Italy,
and On The Border Mexican Cantina restaurant concepts.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Washington Suit Complains About Cramming
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Verizon "turns a consumer's
. . . wireless telephone number into a charge card" by cramming,
a class action claims in Seattle Federal Court.  Also sued are
Vodafone Group, OpenMarket Inc., Snackable Media, and Predicto
Mobile.

A copy of the Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declatory
Relief, Damages and Rescision in Shaw v. Cellco Partnership, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-00184 (W.D. Wash.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/03/Cramming.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher I. Brain, Esq.
          Nancy A. Pacharzina, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 Seventh Ave., Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: 206-682-5600


D.R. HORTON: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of "Yeatman" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action, John R. Yeatman, et al. v. D.R.
Horton, Inc., et al., is now concluded after the 11th Circuit
Court of Appeals issued its mandate affirming the dismissal of
the complaint, according to the company's Feb. 2, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The suit was filed on June 15, 2007, one of the company's
customers against the company and its affiliated mortgage company
subsidiary in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Georgia.

The complaint sought certification of a class alleged to include
persons who, within the year preceding the filing of the suit,
purchased a home from the company and obtained a mortgage for
such purchase from its affiliated mortgage company subsidiary.

The complaint alleged that the company violated Section 8 of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act by effectively requiring
the company's homebuyers to use its affiliated mortgage company
to finance their home purchases by offering certain discounts and
incentives.

The action sought damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive
relief.

On April 23, 2008, the Court ruled on the company's motion to
dismiss and dismissed this complaint with prejudice.

The plaintiffs appealed the decision.

On Sept. 1, 2009, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its
mandate affirming the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs'
complaint.  The time for additional appeals has passed, thus this
matter is now concluded.

The suit is John R. Yeatman, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 07-00081 (S.D. Ga.) (Edenfield, J.).

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
          Gillen, Cromwell, Parker & Withers, LLC
          P.O. Box 10164
          Savannah, GA 31412
          Phone: 912-447-8400
          Fax: 912-233-6584
          E-mail: TWithers@gcpwlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          David M. Souders, Esq.
          Weiner, Brodsky, Sidman & Kider, PC
          1300 19th Street, NW, Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-628-2000
          Fax: 202-628-2011


D.R. HORTON: Final Settlement Agreement in "Wilson" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final settlement agreement in the matter James Wilson, et al.
v. D.R. Horton, Inc., et al., remains pending, according to the
company's Feb. 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The putative class action was filed on March 24, 2008, by five
customers of Western Pacific Housing, Inc., one of the company's
wholly-owned subsidiaries, against the company, Western Pacific
Housing, Inc., and the company's affiliated mortgage company
subsidiary, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California.

The complaint sought certification of a class alleged to include
persons who, within the four years preceding the filing of the
suit, purchased a home from the company, or any of its
subsidiaries, and obtained a mortgage for such purchase from the
company's affiliated mortgage company subsidiary.

The complaint alleged that the company violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act and Sections 16720, 17200 and 17500 of the
California Business and Professions Code by effectively requiring
homebuyers to apply for a loan through the company's affiliated
mortgage company.

In June 2009 the complaint was amended to limit the putative
class to California customers only and the claims asserted were
limited to alleged violations of the California Business and
Professions Code.

The complaint alleges that the homebuyers were either deceived
about loan costs charged by our affiliated mortgage company or
coerced into using the company's affiliated mortgage company, or
both, and that discounts and incentives offered by the company or
its subsidiaries to buyers who obtained financing from the
affiliated mortgage company were illusory.

The action seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount and
injunctive relief.

Subsequent to Dec. 31, 2009, the plaintiffs tentatively agreed to
dismiss their lawsuit in exchange for a waiver of costs.

A final settlement agreement is pending.

The suit is James Wilson, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc., et al.,
Case No: 08 CV 592 BEN RBB, (S.D. Calif.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Phone: 858-551-1223
          Fax: 858-551-1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com

Representing the defendants is:

          John T. Brooks, Esq.
          Luce Forward Hamilton and Scripps
          600 West Broadway, Suite 2600
          San Diego, CA 92101-3372
          Phone: 619-236-1414
          Fax: 619-232-8311
          E-mail: jtbrooks@luce.com


EXPERIAN GROUP: Free Credit Reports Not Free, Calif. Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that
Experian's "free credit reports" are not free at all, but trick
customers into signing up for a credit monitoring service that
can cost up to $179 a year, consumers say in a federal class
action. The class claims Experian does this despite promising the
FTC in 2005 that it would "stop its fraud" -- but all it did was
change the name.

Experian runs commercials for FreeCreditReport.com, which are
frequently broadcast in the L.A. area.  FreeCreditReport.com is a
"for-profit business" owned by Experian, according to the 48-page
complaint, with 82 pages of attachments.

The class claims that when consumers go to the Web site for a
free report, they are required to give personal financial
information, which Experian uses to enroll them into its Triple
Advantage credit-monitoring program -- without warning.

Experian charges their credit cards $14.95 a month for Triple
Advantage, the class says.  This makes Experian's "extensive use
of the form 'free' fraudulent and misleading," the complaint
states.

Until the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint with similar
allegations against Experian in 2005, the company had been
operating under the name ConsumerInfo.  The Commission's
allegations led to an agreement in which the company "agreed to
stop its fraud," according to the complaint.

But it did not stop, the class claims; it adopted a new name and
continued doing it.

None of Experian's commercials make direct mention of the Triple
Advantage program, the class claims.

On the Web site, the company acknowledges that neither
ConsumerInfo.com nor FreeCreditReport.com are affiliated with the
annual free credit report program, which provides consumers with
one free report each year from each of the three nationwide
consumer reporting companies.

The class action cites a November 2009 New York Times article
that reported that for "the vast majority of consumers whose
credit status doesn't change quickly or drastically, a monitoring
service is a waste of money."

The class alleges unfair competition, false advertising, willful
deception, fraud, negligence and unjust enrichment.  It seeks
damages, restitution and an injunction.  

A copy of the Complaint in Possin v. Experian Group Ltd., Case
No. 10-cv-00126 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/03/Experian.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          John G. Balestriere, Esq.
          BALESTRIERE FARIELLO
          225 Broadway, Suite 2900
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: 212-374-5401

               - and -

          Joseph A. Ferucci, Esq.
          BROWN AND CHARBONNEAU LLP
          420 Exchange, Suite 270
          Irvine, CA 92602
          Telephone: 714-505-3000


FAMILY DOLLAR: Mo. Suit Complains About Work Policy and Practice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Family Dollar Stores of
Missouri forced its "alleged managerial" employees to work
straight time for 55 to 80 hours a week, a class action claims in
Jackson County Court, Independence.

A copy of the Employees' Petition for Damages in Walters v.
Family Dollar Stores of Missouri, Inc., Case No. 1016-CV02190
(Mo. Cir. Ct., Jackson Cty.), is available at:

   
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/03/EmployFamilyDollar.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Amy P. Maloney, Esq.
          Kirk D. Holman, Esq.
          HOLMAN SCHIAVONE, LLC
          4600 Madison Ave., Suite 810
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: 816-283-8738

               - and -

          John F. Edgar, Esq.
          Tony E. La Croix, Esq.
          EDGAR LAW FIRM, LLC
          1032 Pennsylvania Ave.
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: 816-531-0033


GOOGLE INC: Justice Dept. Criticizes Revised Author Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Helft at The New York Times reports that in another blow
to Google's plan to create a giant digital library and bookstore,
the Justice Department on Thursday said that a class-action
settlement between the company and groups representing authors
and publishers had significant legal problems, even after recent
revisions.

In a 31-page filing in The Authors Guild, Inc., et al. v. Google
Inc., Case No. 05-cv-08136 (S.D.N.Y.) (Chin, J.), that could
influence a federal judge's ruling on the settlement, the
department said the new agreement was much improved from an
earlier version. But it said the changes were not enough to
placate concerns that the deal would grant Google a monopoly over
millions of orphan works, meaning books whose right holders are
unknown or cannot be found.

A copy of the government's filing is available at:

     http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/technology/20100205_googlebooks.pdf

The department also indicated that the revised agreement, like
its predecessor, appeared to run afoul of authors' copyrights and
was too broad in scope.

The revised agreement "suffers from the same core problem as the
original agreement: it is an attempt to use the class-action
mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that
go far beyond the dispute before the court in this litigation,"
the department wrote.

The department asked the court to encourage the parties to
continue discussions on further changes to the settlement, which
it said had many public benefits.

While the Justice Department did not explicitly urge the court to
reject the deal, as it had the previous version, its opposition
on copyright, class action and antitrust grounds represented a
further setback for Google and the other parties to the deal.

The settlement stems from copyright lawsuits filed by the Authors
Guild and the Association of American Publishers over Google's
plan to digitize books from major libraries. The settlement,
introduced in October 2008, would allow Google to make millions
of books available online and commercialize them, while creating
new ways for authors and publishers to earn money from digital
copies of their works.

But the deal faced a chorus of critics who argued that it would
give Google a monopoly on millions of out-of-print books and had
failed to take into account the interests of many authors.

In a statement on behalf of Google and the author and publisher
groups, a Google spokesman, Gabriel Stricker, said the Justice
Department's filing "recognizes the progress made with the
revised settlement, and it once again reinforces the value the
agreement can provide in unlocking access to millions of books in
the U.S." He said Google looked forward to the court's review of
the department's views and those of the deal's supporters.

Critics of the agreement include Amazon, Microsoft and a range of
authors, academics and public interest groups.

Judge Denny Chin of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, who will rule on the settlement,
scheduled a hearing on the agreement for Feb. 18.


HARLEYSVILLE NATIONAL: Shareholder Lawsuit Filed in E.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
RTT News reports that Harleysville National Corp. disclosed that
a class action has been initiated by Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
& Robbins LLP, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a proposed class of
the company's shareholders and their successors-in-interest,
other than defendants or those associated with defendants, who
were holders of record on December 7, 2009, and eligible to vote
at the January 22, 2010, shareholder meeting.  The complaint
charges the members of Harleysville's Board of Directors with
violations of federal securities laws for their failure to
provide shareholders with all material information in the merger
proxy statement seeking shareholder approval of the merger
between Harleysville and First Niagara Financial Group, Inc.

A copy of the Complaint in Maffia v. Garaghty, et al., Case No.
10-cv-00508 (E.D. Pa.) (Diamond, J.), is available at:

     http://www.csgrr.com/cases/harleysville/complaint.pdf

Mr. Maffia is represented by:

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C.
          100 Penn Square East
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: 215-561-3600

               - and -  

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          Aaron W. Beard, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101         
          Telephone: 619-231-1058

               - and -  

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP
          3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: 214-744-3000

               - and -  

          Michael J. Boni, Esq.
          BONI & ZACK LLC
          15 St. Asaphs Rd.
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: 610-822-0201

               - and -  
          Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
          DONOVAN SEARLES, LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-732-6067

Shoemaker, et ux. v. Geraghty, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00204 (E.D.
Pa.) (Diamond, J.), also names Harleysville and First Niagara as
defendants.  In that litigation, Mr. and Mrs. Shoemaker are
represented by:

          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: 610-667-6200

In Shoemaker, Harleysville National Corp. and its officers and
directors are represented by:

          Kristina Carol Evans, Esq.
          Michael L. Kichline, Esq.
          Michael J. Newman, Esq.
          Joseph A. Tate, Esq.
          DECHERT, LLP
          Cira Centre
          2929 Arch St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Telephone: 215-994-2331

and First Niagara is represented by:

          ROBERT J. LANE, JR., Esq.
          IVAN E. LEE, Esq.
          HODGSON RUSS LLP
          The Guaranty Bldg., Suite 100
          140 Pearl St.
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: 716-856-4000

               - and -  

          James H. Thomas, Esq.
          BLAKINGER, BYLER & THOMAS, P.C.
          28 Penn Square
          Lancaster, PA 17603
          Telephone: 717-299-1100


LODGIAN INC: Faces Suit in Georgia Over Plan Merger with LSREF
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lodgian, Inc., faces a putative class action filed in the
Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, over its planned merger
with LSREF Lodging Investments, LLC, according to the company's
Feb. 2, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.  

On Jan. 22, 2010, Hospitality Mortgage Investments, LLC, and an
affiliate of LSREF Lodging Investments, purchased the lender's
interest in Lodgian's $130 million mortgage loan facility
originally made by Goldman Sachs Commercial Mortgage Capital,
L.P.

An amendment to the loan was also concurrently entered into by
Hospitality and Lodgian's subsidiary borrowing entities which own
the hotels securing the loan.

The material terms of the loan amendment are:

     -- Effective immediately, the cash lockbox provisions of
        the loan were amended to provide that excess cash flow
        from the mortgaged properties after debt service,
        reserves and operating expenses, will not be retained by
        the lender in an excess cash flow reserve account, but
        will instead be released to the borrowers on a monthly
        basis, even if the properties do not meet previously
        required financial ratio tests.

     -- The deadline for Lodgian's subsidiary which owns the
        Crowne Plaza Albany, New York, to complete renovation
        work on the hotel's parking structure was extended to
        May 1, 2010.

     -- The allocated loan amounts for each of the properties
        securing the loan were readjusted.

     -- Effective July 1, 2010, after the merger contemplated by
        the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated Jan. 22, 2010,
        by and among Lodgian, LSREF Lodging Investments
         (Purchaser), and LSREF Lodging Merger Co., Inc., an
        affiliate of Purchaser (Merger Sub) is currently
        expected to have closed, the margin over LIBOR used to
        determine the interest rate on the loan will be
        increased from 1.50% to 4.25%.

     -- If the Merger Agreement is validly terminated for any
        reason other than as a result of a breach by Purchaser
        of any of its representations, warranties, covenants or
        agreements contained in the Merger Agreement such that
        certain of Lodgian's closing conditions set forth in the
        Merger Agreement would not be met, Lodgian's subsidiary
        borrowing entities on the loan will be required, in
        their sole discretion, to either pay down the principal
        balance of the loan by $5,000,000, or to cause the
        Holiday Inn Monroeville, Pennsylvania property to be
        pledged as additional security for the loan.  If the
        Holiday Inn Monroeville, Pennsylvania property is
        pledged as additional security for the loan, it may be
        subsequently released from the loan upon payment of cash
        release price of $5,000,000.

On Jan. 26, 2010, a putative class action was commenced against
Lodgian, each of Lodgian's directors, Purchaser and Merger Sub
alleging that the members of Lodgian's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Lodgian shareholders in
approving and adopting a merger agreement that allegedly contains
preclusive deal protection measures and unfair merger
consideration.

The complaint further alleges that Lodgian, Purchaser and Merger
Sub aided and abetted Lodgian's directors in allegedly breaching
their fiduciary duties.

The complaint seeks to enjoin the completion of the Merger, an
award of unspecified monetary damages and to recover certain
costs incurred by the plaintiff.

Lodgian, Inc. -- http://www.lodgian.com/-- is an independent  
owner and operator of full-service hotels in the United States.  
The company operates substantially all of its hotels under
brands, such as Crowne Plaza, Four Points by Sheraton, Hilton,
Holiday Inn, Marriott and Wyndham.


LODGIAN INC: Faces Suit Over Planned LSREF Merger in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lodgian, Inc., faces a putative class action filed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware, over its planned merger
with LSREF Lodging Investments, LLC, according to the company's
Feb. 2, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.  

On Jan. 22, 2010, Hospitality Mortgage Investments, LLC, and an
affiliate of LSREF Lodging Investments, purchased the lender's
interest in Lodgian's $130 million mortgage loan facility
originally made by Goldman Sachs Commercial Mortgage Capital,
L.P.

An amendment to the loan was also concurrently entered into by
Hospitality and Lodgian's subsidiary borrowing entities which own
the hotels securing the loan.

The material terms of the loan amendment are:

     -- Effective immediately, the cash lockbox provisions of
        the loan were amended to provide that excess cash flow
        from the mortgaged properties after debt service,
        reserves and operating expenses, will not be retained by
        the lender in an excess cash flow reserve account, but
        will instead be released to the borrowers on a monthly
        basis, even if the properties do not meet previously
        required financial ratio tests.

     -- The deadline for Lodgian's subsidiary which owns the
        Crowne Plaza Albany, New York, to complete renovation
        work on the hotel's parking structure was extended to
        May 1, 2010.

     -- The allocated loan amounts for each of the properties
        securing the loan were readjusted.

     -- Effective July 1, 2010, after the merger contemplated by
        the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated Jan. 22, 2010,
        by and among Lodgian, LSREF Lodging Investments
         (Purchaser), and LSREF Lodging Merger Co., Inc., an
        affiliate of Purchaser (Merger Sub) is currently
        expected to have closed, the margin over LIBOR used to
        determine the interest rate on the loan will be
        increased from 1.50% to 4.25%.

     -- If the Merger Agreement is validly terminated for any
        reason other than as a result of a breach by Purchaser
        of any of its representations, warranties, covenants or
        agreements contained in the Merger Agreement such that
        certain of Lodgian's closing conditions set forth in the
        Merger Agreement would not be met, Lodgian's subsidiary
        borrowing entities on the loan will be required, in
        their sole discretion, to either pay down the principal
        balance of the loan by $5,000,000, or to cause the
        Holiday Inn Monroeville, Pennsylvania property to be
        pledged as additional security for the loan.  If the
        Holiday Inn Monroeville, Pennsylvania property is
        pledged as additional security for the loan, it may be
        subsequently released from the loan upon payment of cash
        release price of $5,000,000.

On Jan. 29, 2010, a putative class action was commenced Lodgian,
each of Lodgian's directors, Purchaser, Merger Sub and Lone Star
Funds, an affiliate of Purchaser and Merger Sub (Lone Star),
alleging that the members of Lodgian's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Lodgian shareholders by
allegedly failing to obtain the highest price available for
Lodgian's shareholders, failing to adequately shop Lodgian and
approving a merger agreement that contains preclusive deal
protection measures.

The complaint further alleges that Lone Star aided and abetted
Lodgian's directors in allegedly breaching their fiduciary
duties.

The complaint seeks to enjoin the completion of the Merger, an
order compelling the directors to undertake a new sale process,
an award of unspecified monetary damages and costs of litigation.

Lodgian, Inc. -- http://www.lodgian.com/-- is an independent  
owner and operator of full-service hotels in the United States.  
The company operates substantially all of its hotels under
brands, such as Crowne Plaza, Four Points by Sheraton, Hilton,
Holiday Inn, Marriott and Wyndham.


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Plaintiffs Ask for $700,000 in Fees
------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter McClain, et al., v. Lufkin
Industries, on Jan. 29, 2010, filed a motion with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for a
supplemental award of $700,000 for attorney's fees, costs and
expenses incurred between Jan. 1, 2009 and Jan. 15, 2010, as
allowed in the final judgment issued by the Court on Jan. 15,
2010, related to the company's ongoing class-action lawsuit.

The Court ordered Lufkin Industries to pay the plaintiff class
$3.3 million in damages, $2.2 million in pre-judgment interest
and 0.41% interest for any post-judgment interest.  The company
had previously estimated the total liability for damages and
interest to be approximately $5.2 million.

The Court also ordered the plaintiffs to submit a request for
legal fees and expenses from Jan. 1, 2009 through the date of the
final judgment.  The plaintiffs are required to submit this
request within 14 days of the final judgment.  Until the
plaintiffs submit this reimbursement request and the Court
reviews their request, the company says it cannot reasonably
estimate this liability.

On Jan. 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of the District Court's
final judgment.

On Jan. 21, 2010, the company filed a notice of cross-appeal with
the same court.  In addition, the company filed a motion with the
District Court to stay the payment of damages referenced in the
District Court's final judgment pending the outcome of the Fifth
Circuit's decision on both parties' appeals.  The District Court
has not yet ruled on this motion to stay.

The Company will accrue an additional charge of $300,000 during
the fourth quarter of 2009 related to the interest and damages
award.

In the fourth quarter of 2009, the company will record a
provision of $1.0 million for these legal expenses and accrual
adjustments for the final judgment award of damages, according to
the company's Feb. 2, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The suit is McClain, et al., v. Lufkin Industries, Case No. 97-
00063 (E.D. Tex.) (Cobb, J.).

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Morris J. Baller, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN DEMCHAK BALLER BORGEN
          300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: 510-763-9800
          Fax: 1-510-835-1417
          E-mail: mjb@gdblegal.com

               - and -  

          Timothy Borne Garrigan, Esq.
          STUCKEY GARRIGAN & CASTETTER
          2803 North Street, P.O. Box 631902
          Nacogdoches, TX 75963-1902
          Phone: 936-560-6020
          Fax: 1-936-560-9578
          E-mail: tbgstugar@cox-internet.com

The Company is represented by:

          Christopher V. Bacon, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS
          1001 Fannin St., Suite 2300
          Houston, TX 77002-6760
          Phone: 713-758-2222
          Fax: 1-713-615-5014
          E-mail: cbacon@velaw.com


PANTRY INC: Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the plaintiffs for class certification in several
purported class action lawsuits against The Pantry, Inc., over
motor fuel that was greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit at the
time of sale, remains pending, according to the company's Feb. 2,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 24, 2009.

Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class action lawsuits
have been filed in federal courts across the country against
numerous companies in the petroleum industry.  Major petroleum
companies and significant retailers in the industry have been
named as defendants in these lawsuits.

The company has been named as a defendant in seven cases:

     -- one in Florida (Cozza, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA,
        Inc. et al., S.D. Fla., No. 9:07-cv-80156-DMM, filed on
        Feb. 16, 2007;

     -- one in Delaware (Becker, et al. v. Marathon Petroleum
        Company LLC, et al., D. Del., No. 1:07-cv-00136, filed
        on March 7, 2007;

     -- one in North Carolina (Neese, et al. v. Abercrombie Oil
        Company, Inc., et al., E.D.N.C., No. 5:07-cv-00091-FL,
        filed on March 7, 2007);

     -- one in Alabama (Snable, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA,
        Inc., et al., N.D. Ala., No. 7:07-cv-00535-LSC, filed on
        March 26, 2007;

     -- one in Georgia (Rutherford, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA,
        Inc., et al., No. 4:07-cv-00113-HLM, filed on June 5,              
        2007;

     -- one in Tennessee (Shields, et al. v. RaceTrac Petroleum,
        Inc., et al., No. 1:07-cv-00169, filed on
        July 13, 2007); and

     -- one in South Carolina (Korleski v. BP Corporation North
        America, Inc., et al., D.S.C., No 6:07-cv-03218-MDL,
        filed on Sept. 24, 2007.

Pursuant to an Order entered by the Joint Panel on Multi-District
Litigation, all of the cases, including the seven in which the
company is named, have been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas and consolidated for all pre-
trial proceedings.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that they are
retail purchasers who received less motor fuel than the
defendants agreed to deliver because the defendants measured the
amount of motor fuel they delivered in non-temperature adjusted
gallons which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy.

These cases seek, among other relief, an order requiring the
defendants to install temperature adjusting equipment on their
retail motor fuel dispensing devices.  In certain of the cases,
including some of the cases in which we are named, plaintiffs
also have alleged that because defendants pay fuel taxes based on
temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons, but allegedly collect
taxes from consumers on non-temperature adjusted gallons,
defendants receive a greater amount of tax from consumers than
they paid on the same gallon of fuel.

The plaintiffs in these cases seek, among other relief, recovery
of excess taxes paid and punitive damages.

Both types of cases seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs, and prejudgment interest.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss all cases for failure to
state a claim, which were denied by the court on Feb. 21, 2008.

A number of the defendants, including the company, subsequently
moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in
the alternative, for summary judgment on the grounds that
plaintiffs' claims constitute non-justiciable "political
questions."

The Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on political
question grounds on Dec. 3, 2009.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion with the court to certify
an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit.

Plaintiffs' motions for class certification, which defendants
have opposed, remain pending.

The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.thepantry.com/-- operates an  
independently operated convenience store chain in the United
States.


PANTRY INC: Continues to Defend "Chism" Suit in Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------
The Pantry, Inc., continues to defend a lawsuit over unpaid
wages, according to the company's Feb. 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 24, 2009.

On Sept. 29, 2009, Wimbreth Chism and Charlotte Minor, on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of classes of those similarly
situated, filed suit against The Pantry in the Circuit Court of
Tuscaloosa County, Alabama (Wimbreth Chism et.al. v. The Pantry,
Inc d/b/a Kangaroo Express, No. 63-CV-2009-900612.00).

The plaintiffs seek collective action status and assert claims on
behalf of present and former employees for unpaid wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended.

The plaintiffs generally allege that they are or were employed by
The Pantry as store managers, but were misclassified as exempt,
and as such are or were entitled to overtime compensation.  The
suit seeks permission to give notice of this action to all
current and former employees who were employed as store managers
during the three years immediately preceding the filing of this
suit.

The plaintiffs also seek damages, liquidated damages, costs, pre-
judgment interest and attorneys' fees, and any injunctive and/or
declaratory relief to which they may be entitled.

On October 28, 2009, the company removed the matter to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Western
Division, and on Nov. 18, 2009 filed an Answer to the Complaint.


The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.thepantry.com/-- operates an  
independently operated convenience store chain in the United
States.


PANTRY INC: Wants to Transfer "Gee" Suit to Alabama
---------------------------------------------------
The Pantry, Inc.'s motion to transfer the suit captioned Gee, et.
al. v. The Pantry, Inc. a/k/a Kangaroo Express No 3109-CV-1140,
from the  U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, Western
Division, remains pending, according to the company's Feb. 2,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 24, 2009.

On Nov. 19, 2009, Andrea Gee, on her own behalf and on behalf of
those similarly situated, filed suit against The Pantry in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Gee, et.
al. v. The Pantry, Inc. a/k/a Kangaroo Express No 3109-CV-1140).

The plaintiff seeks collective action status and asserts claims
on behalf of present and former employees for unpaid wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended.

The plaintiff in the generally allege that they are or were
employed by The Pantry as store managers, but were misclassified
as exempt, and as such are or were entitled to overtime
compensation.  The suit seeks permission to give notice of this
action to all current and former employees who were employed as
store managers during the three years immediately preceding the
filing of this suit.

The plaintiffs also seek damages, liquidated damages, costs, pre-
judgment interest and attorneys' fees, and any injunctive and/or
declaratory relief to which they may be entitled.

On Jan. 12, 2010, the company filed a motion to transfer the
matter to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama,
Western Division, and the motion is currently pending.  

The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.thepantry.com/-- operates an  
independently operated convenience store chain in the United
States.


PANTRY INC: Defends "Amason" Suit Over FACTA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
The Pantry, Inc., defends a suit alleging violations of the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, according to the company's
Feb. 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 24, 2009.

On Oct. 19, 2009, Patrick Amason, on behalf of himself and a
putative class of similarly situated individuals, filed suit
against The Pantry in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, Western Division (Patrick Amason v. Kangaroo
Express and The Pantry, Inc. No. CV-09-P-2117-W).

The plaintiff seeks class action status and alleges that The
Pantry included more information than is permitted on
electronically printed credit and debit card receipts in willful
violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act,
codified at 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c(g).

The plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages for each
alleged willful violation of the statute, as well as attorneys'
fees, costs, punitive damages and a permanent injunction against
the alleged unlawful practice.

The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.thepantry.com/-- operates an  
independently operated convenience store chain in the United
States.


QUEST RESOURCE: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Okla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Resource Corp. continues to defend a consolidated suit
alleging violation of federal securities laws, according to the
company's Feb. 2, 2010, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

Four putative class action complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma naming
the company, its subsidiary Quest Energy Partners, L.P., and
Quest Energy GP, LLC and certain of their current and former
officers and directors as defendants.  The complaints were filed
by certain stockholders on behalf of themselves and other
stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between May
2, 2005 and Aug. 25, 2008 and QELP common units between Nov. 7,
2007 and Aug. 25, 2008.

The four suits are:

     (1) Michael Friedman, individually and on behalf of all
         others similarly situated v. Quest Energy Partners LP,
         Quest Energy GP LLC, Quest Resource Corporation, Jerry
         Cash, and David E. Grose, Case No. 08-cv-936-M, U.S.
         District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma,
         filed Sept. 5, 2008;

     (2) James Jents, individually and on behalf of all others
         similarly situated v. Quest Resource Corporation, Jerry
         Cash, David E. Grose, and John Garrison,
         Case No. 08-cv-968-M, U.S. District Court for the
         Western District of Oklahoma, filed Sept. 12, 2008;

     (3) J. Braxton Kyzer and Bapui Rao, individually and on
         behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quest Energy
         Partners LP, Quest Energy GP LLC, Quest Resource
         Corporation and David E. Grose, Case No. 08-cv-1066-M,
         U.S. District Court for the Western District of
         Oklahoma, filed Oct. 6, 2008; and

     (4) Paul Rosen, individually and on behalf of all others
         similarly situated v. Quest Energy Partners LP, Quest
         Energy GP LLC, Quest Resource Corporation, Jerry Cash,
         and David E. Grose, Case No. 08-cv-978-M, U.S. District
         Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, filed
         Sept. 17, 2008.

The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaints allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements and/or
concealing material facts concerning certain unauthorized
transfers of funds from subsidiaries of the company to entities
controlled by the company's former chief executive officer, Mr.
Jerry D. Cash.

The complaints also allege that, as a result of these actions,
the company's stock price and the unit price of QELP was
artificially inflated during the class period.

On Dec. 29, 2008 the court consolidated these complaints as
Michael Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Quest Energy Partners LP, Quest Energy GP
LLC, Quest Resource Corporation, Jerry Cash, and David E. Grose,
Case No. 08-cv-936-M, in the Western District of Oklahoma.

On Sept. 24, 2009, the court appointed lead plaintiffs for each
of the QRCP class and the QELP class.  The lead plaintiffs must
file a consolidated amended complaint within 60 days after being
appointed.  No further activity is expected in the purported
class action until an amended consolidated complaint is filed.

On Oct. 13, 2009, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
modification of the automatic discovery stay provided by the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Quest Resource Corporation -- http://www.questresourcecorp.com/
-- is an integrated energy company engaged in the acquisition,
exploration, development, production and transportation of oil
and natural gas.  The company operates in two segments: oil and
gas production, and natural gas pipelines, including
transporting, gathering, treating and processing natural gas.  
The company's subsidiaries include Quest Energy Partners, L.P.
and Quest Midstream GP, LLC.


QUEST RESOURCE: Cherokee Subsidiary Evaluating Settlement Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Resource Corp.'s subsidiary, Quest Cherokee, LLC, is in the
process of evaluating an initial settlement offer from the
plaintiffs in the matter Hugo Spieker, et al. v. Quest Cherokee,
LLC, Case No. 07-1225-MLB, according to the company's Feb. 2,
2010, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Quest Cherokee was named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit
filed on Aug. 6, 2007, by several royalty owners in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas.  The case was filed by
the named plaintiffs on behalf of a putative class consisting of
all Quest Cherokee's royalty and overriding royalty owners in the
Kansas portion of the Cherokee Basin.

Plaintiffs contend that Quest Cherokee failed to properly make
royalty payments to them and the putative class by, among other
things, paying royalties based on reduced volumes instead of
volumes measured at the wellheads, by allocating expenses in
excess of the actual costs of the services represented, by
allocating production costs to the royalty owners, by improperly
allocating marketing costs to the royalty owners, and by making
the royalty payments after the statutorily proscribed time for
doing so without providing the required interest.

Quest Cherokee answered the complaint and denied plaintiffs'
claims.

On July 21, 2009, the court had granted plaintiffs' motion to
compel production of Quest Cherokee's electronically stored
information, or ESI, and directed the parties to decide upon a
timeframe for producing Quest Cherokee's ESI.

Discovery has been stayed until Dec. 5, 2009 to allow the parties
to discuss settlement terms.

Quest Cherokee has received an initial settlement offer from
plaintiffs' counsel and is in the process of evaluating that
offer and its response to the same.

Quest Resource Corporation -- http://www.questresourcecorp.com/
-- is an integrated energy company engaged in the acquisition,
exploration, development, production and transportation of oil
and natural gas.  The company operates in two segments: oil and
gas production, and natural gas pipelines, including
transporting, gathering, treating and processing natural gas.  
The company's subsidiaries include Quest Energy Partners, L.P.
and Quest Midstream GP, LLC.


RENTECH INC: Faces Three Shareholder-Related Suits in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rentech, Inc., faces three purported class action shareholder
lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, according to the company's Feb. 2, 2010,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Between Dec. 29, 2009 and Jan. 6, 2010, three purported class
action shareholder lawsuits were filed against the company and
certain of its current and former directors and officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  
The case captions are:

     (1) Michael Silbergleid v. Rentech, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 2:09-cv-09495-GHK-PJW;

     (2) Moti Ben-Ami v. Rentech, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 2:09-cv-09555-JFW-MAN; and

     (3) Kevin Kelly v. Rentech, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 2:10-cv-00069-SVW-CT.

The complaints allege that the company and the named current and
former directors and officers made false or misleading statements
regarding the company's financial performance in connection with
its financial statements for fiscal year 2008 and the first three
quarters of fiscal year 2009.

Plaintiffs in the three actions purport to bring claims on behalf
of all persons who purchased Rentech securities between May 9,
2008 and Dec. 14, 2009 and seek unspecified damages, interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company has not yet filed a response to the complaints.    

Rentech, Inc. -- http://www.rentechinc.com/-- is focused on  
providing clean energy solutions.  The company is focusing on the
deployment of the Rentech Process and the Rentech-SilvaGas
biomass gasification technology (Rentech-SilvaGas Technology)
through both licensing of its technology and development of
facilities to produce synthetic fuels and chemicals, natural gas
substitutes, and electric power from renewable and fossil
feedstocks.


SCHYLLING ASSOC: Paying $200,000 to Resolve Lead Paint Problem
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reports that
Schylling Associates Inc., of Rowley, Mass., has agreed to pay a
$200,000 civil penalty.

A Settlement Agreement -- see http://is.gd/7Ljml-- provisionally  
accepted by the Commission, resolves staff allegations that the
company violated the federal lead paint ban regarding toys with
surface paints containing lead above the 600 parts per million
(ppm) legal limit applicable at the time, and failed to
immediately report to CPSC information about the non-compliant
toys.

In 1978, a federal ban was established that prohibited toys and
other children's articles from having more than 600 ppm (by
weight) in paints or surface coatings. The regulatory limit was
reduced to 90 ppm on August 14, 2009, as a result of the Consumer
Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.

The settlement resolves the following allegations:

   * Schylling imported up to 66,000 units of non-compliant
     spinning top toys with Thomas and Friends, Curious George
     and Circus graphics between June 2001 and June 2002, and
     distributed them to its retail business customers for sale
     to consumers.

   * Schylling imported as many as 10,200 units of non-compliant
     tin pail toys with Thomas and Friends, Curious George and
     Primary Colors graphics from late January 2002 through March
     2002, and distributed about 4,700 of them to its retail
     customers for sale to consumers.

   * Schylling also imported as many as 3,600 units of non-
     compliant Winnie-the-Pooh style spinning top toys between
     April and May 2003, and distributed them to its retail
     customers for sale to consumers.

   * Although it eventually reported about these toys to CPSC in
     2007, Schylling knew or should have known by 2002 that most
     of the toys did not comply with the lead paint ban, and it
     failed to report this information to the government in a
     timely manner.

Instead of notifying CPSC immediately, in 2002 Schylling
conducted a unilateral recall of the distributed pails by seeking
their return from affected retail business customers.

Within weeks of being notified of each of these violations in
2007, CPSC announced the firm's voluntary recall of the products
first in August and for additional toys in November of that year.

"Manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers have a
legal obligation to ensure that no banned products are introduced
into or distributed in the U.S. marketplace, and to inform CPSC
as soon as they become aware of information that must be reported
under our laws. We will continue to penalize companies that do
not follow these basic requirements," said CPSC Chairman, Inez
Tenenbaum.

In agreeing to the settlement, Schylling denies that it violated
federal law, as alleged by CPSC staff.


SEQUENOM INC: Court Gives Preliminarily Approval to Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
on Jan. 26, 2010, entered an order preliminarily approving the
stipulation of settlement reached in the class action securities
lawsuits consolidated under the caption In re Sequenom, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 3:09-cv-00921 LAB-WMC,
according to the company's Feb. 1, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In the order, the Court approved the notice of class action, the
summary notice of proposed settlement of securities class action
and proof of claim and release forms, authorized the distribution
of such forms to all potential settlement class members and
appointed Rust Consulting as the settlement administrator to
supervise and administer the notice and claim procedures.  The
stipulation of settlement remains subject to final approval by
the Court, which set May 3, 2010 as the date for the final
settlement approval hearing.

Under the settlement agreement, in exchange for a release of all
claims by the class members and a dismissal of the consolidated
lawsuits, the company has agreed:

     (i) to pay the class members and their attorneys a total of
         $14 million which will be funded from insurance
         proceeds,

    (ii) to issue to the class members and their attorneys
         shares of the company's common stock, and

   (iii) to adopt certain corporate governance measures,
         including an amendment to the company's Bylaws to
         provide that at all times a majority of the company's
         directors must be independent.

The number of shares of the company's common stock to be issued
will be determined on a date to be established after final
approval of the settlement by the U.S. District Court and will
constitute 9.95% of the shares of the company's common stock
outstanding post-issuance, provided that certain shares issued
after entry into the stipulation of settlement, including any
shares issued in a bona fide financing, in connection with a
licensing, collaboration or acquisition transaction or pursuant
to our currently existing equity incentive plans, will be
excluded from the shares outstanding calculation.

As of Dec. 23, 2009, the company had 61,693,241 shares of common
stock outstanding, and if the share number had been determined as
of that date, the company would have been obligated to issue
6,816,743 shares of common stock pursuant to the terms of the
settlement.

Sequenom, Inc. -- http://www.sequenom.com/-- is a diagnostic  
testing and genetics analysis company.  The company is focused on
providing products, services, diagnostic testing, applications
and genetic analysis products that translate the results of
genomic science into solutions for biomedical research,
translational research, molecular medicine applications, and
agricultural, livestock and other areas of research.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Beasley Allen Files Class Action Suit in S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., has filed a
complaint seeking class action status on behalf of over 5 million
Toyota owners whose vehicles have been recalled by Toyota Motor
Sales, USA Inc. The complaint was filed in the United States
District Court Southern District of Florida against Toyota Motor
Corporation and Toyota Motor Sales, USA Inc.  

The complaint in Heilbrunn v. Toyota Motor Corp., Case No.
10-cv-80208 (S.D. Fla.) (Zloch, J.), charges Toyota with breach
of warranty, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment and breach
of the covenant of good faith and alleges that Toyota has
downplayed or dismissed owner complaints of sudden unintended
acceleration, blaming it on driver error.  

Dee Miles, Esq., who heads Beasley Allen's consumer fraud and
class action department, will be working with lawyers Brian W.
Smith, Esq., in Florida, Joe R. Whatley, Esq., in New York and
Howard Rubinstein, Esq., in Colorado.

"The complaint seeks justice for those people who rely on their
vehicle for their livelihood, those who are making payments on an
automobile that they are afraid to drive and those who have made
payments on a car that they believed would last for many years
and maintain value," says Ms. Miles.

According to Sean Kane, an independent automotive safety expert
and founder of Safety Research and Strategies, Inc. says that 19
deaths and 341 injuries can be attributed to 815 separate crashes
involving Toyotas that had accelerated suddenly and unexpectedly.
2,262 incidents involving unintended acceleration have been
reported since 1999.

The makes and models in the various recalls include the 2005-2010
Avalon, 2007-2010 Camry, 2009-2010 Corolla, 2008-2010 Highlander,
2009-2010 Matrix, 2004-2009 Prius, 2005-2010 Tacoma, 2009-2010
RAV4, 2007-2010 Tundra, 2009-2010 VENZA and 2008-2010 Sequoia.
On February 3, 2010 Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told
Toyota owners they should not drive their recalled vehicles.
Secretary LaHood later recanted his statement, however millions
of Toyota owners have been left worried that their vehicles are
potential deathtraps.

The Beasley Allen firm is also handling individual product
liability lawsuits where deaths and disabling injuries are
involved.

                   About Beasley Allen Law Firm

Headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama, Beasley Allen --
http://www.beasleyallen.com/-- is comprised of over 42 attorneys  
and 200 support staff. Beasley Allen is a national leader in
civil litigation, with verdicts and settlements of over $22
billion including the $4.85 billion settlement with Merck on
behalf of over 50,000 Vioxx claimants. The Merck settlement led
by Beasley Allen was the largest settlement in American history.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Cohen & Malad Files Class Action Suit in Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawyers of Cohen & Malad, LLP have filed a class action
lawsuit against Toyota on behalf of Judy Enderle of Carmel, an
owner of a 2006 Toyota Avalon.

Ms. Enderle's attorney:

          Eric S. Pavlack, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: 317-636-6481

who is a partner at Cohen & Malad, explained, "Toyota's abuse of
American car buyers is disgusting. Toyota knew they were putting
millions of lives at risk and lied about it. It doesn't get much
worse than that."

Toyota recently recalled more than 5 million vehicles due to a
defect that can cause uncontrollable acceleration. The lawsuit
brings claims on behalf of Ms. Enderle and a proposed class of
Indiana Toyota customers whose cars suffer from the faulty
acceleration problem.

Despite mounting evidence in past years of the magnitude and
severity of this problem, Toyota's response was slow and so far
incomplete. It only issued a recall after being pressured by the
United States government, and even then, Toyota's first recall
blamed the problem on floor mats-a theory that not only has been
largely discredited, but that misled Toyota owners into believing
they could fix this deadly safety problem simply by removing
their floor mats.

The latest recall attributes the uncontrollable acceleration to a
sticky mechanism in the gas pedal, but, as Pavlack explained,
"What's the truth? No one knows. Many experts have expressed
serious doubts this is the real culprit, instead blaming the
vehicles' electronic accelerator systems. Unlike other
manufacturers who include failsafe safety systems to override
potentially deadly problems with these systems, Toyota chose not
to do so."

It will be at least weeks or months before the suspected faulty
part on the millions of Toyotas affected by this recall can be
replaced. Even if this fixes the problem-which is doubtful at
best-Toyota owners face the immediate and potentially life-and-
death decision of whether to drive their cars in the meantime. On
February 3, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Toyota
owners should stop driving their vehicles until they receive the
replacement part, only to reverse course later that day, leaving
Toyota owners more confused than ever.

Founded in 1968, Cohen & Malad -- http://www.cohenandmalad.com/
-- represents clients from throughout the United States in a
variety of legal matters.


TOYOTA MOTOR: President Akio Toyoda Apologizes for Global Recalls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yuri Kageyama at The Associated Press reports from Tokyo that
Toyota's president apologized Friday for the massive global
recalls over sticking gas pedals as the automaker scrambles to
repair a damaged reputation and sliding sales.

But Akio Toyoda, also Toyota's CEO, said the automaker is still
deciding what steps to take to fix brake problems in the popular
Prius gas-electric hybrid.

Speaking at a hastily announced news conference, a stern-looking
Toyoda promised to beef up quality control.

He said the company is setting up a special committee he would
head himself.

It would review internal checks, go over consumer complaints and
listen to outside experts to come up with a solution to the
widening quality problems.

"I offer my apologies for the worries," he said in Japanese.
"Many customers are wondering whether their cars are OK."

Toyoda said the company was moving quickly on the global recalls
covering 4.5 million vehicles for sticking gas pedals, about half
of them in the U.S.

Dealers are scrambling to make repairs on the gas pedals that
need a new steel part to prevent sticking, he said.

"Please believe me. We always put customers first," he said, when
asked by a reporter to speak in English.

He said a decision on what to do about the Prius braking problem
will be reached as soon as possible. The automaker said this week
a recall was being considered.

Mr. Toyoda, the grandson of Toyota's founder, who took office
last year, has been criticized for not coming out sooner to
answer questions about the flood of quality problems that have
hit Toyota.

The news conference at the company's headquarters in Nagoya,
Japan was shown at Toyota's Tokyo office by a satellite feed.


UNITED STATES: Pentagon Accused of Not Paying Departure Bonuses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of
retired Defense Department employees says the Pentagon refused to
pay their departure bonuses by selectively interpreting its own
regulations.  They say the Pentagon fails to inform retiring
employees that they need to stay on the job until the beginning
of the first pay period in January to qualify for the bonus.

The Superior Court complaint cites the National Defense
Authorization Act of 2004, which created a performance-based pay
structure that was meant to give pay increases to hard-working
employees, not just those who had been around the longest.

The class claims this law set the payout date for salary
increases during the first pay period in January of each year,
but the Pentagon has interpreted the law so that employees who
retire before January are shown the door without a bonus.

"There is no basis in the regulations for DOD's arbitrary
application of the January effective date for an increase in base
salary to the payment of bonuses."

Ralph Price, class representative and a Pentagon civilian
employee for 36 years, says he retired on Jan. 3, 2009, one day
before the first pay period of the year.  He says the Pentagon
stiffed him for his $4,777 bonus.

Price is suing on behalf of all retired and departing Pentagon
employees for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and bad
faith.  He and the class want an order forcing the Defense
Department to pay their performance-based bonuses and an
injunction prohibiting the Pentagon from denying future retirees
their bonuses.

A copy of the Complaint in Price v. Gates, Case No. 10-cv-00048
(E.D. Va.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/03/Pentagon.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lisa A. Bertini, Esq.
          Hyojin Bae, Esq.
          BERTINI O'DONNELL & HAMMER, PC
          999 Waterside Drive, Suite 1010
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: 757-670-3868

               - and -

          David J. Meiselman, Esq.
          Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
          Jerome Noll, Esq.
          Jill C. Owens, Esq.
          MEISELMAN, DENLEA, PACKMAN, CARTON & EBERZ P.C.
          1311 Mamaroneck Ave.
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: 914-517-5000


UNITRIN INC: Units Continue to Face Hurricane-Related Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of Unitrin, Inc., continue to defend a
significant volume of lawsuits, among them two statewide putative
class actions, in Florida, Louisiana and Texas, according to the
company's Feb. 1, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The suits arise out of property damage caused by catastrophes and
storms, including major hurricanes that have occurred over the
last several years.

In these matters, the plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive
damages, and equitable relief.

Unitrin, Inc. -- http://www.unitrin.com/-- is a diversified  
insurance holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries,
is engaged in providing property and casualty insurance, life and
health insurance, and automobile finance services. The Company
serves the basic financial needs of individuals, families and
small businesses. The Company conducts its operations through
five operating segments: Kemper, Unitrin Specialty, Unitrin
Direct, Life and Health Insurance, and Fireside Bank. On February
13, 2009, Unitrin's subsidiary, Trinity Universal Insurance
Company (Trinity) completed its acquisition of Direct Response
Corporation and its subsidiaries (Direct Response).

                            *********

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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2010.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *