CAR_Public/100218.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, February 18, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 34

                            Headlines

ARAMARK CORP: Awaits Approval of MOU in Wage Law Violations Suit
BJ SERVICES: Continues to Defend Suit Over Merger in Delaware
BJ SERVICES: Consolidated Suit in Texas Remains Pending
CABOT CORP: Settlement in Florida Suit Gets Court Approval
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Settlement Hearing of "Smith" Suit in Feb. 22

DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Continue to Defend "Day" Suit in Alberta
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Trial in Consolidated Suit Set for March 15
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Unit/OPCO Continue to Face Suits in Canada
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Settlement in "Bufil" Gets Preliminary Nod
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend WTP Customers' Suit in Mo.

DOLLAR FINANCIAL: May 2010 Trial Set for "Fitzgibbons" Status
EMCORE CORP: Selection of Lead Plaintiff in NM Suit Pending
MEDCATH CORP: No Class Certified in Suit vs. Bakersfield Heart
META FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Two Suits Over Certificates
MUELLER WATER: U.S. Pipe Still Faces Suit in Northern Alabama

NBTY INC: Suit by Calif. Nutrition Bars Consumers Still Stayed
NBTY INC: New Jersey Suit versus MET-Rx Unit Remains Stayed
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Remanded ERISA Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Class Certification in "Skinner" Suit Denied
OPNEXT INC: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Agreement

ORION ENERGY: Continues to Defend Second Amended Complaint in NY
PRESTIGE BRANDS: Consolidated Suit Settlement Gets Approval
RENTECH INC: No Response Yet to Three Lawsuits in California
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Trial in "Bates" Suit Ongoing in California
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Has Yet to Respond to Amended Complaint

VANGUARD HEALTH: Certification Motion in Antitrust Suit Pending
WARNER MUSIC: Files Petition for Hearing with Second Circuit

                            *********

ARAMARK CORP: Awaits Approval of MOU in Wage Law Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARAMARK Corp. is awaiting approval from the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California of a memorandum of
understanding settling a class action alleging violations of the
California wage and hours laws, according to the company's
Feb. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange for the quarter ended Jan. 1, 2010.

On July 29, 2009, Genaro Zendejas Morales, a former employee of
the company, and Ricky Silva and Cristian Sanchez, current
employees of ARAMARK Sports, LLC, filed a proposed class action
complaint against the company, ARAMARK Sports, Inc., and ARAMARK
Sports, LLC in the U.S. District Court, Central District of
California.

The complaint, as filed, purports to assert class claims that
defendants did not pay all monies due under California wage and
hour laws.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and
injunctive relief.

The parties have executed a memorandum of understanding for a
full settlement of the matter.  The settlement is conditioned on
approval by the court.

ARAMARK Corp. -- http://www.aramark.com/-- is a leader in  
professional services, providing award-winning food services,
facilities management, and uniform and career apparel to health
care institutions, universities and school districts, stadiums
and arenas, and businesses around the world.


BJ SERVICES: Continues to Defend Suit Over Merger in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
BJ Services Co. continues to defend an amended complaint filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, according to the
company's Feb. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Aug. 30, 2009, the company and Baker Hughes Inc. entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which the company
will merge with and into a wholly-owned subsidiary of Baker
Hughes.

In connection with the pending Baker Hughes Merger, various
lawsuits have been filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware on behalf of the public stockholders of the company,
naming the company, current members of the company's Board of
Directors, and Baker Hughes as defendants.

In the Delaware Lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that the company's Board of Directors violated various
fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement and that the
company and/or Baker Hughes aided and abetted such alleged
violations.  Among other remedies, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin
the Merger.

On Sept. 25, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court entered an order
consolidating the Delaware Lawsuits into one class action, In re:
BJ Services Company Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 4851-VCN.

On Oct. 6, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court entered an order
designating the law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP of New York, New
York as lead counsel and Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A. of
Wilmington, Delaware as liaison counsel.

On Oct. 16, 2009, lead counsel for the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in the Delaware Chancery Court which, among
other things, adds Jeffrey E. Smith, the company's Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, as a defendant, contains
new factual allegations about the merger negotiations, and
alleges the preliminary joint proxy/prospectus filed on Oct. 14,
2009, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission omits and
misrepresents material information.

BJ Services Co. -- http://www.bjservices.com/-- is a provider of  
pressure pumping and oilfield services for the petroleum
industry.  Pressure pumping services consist of cementing and
stimulation services used in the completion of new oil and
natural gas wells and in remedial work on existing wells, both
onshore and offshore.  Oilfield services include casing and
tubular services; precommissioning, maintenance, turnaround and
pipeline inspection services in the process and pipeline services
business, chemical services, completion tools, and completion
fluids.  The company conducts its operations through four
segments: U.S./Mexico Pressure Pumping Services; Canada Pressure
Pumping Services; International Pressure Pumping Services, and
Oilfield Services Group.


BJ SERVICES: Consolidated Suit in Texas Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated action styled Garden City Employees' Retirement
System, et al. v. BJ Services Company, et al., Cause No. 2009-
57320, remains stayed pending a ruling from the Court of Appeals,
according to the company's Feb. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

Various lawsuits have also been filed in the District Courts of
Harris County, Texas. The Texas Lawsuits make substantially the
same allegations as were initially asserted in the lawsuits filed
in Delaware.  The Texas Lawsuits also seek the same relief as the
ones filed in Delaware.

On Oct. 9, 2009, the Harris County Court consolidated the Texas
Lawsuits into one class action, Garden City Employees' Retirement
System, et al. v. BJ Services Company, et al., Cause No. 2009-
57320, 80th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas.

On Oct. 20, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the First District of
Texas at Houston granted the defendants' emergency motion to stay
the Texas Lawsuits pending its decision on the defendants'
petition seeking a stay of the Texas Lawsuits pending
adjudication of the lawsuits in Delaware, which were filed first.

Oral arguments were held on Dec. 15, 2009, in the Court of
Appeals.

As of Feb. 9, 2010, a ruling has not been issued from the Court
of Appeals and the Texas Lawsuits remain stayed.

BJ Services Co. -- http://www.bjservices.com/-- is a provider of  
pressure pumping and oilfield services for the petroleum
industry.  Pressure pumping services consist of cementing and
stimulation services used in the completion of new oil and
natural gas wells and in remedial work on existing wells, both
onshore and offshore.  Oilfield services include casing and
tubular services; precommissioning, maintenance, turnaround and
pipeline inspection services in the process and pipeline services
business, chemical services, completion tools, and completion
fluids.  The company conducts its operations through four
segments: U.S./Mexico Pressure Pumping Services; Canada Pressure
Pumping Services; International Pressure Pumping Services, and
Oilfield Services Group.


CABOT CORP: Settlement in Florida Suit Gets Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
The settlement agreement in a state action in Florida against
Cabot Corporation has received final court approval, according to
the company's Feb. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2009.

Cabot was one of several carbon black manufacturer defendants in
federal and state class actions initially filed in 2003 alleging
that the defendants violated federal and state antitrust laws in
connection with the sale of carbon black.

During the first quarter of fiscal 2010, the only pending state
action was in Florida, with all of the other federal and state
class actions having been previously settled.

The parties in the Florida action entered into a settlement
agreement, which received final court approval in October 2009.

Cabot Corporation -- http://www.cabot-corp.com/-- is a global  
specialty chemicals and performance materials company.  The
company's principal products are rubber and specialty grade
carbon blacks, fumed metal oxides, tantalum and related products,
inkjet colorants, aerogels and cesium formate drilling fluids.  
Cabot and its affiliates have manufacturing facilities and
operations in the United States, and approximately 20 other
countries.  Cabot is organized in four business segments: Core
Segment, , Performance Segment, New Business Segment and
Specialty Fluids Segment.  In addition, Cabot is also organized
into three geographic regions: The Americas, which includes North
and South America; Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), and
Asia Pacific, including China.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Settlement Hearing of "Smith" Suit in Feb. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has set a hearing for
Feb. 22, 2010, to consider approval of the settlement of Margaret
Smith's class action against Dollar Financial Group, Inc., and
its wholly owned subsidiaries and Dollar Financial Corp.'s
Canadian subsidiary, Money Mart, according to the company's Feb.
9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Aug. 19, 2003, a former customer in Ontario, Canada,
Ms. Smith, commenced an action against OPCO and the company's
Canadian subsidiary, Money Mart, on behalf of a purported class
of Ontario borrowers who, Smith claims, were subjected to
usurious charges in payday-loan transactions.

The action, which is pending in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, alleges violations of a Canadian federal law proscribing
usury, seeks restitution and damages, including punitive damages,
and seeks injunctive relief prohibiting further alleged usurious
charges.

The plaintiff's motion for class certification was granted on
Jan. 5, 2007.

The trial of the common issues commenced on April 27, 2009, but
was suspended when the parties reached a settlement.

During the fiscal quarter and fiscal year ended June 30, 2009,
the company's Canadian subsidiary, Money Mart, recorded a charge
of US$57.4 million in relation to the pending Ontario settlement
and for the potential settlement of certain of the similar class
action proceedings pending in other Canadian provinces.

Court approval of the settlement is required and a hearing is
presently scheduled for February 22, 2010.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading  
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the Company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs
of these customers, the Company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Continue to Defend "Day" Suit in Alberta
----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Group, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries
(OPCO) and Dollar Financial Corp.'s Canadian subsidiary, Money
Mart, continues to defend H. Craig Day's class action in the
Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Canada.

On March 5, 2007, a former customer, H. Craig Day, commenced an
action against OPCO, Money Mart and several of the company's
franchisees in Canada, on behalf of a putative class of consumers
who obtained short-term loans from Money Mart in Alberta.

The allegations, putative class and relief sought in the Day
action are substantially the same as those in the action by
Gareth Young in the same court but relate to a claim period that
commences before and ends after the claim period in the Young
action and excludes the claim period described in that action.

No steps have been taken in the action since March 2007,
according to the company's Feb. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading  
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the Company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs
of these customers, the Company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Trial in Consolidated Suit Set for March 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
Summary trial in a consolidated class action against Dollar
Financial Corp.'s Canadian subsidiary, Money Mart, and Dollar
Financial Group, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries (OPCO),
is scheduled to commence on March 15, 2010, according to the
company's Feb. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Jan. 29, 2003, a former customer, Kurt MacKinnon, commenced an
action against Money Mart and 26 other Canadian lenders on behalf
of a purported class of British Columbia residents who, MacKinnon
claims were overcharged in payday-loan transactions.

The action, which is pending in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, alleges violations of laws proscribing usury and
unconscionable trade practices and seeks restitution and damages,
including punitive damages, in an unknown amount.

Following initial denial, MacKinnon obtained an order permitting
him to re-apply for class certification of the action against
Money Mart alone, which was appealed. The Court of Appeal granted
MacKinnon the right to apply to the original judge to have her
amend her order denying class certification.

On June 14, 2006, the original judge granted the requested order
and Money Mart's request for leave to appeal the order was
dismissed.  The certification motion in this action proceeded in
conjunction with the certification motion in the Parsons action.

On April 15, 2005, the solicitor acting for MacKinnon commenced a
proposed class action against Money Mart on behalf of another
former customer, Louise Parsons.

Class certification of the consolidated MacKinnon and Parsons
actions was granted on March 14, 2007.

In December 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to add OPCO as a
defendant in this action and in March 2008, an order was granted
adding OPCO as a defendant.  

On July 25, 2008, the plaintiffs' motion to certify the action
against OPCO was granted.

Discovery has been completed and a summary trial is scheduled to
commence on March 15, 2010.

In an affidavit recently filed in the action, the plaintiffs
estimated damages in the amount of approximately C$120 million
plus interest.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading  
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the Company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs
of these customers, the Company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Unit/OPCO Continue to Face Suits in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp.'s Canadian subsidiary, Money Mart, and
Dollar Financial Group, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries
(OPCO) continue to face purported class actions in other Canadian
states.

Purported class actions have been commenced against Money Mart in
Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.

OPCO is named as a defendant in the actions commenced in Nova
Scotia and Newfoundland.

The claims in these actions are substantially similar to those in
the action filed by a former customer in Ontario, Canada,
Margaret Smith on behalf of a purported class of Ontario
borrowers who were subjected to usurious charges in payday-loan
transactions.

No further details were reported in the company's Feb. 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading  
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the Company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs
of these customers, the Company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Settlement in "Bufil" Gets Preliminary Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in a class action suit against Dollar Financial
Group, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries (OPCO), filed by
Caren Bufil has received preliminary approval from the court,
according to the company's Feb. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

On Sept. 11, 2006, Caren Bufil commenced a lawsuit against OPCO;
the claims in Bufil are substantially similar to the claims in a
previously dismissed case.  

Bufil sought and obtained class certification of the action
alleging that OPCO failed to provide non-management employees
with meal and rest breaks required under California law.

The suit sought an unspecified amount of damages and other
relief.

In September 2009, the company was successful in settling the
action, and has recorded a charge of $1.3 million.

Preliminary court approval of the settlement was granted in
November 2009 and final court approval will be scheduled later in
2010.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading  
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the Company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs
of these customers, the Company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend WTP Customers' Suit in Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp. continues to defend a purported class
action suit filed on behalf of customers of the company's We The
People stores in Missouri, according to the company's Feb. 9,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In August 2008, a group of six former We The People customers
commenced a lawsuit in St. Louis County, Missouri against the
company, its subsidiary, We The People USA, Inc. and WTP
franchisees offering services to Missouri consumers.

The plaintiffs allege, on behalf of a putative class of over
1,000 consumers that, from 2002 to the present, defendants
violated Missouri law by engaging in:

     (i) an unauthorized law business,

    (ii) the unauthorized practice of law, and

   (iii) unlawful merchandising practices in the sale of its
         legal documents.

The plaintiffs are seeking class certification, prohibition of
the defendants' unlawful business practices, and damages on
behalf of the class in the form of disgorgement of all monies and
profits obtained from unlawful business practices, attorney's
fees, statutory and treble damages pursuant to various Missouri
consumer protection codes.

In November 2008, the original six plaintiffs were dismissed by
plaintiffs' counsel and the initial complaint was also later
dismissed.

In January 2009, former WTP customers, Philip Jones and Carol
Martin, on behalf of a punitive class of Missouri customers,
filed a lawsuit in St. Louis County against the Company and its
subsidiary, We The People USA, Inc., and a St. Louis franchisee
entity alleging claims similar to the initial August 2008 suit.  
These new plaintiffs also seek class certification.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading  
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the Company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs
of these customers, the Company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: May 2010 Trial Set for "Fitzgibbons" Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
A trial in a lawsuit filed by Jacqueline Fitzgibbons against
Dollar Financial Corp. is scheduled for May 2010, according to
the company's Feb. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2009.

In September 2007, Jacqueline Fitzgibbons, who claims to be a
former customer of a We The People store, commenced a lawsuit
against the company and others in California Superior Court for
Alameda County.

The suit alleges on behalf of a putative class of consumers and
senior citizens that, from 2003 to 2007, We The People violated
California law by advertising and selling living trusts and wills
to certain California residents. Fitzgibbons claims, among other
things, that the company and others improperly conspired to
provide her with legal advice, misled her as to what, if any,
legitimate service We The People provided in preparing documents,
and misled her regarding the supervising attorneys' role in
preparing documents.

The plaintiff is seeking class certification, prohibition of the
company's alleged unlawful business practices, and damages on
behalf of the class in the form of disgorgement of all monies and
profits obtained from unlawful business practices, general and
special damages, attorneys' fees and costs of the suit, statutory
and tremble damages pursuant to various California business,
elder abuse, and consumer protection codes.

The complaint has been amended several times to add new parties
and additional claims.

The Court granted, in part, the company's motion to dismiss
certain claims alleged by the plaintiffs.

In January 2009, an individual named Robert Blau replaced
Fitzgibbons as lead plaintiff.

A motion to certify the class was heard in October 2009 and the
court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of claims
for fraud, false advertising and violations of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act but granted class certification of the claim that
WTP's business model violates certain unfair competition laws in
California.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading  
diversified international financial services company serving
unbanked and under-banked consumers.  Its customers are typically
service sector individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the Company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.  To meet the needs
of these customers, the Company provides a range of consumer
financial products and services primarily consisting of check
cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union
money order and money transfer products, currency exchange,
reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.


EMCORE CORP: Selection of Lead Plaintiff in NM Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Selection of a lead plaintiff in a to-be consolidated action
against EMCORE Corporation is currently pending before the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico, according to the
company's Feb. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

                        Prissert Suit

On Dec. 23, 2008, Plaintiffs Maurice Prissert and Claude Prissert
filed a purported stockholder class action pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23 allegedly on behalf of a class of
company shareholders against the company and certain of its
present and former directors and officers in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico captioned, Maurice Prissert
and Claude Prissert v. EMCORE Corporation, Adam Gushard, Hong Q.
Hou, Reuben F. Richards, Jr., David Danzilio and Thomas Werthan,
Case No. 1:08cv1190 (D.N.M.).

The Complaint alleges that company and the Individual Defendants
violated certain provisions of the federal securities laws,
including Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
arising out of the company's disclosure regarding its customer
Green and Gold Energy and the associated backlog of GGE orders
with the company's Photovoltaics business segment.  
The Complaint in the Class Action seeks, among other things, an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other costs and
expenses associated with the maintenance of the Action.

                         Mueller Suit

On or about Feb. 12, 2009, a second purported stockholder class
action captioned Mueller v. EMCORE Corporation et al., Case No.
1:09cv 133, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Mexico against the same defendants named in the Prissert
Class Action, based on substantially the same facts and
circumstances, containing substantially the same allegations and
seeking substantially the same relief.

Plaintiffs in both class actions have moved to consolidate the
matters into a single action, and several alleged EMCORE
shareholders have moved to be appointed lead class plaintiff of
the to-be consolidated action.  Selection of a lead plaintiff in
this matter is currently pending before the Court.

EMCORE Corporation -- http://www.emcore.com/-- is a provider of  
compound semiconductor-based components and subsystems for the
broadband, fiber optic, satellite, and terrestrial solar power
markets.  The company has two reporting segments: Fiber Optics
and Photovoltaics. Fiber Optics segment offers optical
components, subsystems, and systems that enable the transmission
of video, voice, and data over high-capacity fiber optic cables
for high-speed data and telecommunications, cable television
(CATV) and fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) networks.  Photovoltaics
segment provides solar products for satellite and terrestrial
applications.


MEDCATH CORP: No Class Certified in Suit vs. Bakersfield Heart
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class has yet to be certified in a purported class action law
suit filed by an individual against MedCath Corp.'s Bakersfield
Heart Hospital, according to the company's Feb. 9, 2010, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On or about Oct. 6, 2009, a purported class action law suit was
filed by an individual against the Bakersfield Heart Hospital.

The suit alleges that under California law, and specifically
under the Knox-Keene Healthcare Service Plan Act of 1975, and
under the Health and Safety Code of California that California
prohibits the practice of "balance billing" patients who are
provided "emergency services" as defined under California law.

A class has not been certified by the court in this case.

MedCath Corp. -- http://www.medcath.com/-- is a healthcare  
provider focused primarily on the diagnosis and treatment of
cardiovascular disease.  The company owns and operates hospitals
in partnership with physicians. It has ownership interests in and
operates nine hospitals, including seven, in which it owns a
majority interest.  Each of its majority-owned hospitals is a
freestanding, licensed general acute care hospital that provides
a range of health services with a focus on cardiovascular care.  
Each of its hospitals has a 24-hour emergency room staffed by
emergency department physicians.  The hospitals, in which the
company has ownership interests have a total of 676 licensed beds
and are located in seven states: Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Louisiana, New Mexico, South Dakota and Texas.


META FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Two Suits Over Certificates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meta Financial Group, Inc., continues to defend two class action
cases involving the sale of purported MetaBank certificates of
deposit, according to the company's Feb. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Lawsuits against MetaBank involving the sale of purported
MetaBank certificates of deposit continue to be addressed.  

Specifically, these cases involve the sale of fraudulent
certificates of deposit using MetaBank's name and standard form
of certificate of deposit.  Such certificate of deposits were
apparently sold by a former MetaBank employee to various
financial institutions through an independent broker.

Since Dec. 10, 2009, the matter of Methodist Hospitals of Dallas
v. MetaBank and Meta Financial Group, Inc., filed in the 95th
Judicial District Court of Dallas County, TX, Cause No. 08-06994,
has been settled for a payment and the company anticipates the
suit will be dismissed shortly.

In all, nine cases have been filed, and of those nine, two have
been dismissed, and three have been settled for payments that the
company deemed reasonable under the circumstances, including the
costs of litigation.

The company is vigorously defending the four remaining actions.  
Two of the cases are class action cases although to date no class
has been certified.

The remaining two cases share similar fact patterns as each
Plaintiff seeks recovery of $99,000 and other specified damages,
in connection with a fraudulent CD.

Meta Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.bankmeta.com/-- is a  
holding company.  The company through banking subsidiaries
MetaBank and MetaBank West Central (MetaBank WC), provides a
range of financial services.  The principal business of MetaBank
consists of attracting retail deposits from the general public
and investing those funds primarily in one- to four-family
residential mortgage loans, commercial and multi-family real
estate, agricultural operating and real estate, construction,
consumer and commercial business loans primarily in MetaBank's
market area.  The company operates in areas, including the Iowa
counties of Adair, Buena Vista, Dallas, Guthrie, Pocahontas, Polk
and Sac, and the South Dakota counties of Brookings, Lincoln and
Minnehaha.  The company also has a wholly owned subsidiary, First
Midwest Financial Capital Trust. The MetaBank has four market
areas and the Meta Payment Systems division: Northwest Iowa,
Brookings, Central Iowa, and Sioux Empire.


MUELLER WATER: U.S. Pipe Still Faces Suit in Northern Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Water Products, Inc.'s U.S. Pipe business segment
continues to face a putative civil class action case in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

U.S. Pipe and a number of co-defendant foundry-related companies
were named in a putative civil class action case originally filed
in April 2005 in the Circuit Court of Calhoun County, Alabama,
and removed by defendants to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama under the Class Action Fairness Act.

The putative plaintiffs in the case filed an amended complaint
with the U.S. District Court in December 2006.

The amended complaint alleged state law tort claims (negligence,
failure to warn, wantonness, nuisance, trespass and outrage)
arising from the creation and disposal of "foundry sand" alleged
to contain harmful levels of PCBs and other toxins, including
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and zinc.

The plaintiffs originally sought damages for real and personal
property and for other unspecified personal injury.

In June 2007, a motion to dismiss was granted to U.S. Pipe and
certain co-defendants as to the claims for negligence, failure to
warn, nuisance, trespass and outrage.  The remainder of the
complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint.

On July 6, 2007, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which dismissed prior claims relating to U.S. Pipe's former
facility located at 2101 West 10th Street in Anniston, Alabama
and no longer alleges personal injury claims.

Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on July 27, 2007.

U.S. Pipe and the other defendants have moved to dismiss the
third amended complaint.

On Sept. 24, 2008, the court issued an order on the motion,
dismissing the claims for wantonness and permitting the
plaintiffs to move forward with their claims of nuisance,
trespass and negligence.

No further updates were reported in Mueller Water's Feb. 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Mueller Water Products, Inc. --
http://www.muellerwaterproducts.com/-- manufactures and markets  
of a range of water infrastructure, flow control and piping
component system products for use in water distribution networks
and treatment facilities.  The company also acts as a
distributor, especially in Canada, for products that are
manufactured by other companies.  The company's product portfolio
includes engineered valves, fire hydrants, pipe fittings, water
meters and ductile iron pipe.  The company operates through three
business segments: Mueller Co., U.S. Pipe and Anvil.


NBTY INC: Suit by Calif. Nutrition Bars Consumers Still Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action lawsuit filed by various California consumers
against NBTY, Inc.'s subsidiary, Rexall Sundown, Inc. and certain
of its subsidiaries remains stayed, according to the company's
Feb. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

Rexall and certain of its subsidiaries, are defendants in a
class-action lawsuit, captioned Jamie Pesek, et al. v. Rexall
Sundown, Inc., et al., brought in California Superior Court,
County of San Francisco in 2002 on behalf of all California
consumers who bought various nutrition bars.

Plaintiffs allege misbranding of nutrition bars and violations of
California unfair competition statutes, misleading advertising
and other similar causes of action.  Plaintiffs seek restitution,
legal fees and injunctive relief. We have defended this action
vigorously.

Since December 2007, with Rexall's and the other defendants'
renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings pending, the Court
has stayed the case for all purposes, pending rulings on relevant
cases before the California Supreme Court.

Although the California Supreme Court has resolved some of those
cases, others remain pending as of this date.  Accordingly, the
case remains stayed.

Most recently, the Court held a case-management conference on
Aug. 5, 2009, at which the parties requested, and the Court
agreed, to keep the stay in place for at least another six
months.

The company anticipates that the Court will hold another
conference in early 2010.

NBTY, Inc. -- http://www.nbty.com/-- is a vertically integrated  
manufacturer, marketer and retailer of a line of nutritional
supplements in the United States and throughout the world.  The
company markets approximately 25,000 products under numerous
brands, including Nature's Bounty, Vitamin World, Pure Protein,
Body Fortress, Puritan's Pride, Holland & Barrett, Rexall, Osteo
Bi-Flex, Flex-A-Min, Knox, Sundown, MET-Rx, WORLDWIDE Sport
Nutrition, American Health, DeTuinen, Le Naturiste, SISU, Solgar,
Physiologics and Ester-C.  The company's vertical integration
includes the purchase of raw materials, formulation and
manufacture of products, which it markets through the four
channels of distribution: Wholesale/United States Nutrition,
North American Retail, European Retail and Direct Response/E-
Commerce.


NBTY INC: New Jersey Suit versus MET-Rx Unit Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
A putative class-action lawsuit captioned Jerry Beidler v. MET-Rx
U.S.A, Inc., filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer
County, against NBTY, Inc.'s subsidiary MET-Rx U.S.A, Inc.,
remains stayed.

The suit, filed in March 2004, claims that the advertising and
marketing of certain prohormone supplements by MET-Rx were false
and misleading and that plaintiff and the putative class of New
Jersey purchasers of these products were entitled to damages and
injunctive relief.

Because these allegations were virtually identical to allegations
made in a putative nationwide class-action previously filed
against Met-Rx in California, in an action styled Eric Ayala v.
MET-Rx U.S.A, Inc. et. al., the company moved in 2004 to dismiss
or stay the New Jersey action pending the outcome of the
California action.

The motion was granted, and the New Jersey action is stayed at
this time.

The California action against Met-Rx was dismissed in 2008.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

NBTY, Inc. -- http://www.nbty.com/-- is a vertically integrated  
manufacturer, marketer and retailer of a line of nutritional
supplements in the United States and throughout the world.  The
company markets approximately 25,000 products under numerous
brands, including Nature's Bounty, Vitamin World, Pure Protein,
Body Fortress, Puritan's Pride, Holland & Barrett, Rexall, Osteo
Bi-Flex, Flex-A-Min, Knox, Sundown, MET-Rx, WORLDWIDE Sport
Nutrition, American Health, DeTuinen, Le Naturiste, SISU, Solgar,
Physiologics and Ester-C.  The company's vertical integration
includes the purchase of raw materials, formulation and
manufacture of products, which it markets through the four
channels of distribution: Wholesale/United States Nutrition,
North American Retail, European Retail and Direct Response/E-
Commerce.


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Remanded ERISA Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A remanded consolidated Employee Retirement Income Security Act
lawsuit against Northrop Grumman Corp. in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California remains pending, according
to the company's Feb. 9, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

The Court consolidated two separately filed ERISA lawsuits, which
the plaintiffs seek to have certified as class actions, into the
In Re Northrop Grumman Corporation ERISA Litigation.

On Aug. 7, 2007, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, and the plaintiffs appealed the Court's
decision on class certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

On Sept. 8, 2009, the Ninth Circuit vacated the Order denying
class certification, remanded the issue to the District Court for
further consideration.

As required by the Ninth Circuit's Order, the case was also
reassigned to a different judge.

Northrop Grumman Corp. -- http://www.northropgrumman.com/-- is  
an integrated enterprise consisting of businesses that cover the
entire defense spectrum, from undersea to outer space and into
cyberspace.  The company is aligned into seven segments
categorized into four primary businesses.  The Mission Systems,
Information Technology, and Technical Services segments are
presented as Information and Services.  The Integrated Systems
and Space Technology segments are presented as Aerospace.  The
Electronics and Ships segments are each presented as separate
businesses.


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Class Certification in "Skinner" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a
putative class action commenced against the Northrop Grumman
Retirement Plan B, according to Northrop Grumman Corp.'s Feb. 9,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On June 22, 2007, a putative class action was filed against the
Northrop Grumman Pension Plan and the Northrop Grumman Retirement
Plan B and their corresponding administrative committees, styled
as Skinner et al. v. Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, etc., et al.,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

The putative class representatives alleged violations of ERISA
and breaches of fiduciary duty concerning a 2003 modification to
the Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B.  The modification relates
to the employer-funded portion of the pension benefit available
during a five-year transition period that ended on June 30, 2008.

The plaintiffs dismissed the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, and
in 2008 the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of
all remaining defendants on all claims.

The plaintiffs appealed, and in May 2009, the Ninth Circuit
reversed the decision of the District Court and remanded the
matter back to the District Court for further proceedings,
finding that there was ambiguity in a 1998 summary plan
description related to the employer funded component of the
pension benefit.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class.

The parties also filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

On Jan. 26, 2010, the District Court granted summary judgment in
favor of the Plan and denied plaintiffs' motion.

The District Court also denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and struck the trial date of March 23, 2010 as
unnecessary given the Court's grant of summary judgment for the
Plan.

On Feb. 2, 2010, the plaintiffs appealed the judgment in favor of
the Plan.

Northrop Grumman Corp. -- http://www.northropgrumman.com/-- is  
an integrated enterprise consisting of businesses that cover the
entire defense spectrum, from undersea to outer space and into
cyberspace.  The company is aligned into seven segments
categorized into four primary businesses.  The Mission Systems,
Information Technology, and Technical Services segments are
presented as Information and Services.  The Integrated Systems
and Space Technology segments are presented as Aerospace.  The
Electronics and Ships segments are each presented as separate
businesses.


OPNEXT INC: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey gave its
final approval to the settlement agreement in a consolidated
action against Opnext, Inc., according to the company's Feb. 9,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Feb. 20, 2008, a putative class action captioned Bixler v.
Opnext, Inc., et al. (D.N.J. Civil Action No. 3:08-cv-00920) was
filed in the Court against Opnext and the Individual Defendants,
alleging, inter alia, that the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with Opnext's initial public
offering contained material misrepresentations in violation of
federal securities laws.

On March 7 and March 20, 2008, two additional putative class
actions were filed in the Court with similar allegations.

Those complaints, captioned Coleman v. Opnext, Inc., et al.
(D.N.J. Civil Action No. 3:08-cv-01222) and Johnson v. Opnext,
Inc., et al. (D.N.J. Civil Action No. 3:08-cv-01451),
respectively, named Opnext, the Individual Defendants, Opnext's
independent auditor and the underwriters of the IPO as
defendants.

On May 22, 2008, the Court issued an order consolidating Bixler,
Coleman, and Johnson under Civil Action No. 08-920 (JAP) and, on
July 30, 2008, a consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of
all persons who purchased Opnext common stock on or before Feb.
13, 2008 pursuant to or traceable to Opnext's initial public
offering on Feb. 14, 2007.

On Oct. 21, 2008, the defendants in the consolidated action,
which include Opnext and the Individual Defendants, responded to
the Consolidated Complaint, denying the material allegations and
asserting various affirmative defenses.

On Nov. 6, 2008, Opnext's auditor was voluntarily dismissed from
the action by plaintiff without prejudice.

On Sept. 8, 2009, the parties, including Opnext and the
Individual Defendants, entered into the Settlement, which the
Court preliminary approved on Oct. 6, 2009.

On Jan. 6, 2010, the Court granted final approval of the
Settlement, which approval is no longer subject to appeal.  
Opnext and the Individual Defendants have denied and continue to
deny the claims asserted in the consolidated action and entered
into the Settlement solely to avoid the costs and risks
associated with further litigation.

Under the terms of the Settlement, Opnext's insurer paid $2.0
million to a settlement fund which will be used to pay eligible
claimants and plaintiffs' counsel, plaintiff dismissed the
consolidated action with prejudice and all defendants, including
Opnext and the Individual Defendants, were released from any
claims that were brought or could have been brought in the
consolidated action.

Opnext, Inc. -- http://www.opnext.com/-- is the optical  
technology partner of choice supplying systems providers and OEMs
worldwide with the industry's largest portfolio of 10G and higher
next generation optical products and solutions.  The company's
industry expertise, future-focused thinking and commitment to
research and development combine in bringing to market the most
advanced technology to the communications, defense, security and
biomedical industries.  Formed out of Hitachi, Opnext has built
on more than 30 years experience in advanced technology to
establish its broad portfolio of solutions and solid reputation
for excellence in service and delivering value to its customers.


ORION ENERGY: Continues to Defend Second Amended Complaint in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Orion Energy Systems, Inc., continues to defend a second
consolidated amended complaint filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's
Feb. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

In February and March 2008, three class action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the company, several of its officers, all members of
the company's then existing board of directors, and certain
underwriters from its December 2007 initial public offering.

The plaintiffs claim to represent certain persons who purchased
shares of the company's common stock from Dec. 18, 2007 through
Feb. 6, 2008.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
made misstatements and failed to disclose material information in
the company's IPO registration statement and prospectus.  The
complaints allege various claims under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended.

The complaints seek, among other relief, class certification,
unspecified damages, fees, and such other relief as the court may
deem just and proper.

On Aug. 1, 2008, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On Sept. 15, 2008, the company and the other director and officer
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint,
and the underwriters filed a separate motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on Jan. 16, 2009.

After oral argument on Aug. 19, 2009, the Court granted in part
and denied in part the motions to dismiss.

The plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint on
Sept. 4, 2009, and the defendants filed an answer to the
complaint on Oct. 9, 2009.

Orion Energy Systems, Inc. -- http://www.oriones.com- designs,  
manufactures, markets and implements energy management systems
consisting primarily of energy efficient lighting systems,
controls and related services.  The Company's energy management
systems deliver energy savings and efficiency gains to its
commercial and industrial customers without compromising their
quantity or quality of light.  Orion has sold and installed its
HIF fixtures in over 3,655 facilities across North America,
representing over 587 million square feet of commercial and
industrial building space, including for 91 Fortune 500
companies, such as Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc., General Electric
Co., Kraft Foods Inc., Newell Rubbermaid Inc., OfficeMax, Inc.,
and SYSCO Corp.


PRESTIGE BRANDS: Consolidated Suit Settlement Gets Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a consolidated shareholder lawsuit filed
against Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc., has received final
approval from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, according to the company's Feb. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The first of the six cases that were later consolidated was filed
against the company and certain of its officers and directors on
Aug. 3, 2005.  The cases were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of stockholders of
the company that purchased shares between Feb. 9, 2005, and Nov.
15, 2005.

The plaintiffs also named as defendants the underwriters in the
company's initial public offering and a private equity fund that
was a selling stockholder in the offering.

The district court has appointed a lead plaintiff, who, on Dec.
23, 2005, filed a consolidated class action complaint asserting
claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities
Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The lead plaintiff generally alleged that the company issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements in
connection with its initial public offering and thereafter with
regard to:

     -- the accounting issues described in the company's press
        release issued on or about Nov. 15, 2005; and

     -- the alleged failure to disclose that demand for certain
        of the company's products was declining and that the
        company was planning to withdraw several products from
        the market.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages.

Pursuant to the company's request, the court, in a pretrial
ruling on July 10, 2006, dismissed claims that the management
acted fraudulently.  The court also dismissed all claims against
the company and the individual defendants arising under the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On Sept. 4, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York certified a class consisting of all persons
who purchased the common stock of the company pursuant to, or
traceable to, the company's initial public offering on or about
Feb. 9, 2005, through Nov. 15, 2005.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the parties to the action engaged in mediation
to explore the terms of a potential settlement of the pending
litigation.  However, no settlement agreement was reached during
mediation.

On Jan. 16, 2009, after unsuccessful mediation, the Court ordered
that notice of the pending class action lawsuit be sent to all
persons who purchased the company's common stock between Feb. 9,
2005 and Nov. 15, 2005 pursuant or traceable to the company's
initial public offering.

In March 2009, the notice of class action law suit was mailed.

The defendants and the lead plaintiffs have reached an agreement
in principle to settle the class action lawsuit without any
admission of liability by the defendants, subject to the
execution of appropriate settlement documents and court approval.  

After having given notice to class members, the defendants and
the lead plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to settle
the litigation.

On Dec. 4, 2009, the settlement proposed by the defendants and
the lead plaintiffs received final approval from the Court.  
Insurance covered the costs of all payments to the plaintiffs and
their counsel.  The class action and all claims made therein
against the company, its officers and directors and the other
defendants in the action were dismissed with prejudice.

The suit is "In re Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 7:05-cv-06924-CLB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Charles L. Brieant presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          William J. Ban, Esq.
          Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-0600
          Fax: 215-963-0838
          E-mail: wban@barrack.com

               - and -

          Russell James Gunyan, Esq.
          Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7267
          Fax: 631-367-1173
          E-mail: rgunyan@csgrr.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Todd R. David, Esq.
          Alston & Bird, L.L.P.
          One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Phone: 404-881-7357
          Fax: 404-527-8717
          E-mail: todd.david@alston.com

               - and -

          John Gueli, Esq.
          Shearman & Sterling LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-848-4744
          Fax: 212-848-7179
          E-mail: jgueli@shearman.com


RENTECH INC: No Response Yet to Three Lawsuits in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Rentech, Inc., has yet to file a response to 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. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

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 but
intends to vigorously defend these actions.

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.


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Trial in "Bates" Suit Ongoing in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The trial in a class action against Skilled Healthcare Group,
Inc., is ongoing, according to the company's Feb. 9, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On May 4, 2006, three plaintiffs filed a complaint against the
company in the Superior Court of California, Humboldt County,
entitled Lavender (Bates) v. Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. and
twenty-three of its companies.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
certain California-based facilities operated by the company's
wholly owned operating companies failed to provide an adequate
number of qualified personnel to care for their residents and
misrepresented the quality of care provided in their facilities.

Plaintiffs allege these failures violated, among other things,
the residents' rights, the California Health and Safety Code, the
California Business and Professions Code and the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, restitution of money paid
for services allegedly promised to, but not received by, facility
residents during the period from Sept. 1, 2003 to the present.

The complaint further sought class certification of in excess of
32,000 plaintiffs as well as injunctive relief, punitive damages
and attorneys' fees.

In response to the complaint, the company filed a demurrer.  On
Nov. 28, 2006, the Humboldt Court denied the demurrer.

On Jan. 31, 2008, the Humboldt Court denied the company's motion
for a protective order as to the names and addresses of residents
within the facility and on April 7, 2008, the Humboldt Court
granted plaintiffs' motion to compel electronic discovery by the
Company.

On May 27, 2008, plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
heard, and the Humboldt Court entered its order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification on June 19, 2008.

The company subsequently petitioned the California Court of
Appeal, First Appellate District, for a writ and reversal of the
order granting class certification.  The Court of Appeal denied
the Company's writ on Nov. 6, 2008 and the company accordingly
filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court.

On Jan. 21, 2009, the California Supreme Court denied the
company's petition for review.

The order granting class certification accordingly remains in
place, and the action is proceeding as a class action.

Primary professional liability insurance coverage has been
exhausted for the policy year applicable to this case.  The
excess insurance carrier issuing the policy applicable to this
case has issued its reservation of rights to preserve an
assertion of non-coverage for this case due to the lack of any
allegation of injury or harm to the plaintiffs.

Trial in this matter commenced Nov. 30, 2009 and is ongoing.

Plaintiffs represented to the trial court that they will
introduce purported evidence of personal injury to support their
claims, and the company has invited its excess carrier to
reconsider its coverage position in light of the plaintiffs'
representations.

Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.--
http://www.skilledhealthcaregroup.com/-- is a provider of  
integrated long-term healthcare services through its nursing
companies and rehabilitation therapy business.  The company also
provides other related healthcare services, including assisted
living care and hospice care.  During the year ended Dec. 31,
2008, the company owned or leased 75 skilled nursing facilities
and 21 assisted living facilities, together comprising
approximately 10,500 licensed beds.  During 2008, the Company
generated approximately 85% of its revenue from skilled nursing
facilities, including integrated rehabilitation therapy services
at its facilities.  The Company operates in two business
segments: long-term care services segment (LTC) and ancillary
services segment.  On April 1, 2008, the company acquired the
real property and assets of a 152-bed skilled nursing facility
and an adjacent 34-unit assisted living facility located in
Wichita, Kansas.  On Sept. 15, 2008, it acquired seven assisted
living facilities.


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Has Yet to Respond to Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., has yet to respond to an amended
class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, according to the company's Feb.
9, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On July 24, 2009, a purported class action complaint captioned
Shepardson v. Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., et al. was filed
against the company, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
its current Chief Financial Officer, its former Chief Financial
Officer, and investment banks that underwrote the company's
initial public offering, on behalf of two classes of purchasers
of its securities.

On Nov. 10, 2009, the District Court appointed lead plaintiffs
and co-lead counsel, re-captioned the action In re Skilled
Healthcare Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, and ordered that
lead plaintiffs file an amended class action complaint.

On Jan. 12, 2010, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint against the company, its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, its Chief Operating Officer and President, its current
Chief Financial Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its
largest stockholder and related entities, and a director
affiliated with that stockholder.

One purported class consists of all persons other than defendants
who purchased the company's Class A common stock pursuant or
traceable to its Initial Public Offering.  The second purported
class consists of all persons other than defendants who purchased
the company's Class A common stock from May 14, 2007, through
June 9, 2009.

The complaint, which seeks an unspecified amount of damages,
including rescissory damages, asserts claims under the federal
securities laws relating to its June 9, 2009 announcement that
the company would restate its financial statements for the period
from Jan. 1, 2006, to March 31, 2009, and that the restatement
was likely to require cumulative charges against after-tax
earnings in the aggregate amount of between $8.0 million and $9.0
million over the affected periods.

The complaint also alleges that the company's registration
statement and prospectus, financial statements, and public
statements about its results of operations contained material
false and misleading statements.

The defendants have not yet responded to the amended class action
complaint.

Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. --
http://www.skilledhealthcaregroup.com/-- is a provider of  
integrated long-term healthcare services through its nursing
companies and rehabilitation therapy business.  The company also
provides other related healthcare services, including assisted
living care and hospice care.  During the year ended Dec. 31,
2008, the company owned or leased 75 skilled nursing facilities
and 21 assisted living facilities, together comprising
approximately 10,500 licensed beds.  During 2008, the Company
generated approximately 85% of its revenue from skilled nursing
facilities, including integrated rehabilitation therapy services
at its facilities.  The Company operates in two business
segments: long-term care services segment (LTC) and ancillary
services segment.  On April 1, 2008, the company acquired the
real property and assets of a 152-bed skilled nursing facility
and an adjacent 34-unit assisted living facility located in
Wichita, Kansas.  On Sept. 15, 2008, it acquired seven assisted
living facilities.


VANGUARD HEALTH: Certification Motion in Antitrust Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification in Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San
Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et al., Case
No. 06-cv-00535 (W.D. Tex.), remains pending.

On June 20, 2006, a federal antitrust class action suit was filed
in San Antonio, Texas against the company's Baptist Health System
subsidiary in San Antonio, Texas and two other large hospital
systems in San Antonio.

In the complaint, plaintiffs allege that the three hospital
system defendants conspired with each other and with other
unidentified San Antonio area hospitals to depress the
compensation levels of registered nurses employed at the
conspiring hospitals within the San Antonio area by engaging in
certain activities that violated the federal antitrust laws.

The complaint alleges two separate claims.  The first count
asserts that the defendant hospitals violated Section 1 of the
federal Sherman Act, which prohibits agreements that unreasonably
restrain competition, by conspiring to depress nurses'
compensation.  The second count alleges that the defendant
hospital systems also violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by
participating in wage, salary and benefits surveys for the
purpose, and having the effect, of depressing registered nurses'
compensation or limiting competition for nurses based on their
compensation.

The class on whose behalf the plaintiffs filed the complaint is
alleged to comprise all registered nurses employed by the
defendant hospitals since June 20, 2002.

The suit seeks unspecified damages, trebling of this damage
amount pursuant to federal law, interest, costs and attorneys
fees.

From 2006 through April 2008, the company and the plaintiffs
worked on producing documents to each other relating to, and
supplying legal briefs to the court in respect of, the issue of
whether the court will certify a class in this suit.

In April 2008, the case was stayed by the judge pending his
ruling on plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.vanguardhealth.com/-
- operates 15 for-profit acute care hospitals located in urban
and suburban markets in Arizona, Illinois, Massachusetts, and
Texas; all told, the hospitals have more than 4,000 licensed
beds.  The company's hospital systems generally include
outpatient facilities and medical office buildings that form
local health care networks providing a continuum of care.  
Vanguard also runs three managed health care plans that serve
around 150,000 members in Arizona and Illinois.  The Blackstone
Group owns a majority stake in the company.


WARNER MUSIC: Files Petition for Hearing with Second Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Music Group Corp. filed a petition for rehearing en banc
with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals after the Second Circuit
vacated the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and remanded the consolidated amended
complaint against record companies for further proceedings.

On Dec. 20, 2005 and Feb. 3, 2006, the Attorney General of the
State of New York served the company with requests for
information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as
to whether the practices of industry participants concerning the
pricing of digital music downloads violate Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, New York State General Business Law Sections 340 et
seq., New York Executive Law Section 63(12), and related
statutes.

On Feb. 28, 2006, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department
of Justice served the company with a request for information in
the form of a Civil Investigative Demand as to whether its
activities relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music
violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The company has provided documents and other information in
response to these requests and intend to continue to fully
cooperate with the New York Attorney General's and Department of
Justice's industry-wide inquiries.

Subsequent to the announcements of the governmental
investigations, more than thirty putative class action lawsuits
concerning the pricing of digital music downloads have been
filed.

On Aug. 15, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated these actions for pre-trial proceedings in the
Southern District of New York.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007,
alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the release of
their content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing of
CDs and fix prices for digital downloads.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and
treble damages.

All defendants, including the company, filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint on July 30, 2007.

On Oct. 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order dismissing
the case as to all defendants, including the company.

On Nov. 20, 2008, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal from the
order of the District Court to the Circuit Court for the Second
Circuit.

Oral argument took place before the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals on Sept. 21, 2009.

On Jan. 12, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the
District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

On Jan. 27, 2010, all defendants, including the company, filed a
petition for rehearing en banc with the Second Circuit, according
to the company's Feb. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2009.

Warner Music Group Corp. -- http://www.wmg.com/-- is a music  
content company that classifies its business interests into two
areas: Recorded Music and Music Publishing.  The Recorded Music
business produces revenue through the marketing, sale and
licensing of recorded music in various physical (such as compact
disc's (CDs), cassettes, long playings (LPs) and digital
versatile discs (DVDs)) and digital (such as downloads and
ringtones) formats.  The Music Publishing business owns and
acquires rights to musical compositions, exploits and markets
these compositions and receives royalties or fees for their use.  
The company publishes music across a range of musical styles.  
The company own or control rights to more than one million
musical compositions, including a number of pop music hits,
American standards, folk songs, and motion picture and theatrical
compositions.  In August 2008, Warner Music Group Corp. bought a
majority stake in a Spanish company specializing in artist
management.

                            *********

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  * * *