CAR_Public/100308.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 8, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 46

                            Headlines

ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Unfair Business Practices Complaint Available
BRISTOL-MYERS: $125 Million Settlement Gets Court's Final Okay
BRISTOL-MYERS: July 2010 Hearing Set for Settlement Approval
BRISTOL-MYERS: Motion to Dismiss Two Suits Still Pending in Ohio
CKE RESTAURANTS: Being Sold for Inadequate Price, Suit Claims

COMCAST BUSINES: Wash. Suit Complains About Illegal Sales Calls
CSX CORP: Plaintiffs to File Class Certification Motion in March
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Suit v. AMR Over Incorrect Billings Pending
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: AMR Faces 3 Suits Over Wage & Hour Violations
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Motion to Dismiss Suit in Connecticut Pending

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Wants Shareholders' Suit in New York Dismissed
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Move to Dismiss Suit Over Dividends Pending
GUARDIAN PROTECTIVE: Accused in N.J. of Charging Illegal Fees
NETLIST INC: Agrees to Settle "Belodoff" Suit for $2.6 Million
OMNICOM GROUP: Plaintiffs' Appeal Pending in Second Circuit

QUEST SOFTWARE: Settlement Final Hearing Set for March 15
REDDY ICE: Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Suit Remains Pending
REDDY ICE: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit in Mich. Pending
REED ELSEVIER: Copyright Registration Failure Doesn't Bar Claims
SEARS ROEBUCK: Suit Complains About Defective Washing Machines

TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs Appealing Dismissal of 3rd Amended Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Lieff Cabraser Files Another Acceleration Suit
VERVE GLOBAL: Ill. Suit Complains About Flawed Nursing Program

                            *********

ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Unfair Business Practices Complaint Available
----------------------------------------------------------------
As reported in the Fri., Mar. 5, 2010, edition of the Class
Action Reporter, consumer advocates filed a class-action suit
against Anthem Blue Cross on Monday, accusing California's
largest for-profit health insurer of illegally using drastic rate
hikes to force customers into inferior health plans.

A copy of the Complaint in Feller and Freed v. Anthem Blue Cross,
Case No. 56-2010-00368587-CU-BT-SIM (Calif. Super. Ct. Ventura
Cty.), seeking unspecified restitution for the plaintiffs and a
court order barring future alleged violations of the state health
and safety code, is available at:

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER LAW GROUP
          9466 Black Mountain Rd., Suite 225
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Telephone: 619-308-5034

               - and -

          Harvey Rosenfield, Esq.
          Pamela Pressley, Esq.
          Todd M. Foreman, Esq.
          CONSUMER WATCHDOG
          1750 Ocean Park Blvd.,
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: 310-392-0522

               - and -

          Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212-447-7070

               - and -

          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC
          60 State St., 7th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: 617-573-5118

               - and -           

          Anthony Stewart, Esq.
          STUART LAW FIRM
          801 South Grand Ave., 11th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-612-0009


BRISTOL-MYERS: $125 Million Settlement Gets Court's Final Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District for the Southern District of New York gave its
final approval to the $125 million settlement in the putative
class action complaint captioned In Re Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-05867, according to the
company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

In June and July 2007, two putative class action complaints,
Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Assoc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb
Co., et al. (07 CV 5867) and Jean Lai v. Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company, et al., were filed in the U.S. District for the Southern
District of New York against the company, the company's former
Chief Executive Officer, Peter Dolan and former Chief Financial
Officer, Andrew Bonfield.

The complaints allege violations of securities laws for allegedly
failing to disclose material information relating to efforts to
settle the PLAVIX* patent infringement litigation with Apotex.

On Sept. 20, 2007, the Court dismissed the Lai case without
prejudice, changed the caption of the case to In re Bristol-Myers
Squibb, Co. Securities Litigation, and appointed Ontario
Teachers' Pension Plan Board as lead plaintiff.

On Oct. 15, 2007, Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board filed an
amended complaint making similar allegations as the earlier filed
complaints, naming an additional former officer but no longer
naming Andrew Bonfield as a defendant.

By decision dated August 20, 2008, the federal district court
denied defendants' motions to dismiss.

In May 2009, the parties reached a settlement in principle to
resolve this litigation for payment of $125 million.

In August 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval
of the settlement.

In December 2009, the District Court granted final approval of a
settlement between the parties for payment of $125 million, which
concluded the matter.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company -- http://www.bms.com/-- is engaged  
in the discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing,
marketing, distribution and sale of pharmaceutical and
nutritional products.  The company had two segments:
Pharmaceuticals and Nutritionals.  The Pharmaceuticals segment is
made up of the global pharmaceutical and international consumer
medicines business.  The Nutritionals segment consists of Mead
Johnson Nutritionals (Mead Johnson), primarily an infant formula
and children's nutritionals business.


BRISTOL-MYERS: July 2010 Hearing Set for Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
scheduled a July 2010 hearing to consider final approval of the
proposed settlement in a consolidated suit against Bristol-Myers
Squibb Co., according to the company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class
actions as well as suits brought by the attorneys general of
various states.

In these actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants caused the
Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their products to be inflated,
thereby injuring government programs, entities and persons who
reimbursed prescription drugs based on AWPs.  The company remains
a defendant in four state attorneys general suits pending in
state courts around the country.

One set of class actions, together with a suit by the Arizona
attorney general, were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts (AWP MDL).

In August 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval
of a proposed settlement of the AWP MDL plaintiffs' claims
against the company for $19 million, plus half the costs of class
notice up to a maximum payment of $1 million.

A final approval hearing is currently scheduled to occur in July
2010.

Additionally, in August 2009, the Company settled the AWP lawsuit
filed by the state of Arizona for an amount that is not material
to the Company.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company -- http://www.bms.com/-- is engaged  
in the discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing,
marketing, distribution and sale of pharmaceutical and
nutritional products.  The company had two segments:
Pharmaceuticals and Nutritionals.  The Pharmaceuticals segment is
made up of the global pharmaceutical and international consumer
medicines business.  The Nutritionals segment consists of Mead
Johnson Nutritionals (Mead Johnson), primarily an infant formula
and children's nutritionals business.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Motion to Dismiss Two Suits Still Pending in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.'s motion to dismiss two putative class
actions remains pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Ohio, Western Division, according to the company's
Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Eighteen lawsuits comprised of both individual suits and
purported class actions have been filed against the company in
the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division, by various plaintiffs, including pharmacy chains
(individually and as assignees, in whole or in part, of certain
wholesalers), various health and welfare benefit plans/funds and
individual residents of various states.

These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the purported
settlement with Apotex of the patent infringement litigation
violated the Sherman Act and related laws.  Plaintiffs are
seeking, among other things, permanent injunctive relief barring
the Apotex settlement and/or monetary damages.

The putative class actions filed on behalf of direct purchasers
have been consolidated under the caption In re: Plavix Direct
Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, and the putative class actions
filed on behalf of indirect purchasers have been consolidated
under the caption In re: Plavix Indirect Purchaser Antitrust
Litigation.

Amended complaints were filed on Oct. 19, 2007.

Defendants filed a consolidated motion to dismiss on Dec. 11,
2007, which remains pending.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company -- http://www.bms.com/-- is engaged  
in the discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing,
marketing, distribution and sale of pharmaceutical and
nutritional products.  The company had two segments:
Pharmaceuticals and Nutritionals.  The Pharmaceuticals segment is
made up of the global pharmaceutical and international consumer
medicines business.  The Nutritionals segment consists of Mead
Johnson Nutritionals (Mead Johnson), primarily an infant formula
and children's nutritionals business.


CKE RESTAURANTS: Being Sold for Inadequate Price, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say CKE
Restaurants (which owns and licenses Carl's Jr. and Hardee's) is
selling itself too cheaply to Thomas H. Lee Partners, for $928
million or $11.05 a share, in Delaware Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Pieces of Eight Master Fund LP v.
CKE Restaurants, Inc., et al., Case No. 5290 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/03/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sidney S. Liebesman, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          One Commerce Center
          1201 N. Orange St., Suite 801
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: 302-573-2530

               - and -

          Joel H. Bernstein, Esq.
          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Alan I. Ellman, Esq.
          Stefanie J. Sundel, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: 212-907-0700


COMCAST BUSINES: Wash. Suit Complains About Illegal Sales Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Comcast makes annoying, and
illegal, sales pitches with an automatic telephone dialing
machine, a class action claims in King County Court, in Seattle,
Wash.

Copies of the Summons and the Complaint in Hartman, et al. v.
Comcast Business Communications, LLC, et al., Case No. 10-2-07644
(Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty.), are available at:

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kim Williams, Esq.
          Rob Williamson, Esq.
          WILLIAMSON & WILLIAMS
          187 Parfitt Way SW, Suite 250
          Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
          Telephone: 206-780-4447


CSX CORP: Plaintiffs to File Class Certification Motion in March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated class-action lawsuit against CSX
Corp. and three other major U.S. railroads are scheduled to file
their Motion for Class Certification in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia in March 2010, according to the
company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 25,
2009.

Since 2007, 31 putative class action suits have been filed in
various federal district courts against CSXT and three other
U.S.-based Class I railroads.  The lawsuits contain substantially
similar allegations to the effect that the defendants' fuel
surcharge practices relating to contract and unregulated traffic
resulted from an illegal conspiracy in violation of antitrust
laws.

The suits seek unquantified treble damages (three times the
amount of actual damages) allegedly sustained by purported class
members, attorneys' fees and other relief.  All but three of the
lawsuits purport to be filed on behalf of a class of shippers
that allegedly purchased rail freight transportation services
from the defendants through the use of contracts or through other
means exempt from rate regulation during defined periods
commencing as early as June 2003 and that were assessed fuel
surcharges.  Three of the lawsuits purport to be on behalf of
indirect purchasers of rail services.

The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the direct
purchasers' claims; however, the court dismissed all of the
indirect purchasers' causes of action seeking money damages, but
did not dismiss their request for injunctive relief.  The
indirect purchasers have appealed that decision, and oral
arguments were heard and the Company is awaiting a decision.

The class action suits have been consolidated in federal court in
the District of Columbia.  The court denied the railroads'
request to first proceed with discovery relating to the
appropriateness of class certification, and then permit merits
discovery only if a class is certified.

The court, however, agreed with the railroads that class
certification should be decided as early as possible, rejecting
plaintiffs' proposal that certification be determined after the
close of discovery and close to trial.

The case is now in the discovery phase.

Plaintiffs are scheduled to file their Motion for Class
Certification in March 2010.  Defendants' opposition is due in
June.

The hearing on class certification is scheduled for September.

All fact discovery must be completed by mid-November 2010.

CSX Corporation, based in Jacksonville, Fla., is a leading
transportation company providing rail, intermodal and rail-to-
truck transload services. The company's transportation network
spans approximately 21,000 miles with service to 23 eastern
states and the District of Columbia, and connects to more than 70
ocean, river and lake ports.


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Suit v. AMR Over Incorrect Billings Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Medical Services Corp.'s subsidiary, American Medical
Response, Inc. (AMR), continues to defend a lawsuit purporting to
be a class-action suit in Spokane, Washington.

On Dec. 13, 2005, the class-action lawsuit was commenced against
AMR in Washington State Court, Spokane County.

The complaint alleges that AMR billed patients and third party
payors for transports it conducted between 1998 and 2005 at
higher rates than contractually permitted.

The court has certified a class in this case, but the size and
membership of the class has not been determined.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 19, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year Dec. 31, 2009.

Emergency Medical Services Corp. -- http://www.emsc.net/-- is a  
provider of emergency medical services in the U.S.  The company
operates its business and markets its services under the AMR and
EmCare brands, which represent American Medical Response, Inc.
and EmCare Holdings Inc., respectively.  AMR is a provider of
ambulance services in the U.S.  EmCare is a provider of
outsourced emergency department staffing and related management
services in the U.S.  The company offers a range of emergency
medical services through its two business segments: AMR and
EmCare.


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: AMR Faces 3 Suits Over Wage & Hour Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three different lawsuits purporting to be class actions remain
pending against Emergency Medical Services Corp.'s subsidiary,
American Medical Response, Inc. (AMR), and certain subsidiaries
in California, alleging violations of California wage and hour
laws.

On April 16, 2008, Lori Bartoni commenced a suit in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Alameda, which has
since been removed to the U.S. District Court, Northern District
of California.

On July 8, 2008, Vaughn Banta filed suit in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

On Jan. 22, 2009, Laura Karapetian filed suit in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

As of Feb. 19, 2010, the courts have not certified classes in any
of these cases.

All three suits allege violations of California state wage and
hour compensation laws.

The plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR entities failed to
pay daily overtime charges pursuant to California law, and
failed to provide required meal breaks or pay premium
compensation for missed meal breaks.

They are seeking to certify the classes and seeking lost wages,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other sanctions permitted
under California law for violations of wage and hour laws.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 19, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year Dec. 31, 2009.

Emergency Medical Services Corp. -- http://www.emsc.net/-- is a  
provider of emergency medical services in the U.S.  The company
operates its business and markets its services under the AMR and
EmCare brands, which represent American Medical Response, Inc.
and EmCare Holdings Inc., respectively.  AMR is a provider of
ambulance services in the U.S.  EmCare is a provider of
outsourced emergency department staffing and related management
services in the U.S.  The company offers a range of emergency
medical services through its two business segments: AMR and
EmCare.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Motion to Dismiss Suit in Connecticut Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company's motion to dismiss a consolidated
complaint filed by shareholders in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut remains pending, according to the
company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

In July and September 2008, shareholders filed two purported
class actions under the federal securities laws in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut naming the company
as defendant, as well as the company's chief executive officer
and chief financial officer.

These two actions have been consolidated, and in January 2009, a
consolidated complaint was filed alleging that the company and
its chief executive officer made false and misleading statements
that artificially inflated the company's stock price between
March 12, 2008 and April 10, 2008, when the company announced
that its results for the first quarter of 2008 would not meet the
previous guidance and the company also lowered its full year
guidance for 2008.

The case seeks unspecified damages.

The company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was
filed in March 2009 and is currently under consideration by the
court.

General Electric Company -- http://www.ge.com/-- is a  
diversified technology, media and financial services company.  
The company's products and services include aircraft engines,
power generation, water processing, security technology, medical
imaging, business and consumer financing, media content and
industrial products.  The company serves customers in more than
100 countries.  The company operates through five segments:
Energy Infrastructure, Technology Infrastructure, NBC Universal
(NBCU), Capital Finance and Consumer & Industrial.  In March
2009, Teleflex Incorporated completed the sale of its 51% share
of Airfoil Technologies International - Singapore Pte. Ltd., to
GE.  In September 2009, the company sold its 81% interest in
Homeland Protection business to Safran SA.  In September 2009,
the company acquired ScanWind.  In September 2009, Moog Inc.
completed the acquisition of the company's GE Aviation Systems'
flight control actuation business.  In November 2009, GE Aviation
acquired Naverus, Inc.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Wants Shareholders' Suit in New York Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company has filed a motion to dismiss a
purported class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's Feb.
19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In October 2008, shareholders filed a purported class action
under the federal securities laws in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York naming the company as
defendant, as well as its chief executive officer and chief
financial officer.

The complaint alleges that during a conference call with analysts
on Sept. 25, 2008, defendants made false and misleading
statements concerning:

     (i) the state of GE's funding, cash flows, and liquidity
         and

    (ii) the question of issuing additional equity, which caused
         economic loss to those shareholders who purchased GE
         stock between Sept. 25, 2008 and Oct. 2, 2008, when the
         company announced the pricing of a common stock
         offering.

The case seeks unspecified damages.

The company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was
filed in January 2010 and is currently under consideration by the
court.

General Electric Company -- http://www.ge.com/-- is a  
diversified technology, media and financial services company.  
The company's products and services include aircraft engines,
power generation, water processing, security technology, medical
imaging, business and consumer financing, media content and
industrial products.  The company serves customers in more than
100 countries.  The company operates through five segments:
Energy Infrastructure, Technology Infrastructure, NBC Universal
(NBCU), Capital Finance and Consumer & Industrial.  In March
2009, Teleflex Incorporated completed the sale of its 51% share
of Airfoil Technologies International - Singapore Pte. Ltd., to
GE.  In September 2009, the company sold its 81% interest in
Homeland Protection business to Safran SA.  In September 2009,
the company acquired ScanWind.  In September 2009, Moog Inc.
completed the acquisition of the company's GE Aviation Systems'
flight control actuation business.  In November 2009, GE Aviation
acquired Naverus, Inc.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Move to Dismiss Suit Over Dividends Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company's motion to dismiss a consolidated suit
regarding the GE dividend and projected losses and earnings for
GE Capital in 2009, remains pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's
Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In March and April 2009, shareholders filed purported class
actions under the federal securities laws in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York naming as defendants
GE, a number of GE officers (including its chief executive
officer and chief financial officer) and its directors.

The complaints, which have now been consolidated, seek
unspecified damages based on allegations related to statements
regarding the GE dividend and projected losses and earnings for
GE Capital in 2009.

The company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was
filed in November 2009 and is currently under consideration by
the court.  A shareholder derivative action has been filed in
federal court in Connecticut in May 2009 making essentially the
same allegations as the New York actions.  The company has moved
to consolidate the Connecticut derivative action with the
recently consolidated New York actions.

General Electric Company -- http://www.ge.com/-- is a  
diversified technology, media and financial services company.  
The company's products and services include aircraft engines,
power generation, water processing, security technology, medical
imaging, business and consumer financing, media content and
industrial products.  The company serves customers in more than
100 countries.  The company operates through five segments:
Energy Infrastructure, Technology Infrastructure, NBC Universal
(NBCU), Capital Finance and Consumer & Industrial.  In March
2009, Teleflex Incorporated completed the sale of its 51% share
of Airfoil Technologies International - Singapore Pte. Ltd., to
GE.  In September 2009, the company sold its 81% interest in
Homeland Protection business to Safran SA.  In September 2009,
the company acquired ScanWind.  In September 2009, Moog Inc.
completed the acquisition of the company's GE Aviation Systems'
flight control actuation business.  In November 2009, GE Aviation
acquired Naverus, Inc.


GUARDIAN PROTECTIVE: Accused in N.J. of Charging Illegal Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Guardian Protective Services and Spectracom, burglar alarm firms,
charge a host of illegal fees, a class action claims in Middlesex
County Court, N.J.

A copy of the Complaint in Tortora v. Guardian Protection
Services, Inc., et al., Docket No. MIDL-L-1041-10 (N.J. Super.
Ct, Middlesex Cty.), is available at:

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Henry P. Wolfe, Esq.
          GALEX WOLF, LLC
          1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: 732-257-0550


NETLIST INC: Agrees to Settle "Belodoff" Suit for $2.6 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the consolidated securities fraud class action
lawsuit captioned Belodoff v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. SACV07-677,
have executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement in order
to resolve the matter, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Jan. 2, 2010.

Beginning in May 2007, the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the company's underwriters were named as
defendants in four purported class action shareholder complaints,
two of which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, and two of which were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

These purported class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the company's
Nov. 30, 2006 initial public offering.

The lawsuits were consolidated into a single action-Belodoff v.
Netlist, Inc., Lead Case No. SACV07-677 DOC (MLGx)-which is
currently pending in the Central District of California.

Lead Plaintiff filed the Consolidated Complaint in November 2007.

Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in January 2008.  The motions to dismiss were taken
under submission in April 2008 and on May 30, 2008, the court
granted the defendants' motions.

However, plaintiffs were granted the right to amend their
complaint and subsequently filed their First Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint in July 2008.  The defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint in January 2009, and on
April 17, 2009, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss.

However, plaintiffs were again granted the right to amend their
complaint.  Plaintiffs' filed their Second Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint in May 2009.

Generally, the Second Amended Complaint, like the preceding
complaints, alleged that the Registration Statement filed by the
company in connection with the IPO contained untrue statements of
material fact or omissions of material fact in violation of
Sections 11 and 15 of Securities Act of 1933.  Defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in June 2009.

The motions to dismiss were taken under submission in August 2009
and on Sept. 1, 2009, the Court granted the defendants' motions.  
However, plaintiffs again were granted the right to amend their
complaint.

In October 2009, following a voluntary mediation of the matter,
which took place in December 2008, and subsequent good-faith
settlement negotiations, the parties reached a tentative
agreement in principle to settle the class action.

In February 2010, the parties executed a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement documenting the essential terms of the
proposed settlement, informed the court of their proposed
settlement, and currently are drafting a joint motion to submit
to the court for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.

Under the settlement agreement to be presented to the court for
approval, plaintiffs and the class will dismiss all claims, with
prejudice, in exchange for a cash payment of $2.6 million.  The
company's directors' and officers' liability insurers will pay
the settlement amount in accordance with the company's insurance
policies.

The court, upon the parties' stipulation, has stayed all
proceedings in the action, except as necessary to consummate the
proposed settlement.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@csgrr.com

               - and -

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
          Curtis V. Trinko Law Office
          16 West 46th Street 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-490-9550
          E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Sean T. Prosser, Esq.
          Morrison and Foerster LLP
          12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130-2040
          Phone: 858-720-5100
          E-mail: sprosser@mofo.com

               - and -

          Keith E. Eggleton, Esq.
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          650 Page Mill Rd
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650-493-9300
          Fax: 650-565-5100
          E-mail: keggleton@wsgr.com   


OMNICOM GROUP: Plaintiffs' Appeal Pending in Second Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of the consolidated
suit styled In re Omnicom Group Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
02-CV-4483 (RCC), remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Beginning on June 13, 2002, several putative class actions were
filed against the company and certain senior executives in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
actions have since been consolidated under the caption In re
Omnicom Group Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-CV-4483 (RCC),
on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of the company's
common stock between Feb. 20, 2001 and June 11, 2002.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
company's public filings and other public statements during that
period contained false and misleading statements or omitted to
state material information relating to:

     (1) the company's calculation of the organic growth
         component of period-to-period revenue growth,

     (2) the company's valuation of and accounting for certain
         internet investments made by the company's Communicade
         Group, which the company contributed to Seneca
         Investments LLC in 2001, and

     (3) the existence and amount of certain contingent future
         obligations in respect of acquisitions.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages
plus costs and attorneys' fees.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and on March 28, 2005,
the court dismissed portions (1) and (3) of the complaint.
The court's decision denying the defendants' motion to dismiss
the remainder of the complaint did not address the ultimate
merits of the case, but only the sufficiency of the pleading.  
Defendants have answered the complaint.  Discovery concluded in
the second quarter of 2007.

On April 30, 2007, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification, certifying the class proposed by plaintiffs.

In the third quarter of 2007 defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment on plaintiff's remaining claim.

On Jan. 28, 2008, the court granted defendants' motion in its
entirety, dismissing all claims and directing the court to close
the case.  On Feb. 4, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a notice of
intent to appeal that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

The appeal has been fully briefed and oral argument before the
Court of Appeals occurred on May 5, 2009.

Omnicom Group Inc. -- http://www.omnicomgroup.com/-- is a  
holding company, providing professional services to the clients
through multiple agencies operating globally.  It is engaged in
providing advertising, marketing and corporate communication
services.  The company's agencies provide a range of services,
which it groups into four disciplines: traditional media
advertising, customer relationship management (CRM), public
relations and specialty communications.  The wholly owned
subsidiaries of the company include Omnicom capital Inc. (OCI)
and Omnicom Finance Inc. (OFI).  In July 2009, LB2 Group Ltd.
announced that it has acquired ownership of Ketchum Directory
Advertising (KDA) from Omnicom.


QUEST SOFTWARE: Settlement Final Hearing Set for March 15
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has scheduled a final hearing on the approval of a settlement
agreement in a purported shareholder class action against Quest
Software, Inc., for March 15, 2010, according to the company's
Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In October 2006, a purported shareholder class action was filed
against Quest and certain of its current or former officers and
directors.

The plaintiff alleges that:

     (i) the company improperly backdated stock options,
         resulting in false or misleading disclosures
         concerning, among other things, Quest's financial
         condition and

    (ii) the individual defendants sold Quest stock while in
         possession of material nonpublic information resulting
         in damages to the putative plaintiff class, in
         violation of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
         promulgated thereunder.

On Sept. 8, 2009, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to
certify the class.

Pursuant to a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement entered
into on Nov. 6, 2009, the company, the class representative and
certain current and former officers and directors of the company,
agreed to settle the Options Class Action for a payment of $29.4
million.

The settlement agreement is subject to approval by the U.S.
District Court.

On Dec. 7, 2009, the U.S. District Court preliminarily approved
the settlement.  Shortly thereafter, the company funded its
share, $19.0 million, of the $29.4 million settlement, with the
remainder being funded directly by the Company's liability
insurance carriers.

No class members opted out of or objected to the settlement prior
to the Feb. 15, 2010 deadline for doing so.

A final hearing before the U.S. District Court is scheduled for
March 15, 2010 to approve the settlement.

If the settlement is approved by the U.S. District Court
following the final hearing, the court will enter a judgment
dismissing the Option Class Action with prejudice as to all
defendants, including the company.  Plaintiffs included in the
class will have thirty days to appeal the judgment, after which
the judgment will become final.  If the settlement is not
approved for any reason, the case will resume.

Quest Software, Inc. -- http://www.quest.com/-- designs,  
develops, markets, distributes and supports enterprise systems
management software products.  The company's primary portfolio of
software products includes software solutions grouped into four
categories: Application Management, Database Management, Windows
Management and Virtualization Management.  Quest markets and
sells its products and services worldwide primarily through its
direct sales organization, its telesales organization and via
indirect sales channels with a group of value added resellers
(VAR's) and distributors.  In September 2008, the company
acquired NetPro Computing, Inc.  In January 2008, it acquired
PassGo Technologies Limited (PassGo), a United Kingdom-based
company engaged in access and identity management solutions.


REDDY ICE: Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
amended complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, according to the company's Feb.
19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Following the announcement that the Antitrust Division of the
Department of Justice had instituted an investigation of the
packaged ice industry, a number of lawsuits, including putative
class action lawsuits, were filed in various federal courts in
multiple jurisdictions alleging violations of federal and state
antitrust laws and related claims and seeking damages and
injunctive relief.

Pursuant to an Order from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the civil actions pending in federal courts have been
transferred and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.

On June 1, 2009, the Court appointed interim lead and liaison
counsel for the putative direct and indirect purchaser classes.

On July 17, 2009 the Court entered a case management order
requiring the lead plaintiffs for each class to file a
consolidated amended complaint within 60 days of the order, and
providing 45 days for the defendants to respond to the direct
purchaser consolidated amended complaint and 60 days for the
defendants to respond to the indirect purchaser consolidated
amended complaint.

On Sept. 15, 2009, the lead plaintiffs for each of the putative
direct and indirect purchaser classes filed consolidated amended
complaints.

The company has have filed motions to dismiss both of those
complaints.  The motions to dismiss have been fully briefed and
await determination by the judge.

Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/--  
manufactures and distributes packaged ice in the United States.  
The company serves variety of customers in 31 states and the
District of Columbia under the Reddy Ice brand name. Its
principal product is ice packaged in seven to 50 pound bags,
which it sells to a diversified customer base, including
supermarkets, mass merchants and convenience stores.


REDDY ICE: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit in Mich. Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
amended complaint asserting claims under the federal securities
laws remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan,  according to the company's Feb. 19, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Beginning on Aug. 8, 2008, purported class action complaints have
been filed asserting claims under the federal securities laws
against the company and certain of its current or former senior
officers.

The complaints, which are substantially similar, allege that the
defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose the existence
of, and its alleged participation in, an alleged antitrust
conspiracy in the packaged ice industry.  The complaints purport
to assert claims on behalf of various alleged classes of
purchasers of the company's common stock.

Two motions for consolidation of the three actions and for
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel were
filed on Oct. 7, 2008.  Thereafter, one of the two proposed lead
plaintiffs withdrew his motion.

On July 17, 2009, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff and interim lead plaintiff's counsel.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on Nov.
2, 2009.  The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on Dec. 17, 2009.

Plaintiffs filed a response to that motion to dismiss on Jan. 18,
2010, and the company filed a reply in support of the motion on
Feb. 17, 2010.

Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/--  
manufactures and distributes packaged ice in the United States.  
The company serves variety of customers in 31 states and the
District of Columbia under the Reddy Ice brand name. Its
principal product is ice packaged in seven to 50 pound bags,
which it sells to a diversified customer base, including
supermarkets, mass merchants and convenience stores.


REED ELSEVIER: Copyright Registration Failure Doesn't Bar Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that failure
to register a copyright doesn't bar authors from filing copyright
infringement claims in federal court, the Supreme Court ruled
Tuesday, reviving an $18 million class-action settlement between
freelance authors and publishers.

The Copyright Act generally requires copyright holders to
register their works before suing for infringement.

In the underlying class action, freelance authors accused print
publishers and publishers of electronic databases of reproducing
their work without permission.  The consolidated class included
authors who had never registered copyrights to their articles.

After three years of negotiations, the authors and publishers
agreed to settle the dispute "to achieve a global peace in the
publishing industry," the ruling states.

They asked the district court to certify a class for settlement
and approve their agreement.  The district court complied,
overruling the objections of 10 freelance authors.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit raised the issue of whether the federal court had
jurisdiction to approve the settlement, because the deal included
unregistered works.

The circuit overturned the lower court's rulings, and the Supreme
Court again reversed.

The registration requirement of the Copyright Act is not
jurisdictional, Justice Clarence Thomas ruled, rejecting
arguments advanced by amicus curiae appointed to defend the 2nd
Circuit's position.

"In concluding that the district court had jurisdiction to
approve the settlement, we express no opinion on the settlement's
merits," Judge Thomas wrote.

"We also decline to address whether (the) registration
requirement is a mandatory precondition to suit that . . .
district courts may or should enforce sua sponte by dismissing
copyright infringement claims involving unregistered works."

In a concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained
how she reconciled the high court's rulings in Arbaugh v. Y&H
Corp. and Bowles v. Russell, which addressed statutory
requirements that were potentially jurisdictional.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not participate in the unanimous
decision.

A copy of the decision in Reed Elsevier, Inc., et al. v. Muchnick
et al., No. 08-103 (Sup. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-103.pdf

Reed Elsevier is represented by:

          Charles S. Sims, Esq.
          Jon A. Baumgarten, Esq.
          Mark D. Harris, Esq.
          Anna G. Kaminska, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          1585 Broadway
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212-969-3000

               - and -

          David Nimmer, Esq.
          IRELL &  MANELLA LLP
          1800 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310-203-7079

Petitioner Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC, is
represented by:

          Henry B. Gutman, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Ave.
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-455-3180

Petitioner Dow Jones & Company, Inc. is represented by:

          James L. Hallowell, Esq.
          Richard A. Bierschbach, Esq.
          GIBSON & DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Ave., 47th Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: 212-351-4000

Petitioners Knight-Ridder, Inc., Knight-Ridder Digital, and
Mediastream, Inc. are represented by:

          Ian Ballon, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          2450 Colorado Ave., Suite 400E
          Santa Monica, CA 90404
          Telephone: 310-586-6575

Petitioner ProQuest Company is represented by:

          Matthew W. Walch, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS
          Sears Tower, Suite 5800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312-876-7603

The Author-Respondents are represented by:

          Charles D. Chalmers, Esq.
          769 Center Blvd. No. 148
          Fairfax, CA 94930
          Telephone: 415-860-8134

               - and -

          Amy Howe, Esq.
          Kevin K. Russell, Esq.
          HOWE & RUSSELL, P.C.
          7272 Wisconsin Ave.
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: 301-941-1913

               - and -

          Pamela S. Karlan, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Fisher, Esq.
          STANFORD LAW SCHOOL SUPREME COURT LITIGATION CLINIC
          559 Nathan Abbott Way
          Stanford, CA 94305
          Telephone: 650-725-4851


SEARS ROEBUCK: Suit Complains About Defective Washing Machines
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Sears Roebuck
misleads consumers about the power of its Kenmore Elite Oasis
automatic washing machines, according to a class action in
Madison County Court.  Named plaintiff Therese Dalla Riva says
the machine has a defective electronic control board, which
controls laundry cycles, water levels and spin speed.

Sears advertised the machine as its "top of the line."  It claims
that it uses 47 percent less water and 53 percent less energy,
can do large loads of laundry in a single, uninterrupted cycle,
and cleans clothes better than other washers, according to the
complaint.

But Ms. Dalla Riva says the machine fails to deliver due to a
defective electronic control board.  The problems show up in
error codes, and the machine stops working and has to be
restarted, if it can be restarted, or the machine spins out of
control, which could damage it, Ms. Dalla Riva says.

Ms. Dalla Riva says Sears knew about the defects and reported
internally that the machines were service technicians' top
concern.

Kelly Holleran at The Madison County Record reports that at the
height of its problems, the $1,000 washing machine would take
more than eight hours to wash one load of laundry.  

In 2007, Mr. Harris continues, Sears issued a service flash
stating that the control boards needed to be replaced, but it
applied only to floor models that had not already been sold.  Ms.
Dalla Riva claims Sears did nothing to fix the problems of
customers who already had bought the machines.

The class consists of anybody in Illinois who bought the Kenmore
Elite Oasis washing machines.  It seeks an injunction, repairs,
and damages for breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment and
consumer law violations.

A copy of the Complaint in Dalla Riva v. Sears Roebuck and Co.,
Case No. 2010L000203 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Madison Cty.), is available
at:

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark C. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG HELLER ANTOGNOLI & ROWLAND, P.C.
          2227 S. State Route 157
          P.O. Box 959
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: 618-656-5150

               - and -

          Lori E. Andrus, Esq.
          Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
          ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
          155 Montgomery St., Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-986-1400

               - and -

          Scott R. Shepherd, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          35 East State St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: 610-891-9880


TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs Appealing Dismissal of 3rd Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a Third Amended
Complaint against Time Warner Inc. remains pending in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to the
company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On Sept. 20, 2007, Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et
al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California against the company.

The complaint, which also named as defendants several other
programming content providers (programmer defendants) as well as
cable and satellite providers (distributor defendants), alleged
violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Among other things, the complaint alleged coordination between
and among the programmer defendants to sell and/or  license
programming on a "bundled" basis to the distributor defendants,
who in turn purportedly offer that programming to subscribers in
packaged tiers, rather than on a per channel (a la carte) basis.

Plaintiffs, who seek to represent a purported nationwide class of
cable and satellite subscribers, demand, among other things,
unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to compel
the offering of channels to subscribers on an "a la carte" basis.

On Dec. 3, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in this
action that, among other things, dropped the Section 2 claims and
all allegations of horizontal coordination.  The defendants,
including the company, filed motions to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint and these motions were granted, with leave to amend.

On March 20, 2008, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
that modified certain aspects of the First Amended Complaint.
On April 22, 2008, the defendants, including the company, filed
motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which motions
were denied.

On July 14, 2008, the defendants filed motions requesting the
court to certify its order for interlocutory appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which motions were
denied.

On Nov. 14, 2008, the company was dismissed as a programmer
defendant, and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. was substituted
in its place.

On May 1, 2009, by stipulation of the parties, plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint and a related motion to adjudicate an
element of plaintiffs' claim.

On June 12, 2009, all defendants opposed that motion and moved to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.

On the same date, the distributor defendants also filed a motion
to dismiss for lack of standing.

In an order dated Oct. 15, 2009, the court denied plaintiffs'
motion and granted defendants' motion, dismissing the Third
Amended Complaint with prejudice.

On Oct. 30, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Time Warner Inc. -- http://www.timewarner.com/-- is a media and  
entertainment company.  The company has three reporting segments:
Networks, consisting principally of cable television networks
that provide programming; Filmed Entertainment, consisting
principally of feature film, television and home video production
and distribution, and Publishing, consisting principally of
magazine publishing.  The company's Networks business consists
principally of domestic and international networks and premium
pay television programming services.  Premium pay television
programming consists of the multi channel HBO (Home Box Office)
and Cinemax pay television programming services.  On March 12,
2009, the company completed separation of Time Warner Cable Inc.
(TWC) and on Dec. 9, 2009, it completed separation of AOL Inc.
(AOL).


TOYOTA MOTOR: Lieff Cabraser Files Another Acceleration Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Nelson, Esq., of the national plaintiffs' law firm
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, announced that Andrew
and Tetyana Flury of Pasadena, Maryland, filed a personal injury
lawsuit last week seeking general and punitive damages against
Toyota Motor Corporation for the severe injuries they suffered.  

On April 29, 2008, in Baltimore, Maryland, the couple's 2005
Toyota Echo suddenly accelerated and collided with an SUV.

"My wife and I were driving to a restaurant in Baltimore to
celebrate our wedding anniversary.  As we approached a stop sign,
I tried to stop but our 2005 Toyota Echo continued to
accelerate," stated Mr. Flury.  "I applied the brakes but the
vehicle did not respond.  We accelerated into the intersection
where we were impacted by an SUV."



The life-threatening collision knocked both unconscious.  Mr.
Flury went into an immediate coma for over a month and suffered a
traumatic brain injury.  "I have been unable to return to my job
as a sales manager for a technical job placement agency," Mr.
Flury added.  "I am now partially paralyzed on the right side of
my body and have serious cognitive impairments that will affect
me for the rest of my life."

"The complaint charges that Toyota for years was aware that its
vehicles were susceptible to sudden unintended acceleration,
leading to fatal accidents," stated plaintiffs' counsel Robert J.
Nelson.  "Yet, Toyota never made any significant changes to
improve the acceleration and electrical systems of its vehicles,
in spite of the availability of several safe and inexpensive
modifications."

                     Allegations Against Toyota

The complaint charges that beginning in the late 1990s, Toyota
manufactured, distributed and sold vehicles with an electronic
throttle control system ("ETC").  Unlike that of traditional
throttle control systems, where a physical linkage connects the
accelerator pedal to the engine throttle, in the ETC system, the
engine throttle is controlled by electronic signals sent from the
gas pedal to the engine throttle.  A sensor at the accelerator
detects how far the gas pedal is depressed and transmits that
information to a computer module which controls the engine
throttle.  

When Toyota first introduced the ETC, it continued to include a
mechanical linkage between the accelerator and the engine
throttle control.  Beginning with the 2002 model year, Toyota
began manufacturing and selling vehicles without such a
mechanical linkage. Further, Toyota's ETC system fails to include
a failsafe measure, known as brake-to-idle override, that is in
use by other vehicle manufacturers.  The brake-to-idle override
instructs the ETC system to automatically reduce the engine to
idle whenever the brakes are applied without success.

"The complaint charges that the lack of these two safety systems
-- the mechanical linkage between the accelerator and the engine
throttle control, and the brake-to-idle override failsafe -- in
millions of Toyota vehicles, including the 2005 Toyota Echo
driven by Andrew Flury, played a direct role in the severe
injuries he suffered," commented Mr. Nelson.

The complaint was filed in federal court in Los Angeles as two of
the primary defendants, Toyota Motor North America, Inc. and
Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., are both California corporations with
their headquarters located in Los Angeles.  The complaint seeks
general damages as well as punitive damages against Toyota for
its failure to recall its vehicles due to a known, significant
safety defect and refusal to take any steps to prevent sudden
unintended acceleration accidents in order to increase its
profits.

                   Description of Flury Toyota
                Unintended, Acceleration Accident

On the night of April 29, 2008, Andrew Flury and his wife Tetyana
Flury were belted occupants in their 2005 Toyota Echo.  Mr. Flury
was driving and Mrs. Flury was in the front passenger seat.  

The couple was driving to a restaurant in Baltimore to celebrate
their wedding anniversary.  They were driving at a safe rate of
speed, proceeding westbound on Water Street in Baltimore.  As
they approached a stop sign at the intersection of Gay Street,
Mr. Flury tried to stop the vehicle, but it suddenly accelerated.   
He applied the brakes but the vehicle did not respond.  

The Toyota Echo accelerated into the intersection where it was
impacted by Ford Explorer SUV that was traveling northbound on
Gay Street.  There was a violent impact to the driver's side of
the Toyota Echo.  The Flurys both suffered head injuries and were
knocked unconscious.  

Mr. Flury went into an immediate coma for over a month and
suffered a traumatic brain injury.  He is now partially paralyzed
on the right side of his body and has serious cognitive
impairments that will affect him for the rest of his life.  Since
the accident, he has been unable to return to work due to his
severe injuries and limitations.

             Legal Resources for Drivers and Passengers
          Injured in Toyota Sudden Acceleration Accidents

Lieff Cabraser represents persons across America injured in
accidents involving Toyota and Lexus vehicles that suddenly
accelerated.  

If you would like to learn more about your legal rights please
visit:

     http://www.usautoinjurylaw.com/cases/defects/acceleration/toyota-lexus.htm

or call the Firm toll free at 1-800-541-7358 and ask to speak to
attorney Todd Walburg.  There is no charge or obligation for the
Firm's review of your case.

                         About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP --
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/-- is a sixty-plus attorney law  
firm that has represented plaintiffs nationwide since 1972. We
have offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville. Lieff
Cabraser has a comprehensive and diverse practice, which includes
representing persons injured and families of loved ones who died
in auto accidents.  Since 2003, The National Law Journal has
selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms
in the nation.  


VERVE GLOBAL: Ill. Suit Complains About Flawed Nursing Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that a
Chicago vocational school's "deeply flawed" nursing program is so
shoddy it neglects basic elements of nursing and prevents
graduates from getting jobs, a class action claims in Cook County
Court.  The seven named plaintiffs sued Verve Global dba the PC
Computer Training Institute.

The for-profit school, which has campuses in Chicago and Oak
Park, also does business as PCCTI and PCCTI IT and Healthcare.

The students say the curriculum for the licensed practical
nursing program "completely failed to include required nursing
areas, including Pharmacology, Pediatrics, Cardiology,
Psychology, Maternity and Nutrition."

They add that they "were taught incorrect nursing procedures, and
taught incorrect theory."

They say the school "failed to grade students' examinations
utilizing a valid and consistent methodology, resulting in grades
issued by the school without competent basis."

As a result, they say, a large number of nursing students were
given failing grades, causing them to be "unfairly prevented from
taking the Illinois license test for becoming an LPN."

The school also changed its minimum passing grade from a C to a
B, the complaint states.

Even students who pass the school's test cannot get jobs, the
class claims, because "employer pre-employment examinations
reveal that the PCCTI LPN curriculum is deeply flawed and
deficient of required nursing knowledge."

Students say they were misled to believe that credits were
transferable to RN programs at other schools; that teachers were
available for out-of-class tutoring; and say they were charged
for exams that were supposed to be free.

They seek and injunction and class damages for violations of the
Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, consumer fraud,
deceptive business practices, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in Hristova, et al. v. Verve Global,
Inc., Case No. 10CH08385 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available
at:

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Antonelli, Esq.
          Julia C. Floyd, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY J. ANTONELLI, LTD.
          30 North LaSalle St., Suite 3400
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-201-8310

               - and -

          Edward X. Clinton, Jr.
          Edward X. Clinton, Sr.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD X. CLINTON, P.C.
          30 North LaSalle St., Suite 3400
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-357-1515

                            *********

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  * * *