CAR_Public/100913.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, September 13, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 180

                             Headlines

ACCURAY INC: Defends Consolidated Complaint in North California
ALMOST FAMILY: Faces Securities Class Suit
AMERICAN APPAREL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit in Calif.
AT&T SERVICES: Accused in Calif. of Unfair Business Practices
BORDERS GROUP: Defends Labor Violations Suit in California

BRE BANK: May Face Possible Class Suit Over Rates on Swiss Loans
CALIFORNIA: Preparing Appeal on Certification of Suit vs. DFG
CHALMETTE REFINING: Faces Class Suit Over Release of White Powder
FMC CORP: Ontario Court Upholds Certification in Price-Fixing Suit
FOX ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over "Rouge Cookie-Like Tracking Code"

HARRIS CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
HOOSIER LOTTERY: Appeals Court Allows Class Suit to Proceed
IDAHOAN FOODS: Sued Over Alleged Potato Price-Fixing Conspiracy
INNOVAGE LLC: Recalls 1.4MM Candlepower Rechargeable Spotlights
INTERNATIONAL CCE: Settles Class Suits Over Coca-Cola Merger

JOS. A. BANK: Maryland Court Approves Settlement Agreement
JOS. A. BANK: Defends Discrimination Suit in Eastern California
LAND OF NOD: Recalls 2,100 "Play With Your Veggies" Toys
LOCAL 301: Superior Court Sides With Plaintiffs in Class Suit
NEW YORK: Contends Seneca Park Not at Fault in Sprayground Case

NVIDIA CORP: Agrees to Settle California GPU Litigation
NVIDIA CORP: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Defends Suit Over Wages & Benefits in Calif.
PRO-PAC DISTRIBUTING: Agrees to Pay $125,000 Civil Penalty
REMEC INC: Inks Pact with Plaintiffs of Dismissed Suit

REPUBLIC SERVICES: Takes Measures to Control Landfill Odor
SCICLONE PHARMA: Sued for Violations of Federal Securities Laws
SCICLONE PHARMA: Kaplan Fox Reminds Investors of Oct. 12 Deadline
SIMMS FISHING: Recalls 3,000 Wading Staffs
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Settles "Lavender" Suit for $50 Million

USA: Black Farmers Call for Cloture Vote on $1.25BB Settlement
WARNER MUSIC: Second Circuit Denies Petition for Hearing
WINN-DIXIE: Defends FCRA Violations Suit in Florida
WINN-DIXIE: Motion to Dismiss Collective Action Claims Pending
WINN-DIXIE: Defends Racial Discrimination Suit in Alabama

WISCONSIN: MPS & Disability Group Argue Case Before 7th Circuit
ZUMIEZ INC: Court Gives Final Okay to $1.38 Million Settlement
ZUMIEZ INC: Agrees to Settle "Berg" Suit for $2.1 Million

                             *********

ACCURAY INC: Defends Consolidated Complaint in North California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accuray Incorporated defends a consolidated complaint pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On July 22, 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers.

On Aug. 7, 2009 and Aug. 9, 2009, two securities class action
complaints, both similar to the one filed on July 22, 2009, were
filed against the same defendants in the same court.  These three
actions were consolidated.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the company and
the individual defendants made false or misleading public
statements regarding the company's operations and seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.

No further updates were reported in the company's Sept. 1, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.

Accuray Incorporated -- http://www.accuray.com/-- based in
Sunnyvale, Calif., is a global leader in the field of radiosurgery
dedicated to providing an improved quality of life and a non-
surgical treatment option for those diagnosed with cancer. Accuray
develops and markets the CyberKnife Robotic Radiosurgery System,
which extends the benefits of radiosurgery to include extracranial
tumors, including those in the spine, lung, prostate, liver and
pancreas.  To date, the CyberKnife System has been used to treat
more than 95,000 patients worldwide and currently more than 206
systems have been installed in leading hospitals in the Americas,
Europe and Asia.


ALMOST FAMILY: Faces Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------
The law firm of Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC, which has
significant experience in class actions, disclosed Wednesday that
a class action has been filed against Almost Family Inc. for
potential violations of state and federal law.  The class action
was filed on behalf of purchasers of stock during the period of
November 4, 2009 to June 30, 2010.

Almost Family, together with its subsidiaries, provides home
health services in the United States, operating through two
segments, Visiting Nurse and Personal Care.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operations and its business and financial results and
outlook.  Defendants misled investors by failing to disclose that:
(i) the Company was deliberately increasing the number of
unnecessary home therapy visits in order to receive increased
Medicare reimbursements; and (ii) as a result of defendants'
conduct, the Company's reported sales and earnings were materially
inflated.  As a direct result of defendants' false statements,
Almost Family's common stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $43.96 per
shares on April 29, 2010.

On April 26, 2010, the Wall Street Journal reported that certain
home health providers intentionally increased the number of
in-home therapy visits to patients to coincide with higher
reimbursement rates through Medicare.  According to the WSJ
article, the percentage of Almost Family patients receiving 10
visits dropped by 39% from 2007 to 2008, when the 10 visit
reimbursement bonus was eliminated from Medicare in January 2008.

As a result of the WSJ article, the Company has come under intense
scrutiny, including an inquiry by the United States Senate Finance
Committee.  On July 1, 2010, Almost Family announced that it had
been notified that the Securities and Exchange Commission had
launched a formal investigation of the Company.  Almost Family
also announced that it had received a subpoena from the SEC
seeking documents related to the Company's "home health care
services and operations, including reimbursements under the
Medicare home health prospective payment system, since January 1,
2000."  As a result of this negative news, Almost Family's common
stock fell $3.88 per share or 11.11%, on July 1, 2010, on high
volume.

If you purchased shares of Almost Family during the Class Period,
you have until October 4, 2010, to ask the Court to appoint you as
lead plaintiff for the class.  If you would like more information
about your shareholder rights, contact attorneys Melinda Nenning
or Elizabeth Hutton for further information without any obligation
or cost to you at (513) 345-8181, Ext. 3095, or by email at
mnenning@statmanharris.com or ehutton@statmanharris.com

Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC -- http://www.statmanharris.com/ --
as offices in Chicago, Illinois; Cincinnati, Ohio; Dayton, Ohio;
and Sarasota, Florida.

CONTACT:

          Melinda S. Nenning, Esq.
          Elizabeth L. Hutton, Esq.
          STATMAN, HARRIS & EYRICH, LLC
          441 Vine Street, Suite 3700
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 345-8181, Ext. 3095
          E-mail: mnenning@statmanharris.com
                  ehutton@statmanharris.com


AMERICAN APPAREL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased the securities of American
Apparel, Inc., between December 19, 2006 and August 17, 2010,
inclusive.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or
Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com , or visit our Web site at
http://www.glancylaw.com/

The Complaint charges American Apparel and certain of the
Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities
laws. American Apparel is a designer, manufacturer and retailer of
fashion apparel for women, men, children and pets.  The Complaint
alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning the
Company's business, operations and prospects were materially false
and misleading. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the
Company was not complying with labor and employment regulations,
including immigration laws; (2) that the Company was not making
"diligent efforts" to comply with employment and labor regulation;
(3) that, contrary to the Company's representations, many of the
Company's workers were undocumented immigrants and not authorized
to work in the United States; (4) that the Company's business
would be materially impacted if the Company were forced to comply
with labor and employment regulations, including immigration laws;
and (5), that the Company lacked adequate internal controls.

During July 2009, American Apparel disclosed that it was being
investigated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in
regards to the Company's compliance with federal immigration laws.
Defendants, however, repeatedly assured investors that the
investigation would not materially impact the business

Subsequently, on August 17, 2010, American Apparel announced its
preliminary financial results for the Company's 2010 fiscal second
quarter and that the Company expected to report a loss of $5
million to $7 million for the quarter, due to "lower labor
efficiency at the Company's production facilities" after having to
hire over 1,600 new manufacturing workers during the quarter.
Moreover, the Company announced that it "may not have sufficient
liquidity necessary to sustain operations for the next twelve
months" and that there was "substantial doubt that the Company
[would] be able to continue as a going concern."

As a result of this news, shares of American Apparel declined
$0.36 per share, or nearly 26%, to close on August 17, 2010, at
$1.03 per share on unusually heavy volume, and further declined an
additional $0.22 per share, to close on August 18, 2010, at $0.81
per share, on unusually heavy volume. Over the course of these two
days of trading, shares of American Apparel declined more than 41%
-- a total of $0.58 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with
significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than October 25, 2010, to serve as lead plaintiff,
however, you must meet certain legal requirements. If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Toll Free: (888) 773-9224
          E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com


AT&T SERVICES: Accused in Calif. of Unfair Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that AT&T
"secretly and deceptively" inflates the amount of data transferred
through customers' cell phones, then charges for "three to five
times the actual data usage and transfer," a class action claims
in Federal Court.  "These overcharges are concealed from the
customer," and cannot be traced "without the use of an expert in
the field and access to AT&T's internal engineering reports," the
class claims.

"At bottom, AT&T's systems improperly measure data usage and data
transfer, by three to five times the actual amount.  These
overcharges are concealed from the customer.  This case is a high-
tech version of a gas pump meter that incorrectly measures the
gallons of gas being pumped and then applies the per gallon charge
to the fraudulent measure of gas, so that the consumer pays more
than is proper," the complaint states.

Lead plaintiff Guardian Corp. says its own "expert" had to work
with AT&T to find out why its data usage and transfer charges were
"excessively high."

"Bandwidth reports and AT&T's internal engineering reports showed
that the actual data usage and data transfer by Guardian were, as
a matter of corporate policy, being misrepresented by AT T's
system," the complaint states.  "As a result, only by using this
independent third-party expert could the inflated data figures be
confirmed.  The investigation further revealed that the programs
and systems used by AT&T inflated the data usage and data transfer
to amounts that far exceeded actual usage."

Two individuals signed on as class representatives along with
Guardian.  They seek restitution and punitive damages for unfair
business practices and fraud.

A copy of the Complaint in The Guardian Corporation, et al. v.
AT&T Services, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-01846 (S.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/08/AT&T.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: 858-551-1223

               - and -

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS, APLC
          9880 Research Dr., Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: 949-387-7200


BORDERS GROUP: Defends Labor Violations Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Borders Group, Inc., defends a suit alleging violations of the
California Labor Code.

In February 2009, three former employees, individually and on
behalf of a purported class consisting of all current and former
employees who work or worked as General Managers in Borders stores
in the State of California at any time from Feb. 19, 2005 through
Feb. 19, 2009, have filed an action against the company in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Orange.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual
plaintiffs and the purported class members were improperly
classified as exempt employees and that the company violated the
California Labor Code by failing to (i) pay required overtime and
(ii) provide meal periods and rest periods, and (iii) that those
practices also violate the California Business and Professions
Code.

The relief sought includes damages, restitution, penalties,
injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such
other relief as the court deems proper.

No updates were reported in the company's Sept. 1, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 31, 2010.

Headquartered in Ann Arbor, Mich., Borders Group, Inc. --
http://www.borders.com/-- is a leading specialty retailer of
books as well as other educational and entertainment items.  The
company employs approximately 19,500 throughout the U.S.,
primarily in its Borders(R) and Waldenbooks(R) stores.


BRE BANK: May Face Possible Class Suit Over Rates on Swiss Loans
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Warsaw Business Journal reports trouble is brewing for
Poland's BRE Bank. The bank decided not to lower rates on loans
taken out in Swiss francs, despite a drop in market interest
rates. Now the bank's clients are looking to fight back with a
class-action lawsuit.

A law firm has already expressed interest in representing the
clients. So far, 16 people have come forward, but the firm is
looking for other parties interested in going after the bank,
before it files a formal suit with the courts in December.


CALIFORNIA: Preparing Appeal on Certification of Suit vs. DFG
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Jorgenson, Portola reporter for Plumas County News, reports
that for more than a year, the class action lawsuit of eastern
county citizens and the city of Portola versus the California
Department of Fish and Game over economic impacts of the Pike
Eradication Project was out of public sight, until Judge Janet
Hilde's ruling to certify the plaintiffs as a class a couple of
weeks ago.

In an update to Portola's city council at its regular meeting
Aug. 25, City Attorney Steve Gross reported he attended a case
management conference for the court to meet with attorneys from
both sides of the pike economic impact lawsuit on Aug. 23 to
discuss procedural issues and timelines.

"At that case management conference, the attorney for the state of
California informed the court that they were working on their writ
as we spoke, which means they will file a writ to appeal the
court's decision. Based on that representation by the state, the
court stayed everything for a month," Mr. Gross said.

Speaking on behalf of the Department of Fish and Game, Jordan
Traverso, deputy director of Communications, Education and
Outreach, declined to comment.

"The department has a longstanding policy that prohibits us from
commenting on ongoing litigation," he said.

Judge Hilde's comprehensive, 22-page ruling granted class
certification with three subgroups.  Class A is comprised of
persons and entities having businesses in the Lake Davis area that
filed claims with the California Claims Board that were rejected.

Class B is composed of persons and entities owning real estate in
the area that filed claims that were rejected, and Class C is for
persons, entities or political subdivisions injured by the 2007
poisoning that filed claims that were rejected.

Class C consists of the city of Portola, but was designed to
incorporate Grizzly Lake Resort Improvement District and Plumas
County should they file, which they did not.

Judge Hilde found sufficient commonality in the complaints filed
with the Victims' Compensation Board to qualify as a class, with
differences accounted for by the three subclasses.

She also found it beneficial to avoid multiple lawsuits since more
than 102 litigants had retained class counsel. Since more claims
were filed with the claims board than retained counsel -- up to
200 according to estimates in the ruling -- it is possible those
claimants might also file suit.

Anyone who did not file a claim with the state in 2008 would be
ineligible to join the suit at this point.

According to Judge Hilde's ruling, individual damages would still
require proving and would be determined through an administrative
proceeding at a later date.

David Diepenbrock, attorney for individual plaintiffs, and Mr.
Gross, attorney for Portola, both emphasized going to trial was
not the only way the case could proceed.

They continue to talk to legislators about creating legislation to
provide compensation to those claiming damages from the poisoning
of Lake Davis.

Senator Dave Cox was supportive of the idea, but because of state
budget problems, he felt he needed the governor's support. Since
Sen. Cox's death, the attorneys are looking for another legislator
to champion their cause.

"It would be more efficient and save everyone money," said Mr.
Diepenbrock.

At the last city council meeting, Mr. Gross also brought a
resolution before the council for an addendum to the contract
between the city and the plaintiffs' law firms, Diepenbrock
Harrison (Sacramento) and Robertson and Benevento (Reno, Nev.).

The addendum adds clarity and strength to the city attorney
retaining complete control and veto power regarding the city's
claim before the state.

Mr. Gross said the original agreement stipulated the same, but a
recent Supreme Court decision regarding contingency fee
arrangements in class action suits, made it advisable to clarify
the language. The council approved the resolution before going on
to discuss the case.

In answer to a question from citizen Bill Mainland as to how this
veto power affected the other plaintiffs, Mr. Gross replied, "Not
at all. The city only has veto powers over the settlement of its
claim and with respect to the strategy regarding its claim. The
city couldn't veto any settlement with respect to any other
plaintiff."

He also explained contingency fee arrangements. "What we have here
basically provides that we (the city) don't pay money unless we
prevail in the lawsuit. The recovery of the fee is based on the
success of the lawsuit."

Mr. Gross felt that the percentages in the contract (17 percent of
net recovery to the city if settled before it goes to trial and 33
percent thereafter) were "favorable costs to the city." He said
generally 33 percent of the amount recovered went to attorney fees
before trial and up to 40 percent thereafter.

Citizen Larry Douglas asked Mr. Gross how long the suit was likely
to take.

Mr. Gross responded, "This could be a complex case. It's not
likely to be resolved in less than a year."

But, Mr. Gross said, "The good news is: The class was certified.
The state now has an uphill battle to appeal and overturn that
decision."


CHALMETTE REFINING: Faces Class Suit Over Release of White Powder
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Kirkham at The Times-Picayune reports reserve attorney
Daniel Becnel Jr. petitioned for a class-action lawsuit against
Chalmette Refining LLC in federal court Wednesday, following the
release of a powdery white substance from the refinery early
Monday.

Nearly 2,000 pounds of spent catalyst, a by-product of the oil
refining process, fell on cars and houses across St. Bernard
Parish after a power failure at the refinery at about 2 a.m.
Monday.

Mr. Becnel filed the case on behalf of a named plaintiff, Lauren
Stone, a St. Bernard resident, and others who were impacted by the
release.  The suit says the catalyst is "toxic, noxious and
harmful" and that "the defendant knew or should have known that
their equipment and the tank in question were defective and
faulty."

Mr. Becnel filed a similar class-action case against Chalmette
Refining in 2007, following a release of coke dust from the
refinery that fell on children, teachers and parents during a
field trip at the Chalmette National Battlefield. Class-action
certification in that case was granted in June.

A refinery spokesman said Wednesday the company had not yet seen
the lawsuit and had no comment on it.

The St. Bernard Parish government and refinery officials told
residents they could clean the product themselves off cars and
homes. But the official material data safety sheet about the
catalyst, which was submitted to state and parish officials after
the release, recommends using rubber gloves and protective safety
glasses when handling the product.

The safety sheet also notes that "If clothing or footwear become
contaminated with the product, remove it and completely
decontaminate it before re-use, or discard it."

The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality has begun a
required investigation of the incident. DEQ spokesman Rodney
Mallett said the powder mostly poses only minor short-term risks
of irritation.

"At this particular juncture, it's nothing more than an irritant
and a nuisance, frankly," Mr. Mallett said. "But if you use proper
hygiene and common sense, you shouldn't have an issue with it."

The agency will eventually determine whether the accident was
preventable, he said, and could then refer it to DEQ's enforcement
division to assess penalties.

The Louisiana Bucket Brigade and the St. Bernard Citizens for
Environmental Quality are also asking for the Environmental
Protection Agency to review emergency response procedures for the
refinery and St. Bernard Parish government, citing the notes in
the material safety data sheet that say rubber gloves should be
worn.

At Tuesday's Parish Council meeting, St. Bernard Parish President
Craig Taffaro downplayed any problems created by the catalyst. He
said the language about protective gear is "universal," and that
the release "should not create a problem."


FMC CORP: Ontario Court Upholds Certification in Price-Fixing Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Linex Legal reports that a court upheld certification of a class
action in price-fixing case filed by Shawn Neylan and Sharon
Seung.  In a judgment rendered June 8, 2010, the Ontario Superior
Court dismissed a motion by FMC Corporation and FMC of Canada,
Ltd., for leave to appeal a September 28, 2009, decision
certifying a class action. The motion was supported by Arkema
Inc., Arkema Canada Inc. and Arkema S.A.


FOX ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over "Rouge Cookie-Like Tracking Code"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karina Brown at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action claims Fox Entertainment Group hacked into millions of
computers to install "rogue, cookie-like tracking code" to snoop
on people who visit Fox's "American Idol" Web site.

The class claims Fox and Clearspring Technologies committed
crimes, circumvented privacy settings, and that the rogue devices
reinstall themselves even if their victims can find and delete
them.

Lead plaintiff Erica Intzekostas claims Fox and Clearspring
Technologies concocted the plan "so they could help themselves to
users' personal information, and continue doing so for as long as
defendants liked without ever having to ask or take a user's 'no'
for an answer.  In fact, users' 'no' answers were the reason
defendants devised the scheme in the first place."

Ms. Intzekostas claims Clearspring developed a system to install
cookies on users' computers on behalf of advertisers such as Fox,
along with a backup cookie that runs through Adobe Flash Player.
That way, if a user deletes the first cookie, the "flash cookie"
would "re-spawn" the tracking device, according to the federal
complaint.

Adobe Systems "condemned" the practice in a January 2010 letter to
the Federal Trade Commission, Ms. Intzekostas says.

Many Internet surfers object to the use of cookies, which
advertisers use to monitor and profile consumers' Internet
activities.  But Clearspring boasts, and advertises, that its
services can "track every consumer that touches one of the widgets
it distributes or manages," according to the complaint.

The class seeks restitution, disgorgement and punitive damages for
computer fraud, computer crime, privacy invasion, trespass, unjust
enrichment, and violations of consumer and business law.  It also
wants Fox and Clearspring enjoined from continuing their game.

A copy of the Complaint in Intzekostas v. Fox Entertainment Group,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-06586 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/08/FoxCookies.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          David A. Stampley, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          100 Wall St., 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: 212-920-3072
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com
                  dstampley@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Avi Kreitenberg, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLP
          1180 South Beverly Dr., Suite 601
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: 310-400-1050
          E-mail: akreitenberg@kamberlaw.com


HARRIS CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harris Corp. continues to defend a consolidated federal securities
class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware.

Harris Stratex Networks, Inc., a former subsidiary of the company,
and certain of its current and former officers and directors,
including certain current officers of the company, were named as
defendants in a federal securities class action complaint filed on
Sept. 15, 2008 by plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement System on
behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of HSTX securities from
Jan. 29, 2007 to July 30, 2008, including shareholders of Stratex
Networks, Inc., who exchanged shares of Stratex for shares of HSTX
as part of the combination between Stratex and the Company's
former Microwave Communications Division to form HSTX.

Similar complaints were filed in the Court on Oct. 6, 2008 and
Oct. 30, 2008.

The complaints were consolidated in a slightly expanded complaint
filed on July 29, 2009 that added Harris Corp. and Ernst & Young
LLP as defendants.  This action relates to public disclosures made
by HSTX on Jan. 30, 2007 and July 30, 2008, which included the
restatement of HSTX's financial statements for the first three
fiscal quarters of its fiscal 2008 -- the quarters ended March 28,
2008, Dec. 28, 2007 and Sept. 28, 2007 -- and for its fiscal years
ended June 29, 2007, June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2005 due to
accounting errors.

The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and of Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, as well as violations of Section 11 and Section 15 of
the Securities Act, and seeks, among other relief, determinations
that the action is a proper class action, unspecified compensatory
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 30, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended July 2, 2010.

Harris Corp. -- http://www.harris.com/-- together with its
subsidiaries, is an international communications and information
technology (IT) company serving government and commercial markets
in more than 150 countries.  The company is focused on developing
assured communications products, systems and services for global
markets, including radio frequency (RF) communications, government
communications and broadcast communications.  The company is
organized in three segments: RF Communications segment, Government
Communications Systems segment and Broadcast Communications
segment.


HOOSIER LOTTERY: Appeals Court Allows Class Suit to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Niki Kelly at The Journal Gazette reports a class-action lawsuit
brought by an Auburn man against the Hoosier Lottery can move
forward to trial, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

Jeff Koehlinger of Auburn is one of two plaintiffs suing the state
lottery for thousands of dollars he lost playing the Cash Blast
game in 2005 and 2006. He spent almost $2,500 on the $10 tickets,
while a man from Carmel spent $40,000.

The suit -- which has now been certified as a class-action lawsuit
-- contends the lottery misstated the number and amount of prizes
available in the game. The men say they were misled by advertising
that made the odds of winning and prizes available seem greater
than they were.

The game promised seven grand prizes of $250,000 each, plus
several lesser prizes of up to $10,000 each. But the lottery,
after selling 5 million tickets, abruptly reduced the number and
amount of prizes.

In a statement posted on its Web site, the Hoosier Lottery
acknowledged overstating the prizes.

It said half of the game's 5 million tickets were "potentially
defective" because of a printing error and were replaced, but
internal lottery reports did not reflect the changes, resulting in
the prizes being overstated.

The odds of winning were not compromised, the lottery said.

A Marion County trial judge dismissed part of the case on behalf
of the Hoosier Lottery, saying the players couldn't seek a
contractual claim. But the appellate court reinstated that claim.

"There is ample designated evidence that several class members
relied on the misinformation on the lottery's website when
deciding to purchase Cash Blast tickets. It is reasonable to infer
that many of these players also suffered prejudice as a result,"
the ruling said.

The ruling said numerous people contacted the lottery with
questions and concerns about the change in the odds and the
lottery didn't direct them to an administrative remedy.

"Simply put, it seems that the Lottery had no mechanism for
addressing player concerns of this type at the time," the ruling
said.

Lottery officials set up a refund system in January 2007, but the
plaintiffs sued about the same time.

"While we are strongly inclined, as a general rule, to allow the
Lottery -- or any other agency -- the opportunity and autonomy to
correct its own errors, that particular ship has sailed in this
case," the decision said.


IDAHOAN FOODS: Sued Over Alleged Potato Price-Fixing Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Idahoan Foods, United Potato
Growers of Idaho, United Potato Growers of America and others
conspired to fix the price of potatoes, according to an antitrust
class action in San Francisco Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Florez v. Idahoan Foods, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-03984 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/08/Potato.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julio J. Ramos, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JULIO J. RAMOS
          35 Grove St., Suite 107
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: 415-948-3015
          E-mail: ramosfortrustee@yahoo.com


INNOVAGE LLC: Recalls 1.4MM Candlepower Rechargeable Spotlights
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Innovage LLC, of Foothill Ranch, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1.4 Million FIXIT One Million Candlepower
Rechargeable Spotlights.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The spotlight's charging adapter can overcharge the battery,
forcing it to rupture and leak battery acid.  This poses a
chemical burn hazard to consumers.

The firm has received 13 reports of incidents involving minor skin
chemical burns and battery acid burn holes in upholstery, clothing
and carpeting.

This recall involves the One Million Candlepower Spotlight, a
rechargeable halogen light.  The handheld spotlight is made of
yellow plastic and has a black label that reads, "FIXIT Tools UP
TO 1,000,000 CANDLE POWER" or "FIXIT Rechargeable Spotlight."  The
spotlight is sold with an AC power charger and a 12 volt car
utility adapter.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10337.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Walgreens, Rite Aid, Bealls, Tuesday Morning, Ace Hardware,
Boscov's and Winn-Dixie stores nationwide from October 2003
through October 2009 for about $10.

Consumers should immediately stop using the spotlights and contact
Innovage for a full refund of the regular retail price.  For
purchases made above the regular retail price, additional refunds
will be offered with valid receipts.  Consumers are asked to
return the product, via a self-addressed stamped envelope or box
that will be provided.  Instructions for returning the product are
posted at http://www.spotlightrecall.org/and are also available
from the Innovage call center.  For additional information,
contact Innovage toll-free at (888) 408-1140 between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's website at http://www.spotlightrecall.org/ Consumers can
also email the firm at info@spotlightrecall.org/


INTERNATIONAL CCE: Settles Class Suits Over Coca-Cola Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
citybizlist Staff reports International CCE Inc. (NYSE: CCE) said
it had settled putative class-action suits that sought to block
the acquisition of its North American bottling business by the
Coca-Cola Co. (NYSE: KO), according to an SEC filing.

Atlanta-based Coca-Cola Enterprises, Coca-Cola's largest global
bottler, said it resolved the so-called Consolidated Georgia
Action -- three complaints filed by CCE shareholders opposing the
deal with its parent company -- by agreeing to modify several
provisions in the merger agreement but without admitting any
wrongdoing.

The plaintiffs alleged that Coca-Cola misused its control of CCE
to effect the merger, and accused the CCE directors of breaching
their fiduciary duties.

Key among the merger agreement changes was the 39 months' time,
from 36 months, given to shareholders of the new CCE the right to
buy Coca-Cola's German bottler. Also, the termination fee was
lowered to $180 million, from $200 million.

In February, Coca-Cola and CCE entered into an agreement under
which Coca-Cola would acquire CCE 's North American bottling
business, and CCE would acquire Coca-Cola's bottling operations in
Norway and Sweden.  Under the complicated deal, CCE shareholders
were to receive nearly $15 in cash per share, adjusted
ex-dividend, in exchange for new shares in the new CCE , which
would retain control of its European bottling operations.

The three putative class-action complaints were filed in the
Superior Court of Fulton County on behalf of CCE shareholders
(C.A. No. 2010-cv-182035).

A copy of the Form 8-K filing is available at:

                    http://tinyurl.com/2d6ejwo


JOS. A. BANK: Maryland Court Approves Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland gave its
approval to the settlement agreement resolving a consolidated
class action complaint against Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.,
according to the company's Sept. 1, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 31, 2010.

On July 24, 2006, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and Robert N. Wildrick, then the company's Chief Executive
Officer and now its Chairman of the Board, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland by Roy T. Lefkoe, Civil Action
Number 1:06-cv-01892-WMN.

On Aug. 3, 2006, a lawsuit substantially similar to the class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for Maryland by Tewas
Trust UAD 9/23/86, Civil Action Number 1:06-cv-02011-WMN.  The
Tewas Trust Action was filed against the same defendants as those
in the class action and purported to assert the same claims and
seek the same relief.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the class action and the Tewas Trust Action were
consolidated under the Class Action case number (1:06-cv-01892-
WMN) and the Tewas Trust Action was administratively closed.

Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund was appointed the lead
plaintiff in the Class Action and filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint.

R. Neal Black, then the company's Executive Vice President for
Merchandising and Marketing and now its President and Chief
Executive Officer, and David E. Ullman, the company's Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, were added as
defendants.

On behalf of purchasers of the company's stock between Dec. 5,
2005 and June 7, 2006, the Class Action purports to make claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, based on the company's disclosures during
the Class Period.  The Class Action seeks unspecified damages,
costs and attorneys' fees.

The company's Motion to Dismiss the Class Action was not granted.

In late October 2009, the company and MLAF agreed to settle the
Class Action for an amount that is within the limits of the
company's insurance coverage.  The company and MLAF have also
agreed that the definitive settlement documents will reflect that,
at the time of the settlement, the substantial discovery completed
did not substantiate any of the claims against the individual
defendants.

The Stipulation of Settlement entered into by the company and MLAF
includes a statement that, at the time of the settlement, the
substantial discovery completed did not substantiate any of the
claims asserted against the individual defendants.

The U.S. District Court for Maryland has preliminarily approved
the Stipulation and the settlement set forth therein, subject to
further consideration at a settlement hearing scheduled for
July 8, 2010.

By Order dated July 8, 2010 and filed on July 20, 2010, the court
approved the settlement of the Class Action in accordance with the
Stipulation and dismissed the Class Action with prejudice.

JoS. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. -- http://www.josbank.com/--
designs, manufacturers and sells men's classically-styled tailored
and casual clothing, sportswear, footwear and accessories.  The
company sells its full product line through 473 stores in 42
states and the District of Columbia, a nationwide catalog and an
e-commerce Web site.


JOS. A. BANK: Defends Discrimination Suit in Eastern California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., defends a complaint pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
allegations of racial discrimination, according to the company's
Sept. 1, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

On Nov. 12, 2009, Casey J. Stewart, a former employee of the
company, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
filed a complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (Case number 09-cv-5348
JL) alleging racial discrimination by the company with respect to
hiring and terms and conditions of employment.

The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the case
as a class action, declaratory and injunctive relief, an order
mandating corrective action, reinstatement, back pay, front pay,
general damages, exemplary and punitive damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.

Pursuant to a Motion to Transfer Venue filed by the company, the
Complaint is now pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California as Case number 2:10-cv-00481-
GEB-DAD.

JoS. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. -- http://www.josbank.com/--
designs, manufacturers and sells men's classically-styled tailored
and casual clothing, sportswear, footwear and accessories.  The
company sells its full product line through 473 stores in 42
states and the District of Columbia, a nationwide catalog and an
e-commerce Web site.


LAND OF NOD: Recalls 2,100 "Play With Your Veggies" Toys
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Land of Nod, of Northbrook, Ill., announced a voluntary recall
of about 2,100 "Play With Your Veggies" toys.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The metal wire in the toy asparagus can become exposed, posing a
laceration hazard to children.

The firm has received a report of an exposed wire in the
asparagus.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves The Land of Nod toy vegetables sets made of
felt wool.  The toy set has six vegetables: radish, onion,
asparagus, tomato, lettuce and carrot. The asparagus is the only
toy vegetable involved in this recall.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10335.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Nepal and sold
exclusively at The Land of Nod stores in Illinois and Washington,
the Land of Nod catalog and http://www.landofnod.com/ from
October 2007 through February 2010 for about $25.

Consumers should immediately take the toy asparagus from children
and return the product to the company for a free replacement
asparagus.  For additional information, contact The Land of Nod at
(800) 933-9904 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Central Time,
Monday through Friday, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.landofnod.com/, or email the firm at
recall@landofnod.com/


LOCAL 301: Superior Court Sides With Plaintiffs in Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Mennie, writing for The Montreal Gazette, reports an illegal
strike during an ice storm six years ago will cost the city's blue
collar union $2 million after a Superior Court judge ruled in
favor of a class action launched by Montrealers who suffered
damages and injuries because of the union's conduct.

In a blistering, 55-page judgment rendered Sept. 3, Judge Danielle
Grenier dismissed the union's claim that the strike was a
"spontaneous" action to protest against a new dispatch system,
describing the testimony made in defense of the strike as
"unbelievable."

However the judge also saved some criticism for the city of
Montreal, noting that it had waited until a weekend in December,
when staffing was low and the weather unpredictable, to execute a
new dispatch system it knew full well was unpopular with its blue
collar workers.

The strike, which began on Dec. 4, 2004, and lasted for about a
week, saw downtown streets and sidewalks turned into skating rinks
as city workers refused to spread sand or salt.  A decision by the
Essential Services Council that the blues return to work was, to
all practical purposes, ignored.

"The conduct of the (union) was, without a doubt, reprehensible on
many levels," wrote Judge Grenier, "By it's reckless behaviour and
it's staggering indifference, it took the people of Montreal
hostage for a week.

"The union ignored the Essential Services Council's decision and
knowingly engaged in illegality . . . It did not think of (the
weather's) victims or of their vulnerability.  It arm wrestled
with the city without worrying over the consequences of its
actions."

Marc Ranger, a counselor to Local 301 of the Canadian Union of
Public Employees, the blue collar's union, said the group
disagreed with the judge's findings and would "definitely" appeal
the decision.

Nor is the union the only party named in the suit to appeal the
judgment.  Jean-Yves Hinse, director of human resources for the
city of Montreal, said the municipality would appeal that part of
the decision ordering it and the union to share in the payment of
any material damages suffered by Montrealers during the illegal
walkout.

"I understand the court follows the same reasoning as the city
when it comes to the union's having engaged in an illegal acts,"
he said, "but what's surprising is the decision . . . that the
city pay 50 per cent of the damages.

"We have always condemned illegal acts by the union and we find
ourselves in an unusual situation . . . on one part, we did
everything we could (to end the strike) in 2004 . . . All we did
was apply (an arbitrator's decision on dispatching blue collar
workers)."

News of the appeals was disappointing but not surprising for Grace
Biondi, the 53-year-old Royal Bank who initiated the class action
after slipping face first on the ice at the corner of Pine and
University Sts. -- while on her way to a medical appointment at
the Royal Victoria Hospital.

"It was unacceptable . . . I suffered a concussion, my appointment
was delayed by four months, that's why I started this."

Ms. Biondi was surprised by the amount of damages the union was
ordered to pay.

"It's a lot of money, but when you look at all the people
affected, all the damages, it's not that much."

While the class action possesses about 60 persons officially
designated as having suffered damages or injuries because of the
strike, anyone else with documentation that can prove the same
could be included in the award should the judgment stand after
appeal.


NEW YORK: Contends Seneca Park Not at Fault in Sprayground Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Swingle, staff writer for DemocratandChronicle.com, reports
that five years after more than 4,000 people allegedly were
sickened by a parasite in the recycled water at Seneca Lake State
Park's sprayground in Geneva, the state has countered a class-
action lawsuit by saying the state park wasn't at fault.

Lawyers for the sickened people seek unspecified damages, alleging
negligence in designing, building and operating the filtration
system for the 100-plus jets that spray water.

The case was one of the largest outbreaks of waterborne illness
nationwide in at least a decade.

Court filings Thursday by the state attorney general's office,
representing the state Department of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation, assert that the sprayground was consistent
with industry standards and used the same chlorine filtration
system as all other spraygrounds in the state in August 2005. The
court papers state that multiple safety practices were followed.

When illnesses were reported, state health officials found
cryptosporidium in the spray park's water tanks and closed the
park in mid-August 2005. The state Department of Health concluded
that one or more visitors with gastrointestinal illnesses called
cryptosporidiosis passed the microscopic crypto parasite into the
sprayground's revolving water system through a diarrhea bowel
movement. The parasite, which is resistant to chlorine-based
disinfectants, likely infected other visitors when water sprayed
into their mouths. The infections led to diarrhea, nausea, fever
and headache.

The state said in court papers that crypto contamination "can and
has occurred in recreational water facilities that are state-of-
the-art, that are well-run and even in those that have installed a
ultraviolet light (UV) disinfectant treatment system."

But Paul Nunes, one of the lawyers for the sickened people, said
it takes negligence to get 4,000 people sick. His team alleges
that Seneca Lake State Park's sprayground's filters took too long
to turn over the water, the filtration system didn't use commonly
available materials to do a good job and the tanks weren't the
right size. Mr. Nunes, who works at Underberg & Kessler in
Rochester, called the sprayground "a virtual accident waiting to
happen."

In 2005, the state regulated public pools and water parks and was
developing safety codes for public spraygrounds. Its new rules
took effect in 2006. They require spray parks that filter and re-
use the water to have disinfection systems that include
ultraviolet light units to inactivate parasites. Those
spraygrounds also must have operating permits from their local
health departments and use fencing to keep wildlife and pets off
the spray pad.

Spray parks that use municipal water once and then dump it, as is
done at Rochester recreation center spray parks, don't have the
same risks so aren't subject to the regulations.

The Seneca Lake sprayground opened in 2001. After the closure due
to the outbreak, the spray park got a new filtration system,
erected an enclosure to keep out animals and added signs warning
visitors to stay out of the water if they have diarrhea, before
re-opening in late August 2006.

Toni Lynn Van Bramer said that she still has no interest in
playing at any spray park. The Perinton mom suffered
gastrointestinal illness, as did her son, who was then 4, and
their friends a week after playing together at the Seneca Lake
sprayground in 2005. A stool sample from her son tested positive
for crypto, and they're among 2,500 people in the class-action
lawsuit.

Her family's doctors told them to stay out of pools, lakes and
spray parks while they had diarrhea and other symptoms. "It ruined
the rest of the summer," said Ms. Van Bramer, 37. "How do you
explain to a 4-year-old he can't go in the water?" The family
ended up getting its own pool.

"If someone came to my pool and caught some sort of disease or
bug, I'm responsible," said Ms. Van Bramer, who believes the state
should accept responsibility.

Tim Springer, 45, of Brighton didn't go to the sprayground in
2005. But he got sick after taking care of his wife and three
kids, then ages 8, 4 and 1, who all became ill after being there.

Mr. Springer, who was in close contact with his family's bodily
fluids, became dehydrated and disoriented and was one of 27 people
hospitalized in the outbreak.

"I just remember being in the fetal position for two days
straight," he said. "I remember finally being able to eat."

He runs the sign shop for the Brighton Highway Department. He
missed work and had to cancel planned family activities. He and
his family are among the 2,500 people in the class-action lawsuit.
The state's filing said it has no duty to people who did not visit
the spraypark but claim they became ill from contact with others
who did.

The next step will be for the sickened people's lawyers to
respond, and then for the judge to rule or send the case to trial.


NVIDIA CORP: Agrees to Settle California GPU Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corporation has agreed to settle the matter captioned The
NVIDIA GPU Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, according to the company's
Aug. 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2010.

In September, October and November 2008, several putative consumer
class action lawsuits were filed against NVIDIA, asserting various
claims arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain
versions of our previous generation products used in notebook
configurations.  Most of the lawsuits were filed in Federal Court
in the Northern District of California, but three were filed in
state court in California, in Federal Court in New York, and in
Federal Court in Texas.

Those three actions have since been removed or transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Jose Division, where all of the actions now are currently pending.
The various lawsuits are titled:

     -- Nakash v. NVIDIA Corp.,

     -- Feinstein v. NVIDIA Corp.,

     -- Inicom Networks, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc. and
        Hewlett Packard,

     -- Olivos v. NVIDIA Corp., Dell, Inc. and Hewlett Packard,

     -- Sielicki v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc.,

     -- Cormier v. NVIDIA Corp.,

     -- National Business Officers Association, Inc. v. NVIDIA
        Corp., and

     -- West v. NVIDIA Corp.

The First Amended Complaint was filed on Oct. 27, 2008, which no
longer asserted claims against Dell, Inc.  The various complaints
assert claims for, among other things, breach of warranty,
violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Business &
Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 and other consumer
protection statutes under the laws of various jurisdictions,
unjust enrichment, and strict liability.

The District Court has entered orders deeming all of the cases
related under the relevant local rules.  On Dec. 11, 2008, NVIDIA
filed a motion to consolidate all of the consumer class action
cases.  On Feb. 26, 2009, the District Court consolidated the
cases, as well as two other cases pending against
Hewlett-Packard, under the caption "The NVIDIA GPU Litigation" and
ordered the plaintiffs to file lead counsel motions by March 2,
2009.

On March 2, 2009, several of the parties filed motions for
appointment of lead counsel and briefs addressing certain related
issues.   On April 10, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg
LLP lead counsel.

On May 6, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint, alleging claims for violations of California Business
and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of Implied Warranty
under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of the Implied
Warranty of Merchantability under the laws of 27 other states,
Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Unjust
Enrichment, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,
Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

On Aug. 19, 2009, NVIDIA filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Consolidated Complaint, and the Court heard arguments on that
motion on Oct. 19, 2009.  On Nov. 19, 2009, the Court issued an
order dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs causes of action for
Breach of the Implied Warranty under the laws of 27 other states
and unjust enrichment, dismissing with leave to amend plaintiffs'
causes of action for Breach of Implied Warranty under California
Civil Code Section 1792 and Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act, and denying NVIDIA's motion to dismiss as to
the other causes of action.

The Court gave plaintiffs until Dec. 14, 2009, to file an amended
complaint.

On Dec. 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated
Complaint, asserting claims for violations of California Business
and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of Implied Warranty
under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of Warranty under
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation
of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  The Second Amended
Complaint seeks unspecified damages.

On Jan. 19, 2010, NVIDIA filed a motion to dismiss the Breach of
Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach
of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act claims in the Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint.  A hearing on the motion was scheduled for
June 14, 2010.

In addition, on April 1, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify a class consisting of all people who purchased computers
containing certain of NVIDIA's MCP and GPU products.  NVIDIA filed
an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on
May 3, 2010.  A hearing on the motion was scheduled for June 14,
2010.

On July 16, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation with the
District Court advising that, following mediation they had reached
a settlement in principle in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation.  The
settlement in principle is subject to certain approvals, including
final approval by the court.

As a result of the settlement in principle, the other estimated
settlement, and offsetting insurance reimbursements, NVIDIA
recorded a net charge of $12.7 million to sales, general and
administrative expense during the second quarter of fiscal year
2011.  In addition, a portion of the $181.2 million of additional
charges we recorded against cost of revenue related to the weak
die/packaging set during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011,
relates to estimated additional repair and replacement costs
related to the implementation of these settlements.

On July 19, 2010, the District Court entered an order setting a
Preliminary Approval hearing for Aug. 30, 2010, and a Final
Approval hearing for Nov. 22, 2010, and removing the pending
motions from its calendar.  On Aug. 12, 2010, the parties executed
a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and Release.

NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com/-- is engaged in the
provision of programmable graphics processor technologies.  The
company's products are designed to generate realistic, interactive
graphics on consumer and professional computing devices.  It
serves the entertainment and consumer market with its GeForce
products, the professional design and visualization market with
its Quadro products, and the computing market with its Tesla
products.  It has four product-line segments: the GPU Business,
the professional solutions business (PSB), the media and
communications processor (MCP), business, and the consumer
products business (CPB).  Its GPU business consists of its GeForce
products that support desktop and notebook personal computers
(PCs), plus memory products.  Its PSB consists of its NVIDIA
Quadro professional workstation products and other professional
graphics products, including its NVIDIA Tesla computing products.


NVIDIA CORP: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corp.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class
action remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, according to the company's Aug. 30, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2010.

In September 2008, three putative securities class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California arising out of the company's announcements on July 2,
2008, that it would take a charge against cost of revenue to cover
anticipated costs and expenses arising from a weak die/packaging
material set in certain versions of our previous generation MCP
and GPU products and that it was revising financial guidance for
the company's second quarter of fiscal year 2009.

The Actions purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of
NVIDIA stock and assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  On
Oct. 30, 2008, the Actions were consolidated under the caption In
re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
08-CV-04260-JW (HRL).  Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs'
Counsel were appointed on December 23, 2008.

On Feb. 6, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus with
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the designation of
co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel.  On Feb. 19, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff
filed with the District Court, a motion to stay the District Court
proceedings pending resolution of the Writ of Mandamus by the
Ninth Circuit.  On Feb. 24, 2009, Judge Ware granted the stay.  On
Nov. 5, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the
District Court's appointment of one of the lead plaintiffs'
counsel, and remanding the matter for further proceedings.

On Dec. 8, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP and Kahn
Swick & Foti, LLC as co-lead counsel.

On Jan. 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws,
asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act.  The Consolidated Complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages.

The Class Action was subsequently transferred from Judge James
Ware to the Honorable Judge Richard Seeborg on March 19, 2010.

NVIDIA filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.  A
hearing on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for June 24, 2010,
before Judge Seeborg, and the matter is currently under
submission.

NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com/-- is engaged in the
provision of programmable graphics processor technologies.  The
company's products are designed to generate realistic, interactive
graphics on consumer and professional computing devices.  It
serves the entertainment and consumer market with its GeForce
products, the professional design and visualization market with
its Quadro products, and the computing market with its Tesla
products.  It has four product-line segments: the GPU Business,
the professional solutions business (PSB), the media and
communications processor (MCP), business, and the consumer
products business (CPB).  Its GPU business consists of its GeForce
products that support desktop and notebook personal computers
(PCs), plus memory products.  Its PSB consists of its NVIDIA
Quadro professional workstation products and other professional
graphics products, including its NVIDIA Tesla computing products.


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Defends Suit Over Wages & Benefits in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., defends a putative class suit
captioned Ned Nelson, as an individual and on behalf of others
similarly situated, vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., Case
No. BC 436947, filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, according
to the company's Aug. 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2010.

On April 30, 2010, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company alleging various violations of
California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break
rules and regulations.  The complaint seeks class certification,
the appointment of the plaintiff as class representative and an
unspecified amount of damages and penalties.

The company intends to file an answer denying all of the
allegations and asserting various defenses.

Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. -- http://www.pacsun.com/--
is a leading specialty retailer rooted in the California
lifestyle.  The company sells casual apparel with a limited
selection of accessories and footwear designed to meet the needs
of teens and young adults.  As of May 1, 2010, the company
operated 758 PacSun stores and 125 PacSun Outlet stores for a
total of 883 stores in 50 states and Puerto Rico.


PRO-PAC DISTRIBUTING: Agrees to Pay $125,000 Civil Penalty
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission disclosed that Pro-Pac
Distributing Corporation, of Gardena, Calif., has agreed to pay a
civil penalty in the amount of $125,000.  The penalty settlement,
which has been provisionally accepted by the Commission, resolves
CPSC staff allegations that Pro-Pac knowingly failed to report to
CPSC immediately, as required by federal law, that two different
children's hooded sweatshirts it imported and distributed had
drawstrings at the neck.

Children's upper outerwear with drawstrings at the neck and waist
can pose a substantial risk of injury or death when the string on
the garment catches onto an item such as playground equipment.
CPSC issued drawstring guidelines in 1996 to help prevent children
from being strangled or becoming entangled by the neck and waist
drawstrings in upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts.
In 1997, industry adopted a voluntary standard for drawstrings
that incorporated the CPSC guidelines.  In May 2006, CPSC's Office
of Compliance announced that children's upper outerwear with
drawstrings at the hood or neck would be regarded as defective and
as presenting a substantial risk of injury to young children.

About 7,000 of these sweatshirts were sold under the ProClub label
at various retailers in Los Angeles, Calif., and Las Vegas, Nev.,
from November 2008 through December 2008 for around $20.  In July
2009, CPSC and Pro-Pac announced the recall of both of Pro-Pac's
hooded sweatshirts with drawstrings due to a strangulation hazard.
Due to the serious nature of this hazard, parents are urged to
immediately remove the drawstrings from the sweatshirts or return
the garments to either the place of purchase or to Pro-Pac for a
full refund.

Federal law requires manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to
report to CPSC immediately (within 24 hours) after obtaining
information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product
contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard,
creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or fails
to comply with any consumer product safety rule or any other rule,
regulation, standard, or ban enforced by CPSC.

In agreeing to the settlement, Pro-Pac Distributing denies that it
knowingly violated the law, as alleged by CPSC staff.


REMEC INC: Inks Pact with Plaintiffs of Dismissed Suit
------------------------------------------------------
REMEC, Inc., and the plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud
lawsuit dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, entered into agreement whereby the parties
agreed to request dismissal of the Appeal and Cross Appeal,
exchange releases, and accept the final judgment of the District
Court, according to the company's Aug. 30, 2010, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Sept. 29, 2004, three class actions were filed against the
company and certain former officers alleging violations of federal
securities laws between Sept. 8, 2003 and Sept. 8, 2004.

On Jan. 18, 2005, the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, LLP, was appointed lead counsel and its client was
appointed lead plaintiff.

After several consolidated and amended complaints were filed,
challenged by the company and dismissed by the court with leave to
amend, the court denied REMEC's motion to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint on Sept. 25, 2006.

REMEC filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint on Nov. 6,
2006, denying all liability and asserting certain affirmative
defenses.  The court granted plaintiff's motion for class-
certification on Nov. 21, 2007.

The parties engaged in discovery, including production of
documents, between May 2007 and March 2009.  All discovery,
including expert discovery, is now closed.

There are currently four motions seeking summary judgment or
partial summary judgment pending before the Court, three made by
the defendants and one made by the plaintiffs.  The time period
for filing dispositive motions has closed.

A Pretrial Conference was for Jan. 25, 2010, and Trial was set for
Feb. 23, 2010.

On April 21, 2010 the Court issued an Order on the motions,
granting Defendants' motions for Summary Judgment based on
Scienter and Loss Causation.  The Court dismissed the case with
prejudice, and directed that judgment be entered for Defendants.

The Plaintiffs had 30 days from Notice of Entry of Judgment to
file a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On May 21, 2010 the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.  On June 2, 2010, the Defendants
filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeal.

On Aug. 30, 2010, the parties entered into an agreement whereby
the parties agreed to request dismissal of the Appeal and Cross
Appeal, exchange releases, and accept the final judgment of the
District Court.  The agreement does not include the payment of any
money by the company or its insurers.

The company's Board of Directors will meet this month to review
and determine what steps are necessary to complete the Plan of
Dissolution in light of the resolution of the Securities Class
Action litigation.  A further announcement is expected at that
time.

The suit is In re: REMEC Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-1948 (S.D. Calif.) (Miller, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
         MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN, LLP
         355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 617-1200
         Facsimile: (213) 617-1975

              - and -

         David W. Mitchell, Esq.
         LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101-4297
         Telephone: (619) 231-1058
         Facsimile: (619) 231-7423

              - and -

         Blake Muir Harper, Esq.
         HULETT HARPER STEWART, LLP
         550 West C Street, Suite 1600
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 338-1133
         Facsimile: (619) 338-1139

Representing the defendants is:

         Robert W. Brownlie, Esq.
         DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY, US, LLP
         401 "B" Street, Suite 1700
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 699-2700
         Facsimile: 858-677-1401


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Takes Measures to Control Landfill Odor
----------------------------------------------------------
Sammy Fretwell, writing for The State, reports the rancid stench
of garbage drifted over Lee County like an invisible fog [two
weeks ago], filling the air near Perrin Babb's home.

Mr. Babb lives down the road from South Carolina's largest
landfill, and for a decade has complained about sickening smells
from the nationally known mega-dump.

But no one -- not the landfill's operator nor state regulators --
has been able to clear the air, he says.

So Mr. Babb and several neighbors filed suit this summer in a case
that is believed to be the first of its kind against the landfill
and only the second such case in South Carolina.

Their class action lawsuit against Republic Services says powerful
landfill odors are hurting property values and causing a general
nuisance for people who live near the towering above-ground dump
along Interstate 20.

If the neighbors are successful, Republic Services eventually
might have to pay big money in damages -- not only to Mr. Babb,
but also to hundreds of landowners living within two miles of the
company's giant trash mountain. Unlike individual suits, a class
action case means the company is potentially liable to a general
group of people claiming damages.

Mr. Babb, a friendly salesman who grew up in Bishopville, said he
wasn't anxious to sue anyone. But living near a smelly landfill
has taken its toll. He reflected on the odor problem during a walk
through his neighborhood near Bishopville Country Club last week.

"On some nights, it will just about knock you down," Mr. Babb said
of the odor. "It'll make your eyes burn, sometimes it will kind of
make you nauseous."

Of the landfill operators, Mr. Babb said: "We tried to talk with
them directly to see if we could work something out. They weren't
interested."

Republic, one of the nation's biggest garbage disposal firms, took
control of the landfill after a merger with Allied Waste several
years ago. Republic is headquartered in Arizona and operates 192
landfills nationally, including numerous ones in the Southeast.

The company is fighting Mr. Babb's lawsuit, but spokeswoman Peg
Mulloy said the corporation does not comment on pending legal
action.

Last year, Republic representative Jamey Amick told The State he
was "embarrassed by the odor" and his company would make
improvements.

The S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control held
meetings in Lee County last year to discuss odor concerns and
later fined Republic $9,000 for failing to bury garbage properly
at the landfill.

DHEC spokesman Thom Berry said Tuesday in an e-mail that Republic
has expanded a gas extraction system to help control odors and
added misters to limit the smell. The company also has begun
putting "thicker cover" atop the trash and improved erosion
control efforts to keep the cover -- typically dirt -- from
washing off, the e-mail said.

Easily visible from Interstate 20, the Republic landfill has
become a dubious landmark for a town once known best for high
cotton and a Heisman Trophy winning football player named Doc
Blanchard.

At 140 feet, it is among the tallest landfills in South Carolina.
Drivers on their way to Myrtle Beach and other destinations not
only notice the landfill's height, but they sometimes complain of
strong odors on the interstate near Bishopville, said Mr. Babb and
his lawyers, Bill Hopkins and Gary Poliakoff.

"I travel a lot in my work, and that is one of the things people
ask, 'Are you right there where the landfill is on the
interstate?'" Mr. Babb said.

Critics say the landfill also is a symbol of South Carolina's
willingness to accept other states' waste. In recent years, the
Palmetto State has been one of the few in the country to bring in
more than 1 million tons of garbage annually for disposal.

Most of that goes to Lee County, where rail cars loaded with
rotting refuse arrive from the Northeast. New Jersey,
Massachusetts and New York are among the leading users of the
landfill.  In 2008, the landfill took in about 1.5 million tons of
garbage.  In the South, that makes it second only to a Florida
landfill in the amount of garbage it accepts annually, according
to statistics compiled by Wasterecyclingnews.com.

Legions of Lee County residents -- including Mr. Babb -- opposed
the landfill when a waste corporation proposed building it in the
early 1990s. But DHEC approved a permit for the operation in 1992,
and Lee County officials agreed to let the company operate on the
outskirts of Bishopville. In return, the landfill operator
provided the county with garbage service and said it would pay to
help with local schools and government services. That amounted to
between $1 million and $2 million last year, according to the Lee
County treasurer's office.

Like Mr. Babb, 86-year-old W.A. Berry also has sued Republic, but
his case is an individual lawsuit that would only pay him damages
if he is successful. Mr. Berry said that instead of helping the
economy, the Republic landfill is actually driving away industry.

A longtime farmer who, with his wife, owns about 1,900 acres
around Bishopville, Mr. Berry said he lost a land sale not long
ago that could have brought a Walmart for Bishopville. Bad smells,
nasty insects and hundreds of birds invade his property near the
landfill, he said.

"I'd rather pay more tax than have this landfill," Mr. Berry said,
noting that the odor is so strong that it sometimes permeates the
walls of his home along Browntown Road. "When you got to go to bed
with this, it's tough," Mr. Berry said. "You breathe it all night
long."

Lawsuits by both Messrs. Berry and Babb allege that Republic has
failed to obey rules and regulations, as well as failed to install
proper technology that would control smells from the landfill.

According to Mr. Babb's suit, Republic's operations have allowed
"often nauseating, stifling and unbearable" odors to affect
surrounding property. The suit also says airborne trash and
rodents are associated with the landfill operation.

As a result, the suit says Republic has hurt property values for
Mr. Babb and others, decreased their quality of life and caused
people to get headaches and feel sick to their stomachs.

Republic has ignored the problems and even has expanded the
landfill operation, Mr. Babb's suit alleges. The suit asks the
court to force Republic to control the odors or shut the landfill
down, while also awarding damages to people living within two
miles of the dump.

Mr. Babb's lawsuit is only the state's second class action suit
claiming property damage from odors at a landfill, Mr. Poliakoff
said. The other was in Spartanburg County, where a landfill
corporation agreed to pay damages to surrounding landowners in the
1990s.

After a walk on the golf course near his home two weeks ago --
with the landfill towering in the background -- Mr. Babb said he
hopes his lawsuit will result in some changes to help the
Bishopville area escape the odors.

He'd prefer the landfill shut down, but at the very least, Mr.
Babb said he'd like some relief. "We want to improve the quality
of life in and around the area," Mr. Babb said Tuesday. "We have
been there, our families are there, and now we're just kind of
stuck. It's just annoying and frustrating at times. You can't
enjoy your home. You can't enjoy where you live."


SCICLONE PHARMA: Sued for Violations of Federal Securities Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mariano Karner and Fernando Rubinowicz, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-03991 (N.D. Calif. September 7, 2010),
brings claims against defendants for violations of federal
securities laws.  Specifically, Messrs. Karner and Rubinowicz
accuse the "China-centric" specialty pharmaceutical company, its
CEO Friedhelm Blobel, and its CFO Gary S. Titus of making false
and misleading information about the Company's operating condition
and future business prospects in their public statements and
filings with the SEC and engaging in a course of conduct that
artificially inflated SciClone's stock price, as a result of which
the plaintiffs who had purchased shares of SciClone common stock
during the period from May 11, 2009, through August 9, 2010,
sustained damages.  Plaintiffs say that would not have purchased
SciClone common stock at the prices they paid if they had been
aware that the market prices of the stock had been artificially
and falsely inflated.

SciClone's lead product ZADAXIN(R) is sold in China as an approved
drug for the treatment of hepatitis B.  The Complaint says that on
March 2, 2010, the Company announced that revenues increased
34% to $54.1 million in 2009 compared to 2008, while net income
was $11.9 million, compared to a net loss of $8.3 million in 2008.
Further, on May 6, 2010, the Company released its results for the
first quarter of 2010, showing net income of $4.2 million on sales
of ZADAXIN of $18 million, compared with net income of roughly
$100,000 on sales of $15.1 million for the same period of 2009
The Plaintiffs state that the foregoing statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose or omitted to
state a)that the defendants were engaged in conduct that
ultimately gave rise to an investigation by SEC and and the
Justice Department for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act; b) that the Company's reported revenues, income and
sales growth, in material part, were the product of this wrongful
conduct; and c) that the defendants reported successful marketing
and sales campaign in China was due, in material part, to the
wrongful conduct.

Shares of SciClone declined 30% from a close on August 9, 2010, of
$3.51 per share, to close at $2.48 per share, after the Company
disclosed that that it was being investigated by the SEC and the
DOJ over possible violations of the FCPA (concerning the sale,
licensing and marketing of products in foreign countries,
including China).

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Mario M. Choi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
                  mchoi@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com
                  jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Lori S. Brody, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 1095
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 785-0800
          E-mail: lbrody@kaplanfox.com


SCICLONE PHARMA: Kaplan Fox Reminds Investors of Oct. 12 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP has filed a class action suit against
SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc., that alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of
SciClone's common stock during the period May 11, 2009 and
August 9, 2010, inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  A copy of the complaint may be
obtained from Kaplan Fox or the Court.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
Company reported record revenues and income, in large part, due to
its sales and marketing efforts for Zadaxin in China, but unknown
to investors, defendants were engaged in conduct that gave rise to
an investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") and the Department of Justice ("DOJ") for possible
violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA").

The Complaint further alleges that on August 9, 2010, after the
close of trading, investors began to learn the truth about the
Company's operations when the Company disclosed in its quarterly
report for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 filed with the SEC on
Form 10-Q, that the SEC and DOJ were investigating the Company for
violations of the FCPA. On August 10, 2010, SciClone shares
declined from a close on August 9, 2010 of $3.51 per share, to
close at $2.48 per share, a decline of $1.03 per share or
approximately 30% on heavier than usual volume.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than October 12, 2010 to serve as a lead plaintiff for
the Class. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order
to share in any possible recovery.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of the Class and are
represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP. Our firm, with offices
in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New Jersey,
has many years of experience in prosecuting investor class actions
and actions involving financial fraud. For more information about
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, or to review a copy of the complaint
filed in this action, you may visit our Web site at
http://www.kaplanfox.com/

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, please contact:

     Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
     KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
     850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Telephone: (800) 290-1952
                (212) 687-1980
     Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
     E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

          - and -

     Laurence D. King, Esq.
     KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
     350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: (415) 772-4700
     Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
     E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com


SIMMS FISHING: Recalls 3,000 Wading Staffs
------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Simms Fishing Products, of Bozeman, Mont., announced a voluntary
recall of about 3,000 Wading Staffs.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The wading staff can collapse posing a fall hazard to consumers.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves a wading staff used to assist in wading
rivers and streams.  These staffs, offered in two sizes (52" &
56"), are sterling silver in color and are identified by Simms
item numbers AWS101152 or AWS101156 (UPC numbers 94264-10102 or
94264-10103).  The item number and UPC numbers can be found on the
product hang tag attached to the staff at time of purchase.
Affected wading staffs are visibly identifiable by a silver cable
connector.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10336.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and
sold through authorized dealers nationwide from March 2010 through
June 2010 for about $120.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
contact Simms Fishing Products or an authorized dealer to receive
a free replacement staff or a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Simms Fishing Products toll-free at (877)
789-6555 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Mountain Time, Monday
through Friday, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.simmsfishing.com/, or email the firm at
recall@simmsfishing.com/


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Settles "Lavender" Suit for $50 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., disclosed Tuesday that it has
reached agreement to settle the case entitled VINNIE LAVENDER, by
and through her Conservator, WANDA BAKER; WALTER SIMON; JACQUELYN
VILCHINSKY vs. SKILLED HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC., et al. (and 22
individually-named California nursing facilities receiving
administrative services from Skilled Healthcare, LLC).  The terms
of the settlement remain subject to the approval of the Superior
Court of California, Humboldt County.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Company will deposit a
total of $50 million into escrow accounts to cover settlement
payments to class members, notice and claims administration costs,
certain service payments to named plaintiffs, plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and costs (to be approved by the Humboldt County
Court) and certain other payments.  The escrow accounts are
expected to be funded by Skilled Healthcare's revolving credit
facility.  Additionally there is an injunction which requires the
22 defendants that operate California nursing facilities to
provide specified nurse staffing levels, comply with specified
state and federal laws governing staffing levels and posting
requirements, and provide reports and information to a monitor.
The injunction will remain in effect for a period of 24 months
unless extended for additional three-month periods as to those
defendants that may be found in violation.  Defendants
demonstrating compliance for an 18-month period may petition for
termination of the injunction.

As part of the settlement, the plaintiffs have agreed to release
the Company and other defendants from claims related to the
litigation.  The settlement contains no admission or concession of
wrongdoing by the Company or any other defendants.

On July 7, 2010, the company announced that a jury in Humboldt
County, California returned a verdict against the company with
initial damages awarded to plaintiffs amounting to $671 million.
Reportedly, the $671 million is composed of $613 million in
statutory damages and $58 million in restitutionary damages.  The
case related to a California statute that requires nursing homes
to maintain 3.2 nursing hours per patient per day.  The total
damages were assessed at a rate of $500 per-patient per-day that
the 22 nursing facilities involved in the suit were in violation
of the law.  (Class Action Reporter, July 9, 2010)

The Company's revenue of $759.8 million in 2009 resulted in a net
loss of $133.2 million.  For the first quarter of 2010, the
Company's net income was $8.9 million on revenue of $189.3
million.

The balance sheet at March 31 showed current assets of $131.4
million among total assets of $859 million.  Current liabilities
were $91.7 million.  Total liabilities were $574.7 million.

Following the verdict, S&P lowered the Company's corporate credit
rating to 'CCC' from 'B+'.  The Company carries a 'B2' corporate
family rating, under review for downgrade, from Moody's Investors
Service.  (Class Action Reporter, July 12, 2010)

                 About Skilled Healthcare Group

Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. --
http://www.skilledhealthcaregroup.com/-- based in Foothill Ranch,
California, is a holding company with subsidiary healthcare
services companies, which in the aggregate had trailing twelve
month revenue of approximately $768 million and approximately
14,500 employees as of June 30, 2010.  Skilled Healthcare Group
and its wholly owned companies, collectively referred to as the
"Company", operate long-term care facilities and provide a wide
range of post-acute care services, with a strategic emphasis on
sub-acute specialty health care.  The Company operates long-term
care facilities in California, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, New
Mexico and Texas, including 79 skilled nursing facilities that
offer sub-acute care and rehabilitative and specialty health
skilled nursing care, and 22 assisted living facilities that
provide room and board and social services. In addition, the
Company provides physical, occupational and speech therapy in
Company-operated facilities and unaffiliated facilities.
Furthermore, the Company provides hospice and home health care in
Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Montana and New Mexico.


USA: Black Farmers Call for Cloture Vote on $1.25BB Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy Now reports that the Senate is facing renewed calls to
finalize a $1.25 billion settlement for African American farmers
in a class action lawsuit over longtime racial discrimination. The
settlement was reached earlier this year, but Republicans have
blocked the required congressional approval.

On Tuesday, the head of the National Black Farmers Association,
John Boyd, appeared outside a federal courthouse in Lower
Manhattan with a mule, intended to symbolize the Civil War-era
promises to freed black slaves. Speaking to Tavis Smiley of PBS,
Mr. Boyd called for a cloture vote on the settlement by the end of
the month.

Mr. Boyd said: "I'm interested in a cloture vote before the end of
the month of September so that the black farmers can receive their
settlement. This just has been going on too long. This has been
going on too long. And if this fails, it's not just a failure for
the black farmers; this is a failure for black people in this
country, and it would be a failure for the American people, if we
can't get this done."


WARNER MUSIC: Second Circuit Denies Petition for Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Warner Music
Group Corp.'s petition for rehearing en banc on the Second
Circuit's ruling vacating the judgment of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York and remanding the
consolidated amended complaint against record companies for
further proceedings, according to the company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

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 30 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.

On March 26, 2010, the Second Circuit denied the petition for
rehearing en banc.

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.


WINN-DIXIE: Defends FCRA Violations Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., defends a putative class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act,
according to the company's Aug. 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2010.

On Aug. 21, 2009, the company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit filed by two former employees in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida against Winn-Dixie
Stores, Inc., alleging company-wide violations of the FCRA related
to the company's background check procedures.

The company denies all allegations raised in the lawsuit, has
answered the complaint and has filed motions asserting various
defenses to the claims.

Discovery in the case is underway.

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. -- http://www.winn-dixie.com/-- is one of
the nation's largest food retailers.  Founded in 1925, the company
is headquartered in Jacksonville, FL.  The company currently
operates 515 retail grocery locations, including more than 400 in-
store pharmacies, in Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, and
Mississippi.


WINN-DIXIE: Motion to Dismiss Collective Action Claims Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the collective action claims against Winn-
Dixie Stores, Inc., and the case to proceed on the individual
claims remains pending, according to the company's Aug. 30, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.

On March 19, 2010, the company was served with a purported
collective action lawsuit filed by two former employees in the
U.S. District for the Southern District of Florida against Winn-
Dixie Stores, Inc. alleging violations of the FLSA related to
unpaid overtime wages.  The company denies all allegations raised
in the lawsuit and will file an answer to the complaint
accordingly.

On Aug. 1, 2010, plaintiffs' counsel filed an unopposed motion to
dismiss the collective action claims in the case and to proceed on
the individual claims.

That motion is pending before the court.

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. -- http://www.winn-dixie.com/-- is one of
the nation's largest food retailers.  Founded in 1925, the company
is headquartered in Jacksonville, FL.  The company currently
operates 515 retail grocery locations, including more than 400 in-
store pharmacies, in Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, and
Mississippi.


WINN-DIXIE: Defends Racial Discrimination Suit in Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., defends a putative class action alleging
racial discrimination, according to the company's Aug. 30, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.

On May 5, 2010, the company was served with a motion to amend the
complaint in an existing discrimination case filed by two
employees to allege a putative class action race discrimination
claim and add three more employees as named plaintiffs in the U.S.
District for the Southern District of Alabama against Winn-Dixie
Montgomery, LLC -- incorrectly named as Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. --
alleging violations of federal civil rights laws related to
assignment and selection for retail manager positions.

The company denies all allegations raised in the lawsuit, has
filed motions asserting various defenses to the class claims and
answered the individual complaint of the named Plaintiffs.

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. -- http://www.winn-dixie.com/-- is one of
the nation's largest food retailers.  Founded in 1925, the company
is headquartered in Jacksonville, FL.  The company currently
operates 515 retail grocery locations, including more than 400 in-
store pharmacies, in Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, and
Mississippi.


WISCONSIN: MPS & Disability Group Argue Case Before 7th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Richards of the Journal Sentinel reports the latest chapter
in a 9-year-old class-action lawsuit regarding special-education
services in Milwaukee Public Schools unfolded Tuesday in the 7th
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, as lawyers for the district and
Disability Rights Wisconsin argued their positions before a three-
judge panel.

At issue is an appeal the district filed 14 months ago, which
claims it was too costly to implement a federal judge's orders
from June 2009 that required a broad search for current and former
students that the district had failed to serve under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act from 2000 to 2005.

The appeal also challenged the class certification of the lawsuit
from 2003, a liability decision from 2007 and the validity of a
settlement agreement between the state Department of Public
Instruction and Disability Rights Wisconsin.

It could take months for federal appeals court judges Illana
Rovner, Joel Flaum and Diane Sykes to issue a decision.

Meanwhile, neither side's legal representatives were convinced
that they'd scored a victory.

"It's hard to read the tea leaves," said Michael Aldana, an
attorney for Quarles & Brady, the firm representing MPS.

If anything, the nearly two hours of questions and answers,
coupled with more than 60 docket items that were presented for
review, showed how complicated and slogging the case has become.

Judge Rovner might have put it best when she clarified that in the
nine years since the case had been filed, many of the kids from
that time are now gone from the system.

"As time goes by, justice delayed is justice denied," responded
Monica Murphy, a managing attorney for Disability Rights
Wisconsin.

The nonprofit brought the case in 2001 against MPS and the state
Department of Public Instruction, claiming that MPS systematically
failed to identify and serve students with special needs, and that
the DPI had failed in overseeing the district.

The Department of Public Instruction settled with Disability
Rights Wisconsin, and part of that settlement involves ordering
improvements in MPS.

MPS has resisted the state imposing its settlement agreement on
the district.

The district won a reprieve in the case in August 2009 when the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a motion to stay orders
from U.S. Judge Magistrate Aaron Goodstein, which had directed a
broad search for students.

After the motion to stay was granted to MPS, Disability Rights
Wisconsin cross-appealed.

On Tuesday, much of the discussion during oral arguments revolved
around the certification of the class in the lawsuit. If the class
doesn't exist, the whole case could fizzle, said Jeff Spitzer-
Resnick, lead attorney for Disability Rights Wisconsin.

Arguing for MPS, Mr. Aldana told the judges Tuesday that his
clients did not believe there was a systematic breakdown in
serving special-needs students.

"We don't believe hundreds or thousands were missed," he said.

Mr. Spitzer-Resnick countered that, theoretically, if Disability
Rights Wisconsin had brought each case individually -- and won
each of them -- the group wouldn't be able to bring the class-
action suit.

Mr. Spitzer-Resnick said nothing else will move forward or
backward in the case until a decision is handed down by the
judges. It's unclear how long that will take.

MPS is represented by:

     Michael Aldana, Esq.
     QUARLES & BRADY LLP
     411 East Wisconsin Avenue
     Milwaukee, WI 53202
     Telephone: (414) 277-5151
     Facsimile: (414) 978-8951
     E-mail: michael.aldana@quarles.com

Disability Rights Wisconsin is represented by:

     Jeffrey D. Spitzer-Resnick, Esq.
     Monica Murphy, Esq.
     6737 West Washington Street, Suite 3230
     Milwaukee, WI 53214
     Telephone: 414-773-4646
     E-mail: spitznick@drwi.org
             monicam@drwi.org


ZUMIEZ INC: Court Gives Final Okay to $1.38 Million Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Alameda County Superior Court gave its final approval to the
settlement agreement resolving the matter Evan Johnson v. Zumiez,
Inc., et al., Case No. RG08374968, for $1.38 million, according to
the company's Sept. 1, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2010.

On March 5, 2008, a former employee commenced an action against
the company in California state court alleging that the company
failed to pay all overtime wages owing to him and other employees
in California, failed to provide meal breaks as required by
California law, failed to provide employees with proper itemized
wage statements (pay stubs) as required by California law, and
failed to pay terminated employees waiting time penalties under
California Labor Code section 203.

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March
16, 2010, and issued an order granting final approval on July 23,
2010.

No class members objected to the settlement and only four class
members opted out of the settlement.

The total amount of the negotiated settlement is $1.38 million.

This entire amount will be paid out in settlement awards to the
class members, attorneys' fees and costs, claims administration
fees and other payments required by the settlement, with no
reversion of unclaimed funds to the Company.  This accrued charge
was recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses in
the condensed consolidated statement of operations for the three
months ended Aug. 1, 2009, and was paid out on Aug. 10, 2010.

Zumiez Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is a leading specialty
retailer of action sports related apparel, footwear, equipment and
accessories.  The company's stores cater to young men and women
between ages 12-24, focusing on skateboarding, surfing,
snowboarding, motocross and BMX.  As of Aug. 28, 2010 the company
operates 396 stores, which are primarily located in shopping
malls.


ZUMIEZ INC: Agrees to Settle "Berg" Suit for $2.1 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Zumiez Inc. has agreed to settle a putative class action captioned
Chandra Berg et al. v. Zumiez Inc., for $2.1 million, according to
the company's Sept. 1, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2010.

A putative class action was filed against the company in the Los
Angeles Superior Court under case number BC408410 on Feb. 25,
2009.

The Complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay overtime
wages to present and former store managers in California, failure
to provide meal periods and rest breaks to store managers, failure
to reimburse retail employees for clothing required by the
company's dress code, failure to reimburse retail employees for
business expenses, failure to provide store managers with accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to pay terminated store managers
all wages due at the time of termination, unfair business
practices and declaratory relief.

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on April 2, 2010 which
added an additional plaintiff and class representative and a new
cause of action for penalties for alleged Labor Code violations
under the Private Attorneys General Act.  The company filed an
answer to the First Amended Complaint and conducted discovery.

On Feb. 8, 2010, the company attended a mediation wherein no
settlement was reached.

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, and the
company filed its opposition to class certification.  Plaintiffs'
reply papers were filed on Aug. 2, 2010.

On Sept. 1, 2010, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement to settle.

The settlement agreement, which is subject to documentation and
court approval, is expected to cost the company approximately $2.1
million which includes settlement awards to class members,
incentive payments to the two plaintiffs, attorneys' fees and
costs, and claims administration costs.  This accrued charge was
recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses in the
condensed consolidated statement of operations for the three
months ended July 31, 2010.

Zumiez Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is a leading specialty
retailer of action sports related apparel, footwear, equipment and
accessories.  The company's stores cater to young men and women
between ages 12-24, focusing on skateboarding, surfing,
snowboarding, motocross and BMX.  As of Aug. 28, 2010 the company
operates 396 stores, which are primarily located in shopping
malls.

                             *********

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, Rousel Elaine Fernandez,
Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline
Abangan 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  * * *