CAR_Public/100914.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 14, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 181

                             Headlines

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Pact Gets Preliminary Approval
ALMOST FAMILY: Cohen Milstein Files Class Action in Kentucky
AMERICAN OIL: Faces 11 Shareholder Suits Over Hess Merger
AT&T PENSION: Class in Suit Over Pension Benefits Certified
BECKMAN COULTER: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in Calif.
BISSELL HOMECARE: Suit Complains About Defective Carpet Cleaners

CALIFORNIA: Accused of Breaching CalPERS Benefits Agreement
CARDINAL CARTRIDGE: Sued for Refusing to Pay Overtime Wages
CHINA NORTH: Faces Three Securities Violations Suit
COCA-COLA: Executes MOU to Settle Shareholders Litigation
DICK'S SPORTING: Faces 15 Labor Class Action Suits

ENBRIDGE INC: Faces 3rd Class Action Lawsuit Over Oil Spill
EXPRESS LLC: Sued for Forcing Employees to Work Off-The-Clock
FIRSTENERGY: Judge Dismisses Class Suit by Electric Home Owners
INTERNATIONAL CCE: Inks MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit
LIMITED BRANDS: Defends Ohio Suit by IBEW Local 697

MACY'S INC: Ohio Litigation Over 401(k) Plan Remains Ongoing
MERRIL LYNCH: Removes "Martin" Forfeiture Complaint to N.D. Calif.
MIDLANDS FARM: Milk Sold in 5 Northeastern States Recalled
NATIONAL HOLDINGS: Defends "Merrill" Suit in California
NATIONAL HOLDINGS: Defends Consolidated Complaint in Texas

PACIFIC WEBWORKS: Opposes Class Certification of Four Suits
RAPID CASH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Court Affidavits
RIDGEWOOD WATER: Faces Class Action Over Rate Hike
SERVICEMASTER CO: American Home Defends Suit in Alabama
SERVICEMASTER CO: Awaits Final Approval of "Squires" Settlement

SIOUX FALLS, S.D.: Court to Hold Sept. 27 Hearing on Flooding Suit
TOWERS WATSON: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
U.S. BANK: Judge Transfers "Pellett" Suit to Illinois Court
USA: Veterans Plan Class Action Suit vs. CIA Over Chemical Testing
USA: Black Farmers to Protest Senate's Refusal to Okay Funding

YORK UNIVERSITY: Judge Dismisses Motion to Certify $250MM Suit
XFONE INC: September 19 Hearing Set in Suit Against Subsidiary
XO HOLDINGS: Faces "Zheng" Complaint in New York

                             *********

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Pact Gets Preliminary Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara, gave its
preliminary approval to the settlement agreement resolving a
consolidated suit against Agilent Technologies, Inc., over its
proposed acquisition of Varian, Inc., according to the company's
Sept. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

On Aug. 5, 2009, a putative class action was filed in California
Superior Court, County of Santa Clara, entitled Feivel Gottlieb
Plan -- Administrator Feivel Gottlieb Defined Benefit Pension Plan
DTD 01-01-04 v. Garry W. Rogerson, et al., No. 1-09-CV-149132.

The action was allegedly brought on behalf of a class of
shareholders of Varian, Inc. against Varian, its board of
directors, Agilent and Cobalt Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Agilent, in connection with the proposed acquisition
of Varian.

A similar action, entitled Stuart Kreisberg v. Garry W. Rogerson,
et al., No. 1-09-CV-149383, was filed in the same court on Aug. 7,
2009.

The actions were subsequently consolidated under the caption In re
Varian, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 1-09-CV-149132,
and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on Aug. 14, 2009.
The consolidated amended complaint is also filed on behalf of an
alleged class of Varian shareholders against Varian, its
directors, Agilent and Cobalt.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that Varian's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
acquisition and asserts, among other things, that the price and
other terms are unfair, that Varian's directors have engaged in
self-dealing, and that the disclosures in Varian's Aug. 7, 2009
proxy filing are inadequate.

Agilent and Cobalt are alleged to have aided and abetted the
Varian directors' purported breaches of fiduciary duties.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive and other relief, including attorneys'
fees and costs.

On Aug. 19, 2009, another substantially similar putative class
action, entitled Hawaii Laborers Pension Fund v. Varian, Inc., et
al., No. 1-09-CV-150234, was filed in the same court against
Varian, its directors, and Agilent.  Like the consolidated amended
complaint, it asserts claims on behalf of a class of Varian
shareholders, alleges that Varian's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed acquisition by,
inter alia, failing to value Varian properly, agreeing to improper
deal terms, engaging in self-dealing and making misleading
disclosures, alleges that Agilent aided and abetted those
purported breaches of fiduciary duties, and seeks injunctive and
other relief (including attorneys' fees and costs).

On Sept. 25, 2009, the parties signed a memorandum of
understanding to settle the class actions.

The settlement provides, among other things, that: (i) Varian
would make certain agreed-upon disclosures designed to supplement
those contained in its definitive proxy statement filed on Aug.
20, 2009; (ii) the litigation will be dismissed with prejudice as
to all defendants; (iii) defendants believe the claims are without
merit and continue to deny liability, but agree to settle in order
to avoid the potential cost and distraction of continued
litigation and to eliminate any risk of any delay to the
acquisition; and (iv) plaintiffs' counsel may seek fees and costs
of up to $625,000, subject to court approval. There is to be no
payment of money to the alleged class members.

On July 16, 2010, the court issued its order of preliminary
approval of the settlement.  Pursuant to this order, the court
will notify the class of the settlement, and a hearing regarding
final approval is scheduled for Friday, Oct. 1, 2010.

Agilent Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.agilent.com/-- is a
measurement company providing bio-analytical and electronic
measurement solutions to the communications, electronics, life
sciences and chemical analysis industries.  The company operates
in two business segments: electronic measurement business and the
bio-analytical measurement business.


ALMOST FAMILY: Cohen Milstein Files Class Action in Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC disclosed Thursday that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of Almost Family, Inc., between August 5, 2008 and
June 30, 2010, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Almost Family and certain of its
officers and directors made false and misleading statements and
omissions in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding its financial results
and compliance with applicable laws relating to Medicare
reimbursement. As a direct result of Defendants' false statements,
Almost Family's common stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and dropped substantially after the
truth was revealed.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased shares of Almost Family common stock from August 5, 2008
through June 30, 2010. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has
significant experience in prosecuting investor class actions and
actions involving securities fraud. The firm has offices in
Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago, and is
active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts
throughout the nation.

If you purchased the common stock of Almost Family from August 5,
2008 through June 30, 2010, you may move the court no later than
60 days after August 3, 2010, and request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. To be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must decide
that your claim is typical of the claims of other class members,
and that you will adequately represent the class. Your share in
any recovery will not be enhanced or diminished by the decision
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, or other attorneys, to serve as your
counsel in this action.

The firm's reputation for excellence has repeatedly been
recognized by courts which have appointed the firm to lead
positions in complex multi-district or consolidated litigation.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has taken a lead role in
numerous important cases on behalf of defrauded investors, and has
been responsible for a number of outstanding recoveries which, in
the aggregate, total in the billions of dollars.

If you have any questions about this notice or the action, or with
regard to your rights, please contact either of the following:

     Steven J. Toll, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 500 West
     Washington, DC 20005
     Telephone: 888-240-0775
                202-408-4600
     Facsimile: 202-408-4699
     E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
             larmstrong@cohenmilstein.com


AMERICAN OIL: Faces 11 Shareholder Suits Over Hess Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
American Oil & Gas Inc. faces 11 shareholder lawsuits resulting
from its planned merger with Hess Corporation, according to the
company's Aug. 16, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On July 27, 2010, American Oil entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with the Hess and Hess Investment Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Hess ("Merger Sub").  Pursuant to the terms of the
Agreement, the company will merge with Merger Sub, and upon
consummation of the merger the separate corporate existence of
Merger Sub shall cease and the company shall continue as the
surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hess.

Eleven shareholder lawsuits styled as class actions have been
filed against American and its board of directors challenging
American's proposed merger with Hess.  All eleven lawsuits also
name Hess as a defendant. Six of the lawsuits name both Hess and
Merger Sub.

The lawsuits generally allege that the members of American's board
of directors, aided and abetted by American and Hess, breached
their fiduciary duties to American's stockholders by entering into
the agreement and plan of merger for the sale of American to Hess
for what plaintiffs claim to be inadequate consideration and
pursuant to what plaintiffs claim to be an inadequate process.
The lawsuits seek, among other things, to enjoin the defendants
from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms or to
rescind the merger to the extent already implemented.

American Oil & Gas Inc. -- http://www.americanog.com/-- is an
independent oil and natural gas company engaged in exploration,
development and production of hydrocarbon reserves primarily in
the Rocky Mountain region.


AT&T PENSION: Class in Suit Over Pension Benefits Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge allowed a class action against AT&T over pension benefits,
finding a 55-year-old former employee a suitable enough class
representative.

Quiller Barnes claims the telecommunications giant denied him the
extra pension benefits to which he was entitled after he returned
to work for an additional five years.

According to Mr. Barnes, the terms of his pension plan allowed him
to "bridge his employment," and because AT&T rehired him after a
brief retirement period, Mr. Barnes said he was eligible for extra
benefits.

Mr. Barnes sued in federal court after discovering that AT&T had
not recalculated his benefits package to reflect his bridged
service.

U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel rejected all of AT&T's
arguments for dismissal, finding Mr. Barnes an adequate class
representative, even though he no longer works for the company.
Had any other past or current employee presented a similar claim,
Judge Patel said, "he or she would have received the same answer
from AT&T."

The judge noted that AT&T falsely tried to "characterize the suit
as one for money damages," when Mr. Barnes simply wanted AT&T to
recalculate class members' benefits.

A copy of the Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel's Memorandum & Order in
Barnes v. AT&T Pension Benefit Plan - Nonbargained Program,
Case No. 08-cv-04058 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/09/ATT.pdf



BECKMAN COULTER: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the common stock of Beckman Coulter, Inc., (NYSE:BEC)
between July 31, 2009 and July 22, 2010, inclusive. The class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.

Beckman provides biomedical testing instrument systems, tests and
supplies for clinical laboratories worldwide. The Complaint
alleges that during the Class Period the Company and certain of
its executive officers and/or directors violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Beckman's business and financial performance,
thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's
securities.

No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class
is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain
one. If you purchased Beckman common stock between July 31, 2009
and July 22, 2010, you have certain rights, and have until
November 2, 2010 to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member
of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you
may retain counsel of your choice. 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:

     Howard G. Smith, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
     3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
     Bensalem, PA 19020
     Telephone: (215)638-4847
     Toll-Free: (888)638-4847
     E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com


BISSELL HOMECARE: Suit Complains About Defective Carpet Cleaners
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a RICO complaint claims
Bissell Homecare and Wal-Mart sell "PowerSteamer" carpet cleaners
that "do not produce and are incapable of producing steam," in
Birmingham, Ala., Federal Court.  TTI Floorcare and Wal-Mart face
a similar class action in the same court.

A copy of the Complaint in Green v. Bissell Homecare, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-02421 (N.D. Ala.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/09/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Frank Davis, Esq.
          John E. Norris, Esq.
          Tyler C. Vail, Esq.
          Wesley W. Barnett, Esq.
          DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
          The Bradshaw House
          2154 Highland Ave. South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-930-9900
          E-mail: fdavis@davisnorris.com
                  jnorris@davisnorris.com
                  tvail@davisnorris.com
                  wbarnett@davisnorris.com


CALIFORNIA: Accused of Breaching CalPERS Benefits Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action claims the California Public Employees Retirement System
lets workers pay extra for additional benefits, but refuses to pay
them if employees retire on disability.  The named plaintiff
claims he paid CalPERS $90,000 in extra premiums, and it stiffed
him for the extra 12.5 percent in benefits he thought he was
buying.

Named plaintiff David Yost claims that retiring on disability is
not a breach of his additional benefits agreement and CalPERS
should not punish him for being injured.

CalPERS manages the largest public pension fund in the United
States.  But its assets declined from $260 billion in October 2007
to $180 billion in December 2008, according to publicly available
documents.

State employees can buy the extra options while still employed and
CalPERS encourages them to roll over the money in their retirement
accounts or to pay with deductions from payroll checks, Mr. Yost
says.  His 56-page Superior Court complaint, with 28 pages of
attachment, alleges breach of duties, breach of contract, denial
of equal protection and violation of due process.  He seeks an
injunction, restitution, an accounting, interest and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Michael Jensen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN MICHAEL JENSEN
          11500 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 550
          Los Angeles CA 90064
          Telephone: 310-312-1100


CARDINAL CARTRIDGE: Sued for Refusing to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Donna Reskus, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Cardinal Cartridge, Inc., et al., Case No.
2010-CH-38788 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., September 7, 2010),
brings claims against the compatible printer and facsimile
cartridges producer and its owner and President Vinay Chhabra for
violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.  Ms. Reskus says she and other
employees were not paid overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours a week.  Ms. Reskus worked as an hourly,
non-exempt employee at Cardinal from August 15, 2005, to
January 14, 2010.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robin Potter, Esq.
          M. Nieves Bolanos, Esq.
          ROBIN POTTER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 861-1800
          E-mail: robin@potterlaw.org
                  nieves@potterlaw.org

               - and -

          Colleen McLaughlin, Esq.
          Elissa J. Hobfoll, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF COLLEEN McLAUGHLIN
          1751 S. Napervile Rd., Suite 209
          Wheaton, IL 60187
          Telephone: (630) 221-0305
          E-mail: colleen@cmmclaw.com
                  elissa@cmmclaw.com


CHINA NORTH: Faces Three Securities Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------
China North East Petroleum Holdings Ltd. faces three class actions
asserting claims under the federal securities laws, according to
the company's Sept. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

The company has evaluated subsequent events that have occurred
through the issuance date of the financial statements in
accordance with ASC 855-10.

The Company was recently involved in six purported legal actions,
three of which are securities class actions and three of which are
shareholder derivative actions, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the company and certain
officers and directors.  The three class actions assert claims
under the federal securities laws and the three derivative actions
assert common law claims based on breach of duty.

The six actions are:

     (1) Rosado v. China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited,
         et al., 10 CV 4577 (MGC), filed June 11, 2010;

     (2) Weissmann v. China North East Petroleum Holdings
         Limited, et al., 10 CV 4775 (MGC), filed June 18, 2010;

     (3) Moore v. China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited,
         et al., 10 CV 5263 (MGC), filed July 9, 2010;

     (4) Strickland v. Hongjun, et al., 10 CV 5445 (RMB), filed
         July 19, 2010;

     (5) Drobner v. Hongjun, et al., 10 CV 6193 (No Judge has
         been assigned at this time), filed Aug. 23, 2010; and

     (6) Nicoln v. Hongjun, et al., 10 CV 6344 (No Judge has
         been assigned at this time), filed Aug. 24, 2010.

The comoanys says that the time for it to respond formally to
these lawsuits has not come.  In addition, the complaints do not
specify an amount of damages that plaintiffs seek.  The company
disclosed that these matters are in very early stages.

China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited is an independent oil
company that engages in the production of crude oil in Northern
China.  The company is a pioneer in China's private oil
exploration and production industry, and the first Chinese non-
state-owned oil company trading on the NYSE Amex.


COCA-COLA: Executes MOU to Settle Shareholders Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company executed a memorandum of understanding in
order to settle the matter In re The Coca-Cola Shareholders
Litigation, according to the company's Sept. 7, 2010, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Feb. 25, 2010, The Coca-Cola Company ("TCCC"), Coca-Cola
Enterprises Inc. ("CCE"), International CCE, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of CCE ("New CCE"), and Cobalt Subsidiary LLC, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of TCCC, entered into a Business
Separation and Merger Agreement, pursuant to which TCCC will
acquire all of the North American business of CCE.

On Feb. 25, 2010, March 8, 2010 and March 10, 2010, three putative
shareholder class action complaints were filed in the Superior
Court of Fulton County, Georgia on behalf of all shareholders of
CCE (other than defendants) challenging the proposed Merger.  The
action is captioned In re The Coca-Cola Shareholders Litigation
(C.A. No. 2010-cv-182035).

The complaint alleges that by virtue of TCCC's stock ownership and
business dealings with CCE, TCCC controls and dominates CCE and
therefore owes CCE a duty of entire fairness and a duty not to
misuse its control of CCE for its own ends, which TCCC breached
because, among other things, the proposed Merger is unfair as to
price and process.  Plaintiffs further allege that the CCE
directors have violated their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty,
candor and good faith by pursuing the proposed Merger, which is
not entirely fair to CCE shareholders because, among other things,
the May 25, 2010 Form S-4 Registration Statement filed by New CCE
with the SEC fails to provide shareholders with the material
information relevant to determine the fairness of the proposed
Merger and evidences the CCE directors' failure to appropriately
consider the proposed Merger.

In addition, on March 1, 2010, March 3, 2010, March 8, 2010 and
March 10, 2010, five putative shareholder class action complaints
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on
behalf of all shareholders of CCE (other than defendants)
challenging the proposed Merger.  The consolidated action is
captioned In re Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation (Consolidated C.A. No. 5291-VCN).  The complaint
alleges that the proposed Merger arises out of an unlawful plan
and scheme for TCCC to acquire CCE's entire North American
bottling business for grossly inadequate consideration and in
breach of defendants' fiduciary duties.

On Sept. 3, 2010, the parties to the Georgia Action executed a
memorandum of understanding containing the terms for the parties'
agreement in principle to resolve the Georgia Action.  The MOU
provides, among other things, that, in consideration for the
settlement of the Georgia Action, the Merger Agreement will be
amended to reflect that (i) the Termination Fee, as defined in
Section 8.2(c) of the Merger Agreement is reduced from
$200,000,000 to $180,000,000, (ii) Section 8.2(d)(D) of the Merger
Agreement is modified such that the 365 calendar day period
following the termination of the Merger Agreement referred to in
that paragraph is reduced to nine months following the termination
of the Merger Agreement, (iii) Section 6.22 of the Merger
Agreement is modified such that the time during which New CCE
shall have the right to purchase all of TCCC's right, title and
interest in the German Entity (as defined in the Merger Agreement)
is expanded from a period of 18 months to 36 months after the date
of the Merger Agreement to a period of 18 months to 39 months
after the date of the Merger Agreement, and (iv) the survival
period for the representations and warranties in the Merger
Agreement as set forth in the first sentence of Section 9.1
therein, with certain exceptions, is reduced from one year to nine
months from the Closing Date, as defined in the Merger Agreement.

On Sept. 6, 2010, TCCC, CCE, New CCE and Merger Sub entered into
Amendment No. 1 to the Business Separation and Merger Agreement
reflecting the foregoing amendments to the Merger Agreement.

The Coca-Cola Company -- http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/-- is
the world's largest beverage company, refreshing consumers with
more than 500 sparkling and still brands.  Together with Coca-
Cola, recognized as the world's most valuable brand, the company's
portfolio includes 14 billion dollar brands, including Diet Coke,
Fanta, Sprite, Coca-Cola Zero, vitaminwater, Powerade, Minute
Maid, Simply and Georgia Coffee.  Globally, the company is the No.
1 provider of sparkling beverages, juices and juice drinks and
ready-to-drink teas and coffees.  Through the world's largest
beverage distribution system, consumers in more than 200 countries
enjoy the company's beverages at a rate of 1.6 billion servings a
day.  With an enduring commitment to building sustainable
communities, the company is focused on initiatives that protect
the environment, conserve resources and enhance the economic
development of the communities where it operates.


DICK'S SPORTING: Faces 15 Labor Class Action Suits
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Dick's Sporting Goods has
been sued in 15 class actions this month, alleging overtime and
other labor violations, in 11 states.


ENBRIDGE INC: Faces 3rd Class Action Lawsuit Over Oil Spill
-----------------------------------------------------------
BattleCreekEnquirer.com reports East Lansing attorney Mike
O'Briant filed a lawsuit Sept. 7 against Enbridge Inc. in Calhoun
County Circuit Court.

The lawsuit is a class action, representing about 60 residents
claiming to have been affected by the oil spill.

It is the third class action of its kind to be filed. The first
two lawsuits were filed in District Court on July 30 and Aug. 2.


EXPRESS LLC: Sued for Forcing Employees to Work Off-The-Clock
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kerri Eggins, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Express, LLC, Case No. 2010-CH-38790 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty. September 7, 2010), accuses the specialty retail apparel
store of failing to pay its non-exempt, hourly employees and
assistant managerial employees for work done when they carried
cash and checks to deposit at defendant's bank each night, in
violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and
with respect to defendant's non-exempt, hourly employees, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.  Plaintiff Eggins says defendant
required both an assistant manager and a non-exempt, hourly
employee to complete a daily bank deposit after they have clocked
out for the day.

Plaintiff Eggins is currently employed as an assistant manager at
defendant's store located at North Riverside, Ill.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201-0575

               - and -

          Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
          Converse & Brown, LLC
          35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 789-9700

               - and -

          Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
          35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 726-3400


FIRSTENERGY: Judge Dismisses Class Suit by Electric Home Owners
---------------------------------------------------------------
The News-Herald staff reports Geauga County Common Pleas Judge
David L. Fuhry dismissed a class-action lawsuit from owners of
all-electric homes against electric companies.

Judge Fuhry said that only the Public Utility Commission of Ohio,
not him, had the authority to oversee the matter.

The lawsuit stems from FirstEnergy's rate increases earlier this
year.

Previously, the company had offered reduced rates to those with
all-electric homes, electric hot water heating systems or electric
load management systems. First, the electric company said it would
abandon the reduced rates. Then, after homeowners protested, the
company decided to gradually phase out its reduced rates during
the next eight years.

State Sen. Tim Grendell, R-Chester Township, filed a lawsuit in
February on behalf of those who were affected by the rates change.

He claimed that FirstEnergy, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
and Ohio Edison Co. breached their contract with homeowners.

When the suit was filed, Mark Durbin, a spokesman for FirstEnergy,
said nobody had promised that the preferred rates would last
forever.

However, Judge Fuhry's decision to dismiss the case did not hinge
on whether FirstEnergy had a commitment to maintain the reduced
rates or if a contract had been breached. Instead, he concluded
that he did not have jurisdiction over the decision.

"Ordinarily, this would not be an issue because the Court of
Common Pleas is a court of general jurisdiction," Judge Fuhry said
in his decision. "As such it is generally empowered to hear all
types of disputes including declaratory judgments, breach of
contract, as well as fraud and injunctive actions."

Judge Fuhry noted that there were exceptions to that authority,
and one of those exceptions was PUCO's jurisdiction of matters
involving public utilities.

Judge Fuhry said that PUCO had jurisdiction over utility rates and
services, citing state law and previous decisions by the Ohio
Supreme Court.

To further complicate matters, PUCO's exception has an exception.
If the accusation does not involve rates or service issues, then
it is considered a "pure" contract or tort, and Judge Fuhry could
rule.

But the judge ultimately decided the suit did pertain to rates.

"The dispute between the companies and the plaintiffs is over the
rate increases. There is no separate rate 'contract' between the
utility and the plaintiffs," the judge said.

Judge Fuhry dismissed the suit, adding that the plaintiffs could
still take their case to PUCO or the Ohio Supreme Court.


INTERNATIONAL CCE: Inks MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter In re The Coca-Cola Shareholders
Litigation executed a memorandum of understanding in order to
resolve the consolidated suit, according to International CCE
Inc.'s Sept. 7, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On Feb. 25, 2010, The Coca-Cola Company ("TCCC"), Coca-Cola
Enterprises Inc. ("CCE"), International CCE, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of CCE ("New CCE"), and Cobalt Subsidiary LLC, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of TCCC, entered into a Business
Separation and Merger Agreement, pursuant to which TCCC will
acquire all of the North American business of CCE.

On Feb. 25, 2010, March 8, 2010 and March 10, 2010, three putative
shareholder class action complaints were filed in the Superior
Court of Fulton County, Georgia on behalf of all shareholders of
CCE (other than defendants) challenging the proposed Merger.  The
action is captioned In re The Coca-Cola Shareholders Litigation
(C.A. No. 2010-cv-182035).

The complaint alleges that by virtue of TCCC's stock ownership and
business dealings with CCE, TCCC controls and dominates CCE and
therefore owes CCE a duty of entire fairness and a duty not to
misuse its control of CCE for its own ends, which TCCC breached
because, among other things, the proposed Merger is unfair as to
price and process.  Plaintiffs further allege that the CCE
directors have violated their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty,
candor and good faith by pursuing the proposed Merger, which is
not entirely fair to CCE shareholders because, among other things,
the May 25, 2010 Form S-4 Registration Statement filed with the
SEC fails to provide shareholders with the material information
relevant to determine the fairness of the proposed Merger and
evidences the CCE directors' failure to appropriately consider the
proposed Merger.

In addition, on March 1, 2010, March 3, 2010, March 8, 2010 and
March 10, 2010, five putative shareholder class action complaints
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on
behalf of all shareholders of CCE (other than defendants)
challenging the proposed Merger.  The consolidated action is
captioned In re Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation (Consolidated C.A. No. 5291-VCN).  The complaint
alleges that the proposed Merger arises out of an unlawful plan
and scheme for TCCC to acquire CCE's entire North American
bottling business for grossly inadequate consideration and in
breach of defendants' fiduciary duties.

On Sept. 3, 2010, the parties to the Consolidated Georgia Action
executed the memorandum of understanding containing the terms for
the parties' agreement in principle to resolve the Consolidated
Georgia Action.  The MOU provides that, in consideration for the
settlement of the Consolidated Georgia Action, the parties will
agree to amend the Merger Agreement.

The MOU also provides that CCE and/or New CCE will make or cause
to be made certain supplemental disclosures in connection with the
proxy statement sent to the CCE shareowners soliciting approval of
the proposed Merger.

In the MOU, the defendants in the Consolidated Georgia Action
acknowledge that they considered the claims raised by the
plaintiff in that action in connection with the modifications to
the terms of the Merger Agreement and disclosures contemplated by
the MOU.  The MOU provides that the parties to the Consolidated
Georgia Action will use their best efforts to draft and execute a
definitive stipulation of settlement that includes a plaintiff
class consisting of all record and beneficial holders of CCE
stock, other than defendants in the Consolidated Georgia Action
and any firm, trust, corporation or other entity controlled by the
defendants, during the period beginning on and including Feb. 25,
2010, through and including the date of the consummation of the
proposed Merger.

If approved by the parties to the Consolidated Georgia Action and
the Georgia court, the settlement will result in the dismissal
with prejudice of the Consolidated Georgia Action and release by
the plaintiff class of all claims under federal and state law that
were or could have been asserted in the Consolidated Georgia
Action or which arise out of or relate to the transactions
contemplated by the proposed Merger.

The MOU further provides that, in the event the Consolidated
Georgia Action is dismissed in accordance with the settlement
stipulation, the parties in the Consolidated Georgia Action will
use their best efforts to obtain the dismissal with prejudice of
the Consolidated Delaware Action within five business days of the
final approval of the settlement by the Georgia court.  The
settlement of the Consolidated Georgia Action is subject to
certain conditions set forth in the MOU and to be contained in any
stipulation of settlement, including the approval of the court and
completion of the proposed Merger.  The defendants continue to
deny any wrongdoing, liability or responsibility for the claims
made in the Consolidated Georgia Action and the Consolidated
Delaware Action.


LIMITED BRANDS: Defends Ohio Suit by IBEW Local 697
---------------------------------------------------
Limited Brands, Inc., defends a class action captioned
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 697 Pension
Fund v. Limited Brands, Inc. et al., filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The suit was filed on Nov. 6, 2009, against the company and
certain of its officers on behalf of a purported class of all
persons who purchased or acquired shares of Limited Brands common
stock between Aug. 22, 2007 and Feb. 28, 2008.

No further updates were reported in the company's Sept. 7, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

Limited Brands, Inc. -- http://www.limitedbrands.com/-- is a
specialty retailer of women's intimate and other apparel, beauty
and personal care products and accessories under various trade
names.  The company sells its merchandise through the retail
stores in the United States and Canada, which are primarily mall-
based, and through its Websites and catalogues.


MACY'S INC: Ohio Litigation Over 401(k) Plan Remains Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Macy's, Inc. continues to defend a purported class-action suit
filed by Ebrahim Shanehchian, an alleged participant in the
company's Profit Sharing 401(k) Investment Plan.

On Oct. 3, 2007, Mr. Shanehchian filed a purported class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on behalf of persons who participated in the 401(k) Plan and
The May Department Stores Company Profit Sharing Plan between Feb.
27, 2005 and the present.

The complaint charges the company, as well as certain current and
former members of its board of directors and certain current and
former members of management, with breach of fiduciary duties owed
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to
participants in the 401(k) Plan and the May Plan, alleging that
the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business, operations and prospects in relation to the
integration of the acquired May operations, resulting in supposed
"artificial inflation" of the company's stock price between Aug.
30, 2005 and May 15, 2007.

The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages
and costs.

No further updates were reported in the company's Sept. 7, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

Macy's, Inc. -- http://www.macysinc.com/-- with corporate offices
in Cincinnati and New York, is one of the nation's premier
retailers, with fiscal 2009 sales of $23.5 billion.  The company
operates about 850 department stores in 45 states, the District of
Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico under the names of Macy's and
Bloomingdale's.  The company also operates http://macys.com/and
http://bloomingdales.com/


MERRIL LYNCH: Removes "Martin" Forfeiture Complaint to N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Martin, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 10-502359 (Calif. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty.), was filed on August 6, 2010.  The plaintiffs
accuse the securities firm, its parent Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.,
and Brian Riley, Manager and Director of the Merrill Lynch San
Francisco offices, of wrongfully forfeiting from their California
Financial Advisor employees' Account Balances (to which earned
compensation awards are credited each year) any compensation due
them under three deferred compensation plans if they work for a
competitor upon leaving employment with Merrill Lynch.

Mr. Martin, who was was employed as a Financial Advisor in the Los
Angeles office of Merrill Lynch until February 28, 2009, when he
left the Company at age 46, explains that Merrill Lynch created
the Plans for a select group of employees, including the
Plaintiffs, as an incentive "to induce them to work harder for
Merrill's and their own benefit".

Mr. Martin says that each of the Plans contained provisions
forfeiting the Account Balance of any Financial Advisor who was
qualified to begin receiving payments from his Account Balance, if
he left Merrill's employment to work for a competitor.  Mr. Martin
states that the forfeiture is illegal because these are based on
an anti-compete restraint in the Plans which are void and illegal
under Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 16600.

On the basis of original jurisdiction under 28 U.S. Sec.
1332(d)(2), Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated,
et al., on September 8, 2010, removed the lawsuit to the
Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned Case No.
10-cv-04020 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William I. Edlund, Esq.
          Alan N. Littman, Esq.
          Robert H. Bunzel, Esq.
          Howard I. Miller, Esq.
          BARTKO, ZANKEL, TARRANT & MILLER
          A Professional Corporation
          90 Front Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1900

The Defendants are represented by:

          Terry E. Sanchez, Esq.
          Kathleen M. McDowell, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          355 South Grand Ave., Thirty-Fifth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-9100
          E-mail: Terry.Sanchez@mto.com
                  Kathleen.McDowell@mto.com

               - and -

          Victoria L. Boesch, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          560 Mission Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
          Telephone: (415) 512-4000


MIDLANDS FARM: Milk Sold in 5 Northeastern States Recalled
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that milk sold in five Northeastern
states has been recalled because it might not have been properly
pasteurized.  New York regulators say the milk was marketed under
the brand names Midland Farms, Corrado's Market, Jersey Dairy
Farms and Trade Fair Premium.  It went in sizes from pints to
gallons to stores in New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New
Jersey and Rhode Island.

Inspectors found failed pasteurization equipment at the Midlands
Farm plant near Albany on Sept. 7. The company agreed to the
voluntary recall as a precaution against bacterial contaminants
like listeria and salmonella. There have been no reports of
illness as of Thursday.

Consumers should look for the plant code 36-1661 and a Sept. 24
date code.  Milk should be returned to the place it was bought.


NATIONAL HOLDINGS: Defends "Merrill" Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------
National Holdings Corporation continues to defend a suit filed by
James and Cheryl Merrill in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Southern Division.

On Nov. 2009, James and Cheryl Merrill, on behalf of themselves
and on behalf of all other similarly situated investors, filed a
class action against National and National Securities in
connection with the purchase and sale of promissory notes issued
on or after Sept. 18, 2006 by one or more of Medical Capital
Holdings, Inc.'s special purpose corporations, including Medical
Provider Financial Corporation III, Medical Provider Financial
Corporation IV, Medical Provider Funding Corporation V and Medical
Provider Funding Corporation VI V.

The class action has not yet been certified or decertified.

The class members assert claims against NSC for violations of
Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Section
77l, and for violations of 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 77l.  The class members further assert claims
against NHC under Section 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 770.

The class members seek compensatory damages, rescission or a
recessionary measure of damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, all in
undisclosed amounts.

There were no significant developments in the matter as of the
company's Aug. 16, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

National Holdings Corporation --
http://www.nationalsecurities.com/and http://www.vfinance.com/--
is a holding company for National Securities Corporation, vFinance
Investments, Inc., EquityStation, Inc., National Asset Management,
Inc., and National Insurance Corporation.  National Securities,
vFinance and EquityStation are broker-dealers registered with the
SEC, and members of FINRA and SIPC. vFinance is also a member of
the NFA.  The three principal lines of business of the broker-
dealers are offering full service retail brokerage; providing
investment banking, merger, acquisition and advisory services to
micro, small and mid-cap high growth companies; and trading
securities, including making markets in over 4,000 micro and
small-cap stock, distributing direct market access platforms, and
providing liquidity in the United States Treasury marketplace.
National Asset Management is a federally-registered investment
advisor.  National Insurance provides a full array of fixed
insurance products to its clients.


NATIONAL HOLDINGS: Defends Consolidated Complaint in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
National Holdings Corporation continues to a consolidated amended
class action complaint pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.

In December 2009, plaintiffs Robert Adams, Joseph Billitteri,
Karen L. Bopp, IRA, Bussell Living Trust DTD 12/05/96, John
Gilgallon, Scott Jessen, Sharon Kreindel Revocable Trust DTD
02/09/2005, Mary Merline, James Merrill, Don Ribacchi and Lewis
Wilson, each on his, her or its own behalf and on behalf of all
similarly situated investors, filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, against a number of broker-dealers,
including NSC, and against a number such broker-dealers' parent
companies, including NHC, in connection with a series of offerings
for oil and gas investments.

Each member of the class asserts claims against NSC for breach of
fiduciary duty and for violations of Section 33(A)(2) of the Texas
Securities Act.  Each member seeks to hold NHC liable for NSC's
conduct as a control person under Section 33(F)(1) of the Texas
Securities Act.  The class members seek compensatory damages,
rescission or a recessionary measure of damages, pre-judgment
interest, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, all in
undisclosed amounts.

There were no significant developments in the matter as of the
company's Aug. 16, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

National Holdings Corporation --
http://www.nationalsecurities.com/and http://www.vfinance.com/--
is a holding company for National Securities Corporation, vFinance
Investments, Inc., EquityStation, Inc., National Asset Management,
Inc., and National Insurance Corporation.  National Securities,
vFinance and EquityStation are broker-dealers registered with the
SEC, and members of FINRA and SIPC. vFinance is also a member of
the NFA.  The three principal lines of business of the broker-
dealers are offering full service retail brokerage; providing
investment banking, merger, acquisition and advisory services to
micro, small and mid-cap high growth companies; and trading
securities, including making markets in over 4,000 micro and
small-cap stock, distributing direct market access platforms, and
providing liquidity in the United States Treasury marketplace.
National Asset Management is a federally-registered investment
advisor.  National Insurance provides a full array of fixed
insurance products to its clients.


PACIFIC WEBWORKS: Opposes Class Certification of Four Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pacific WebWorks, Inc., continues to oppose class certification of
four similar lawsuits filed by different plaintiffs alleging
violations of consumer laws, according to the company's Aug. 16,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

During November 2009, three lawsuits were filed against Pacific
WebWorks in various jurisdictions.  The legal actions allege
similar claims related to procedures the Company uses to sell its
products in its ordinary course of business.  On Nov. 9, 2009,
Barbara Ford filed an action in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, Chancery Division.  A second action was filed on Nov.
12, 2009, by Deanna Pelletier in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Solano.  A third action was filed by Lisa
Rasmussen on Nov. 20, 2009, in the Superior Court of Washington,
Snohomish County.

All plaintiffs in these cases are being represented by the same
legal firm and each complaint seeks class action certification.
The complaints allege that Pacific WebWorks violated consumer
protection and federal RICO laws, committed fraud and used
deceptive trade practices in relation to the manner in which
Pacific WebWorks charges for purchases of its products.  Each
action seeks compensatory and punitive damages, plus reasonable
costs and attorney fees.

In response to these actions, Pacific WebWorks retained the law
firm of Snell and Wilmer as legal counsel to vigorously defend the
company in these lawsuits.  Discovery is beginning on the class
certification phase in the Illinois, Washington and California
lawsuits.  The company's legal counsel intends to oppose class
certification and move to dismiss all claims.

On Jan. 5, 2010, another similar lawsuit was filed by Song Que
Hahn, a California resident, in the United States District Court
for the District of Utah.  On Feb. 8, 2010, the company's legal
counsel filed a motion to strike the class allegations and a
motion to dismiss all claims, except the breach of contract
claims.  On March 9, 2010, Song Que Hahn filed an opposition to
the company's motions and counsel intends to refute the arguments
presented in the oppositions.

Pacific WebWorks, Inc. -- http://www.pacificwebworks.com/-- is an
application service provider and software development firm that
develops business software technologies and services for business
merchants and organizations using Internet and other technologies.
The company specializes in turnkey applications allowing small to
medium sized businesses to expand over the Internet.  Its product
family provides tools for Website creation, management and
maintenance, electronic business storefront hosting and Internet
payment systems for the small to medium sized business and
organization.  The company has four wholly owned operating
subsidiaries: Intellipay, Inc., TradeWorks Marketing, Inc.,
FundWorks, Inc. and Pacific WebWorks International, LTD.


RAPID CASH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Court Affidavits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff German, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports a
class-action lawsuit was filed Thursday seeking to tie a payday
loan company to a widespread process serving scheme to file false
court affidavits.

The 25-page lawsuit, filed by the non-profit Legal Aid Center of
Southern Nevada, accuses the Kansas-based Rapid Cash of failing to
stop one of its process servers, On Scene Mediations, from
carrying out the scheme, now being investigated by Las Vegas
police.

"The complaint seeks to redress the fraud perpetrated on the
courts and on unsuspecting Nevadans through the use of 'sewer
service,'" said Barbara Buckley, the executive director of the
Legal Aid Center. "As a result of this widespread fraud, hundreds,
if not thousands, of default judgments were entered against
defendants who never had the opportunity to file papers in
response to the suit. This conduct takes away the right of our
citizens to have their day in court."

The lawsuit alleges Rapid Cash either knew or should have known
that On Scene Mediations was not licensed as a process server in
the state and should have had greater oversight of its activities.

Mark Dzarnoski, a Las Vegas lawyer Rapid Cash hired to help it
assess fallout from the growing courthouse scandal, declined to
comment on the suit until he has a chance to read it.

On Scene Mediations and its owner, former Las Vegas police officer
Maurice Carroll, also are named as defendants in the suit. So is
Mr. Carroll's former office manager Vilisia Coleman.

Mr. Carroll, 41, and Ms. Coleman, 46, are charged in separate
criminal indictments in the scheme with perjury, filing false
court documents and obtaining money under false pretenses.

As first reported by the Review-Journal in July, authorities
allege that Mr. Carroll and Ms. Coleman lied in the notarized
affidavits when swearing they had served defendants with copies of
court papers on behalf of another former Carroll client, debt
collection agency Richland Holdings. The company, which was not
named in the class-action suit, obtained default judgments after
the defendants failed to respond to the lawsuits.

The four lead plaintiffs in the suit -- Casandra Harrison, Eugene
Varcados, Concepcion Quintino and Mary Dungan -- all allege they
did not learn of default judgments Rapid Cash had obtained against
them until either their employers or banks garnished the money
under court orders. They allege process servers for On Scene
Mediations lied in Las Vegas Justice Court affidavits claiming to
have served them with copies of the court papers.

Mr. Varcados, a 68-year-old craps dealer, said he learned of the
default judgment against him when he received notice Aug. 21 from
his employer that it was ordered to start deducting 25 percent
from his paycheck until he pays off a $2,519 debt to Rapid Cash.

"This is an unforeseen expense," said Mr. Varcados, who cares for
his ailing 66-year-old "lifemate. I'm going to be hurting for a
while."

The suit, for the first time, links longtime lawyer, Lizzie
Hatcher, in what it alleges was a false affidavit claiming to have
served Mr. Varcados with a copy of a complaint Rapid Cash had
filed against him in March 2009. The suit alleges Ms. Hatcher, who
filed lawsuits on Rapid Cash's behalf for several years, notarized
that affidavit.

The Review-Journal reported Thursday that police are investigating
Ms. Hatcher's ties to Mr. Carroll and On Scene Mediations. Ms.
Hatcher has not responded to requests for comment.

Mr. Varcados said that he tried to negotiate a deal with Rapid
Cash as he did with his other creditors, but the company refused
to do it.

Some relief, however, could be coming for Mr. Varcados.

The suit asks for a court order forcing Rapid Cash to set aside
default judgments against all of the current and future plaintiffs
in the class action.

Las Vegas Justice Court officials plan to review some 20,000
default cases that might have links to On Scene Mediations in an
effort to determine whether the rights of the defendants were
violated. Rapid Cash obtained the vast majority of those
judgments.

The law firm of Kemp, Jones & Coulthard, assisted the Legal Aid
Center with the class-action suit.


RIDGEWOOD WATER: Faces Class Action Over Rate Hike
--------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Loffredo, editor of Wyckoff Patch, reports the township
of Wyckoff has filed suit against Ridgewood Water, challenging the
water utility's 21 percent rate hike on customers.

After months of discussions and an outside accounting of village
finances, the township decided to proceed with a legal action that
seeks the repeal of the Ridgewood ordinance that adjusted the rate
schedule.

"We felt that the rate increase was handled improperly and was not
necessary," Wyckoff Mayor Rudy Boonstra said.

Former Mayor Joseph Fiorenzo is handling the matter, pro bono, on
Wyckoff's behalf. Discussion of Wyckoff's options had begun late
last year in the last weeks of Fiorenzo's tenure, and the attorney
from the Hackensack-based firm Sokol, Behot & Fiorenzo said he was
"quite displeased with the rate increase."

The class action suit, filed on behalf of ratepayers, seeks the
complete repeal of the rate hike, which village representatives
have said was necessary for the utility to stay solvent.

It seeks to "invalidate the ordinance that Ridgewood adopted to
raise rates," Mr. Fiorenzo said. It also hopes to "require
Ridgewood to pay back the ratepayers" for revenues already
collected in 2010, and "prospectively, would negate the 21 percent
increase going forward," the former mayor said.

Dr. Kenneth Gabbert, Ridgewood manager, said the village has not
yet responded to the suit, which he feels is baseless in its
claims.

"Ridgewood Water provides a quality service at reasonable and
competitive rates to all four municipalities served. The Wyckoff
suit, while bombastic in claims, is without merit. The quality of
long-term water service will not be allowed to be damaged by
attempts to undermine the financial strength of Ridgewood Water,"
Dr. Gabbert said.

The water utility, which serves Ridgewood, Wyckoff, Midland Park
and Glen Rock, raised rates by 21 percent effective Jan. 1 after
holding rates stable for six years. Currently, residents pay $4
for every 1,000 gallons of water used, up from $3.32 per 1,000
gallons, representing an average $80 increase per customer. Under
the village ordinance, the utility can raise rates annually by no
more than 3 percent.

At the time, utility Director Frank Moritz defended the increase,
saying years of stable rates combined with rising costs on
maintenance, health care and chlorine helped contribute to the
need for the increase. Mr. Moritz could not be reached for further
comment.

Dr. Gabbert said Thursday that the "increase was to secure the
solid financial condition of Ridgewood Water. There were two
deficit years (2008 and 2009) to be covered in addition to putting
the utility on a better financial basis."

Additionally, Ridgewood wasn't spared during the tough budgeting
environment this year, laying off employees as part of its $42.4
million spending plan.

The village had retained Louis C. Mai CPA and Associates for an
audit of Ridgewood Water's 2010 operational projections, but Dr.
Gabbert declined to answer if that accounting contributed to the
justification for a rate hike.

Wyckoff, Midland Park and Glen Rock had sought its own accounting
of utility finances and retained Lerch, Vinci & Higgins LLP of
Fair Lawn to complete a forensic analysis of Ridgewood's budget,
an effort Mr. Fiorenzo said is still ongoing.

However, a letter to Ridgewood sent by the mayors of the three
municipalities in June contended that approximately 21 percent of
the utility's more than $12 million in expenses for 2010 are going
toward general village operations independent of water utility
needs.

"They've been asking the ratepayers to subsidize the operating
budget of the village," Mr. Fiorenzo said. "The lawsuit asserts
that what they've done is improper."

Dr. Gabbert declined to answer when asked if the revenues garnered
from ratepayers are used solely for utility expenses.

Furthermore, Mr. Fiorenzo contends that the analysis shows there's
"no justification for any increase" at all.

Wyckoff declined last year to meet with Ridgewood representatives
when the village was considering the rate hike, which was imposed
on township, Midland Park and Glen Rock customers by the Village
Council's vote. The increase did not have to be approved by the
state Board of Public Utilities, as is often the case, because the
utility was proposing uniform rates throughout its entire system.
A spokesman for the state board had said BPU hearings would have
been necessary had the village adopted a disproportionate rate
schedule, essentially asking some customers to subsidize the water
service of others.

However, scarcely attended public hearings were held in Ridgewood,
and Midland Park and Glen Rock representatives met with Ridgewood
officials prior to the vote. Since then, both sides say
discussions have been ongoing and could continue.

While talks "haven't led to a resolution," Mr. Fiorenzo said, "we
haven't closed the door on further discussions."

Similarly, Dr. Gabbert said "Ridgewood Water has cooperated for
several months with an auditor authorized and paid for by Wyckoff
(Lerch, Vinci & Higgins). Ridgewood Water staff had
discussions/meetings with the Wyckoff mayor, former mayor,
attorney, special auditor and other officials." However, the
village manager said discussions were suspended when the village
was served with the suit, which he said occurred before Ridgewood
could respond to the outside analysis' allegations.

Both Mr. Fiorenzo, a veteran litigator, and Dr. Gabbert said the
municipalities are prepared to follow the suit to its conclusion
if an amicable solution can't be reached.

"While we understand this can be a multi-year process, Ridgewood
Water will defend against such suits," Dr. Gabbert said.

Midland Park Mayor Joseph Monahan declined comment, and Glen Rock
Mayor Joseph van Keuren could not be reached.

Wyckoff is represented by:

     Joseph B. Fiorenzo, Esq.
     SOKOL, BEHOT & FIORENZO
     433 Hackensack Ave.
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Telephone: (201) 488-1300
     Facsimile: (201) 488-6541


SERVICEMASTER CO: American Home Defends Suit in Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------
American Home Shield Corporation defends a putative class action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, according to The ServiceMaster Co.'s Aug. 16, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

American Home was sued in a putative class action on May 26, 2009,
by Abigail Rudd, et al., and is alleged to have violated Section 8
of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act in connection with
certain payments made to real estate agencies.

The plaintiffs seek damages equal to three times the amount of the
allegedly improper payments occurring after May 26, 2008.

The ServiceMaster Co. -- http://www.servicemaster.com/-- is a
national company serving both residential and commercial
customers.  The company's services include lawn care, landscape
maintenance, termite and pest control, home warranty, disaster
response and reconstruction, cleaning and disaster restoration,
house cleaning, furniture repair, and home inspection.


SERVICEMASTER CO: Awaits Final Approval of "Squires" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The ServiceMaster Co. awaits final approval from the Chancery
Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, of a settlement agreement
resolving the matter Squires v. The ServiceMaster Company and
Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, Inc.

On March 11, 2008, a lawsuit was filed by Vernon Squires, the
company's former General Counsel, on behalf of himself and a
putative class, against the Company and CD&R, in the Chancery
Court of Shelby County, Tennessee.

The complaint alleges that, in connection with the acquisition of
the company by the Equity Sponsors, the defendants improperly
cancelled out-of-the-money stock options that had been previously
granted to individuals in connection with certain stock option
plans.

On Jan. 5, 2010, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement
agreement that calls for the company to pay monies into a
settlement fund that will be used to pay all claims asserted, or
arising, from cancellation of the stock options, including claims
for attorney fees related thereto.  The amount to be paid into the
settlement fund is not material to the Company's financial
condition or results of operations.  The hearing to consider final
approval of the settlement was scheduled last March 30, 2010.

No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 16, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The ServiceMaster Co. -- http://www.servicemaster.com/-- is a
national company serving both residential and commercial
customers.  The company's services include lawn care, landscape
maintenance, termite and pest control, home warranty, disaster
response and reconstruction, cleaning and disaster restoration,
house cleaning, furniture repair, and home inspection.


SIOUX FALLS, S.D.: Court to Hold Sept. 27 Hearing on Flooding Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Mann at KDLT News reports hundreds of Sioux Falls residents
are still waiting for their day in court in a class action lawsuit
filed against the City of Sioux Falls because of flooding six
years ago.  They say city officials have known about drainage
problems in Sioux Falls for two and a half decades, and attempts
to fix them in 2005 didn't do enough.

Helen Ruess has lived in her home on 41st Street for 53 years. Her
first experience with sewer backup was 25 years ago, and it
happened a 4th time this summer.

"They told us this was supposed to be corrected, and I really did
think positive thoughts about it," said Ms. Ruess.

Ms. Ruess is one of more than 200 who have filed a class action
lawsuit against the city of Sioux Falls for flooding that damaged
their homes in 2004.

"We are taxpayers, and we don't deserve this," said Ms. Ruess.

Their lawyer, John Hughes, says the city has known about the
problem for almost three decades, through studies officials have
paid for, but forgotten to look at.

"Certainly, there's been repeated, ample warnings over time that
have not been heeded," said John Hughes, the plaintiffs' attorney.

The Sioux Falls City Attorney declined requests for comment
because the case has yet to go to court.

Mr. Hughes says the city approved expansion in central Sioux Falls
so long as those businesses paid more to cover future sewer
upgrades.  But, the city never collected, and those upgrades could
have prevented the 2004 flooding.

"In 2004, 2005, there was a little over $2 million in that fund
out of a total of around $40 million that was needed for the '05
upgrades," said Mr. Hughes.

Almost a month ago, a circuit court judge ruled in favor of three
families also suing the city over flooding six years ago.  Hughes
believes the decision bodes well for this class action lawsuit.

"It was the result we expected in that case and we expect the same
result in our case," said Mr. Hughes.

Ms. Ruess is now looking for a new place to call home after more
than half a century in this house.

"Too much work for me, especially when you gotta deal with this,"
said Ms. Ruess.

She's not sure who would buy her house with it's history of
damage, but she hopes to put it all behind her soon.

No trial date has been scheduled.  A motions hearing is scheduled
for Monday, September 27.


TOWERS WATSON: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Towers Watson & Co.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated action
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's Sept. 7,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.

On Jan. 1, 2010, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, as
amended by Amendment No. 1, Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Inc., and
Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc., combined their businesses
through two simultaneous mergers and became wholly-owned
subsidiaries of Jupiter Saturn Holding Company, which subsequently
changed its name to Towers Watson & Co.  Since the consummation of
the Merger, Towers Perrin changed its name to Towers Watson
Pennsylvania Inc.; and Watson Wyatt changed its name to Towers
Watson Delaware Holdings Inc.

                        Dugan Action

Earlier, on Dec. 9, 2009, Watson Wyatt was informed by Towers
Perrin of a settlement demand from the plaintiffs in a putative
class action lawsuit filed by certain former shareholders of
Towers Perrin -- the Dugan Action.  Although the complaint in the
Dugan Action does not contain a quantification of the damages
sought, plaintiffs' settlement demand, which was orally
communicated to Towers Perrin on Dec. 8, 2009, and in writing on
Dec. 9, 2009, sought a payment of $800 million to settle the
action on behalf of the proposed class.  Plaintiffs requested that
Towers Perrin communicate the settlement demand to Watson Wyatt.

The complaint was filed on Nov. 5, 2009, against Towers Perrin,
members of its board of directors, and certain members of senior
management in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  Plaintiffs in this action are former members of the
Towers Perrin's senior management, who left Towers Perrin at
various times between 1995 and 2000.  The Dugan plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of former Towers Perrin shareholders who
separated from service on or after Jan. 1, 1971, and who also meet
certain other specified criteria.

                        Pao Action

On Jan. 15, 2010, a former company shareholder who separated from
service with the company in March 2005 when Towers Perrin and EDS
launched a joint venture that led to the creation of eHRO,
commenced a separate legal proceeding -- the Pao Action -- in the
U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania also
alleging the same claims in substantially the same form as those
alleged in the Dugan Action.  The company contributed its Towers
Perrin Administrative Solutions (TPAS) business to eHRO and
formerly was a minority shareholder (15%) of eHRO.  Pao seeks to
represent a class of former company shareholders who separated
from service in connection with the company's contribution to eHRO
of its TPAS business and who are excluded from the proposed class
in the Dugan Action.  The complaint in this action also names
Towers Watson & Co. as defendant.

                       Individual Actions

On Dec. 17, 2009, four former company shareholders, all of whom
voluntarily left the company in May or June 2005 and all of whom
are excluded from the proposed class in the Dugan Action,
commenced a separate legal proceeding -- the Allen Action -- in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
alleging the same claims in substantially the same form as those
alleged in the Dugan Action.  These plaintiffs are proceeding in
their individual capacities and do not seek to represent a
proposed class.

Pursuant to the company's bylaws in effect at the time of their
separations, the company shares held by each of these plaintiffs
were redeemed by the Company at book value at the time these
individuals separated from employment.  The complaints allege
variously that there was a promise that the company would remain
privately owned in perpetuity (Dugan Action) or that in the event
of a change to public ownership plaintiffs would receive
compensation (Allen and Pao Actions).

Plaintiffs allege that by agreeing to sell their shares back to
the company at book value upon retirement, they and other members
of the putative classes relied upon these alleged promises, which
they claim were breached as a result of the consummation of the
Merger between the company and Watson Wyatt.  The complaints
assert claims for breach of contract, breach of express trust,
breach of fiduciary duty, promissory estoppel, quasi-
contract/unjust enrichment, and constructive trust, and seeks
equitable relief including an accounting, disgorgement, rescission
and/or restitution, and the imposition of a constructive trust.

On Jan. 20, 2010, the court consolidated the three actions for all
purposes.

On Feb. 22, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaints in their entireties.  The motion remains pending.

Towers Watson -- http://www.towerswatson.com/-- is a leading
global professional services company that helps organizations
improve performance through effective people, risk and financial
management. With 14,000 associates around the world, the company
offers solutions in the areas of employee benefits, talent
management, rewards, and risk and capital management.


U.S. BANK: Judge Transfers "Pellett" Suit to Illinois Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Catherine D. Perry of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri granted a motion by plaintiffs in
Pellett v. U.S. Bank Pension Plan, Case No. 4:07CV1683 CDP, to
transfer their case to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.

Plaintiffs originally filed an ERISA action in September 2007,
alleging that defendant miscalculated certain balances in
assessing the value of their retirement accounts. The case was
stayed in September of 2008 pending the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeal's decision in a substantially similar case brought by
different plan participants in Sunder v. U.S. Bancorp Pension
Plan, 586 F.3d 593 (8th Cir. 2009).

After the Eighth Circuit's decision in Sunder, plaintiffs filed a
motion to amend their complaint, which Judge Perry granted in July
of 2010.  Discovery is underway, but plaintiffs moved to transfer
the case to the Southern District of Illinois because they wish to
seek consolidation of their claims with those of the plaintiffs in
Mezyk, et al. v. US Bank Pension Plan, et al., no. 3:09cv384 JPG
(S.D. Ill. filed May 21, 2009).  Plaintiffs contend the Mezyk
litigation contains identical issues as in their case, including a
request that a class be certified under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and because significantly more discovery
has occurred in the Mezyk litigation. Defendant has not responded
in opposition to plaintiff's motion.

A copy of the court's memorandum and order is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100908992


USA: Veterans Plan Class Action Suit vs. CIA Over Chemical Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Eckstein at The Frederick News-Post reports a year and a
half after a group of veterans sued the CIA, Army and Department
of Defense for testing chemicals on troops without consent, the
group has asked a judge to penalize the agencies for refusing to
cooperate and provide vital records.

According to the veterans, the CIA "exposed thousands of test
subjects to hundreds of toxic compounds over the course of many
years," states the most recent court document filed in Vietnam
Veterans of America v. Central Intelligence Agency.

The veterans claim they were part of experiments that involved
psychochemicals, such as LSD, nerve gas and mind control tactics.
The veterans never gave informed consent and have not been
compensated for health problems they now suffer, they claim.

The focus of the lawsuit is on testing in Army facilities in
Maryland under the control of the Chemical Corps in the 1950s to
1970s, but the plaintiffs said similar military experiments took
place in universities and hospitals around the country.

"The case has been brought as a class action on behalf of all
military personnel exposed to chemical and biological test
experiments or mind control research," said Gordon Erspamer, an
attorney for the veterans. "This includes, but is not limited to,
those exposed at Fort Detrick and the Edgewood Arsenal."

Mr. Erspamer said the team of lawyers has not yet filed paperwork
to open the lawsuit up to more veterans, but a class-action suit
is the ultimate plan for the case. For now, five veterans and
three organizations are listed as plaintiffs -- a sixth man had
been part of the lawsuit but died last week of cancer, Mr.
Erspamer said.

The veterans are not seeking punitive damages from the government,
only compensation for several medical conditions they've developed
that are related to the chemicals they were exposed to, Mr.
Erspamer said.

To identify more potential plaintiffs, and to identify scientists
and government officials involved in the experiments who could be
called to testify, the veterans' attorneys have requested that the
CIA, Army and Defense produce tens of thousands of pages of
records.

The lawyers made their first records request 15 months ago, but
they've received only about 16,000 pages -- a fraction of what
they requested, they said. Much of the paperwork handed over to
the lawyers was redacted, hiding the very names the lawyers
sought, according to a recent court document they filed.

The attorneys made two more requests for information but have not
received any response at all, Mr. Erspamer said.

Because of the pattern of noncompliance, the veterans' attorneys
filed a complaint against the defendants and ask that they be
penalized for not fulfilling their legal obligations. A judge will
consider the complaint on Sept. 29.

Though Fort Detrick was one of the sites of the experiments,
spokesman Chuck Gordon said he was not aware of Fort Detrick
officials being involved in pulling any records for the lawsuit.
Fort Detrick is not specifically named as a defendant in the
lawsuit.


USA: Black Farmers to Protest Senate's Refusal to Okay Funding
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Lamont at The Militant reports Black farmers plan to gather
in Washington September 21 to 23 to protest the U.S. Senate's
continued refusal to approve $1.25 billion in funding to settle
long-standing claims of discrimination by the United States
Department of Agriculture.

"The Black farmers' lawsuit was cut short after 1999 and many
farmers were left hanging," said Robert Binion, 56, a farmer and
long-time civil rights activist from Clanton, Alabama, in a
telephone interview with the Militant. "We should have finished
the job back then."

"Our gathering in Washington is urgent," continued Mr. Binion.
"When the Civil War ended, they told us we would get '40 acres and
a mule.' But all we've had is empty promises and more promises.
We're not asking for a handout, but for simple, equal justice.
Both the Democrats and Republicans are responsible for this
situation. It's discrimination, pure and simple. Not even the
Congressional Black Caucus has helped us. This action will be a
wake-up call for everyone."

In late August Mr. Binion initiated efforts to bring farmers from
Alabama, Texas, Georgia, Mississippi, and elsewhere to Washington,
D.C., to demand Senate action on funds promised by President
Barack Obama last February. The funding was passed by the U.S.
House of Representatives in May and has since remained stalled in
the Senate, which has refused passage seven times.

The February settlement, known as Pigford II, will provide funds
to some of the thousands of Black farmers wrongly denied loans and
access to other farm programs by the USDA. The 2010 Pigford II
agreement was won by Black farmers' decade-long fight to include
thousands who had been excluded from the 1999 Pigford v. Glickman
class-action settlement because they missed the filing deadline or
for other reasons.

In the last few weeks, Mr. Binion has spoken to farmers living on
the border of Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, and to others in
Houston and Dallas. On August 20 he spoke in Mobile, Alabama.

Mr. Binion spoke at Alabama A&M's main campus near Huntsville
August 28, and in Uniontown and Centreville, Alabama, several days
later. More than 100 farmers and others attended a meeting in
Natchez, Mississippi, September 2, and Mr. Binion appeared on a
radio show in Meridian the following day. He is planning to visit
other farming areas in Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi to build
the action.

"People will leave their local areas on September 20," Mr. Binion
said. "The first day in Washington, September 21, will be for
prayer. Then on September 22 we will be meeting with USDA
officials and members of the Senate's Agricultural Committee and
others in the Senate. On September 23, at noon, there will be a
rally of farmers and supporters on the National Mall by the USDA
Building."

On August 24 some 300 Black farmers from Louisiana and Mississippi
gathered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, for a meeting hosted by the
National Black Farmers Association (NBFA). "When you lose your
land, you lose your heritage," NBFA president John Boyd told the
farmers. "We may have lost our land, but we're not going to lose
this fight."

The Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association (BFAA) and Land
Loss Fund is hosting the 1st Black FarmAide Action October 22-23
in Tillery, North Carolina. Two days of educational and cultural
activities are planned to increase awareness "of the continued
decline of Black farmers and Black land ownership, the
deterioration of Black land worth, and heirs being deprived of
their inheritance via government policies, heir property laws, and
other egregious means," according to the BFAA Web site. For more
information visit http://www.bfaa-us.com/

For more information on the September 21-23 protest, contact
Robert Binion at (205) 280-2634 (home) or (205) 299-1873 (cell).


YORK UNIVERSITY: Judge Dismisses Motion to Certify $250MM Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Small at The Star reports a judge has dismissed a motion to
certify a $250 million class-action lawsuit against York
University for damages arising from a bitter three-month strike
that prevented 50,000 students from attending classes.

Student Jonathan Turner was the representative plaintiff in the
lawsuit launched in January 2009 just before the Liberal
government forced an end to the dispute between York and 3,340
teaching assistants, contract faculty and graduate assistants.

The suit alleges York breached its contract and consumer-protected
obligations to students by canceling all classes and then, after
the strike ended, providing compressed academic periods with
watered-down educational standards.

But Ontario Superior Court Justice Maurice Cullity ruled, in a
decision made public Thursday, that Mr. Turner had not backed up
his allegations that York breached its duty to students or caused
them to suffer.

Nor did he clearly identify the terms of the contract York
allegedly breached, Mr. Justice Cullity said.

Ontario courts have previously ruled they should not interfere
with internal academic issues, Mr. Justice Cullity said.

"The plaintiff is seeking to have the court make qualitative
assessments of the effect on educational standards of York's
response to the strike and of the remedial measures introduced.
These are matters that fall within the discretion of the
university," the judge said.

Alex Bilyk, a spokesperson for York, said the court "made its
ruling and we accept it."

Mr. Turner's lawyers were not immediately available for comment.


XFONE INC: September 19 Hearing Set in Suit Against Subsidiary
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 19, 2010, hearing has been scheduled to consider approval
of the class action request in the matter Eliezer Tzur et al. vs.
012 Telecom Ltd. et al., according to XFONE, Inc.'s according to
the company's Aug. 16, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

On Jan. 19, 2010, Eliezer Tzur et al. filed a request to approve a
claim as a class action against Xfone 018 Ltd., the company's 69%
owned Israel based subsidiary, and four other Israeli telecom
companies, all of which are entities unrelated to the company, in
the District Court in Petach Tikva, Israel.

The Petitioners' claim alleges that the Defendants have not fully
fulfilled their alleged legal requirement to bear the cost of
telephone calls by consumers to the Defendants' respective
technical support numbers.  One of the Petitioners seeks damages
for the cost such telephone calls allegedly made by him during the
5.5-year period preceding the filing of the Class Action Request,
which he assessed at NIS54.45 (approximately $15).

The Class Action Request, to the extent it pertains to Xfone 018,
states total damages of NIS7,500,000 (approximately $2,000,000)
which reflects the Petitioners' estimation of damages caused to
all consumers that (pursuant to the Class Action Request)
allegedly called Xfone 018's technical support number during a
certain period defined in the Class Action Request.

A court hearing with respect to the approval or disapproval of the
Class Action Request has been scheduled for Sept. 19, 2010.

Xfone 018 and the Petitioners are currently attempting to reach an
understanding regarding the scope of the Class Action Request and
its justification, if any.  The matter is pending.

A U.S.-domiciled corporation, XFONE, Inc. -- http://www.xfone.com/
-- is a holding and managing company with operations in the United
States, the United Kingdom and Israel, that offers a wide range of
communications services which include: local, long distance and
international telephony services; video; prepaid and postpaid
calling cards; cellular services; Internet services; messaging
services (Email/Fax Broadcast, Email2Fax and Cyber-Number); and
reselling opportunities.  The company serves customers worldwide.


XO HOLDINGS: Faces "Zheng" Complaint in New York
------------------------------------------------
XO Holdings, Inc., faces a class action complaint filed by Youlu
Zheng in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New
York, according to the company's Aug. 16, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

On or about June 3, 2010, Youlu Zheng filed a class action
complaint alleging that the defendants breached fiduciary duties
in connection with the financing transaction consummated in July
2008 and other related matters.

The plaintiffs request that the court rescind the July 2008
financing transaction, award compensatory damages to the class of
plaintiffs, award the plaintiff expenses, costs and attorneys'
fees, and impose a constructive trust in favor of the plaintiff
and the class upon benefits improperly received by the defendants.
The case is under consideration.

XO Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.xo.com/-- is a leading provider
of 21st century communications services for businesses and
communications services providers, including 50% of the Fortune
500 and leading cable companies, carriers, content providers and
mobile operators.  Utilizing its unique and powerful nationwide IP
network, extensive local metro networks and broadband wireless
facilities, XOH offers customers a broad range of managed voice,
data and IP services in more than 80 metropolitan markets across
the United States.

                             *********

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  * * *