CAR_Public/100915.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 15, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 182

                             Headlines

ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Complaint
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Texas Court Dismisses "Hollinger" Suit
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Plaintiff Files Notice of Appeal
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Defends Amended "Thomas" Complaint
AGENCE METROPOLITAINE: Quebec Class Suit Over Late Trains Okayed

ALFA INSURANCE: Court Dismisses "Downey" Suit Over Discrimination
BFC FINANCIAL: Bid for Certification of "Schawrz" Class Pending
BLACK & DECKER: Recalls 192,000 Random Orbit Sanders
BLUE SHIELD: Faces Class Action Over Physician Rating Program
BURGER KING: D&Os Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duty

CALIFORNIA: School Districts Face Class Action Over Student Fees
CAMPBELL COUNTY: Faces 2nd Lawsuit Alleging Medical Mistreatment
CAPITAL ONE MAET: Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of "Rubio"
CHINA SHENGHUO: Agrees to Settle "Varghese" Suit in N.Y.
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces Securities Class Action in California

DAIMLER AG: Ex-Chrysler Workers File Class Suit Over Pension
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Delaware Ch. Court Denies Preliminary Injunction
ELI LILLY: Wins Reversal of Class Status Ruling in Zyprexa Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: OnStar Plaintiffs Want GM LLC Added as Defendant
GENERAL MOTORS: Not a Defendant in Suit Over Toyota's Recall

GENERAL MOTORS: Named as Defendant in Canadian Pension Fund's Suit
GOOGLE INC: Fourth WiFi Sniffing Lawsuit Filed
J.C. PENNEY: Accused in Calif. Court of Not Paying Overtime
JO-ANN FABRIC: Recalls 1,800 Bamboo Roll-up Blinds With Valance
LOCAL INSIGHT: Motion to Add Berry Company as Defendant Denied

LOWE'S HOME: Drywall Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Nov. 19
METLIFE INC: Court Dismisses Class Action Filed by Policyholders
NUFARM LTD: Shareholders Likely to File Class Action
ORIENT PAPER: Defends Securities Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
PINNACLE GAS: Inks MOU to Settle Shareholder Litigation

REDLINE COMMS: Siskinds Files Securities Class Action
SALAMANDER INNISBROOK: Seeks Suit Resolution Through Mediation
SAS CARGO: Settles Class Action Lawsuits for $13.9 Million
SMURFIT-STONE: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Filed by Kleen Products
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Clinicians Have Until Oct. 5 to File Claim

VESTIN REALTY: Post-Judgment Settlement Gets Final Approval
VITACOST.COM INC: Defends "Miyahira" Securities Suit in Florida



                             *********

ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
On September 10, 2010, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action
complaint against Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and certain of the
Company's officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  The action for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 is brought on behalf of those purchasing
Acura common stock during the period beginning February 21, 2006
and ending April 22, 2010, inclusive.

If you purchased Acura common stock during the Class Period and
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the
Court no later than 60 days from today. Any member of the investor
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have
questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact
Scott+Scott -- scottlaw@scott-scott.com -- (800) 404-7770, (860)
537-5537 or visit the Scott+Scott Web site -- http://www.scott-
scott.com/ -- for more information.  There is no cost or fee to
you.

Acura engages in the research, development, and manufacture of
pharmaceutical product candidates utilizing Acura's proprietary
"Aversion Technology" and other technologies that purportedly
provide abuse deterrent features to orally administered
pharmaceutical drug products containing abusable active
ingredients, such as tranquillizers, stimulants, sedatives,
decongestants, and various other opioid analgesics.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Acura and
certain of its officers and directors concealed material adverse
facts about the Company's lead product candidate, Acurox, an
orally administered immediate release tablet containing oxycodone
as its active ingredient and niacin as an oral abuse-deterrent.
After repeated glowing announcements by Acura to its investors
touting the strength of the clinical trials of Acurox and the
drug's potential for obtaining FDA approval, and thus commercial
viability, the market was stunned when, on April 20, 2010, the FDA
posted, on its website, briefing materials for the April 22, 2010
meeting to consider the New Drug Application of Acurox advising
that: Acura's Aversion Technology was nowhere near effective
enough to warrant approval, that the Company's clinical data was
defective, that its clinical studies were not properly designed,
that the Company had wholly ignored specific directives from FDA
over the past four years as to specific clinical trials and
evidence Acura had to demonstrate, and that that no evidence had
ever been presented to the FDA that the niacin additive
discouraged abusers from abusing oxycodone.

On this news, Acura's stock price declined 42.5% in one day, to
close at $6.25 in afterhours trading. On April 22, 2010, the FDA
Joint Panel voted 19-1 against approving Acurox. On the same day,
it was reported that the FDA had been prodding Acura to
demonstrate the deterrent efficacy of niacin since at least May
2009. As a result of these disclosures, Acura's stock price
declined 39%, to $3.20 per share, in the pre-market trading on
April 23, 2010.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals and other entities worldwide.


AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Texas Court Dismisses "Hollinger" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
dismissed a suit filed by Toni Hollinger against several county
mutual insurance companies and reinsurance companies, including
Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc., 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.

In September 2009, plaintiff filed a putative class action against
several county mutual insurance companies and reinsurance
companies, including Affirmative Insurance Company.  The complaint
alleges that defendants engaged in unfair discrimination and
violated the Texas Insurance Code by charging different policy
fees for the same class and hazard of insurance written through
county mutual insurance companies.

On Aug. 5, 2010, the Court issued an order dismissing plaintiff's
claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc., is a distributor and
producer of non-standard personal automobile insurance policies
and related products and services for individual consumers in
targeted geographic markets.  Non-standard personal automobile
insurance policies provide coverage to drivers who find it
difficult to obtain insurance from standard automobile insurance
companies due to their lack of prior insurance, age, driving
record, limited financial resources or other factors.  Non-
standard personal automobile insurance policies generally require
higher premiums than standard automobile insurance policies.


AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Plaintiff Files Notice of Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Dalton Johnson has filed a notice of appeal on the dismissal of
his suit against Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc., 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.

In October 2009, plaintiff Dalton Johnson filed a putative class
action in Palm Beach County, Florida against Affirmative Insurance
Company.  The complaint alleges that Affirmative failed to apply a
statutorily-permitted fee schedule for hospital emergency care and
services enacted into law in January 2008, thereby exhausting
prematurely the PIP benefits available to Affirmative's insureds.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in March 2010, which was
dismissed with prejudice on May 14, 2010.

On June 4, 2010, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the
dismissal.

Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc., is a distributor and
producer of non-standard personal automobile insurance policies
and related products and services for individual consumers in
targeted geographic markets.  Non-standard personal automobile
insurance policies provide coverage to drivers who find it
difficult to obtain insurance from standard automobile insurance
companies due to their lack of prior insurance, age, driving
record, limited financial resources or other factors.  Non-
standard personal automobile insurance policies generally require
higher premiums than standard automobile insurance policies.


AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Defends Amended "Thomas" Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc., is defending against an
amended complaint filed by Valerie Thomas, 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.

In January 2010, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
granted plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to assert a
putative class action against Affirmative Insurance Company.  The
complaint alleges that Affirmative failed to provide a statutory
5% premium discount to insureds who had anti-theft devices
installed as standard equipment on their vehicles even when the
insureds did not disclose the existence of such devices to
Affirmative.

The case has been consolidated with several identical class
actions against other defendant insurance companies. On June 14,
2010, the court dismissed plaintiff's breach of contract count,
but denied Affirmative's motion to dismiss as to all remaining
counts.

On July 19, 2010, Affirmative filed its answer to the amended
complaint.

The parties will proceed to discovery.

Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc., is a distributor and
producer of non-standard personal automobile insurance policies
and related products and services for individual consumers in
targeted geographic markets.  Non-standard personal automobile
insurance policies provide coverage to drivers who find it
difficult to obtain insurance from standard automobile insurance
companies due to their lack of prior insurance, age, driving
record, limited financial resources or other factors.  Non-
standard personal automobile insurance policies generally require
higher premiums than standard automobile insurance policies.


AGENCE METROPOLITAINE: Quebec Class Suit Over Late Trains Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Riga, Gazette transportation reporter at Montreal Gazette,
reports a Quebec Superior Court judge has approved a class-action
lawsuit against the Agence metropolitaine de transport over
commuter trains that were constantly late or cancelled.

In a judgment handed down Sept. 3, Judge Andre Prevost ruled that
Yves Boyer can proceed with a class-action lawsuit in the name of
commuters who bought passes for the Deux Montagnes and Dorion-
Rigaud line for the months of January and February 2009.  About
46,000 people use those two lines daily.  Mr. Boyer says affected
passengers should get back a portion of the cost of passes for
those months, plus damages, for a total of about $10 million.

Mr. Boyer, a Pincourt resident, filed the request for permission
to file the class action, complaining he and other train users
suffered serious inconveniences over long delays and cancelled
trains. They were late for work and missed meetings, and were
forced to cancel evening activities and scramble to reorganize
travel via taxi, car or bus, Mr. Boyer complained.

He said the delays were caused by train doors that were frozen
shut, frozen train switches, broken-down locomotives and rundown
train cars, among other things.

At the time, the AMT apologized for the problems and offered users
a discount on passes.

But Mr. Boyer told the court only 63% of affected users took
advantage of the offer because they weren't given enough time and
the rebates were only available at a limited number of stations.

In the ruling, Judge Prevost said the court will have to determine
whether "the AMT breached its contractual obligations towards (its
users) by not meeting its timetable."

Mr. Boyer had asked for compensation for late trains during the
months of December 2007 and February and March 2008, but Judge
Prevost ruled there was not enough evidence to support that claim.

A court date for the lawsuit has not yet been set.

The AMT says on-time performance has improved. It says trains were
on schedule 96% of the time across its five lines in 2009. That
compares to 75% on the Dorion-Rigaud line in January 2009, when
trains were often 20 or 30 minutes late.

Another commuter angry about late public transit is also taking
his case to court, but on a much smaller scale.

Jeremy Cooperstock, a McGill engineering professor on a crusade
against late Societe de transport de Montreal buses, has filed a
suit in small claims court over late buses on the 24 and 129
lines, which run on Sherbrooke St. and Cote Ste. Catherine Rd.  He
is demanding $64 in compensation, including taxi-fare
reimbursement and "token compensation." In the past, the STM has
reimbursed Mr. Cooperstock $40 in taxi fares after complaints.
The STM says in 2009, its buses were on time 83.6% of the time.


ALFA INSURANCE: Court Dismisses "Downey" Suit Over Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge W. Harold Albritton of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama granted Alfa
Insurance Corporation's motion to dismiss a class action complaint
filed by Susan Downey.  But Judge Albritton gave Ms. Downey an
opportunity to replead her Complaint so as to establish her
standing to bring claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.

Ms. Downey brings claims for gender discrimination on behalf of
herself and all other female individuals who are similarly
situated, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended.  Ms. Downey has worked for Alfa since 1993.  Ms. Downey
alleges that Alfa has engaged in systemic gender discrimination in
its selection, promotion, and compensation practices.

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

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100909a76


BFC FINANCIAL: Bid for Certification of "Schawrz" Class Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
No decision has been made with respect to the requested
certification of a class action brought by Paul A. and Barbara S.
Schwarz.

The Schwarz Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit, Cause No. 2008-5U-cv-
1358-WI, against Bluegreen Communities of Georgia, LLC, and
Bluegreen Corporation on September 18, 2008, alleging fraud and
misrepresentation with regards to the construction of a marina at
the Sanctuary Cove subdivision located in Camden County, Georgia.

The Plaintiffs subsequently withdrew the fraud and
misrepresentation counts and replaced them with a count alleging
violation of racketeering laws, including mail fraud and wire
fraud.

On Jan. 25, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a second complaint seeking
approval to proceed with the lawsuit as a class action on behalf
of more than 100 persons who claim to be harmed by the alleged
activities in a similar manner as the Plaintiffs.

Bluegreen denies the allegations and intends to vigorously defend
the lawsuit.

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

BFC Financial Corp. -- http://www.bfcfinancial.com/-- is a
holding company.  Its ownership interests include direct and
indirect interests in businesses in a variety of sectors,
including consumer and commercial banking, master-planned
community development, time-share and vacation ownership, an
Asian-themed restaurant chain and various real estate and
venture capital investments.  BFC's holdings consist of direct
controlling interests in BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and Levitt
Corporation.  BFC owns a direct investment in Benihana, Inc.  BFC
itself has no significant operations other than activities
relating to the monitoring of existing investments.  BFC operates
through six segments: BFC Activities, Financial Services and four
segments within its Real Estate Development Division.


BLACK & DECKER: Recalls 192,000 Random Orbit Sanders
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., of Towson, Md., announced a voluntary
recall of about 192,000 Black & Decker Random Orbit Sanders.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The black plastic disc -- called the platen -- that holds the
sandpaper can fly off or break apart during use and the disc, or
pieces of the disc, can hit the user or those nearby, posing a
laceration hazard.

Black & Decker has received 73 reports of incidents involving the
sander's black plastic disc (platen) breaking or falling apart,
including 15 reports of injuries from flying pieces, one of which
involved a serious facial laceration.

This recall involves Black & Decker random orbit sanders with
model numbers RO400, RO400G, RO410, RO410K, RO410LW and FS3000ROS
and date codes between 200701 and 200929.  The sanders are orange
and black. "Black & Decker" is printed on the sanders.  The model
number is printed on a label on the sander.  The date code is
stamped on the underside of the sander where the dust bag is
inserted.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10339.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
home center, hardware and discount stores and by authorized Black
& Decker dealers nationwide from January 2007 through July 2009
for about $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled sanders and
contact Black & Decker for a free replacement platen to hold the
sandpaper.  For additional information, contact Black & Decker
toll-free at (866) 220-1767 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.blackanddecker.com/


BLUE SHIELD: Faces Class Action Over Physician Rating Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Robertson, staff writer for the Sacramento Business Journal,
reports the California Medical Association filed a class action
Friday that alleges Blue Shield of California has launched an
inaccurate physician rating program that potentially harms doctors
and their patients by spreading misinformation and failing to
accurately assess patient care.

Filed in Alameda County Superior Court, the lawsuit alleges Blue
Shield went public with the program in June even though the
company was aware it was flawed. The complaint seeks a court order
to halt the program and inform the public of its deficiencies. It
also demands monetary relief and damages.

Blue Shield's Blue Ribbon Recognition Program posts blue ribbons
next to names of physicians on its web site who have met certain
standards of care.

The class action names plaintiffs Dr. Lisa Asta, a Walnut Creek
pediatrician, and Dr. Richard Stern, a San Pablo cardiologist.

"This is a flawed process that requires hours of physician time to
correct extremely inaccurate data," Dr. Stern said in a news
release. "I found that my ratings report was inaccurate after
spending a significant time reviewing the report against my
patient records."

The program was developed by Blue Shield and the Pacific Business
Group on Health, a coalition of 50 purchasers that is also
involved with the California Healthcare Reporting Initiative, a
collaborative of purchasers, consumers, health plans and doctors.

The organizations worked together to measure the performance of
13,000 high-volume doctors on evidence-based health care quality
standards. Results are drawn from data collected by the California
Physician Performance Initiative (CPPI), a program run by doctors
groups, health plans, purchasers and others to measure and report
on the performance of California doctors. Managed by PBGH, it
aggregates claims data covering more than 5 million patients and
63,000 doctors.

The Blue Ribbon program recognizes doctors who scored above
average in up to eight measures in preventive screening, diabetes
and other categories.

"We are disappointed that the California Medical Association has
opted to sue rather than collaborate to bring evidence-based
physician quality information to Californians," Blue Shield said
in a prepared statement. "This program is based on nationally
recognized measures of care and has the support of diverse
organizations including AARP, the California Public Employees'
Retirement System, Service Employees International Union, the
California Health Care Coalition and Southern California Edison."

The lawsuit alleges the rating system is flawed and amounts to an
economic profiling scheme in which Blue Shield intends to direct
patients to doctors who charge less.

It fails to provide adequate explanations for the basis of the
ratings or disclose that not all doctors are evaluated by CPPI,
the lawsuit alleges. The initiative does not give doctors a fair
opportunity to correct errors, either, the CMA alleges.

"Blue Shield proactively notified physicians of our plans and
strongly encouraged them to avail themselves of this process,"
Blue Shield countered in a written statement. "The total time for
submission of corrections from date of mailing was eight weeks."


BURGER KING: D&Os Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
---------------------------------------------------
Roberto S. Queiroz, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Burger King Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 5808-
(Del. Ch. Ct. September 8, 2010), seeks to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of Burger King by entities controlled by 3G Capital.
The Complaint says that on September 2, 2010, Burger King's Board
of Directors caused the Company to enter into a merger agreement
with Blue Acquisition Sub, Inc., in a cash transaction by means of
an all-cash tender offer and a second-step merger with Blue
Acquisition Holding Corporation -- collectively with 3G Capital
and Blue Acquisition Sub, Inc., "3G" -- valued at approximately
$4 billion.  Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Burger King
shareholders will either accept the proposed Tender Offer and
tender their shares or else be cashed out in the anticipated
follow-on acquisition.  The Tender Offer is currently expected to
launch no later than September 17, 2010.

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, 3G will acquire Burger
King through a cash tender offer priced at $24.00 per share.  The
Proposed Transaction is contingent upon satisfaction of a "minimum
tender" condition of approximately 79.1% of the Company's
common shares.  The Merger Agreement also grants 3G an irrevocable
"Top-Up" option, such that even if 3G acquires just 79.1% of the
Company through the Tender Offer, it would have the ability to
exercise the Top-Up Option and dilute the economic interests of
any remaining public shareholders including plaintiff and members
of the Class.  The Complaint goes on to say that under the Merger
Agreement, if 3G acquires 90% of Burger King's shares through the
Tender Offer, including through exercise of the Top-Up option, it
will accomplish a short form merger pursuant to Del. Gen. Corp. L.
Sec. 253 without obtaining shareholder approval.

Mr. Queiroz says the price 3G is offering in the proposed
transaction represents a minimal premium against the Company's 52-
week high of $21.99 on April 23, 2010.

Furthermore, Mr. Queiroz says the consideration to be paid to
plaintiff and the Class in the proposed transaction is unfair and
grossly inadequate, because, among other things, the intrinsic
value of Burger King is materially in excess of the amount
offered, giving due consideration to the Company's anticipated
operating results, net asset value, cash flow profitability, and
established markets.  The proposed transaction will also deny
Class members their right to share proportionately and equitably
in the true value of Company's valuable and profitable business,
and future growth in profits and earnings, at a time when the
Company is poised to increase its profitability.

Mr. Queiroz, an owner of Burger King common stock, says that in
approving the merger, the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the plaintiff and the Class.  Furthermore, Mr.
Queiroz says Burger King and 3G knowingly aided and abetted the
individual defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty.

The individual defendants include John W. Chidsey, Chairman of the
Board of Burger King director and the Company's CEO since 2006,
and board members Brian T. Swette, chair of the Company's
Executive Committee, David A. Brandon, Ronald M. Dykes, Peter R.
Formanek, Manuel Garcia, Sanjeev K. Mehra, Stephen Pagliuca, and
Kneeland C. Youngblood.  Defendant 3G Capital is a multi-billion
dollar global investment firm.

Mr. Queiroz adds that the proposed transaction is unfair to the
Company's shareholders because Mr. Chidsey will enjoy huge
financial benefits that are not available to any other holder of
the Company's common shares.  Following the closing, Mr. Chidsey
will be appointed Co-Chairman of the Board.  Mr. Chidsey will
remain employed by Burger King for a six month transition period
after the proposed transaction is consummated.  At the time the
merger closes, he will be entitled to receive a pro rata target
annual bonus for the period commencing on July 1, 2010, through
the effective time of the merger.  At the end of the transition
period, Mr. Chidsey will also be entitled to the severance
payments and benefits set forth in his employment agreement.  In
addition, Mr Chidsey will perform part-time consulting services
for an additional six months, for which he will be paid a
consulting fee of $100,000 per month.

To the detriment of the Company's shareholders, Mr. Queiroz
explains that the terms of the Merger Agreement substantially
favor 3G and are calculated to unreasonably dissuade potential
suitors from making competing offers.  These include a $50 million
termination fee should a superior proposal be made during the
40-day Go Shop period (that lasts until October 12, 2010) that
results in the Company terminating the Merger Agreement prior to
the end of the Go Shop period.  The Merger Agreement also contains
a "No Shop" restriction applicable at the end of the Go Shop
period as well as a severely limited "Fiduciary Out" provision
that restricts the Company from considering alternative
acquisition proposals by, inter alia, constraining its
ability to solicit or communicate with potential acquirers or
consider their proposals.

Under the "Fiduciary Out" provision, the Board cannot simply
exercise its fiduciary duties in good faith; it must notify and
negotiate with 3G before any change of recommendation, and give 3G
the opportunity the opportunity to improve its offer if the
Company has received a Superior Proposal.

The Merger Agreement also requires the Company to pay 3G a
termination fee of $95 million if the Board exercises its
fiduciary duties and accepts a Superior Proposal.  In light of the
$50 million termination fee for a termination during the Go Shop
period, and the $95 million termination fee for a termination
thereafter, any superior proposal will have to be well in excess
of these amounts to be considered by the Board.  These acts, Mr.
Queiroz avers, combined with other defensive measures the Company
has in place, effectively preclude any other bidders who might be
interested in paying more than 3G for the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310


CALIFORNIA: School Districts Face Class Action Over Student Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Adelman, writing for The Associated Press, reports the
American Civil Liberties Union said in a lawsuit filed Friday that
California's  cash-strapped school districts have been charging
student fees that violate the state constitutional guarantee to a
free public education.

The civil liberties organization is seeking class-action status
for the suit, which accuses dozens of school districts statewide
of charging for textbooks, uniforms and extracurricular
activities.

Mark Rosenbaum, chief council of the ACLU of Southern California,
said at a press conference announcing the lawsuit that an
investigation by his group found some 50 districts that mention
allegedly illegal fees on their Web sites, but that there are
likely more that do so.

"There does not exist in California a true system of free public
schools," he said. "Instead what we have are pay-to-learn
schools."

Matt Connelly, a spokesman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is
named as the lawsuit's defendant, said the administration will
"carefully review the lawsuit to see if the fees in question
violate California's constitutional guarantee to a free K-12
education."

California Department of Education spokeswoman Tina Jung declined
to directly comment on the claims since her agency is not cited in
the suit, but said that the department sympathizes with school
districts that feel the need to impose fees.

The suit says one plaintiff, identified only as Jane Doe, was not
able to afford a history book that students were required to
purchase and had to borrow one from the school instead.

Since she did not own the book, the student had to use Post-it
notes to mark important passages, while her classmates were able
to write in the text itself, which put her at an academic
disadvantage, Mr. Rosenbaum said.

The suit said Jane Doe was also repeatedly humiliated in front of
her classmates by teachers who publicly mentioned test fees and
other coursework-related payments that she owed.

The suit also says another student, identified as Jason Roe, lost
points toward his Spanish grade because he bought a less expensive
binder than his teacher had specified.

Later, a different teacher who lent him a textbook that he could
not afford teased him by asking for a "receipt" in a voice loud
enough for other students to hear, Mr. Roe's mother said in an
interview.

"It's the humiliation, the embarrassment," said Mr. Roe's mother,
whose actual name, like that of her son, was withheld because she
feared retaliation by teachers and school administrators

"I try as hard as I can to shelter my children from as many of the
financial burdens as we can," she said. "We don't like it to be
something they worry about at their age."

The lawsuit cites a 1984 California Supreme Court ruling in saying
that such financial obligations on public school students violates
the state constitution.

It seeks an injunction directing the state government to publicize
and enforce regulations prohibiting districts from imposing
unconstitutional fees for courses for academic credit.

Mr. Rosenbaum said his organization would send letters to the
school districts named in the suit later Friday telling them about
the legal action in hopes of dissuading them from imposing illegal
fees during the school year that is now just beginning.

San Diego's school district rescinded fees last month after the
ACLU wrote district officials a letter saying they were illegal.

"Every other state in the union recognizes that the hope of a
democracy relies upon the promotion and perpetuation of free
public schools," Mr. Rosenbaum said. "The construction that the
state has apparently taken and that these districts have taken is
that free has to mean something other than free."


CAMPBELL COUNTY: Faces 2nd Lawsuit Alleging Medical Mistreatment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Underwood at FOX19.com reports attorneys have filed a second
class action lawsuit claim against the Campbell County Jail on
behalf of 16 former inmates.  The suit alleges medical
mistreatment by deputy jailers and the medical staff from Southern
Health Partners.  Multiple inmates' claim they were denied medical
and based on neglect, went into serious medical conditions.

Eric Deters has added more inmates, and now former employees of
the jail and Southern Health Partners. He believes that addition
should give the judge reason to grant the class action claim.

"The Campbell County Jail is a disaster," said Mr. Deters.  "We
have evidence that they intentionally withhold medication to save
money, and that's not good."

Almost 20 former deputy jailers and staff with Southern Health
Partners, the company that operates medical needs inside the jail,
have signed affidavits, revealing just had badly the mistreatment
is for inmates who need medical attention.

"We have nurses, technicians, and deputies who are now signing
sworn statements for us saying yes," said Mr. Deters.  "These
things really did happen."

The lawsuit not only names the Campbell County Jail as a
defendant, but Campbell County, Campbell County Fiscal Court, The
jailer, Greg Buckler, Southern Health Partners, and dozens of
other deputy jailers.

Campbell County Attorney Jim Daley and the jailer Greg Buckler
both say they are aware of the second lawsuit claims, but have not
been officially notified and couldn't comment on the allegations.

In 2008, Kenneth Marcum died while in custody in the medical
center inside the jail, as a result of an ulcer.


CAPITAL ONE MAET: Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of "Rubio"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Bank (USA), National Association, is defending against
the matter Rubio v. Capital One Bank after the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed an earlier ruling
dismissing the suit, according to Capital One Multi-Asset
Execution Trust's Aug. 16, 2010, Form 10-D filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly reporting
period from July 1, 2010 to July 31, 2010.

In July 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed a dismissal entered in favor of COBNA in Rubio v. Capital
One Bank, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California in 2007.

The plaintiff in Rubio alleged in a putative class action that
COBNA breached its contractual obligations and violated the Truth
In Lending Act and California's Unfair Competition Law when it
raised interest rates on certain credit card accounts.  The
District Court granted COBNA's motion to dismiss all claims as a
matter of law prior to any discovery.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's
dismissal with respect to the TILA and UCL claims, remanding the
case back to the District Court for further proceedings.  The
Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff's breach of
contract claim, finding that COBNA was contractually allowed to
increase interest rates.

Because of the uncertainty around whether a class will ultimately
be certified, the dimensions of any such class, and the range of
remedies that might be sought on any certified claims, COBNA is
not in a position at this time to provide a meaningful range of
reasonably possible loss with respect to this litigation.

The primary asset of Capital One Multi-Asset Execution Trust is
the collateral certificate, Series 2002-CC, representing an
undivided interest in Capital One Master Trust, whose assets
include the receivables arising in a portfolio of credit card
accounts.  Capital One Master Trust, therefore, may be considered
a significant obligor in relation to Capital One Multi-asset
Execution Trust.


CHINA SHENGHUO: Agrees to Settle "Varghese" Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., has agreed in
principle to settle a consolidated suit captioned Beni Varghese,
Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v.
China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., et al., 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.

In 2008, putative class action lawsuits were asserted against the
company and certain other parties in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  On Feb. 12, 2009, an amended
complaint was served on the company by new lead counsel for the
class, consolidating the putative class actions and bearing the
caption Beni Varghese, Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Similarly Situated v. China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings,
Inc., et al., Index No. 1:08-cv-7422.

The defendants include the company, the company's controlling
shareholders, Lan's International Medicine Investment Co.,
Limited, the company's chief executive officer, Gui Hua Lan, the
company's former chief financial officer, Qiong Hua Gao, and the
company's former independent registered public accounting firm,
Hansen, Barnett & Maxwell, P.C.  Both the Company and HB&M filed
motions to dismiss the complaint, but those motions were denied by
the Court.  The substantive allegations of the amended
consolidated complaint have previously been summarized in
disclosures by the company.

On July 21, 2010, in a mediation conducted by Retired Judge
Nicolas H. Politan, the company entered into an agreement in
principle with counsel for plaintiffs in this litigation and HB&M,
in which the parties agreed to settle all claims by the putative
class members in exchange for payments of $200,000 by the company
and $600,000 by HB&M's professional liability insurer.

The settlement, including its provisions regarding the
notification of class members and administration of any claims,
will be entered into in a written stipulation and agreement of
settlement, to be executed by counsel for the parties, and then
must be submitted to the Court for approval.  The settlement is
expected to result in the dismissal of the class action
litigation.

According to Gui Hua Lan, Chief Executive Officer of China
Shenghuo, "We are pleased that this agreement in principle has
been reached.  While the Company believes that it has meritorious
defenses to the allegations and would have prevailed had the
matter been fully litigated, we believe that it is in the best
interests of our stockholders to put this litigation behind us.
Clearly, it would have cost the Company significant time and
financial resources had the lawsuit continued. By resolving this
matter on the terms reached, and assuming the settlement is
approved by the Court, the Company and the investment community
can now focus their attention entirely on the business and growth
prospects of the Company."

Founded in 1995, China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.shenghuo.com.cn/-- is a specialty pharmaceutical
company that focuses on the research, development, manufacture and
marketing of Sanchi-based medicinal and pharmaceutical,
nutritional supplement and cosmetic products.  Through its
subsidiary, Kunming Shenghuo Pharmaceutical (Group) Co., Ltd., it
owns thirty SFDA (State Food and Drug Administration) approved
medicines, including the flagship product Xuesaitong Soft
Capsules, which is currently been listed in the State Insurance
Catalogue.  At present, China Shenghuo incorporates a sales
network of agencies and representatives throughout China, which
markets Sanchi-based traditional Chinese medicine to hospitals and
drug stores as prescription and OTC drugs primarily for the
treatment of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and peptic ulcer
disease.  The company also exports medicinal products to Asian
countries such as Indonesia, Singapore, Japan, Malaysia, and
Thailand and to European countries such as the United Kingdom,
Tajikistan, Russia and Kyrgyzstan.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces Securities Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Shuman Law Firm disclosed Friday that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Corinthian Colleges, Inc., between October 30, 2007 and
August 19, 2010.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights and interests with respect
to this matter, please contact:

     Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
     Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
     THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
     Toll free: (866) 974-8626
     E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com
             rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

The Complaint charges that Corinthian and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by making a series
of materially false and misleading statements. Specifically, the
Complaint alleges defendants failed to disclose: (i) Corinthian
overstated its growth prospects by engaging in illicit and
improper recruiting activities, which also had the effect of
artificially inflating the Company's reported results and future
growth prospects; (ii) the Company's financial results were
overstated in that the Company's colleges inflated tuition costs
and its student loan repayment rates were well below levels
required for participation in federal loan programs; (iii)
Corinthian failed to maintain adequate systems of internal
operational or financial controls; and (iv) based on the
foregoing, defendants lacked a basis for their positive statements
about the Company, its prospects and growth.

If you purchased Corinthian common stock during the Class Period,
you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of
the class no later than November 1, 2010.  A lead plaintiff is a
class member that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Although your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek
appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important
decisions which could affect the overall recovery for class
members.

The Shuman Law Firm represents investors throughout the nation,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative actions.


DAIMLER AG: Ex-Chrysler Workers File Class Suit Over Pension
------------------------------------------------------------
Alisa Priddle, writing for The Detroit News, reports a class
action suit was filed last week against Daimler AG and Cerberus
Capital Management LLP on behalf of former Chrysler and
DaimlerChrysler employees who lost some of their pensions with the
bankruptcy of the former Chrysler LLC.

The suit represents more than 450 former employees and managers
who lost supplemental pensions during Chrysler's reorganization
and bankruptcy last year. The guaranteed pensions were set up by
the company as a private benefit, and therefore not protected by
the government's underwriter, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.
They were not transferred to the new Chrysler Group LLC that was
formed after bankruptcy, June 10, 2009, with partner Fiat SpA.

DaimlerChrysler was the owner of the automaker until it sold it to
Cerberus in 2007; Cerberus ran the company until bankruptcy.

The suit was filed in Wayne County Circuit Court by attorneys
Sheldon Miller of Farmington Hills and Mayer Morganroth of
Birmingham in an attempt to recoup a percentage of earned
retirement pensions for employees who were led to believe their
pensions would be intact when they retired.

"The direct financial loss, in combination with the serious
reduction in medical, health care and auto benefits resulting from
the bankruptcy, is causing them to make drastic changes to their
retirement plans at a time when they can't go out and find other
jobs to supplement their incomes," Mr. Miller said in a statement.

"These are good, hard working people who are being severely
punished through absolutely no fault of their own."

The attorneys say there are no plans to take any action against
the new Chrysler.

"Everybody involved in this suit loves that company and like
everybody else wants to see it succeed," Mr. Miller said.

"The plaintiffs in our case are trying to assure that there won't
be similar hardships for Chrysler's current employees, many of
whom worked for and with the people involved in this suit.  Nobody
wants to hurt them or the new company's chances for success," he
said.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Delaware Ch. Court Denies Preliminary Injunction
----------------------------------------------------------------
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 30, 2010,
attorneys representing shareholders of Dollar Thrifty Automotive
Group asked the Delaware Chancery Court to delay a vote on the
rental car company's proposed $1.2 billion acquisition by Hertz
Global Holdings so it can try to negotiate a better deal with Avis
Budget Group.

Dollar Thrifty shareholders are scheduled to vote Sept. 16 on the
$1.2 billion cash-and-stock offer Hertz made in April.

In a memorandum opinion dated September 8, 2010, the Delaware
Chancery Court denied the plaintiffs' motion, citing that the
record after factual discovery does not support their claim that
the Dollar Thrifty Board likely breached its fiduciary duty to
take reasonable steps to maximize the value Dollar Thrifty
stockholders would receive.  The Court opined that the record
reveals no preference on the part of the Board for Hertz over Avis
or any other acquirer.

Earlier last month, Dollar Thrifty rebuffed a $1.3 billion cash-
and-stock counteroffer from Avis, saying the proposal did not
include deal protection measures or adequately address antitrust
concerns.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion is available for free
at http://bankrupt.com/misc/dollar.DelCh.MemorandumOpinion.pdf

                           *     *     *

The Troubled Company Reporter, citing The Wall Street Journal's
Gina Chon, reported on September 13 that Hertz on Sunday raised
its offer for Dollar Thrifty to $50 a share, or about $1.56
billion, topping a proposal from Avis Budget Group Inc.  Other
substantive terms of the merger agreement, including a $44.6
million reverse breakup fee, remain unchanged.  The revised price
represents an increase of $10.80 per share in the cash portion of
the offer.  Hertz would pay for the deal mostly in cash, with the
remainder in stock.

The Journal relates that, to ensure the deal closes, Hertz has
also begun the process of divesting its deep-discount Advantage
Rent-a-Car brand.

According to the report, to give Dollar Thrifty shareholders time
to assess the new Hertz offer, a vote on the deal has been
postponed to Sept. 30 from Sept. 16.

On Sept. 2, rival Avis raised the cash portion of its cash-and-
stock offer to about $47.13 a share, or about $1.35 billion, which
topped Hertz's proposal of about $1.1 billion.  But Avis continued
to decline to offer a reverse breakup fee, which was a condition
requested by Dollar Thrifty in a letter early last month.

                       About Dollar Thrifty

Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., is headquartered in Tulsa,
Oklahoma.  Driven by the mission "Value Every Time," the Company's
brands, Dollar Rent A Car and Thrifty Car Rental, serve value-
conscious travelers in over 70 countries.  Dollar and Thrifty have
over 600 corporate and franchised locations in the United States
and Canada, operating in virtually all of the top U.S. and
Canadian airport markets.  The Company's approximately 6,400
employees are located mainly in North America, but global service
capabilities exist through an expanding international franchise
network.


ELI LILLY: Wins Reversal of Class Status Ruling in Zyprexa Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Hurtado and Bob Van Voris at Bloomberg News report that
Eli Lilly & Co. won reversal of a ruling that granted class-action
status to a suit by pension funds, unions and insurers who alleged
that improper marketing of Zyprexa, its schizophrenia treatment,
raised their costs.

A U.S. appeals court in New York Friday threw out a September 2008
ruling by U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein in Brooklyn. He had
said the plaintiffs could pursue as a group claims that
Indianapolis-based Lilly's Zyprexa marketing caused them to pay
more for the drug than what it was worth.  The plaintiffs were
seeking $6.8 billion in damages.

Judge Weinstein had ruled in favor of the unions, pension funds
and insurance companies, known as third-party payors, rejecting
Lilly's argument that their claims were too different to be tried
together. The appeals court reversed, finding that the link
between marketing Zyprexa to doctors and the injury claimed by the
payors was "attenuated."

"Crucially, the third-party payors do not allege that they relied
on Lilly's misrepresentations -- the misrepresentations at issue
were 'directed through mailings and otherwise at doctors,'" the
appeals court said.

The appeals court also sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that
plaintiffs' claims about overpricing should not go forward, Lilly
said in an e-mailed statement issued late Friday.  Judge Weinstein
previously rejected Lilly's request for summary judgment, or a
ruling before trial. The appeals court sent the case back to
Weinstein for reconsideration.

                         'Without Merit'

"We are very pleased with t[he] ruling from the Court of Appeals,"
Robert A. Armitage, Eli Lilly's general counsel, said in an
e-mailed statement. "We were confident that the suit filed by
third-party payors was without merit and believed that the earlier
decision would be overturned."

A lawyer for the plaintiffs said they hadn't decided if they would
appeal the decision by the three-judge panel who issued the ruling
or ask for a review by the entire appeals court bench.

"We just got the decision and our legal team is in the process of
evaluating the decision to see what the next step is," said James
Dugan, a lawyer at the Murray Law Firm in New Orleans, who is
co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs.

                       Racketeering Claim

Zyprexa was Lilly's top-selling drug last year with $4.92 billion
in sales, according to a regulatory filing. It's approved by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat schizophrenia and
bipolar disorder.

The plaintiffs said Lilly's allegedly excessive claims about
Zyprexa's usefulness violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

In his 2008 ruling, Judge Weinstein certified the case as a class
action on the racketeering claims for all plaintiffs except
individual patients who bought the drug. He denied class status to
the individuals because he found their proposed leaders couldn't
properly represent the proposed class.

He also limited the time frame for damages to June 20, 2001, to
June 20, 2005, when the suit was filed. The third-party payors had
claimed damages for as far back as 1996.

Institutions covered by Judge Weinstein's ruling included the
Philadelphia-based United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund;
Mid-West Life Insurance; and the Sergeant Benevolent Association
Health and Welfare Fund, which represents current and retired New
York City Police sergeants and their families.

The case is UFCW Local 1776 and Participating Employers Health and
Welfare Fund v. Eli Lilly & Co., case no. 05-CV-4115 (E.D. N.Y.).


GENERAL MOTORS: OnStar Plaintiffs Want GM LLC Added as Defendant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated class action against General Motors
Corp.'s wholly owned subsidiary, OnStar Corporation, have filed a
motion seeking to add  General Motors LLC as a defendant,
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.

OnStar is party to more than 20 putative class actions filed in
various states, including Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
and California.

All of these cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in
a multi-district proceeding under the caption In re OnStar
Contract Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.

On Aug. 2, 2010 plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to add General
Motors LLC as an additional defendant.  The company says it will
oppose that motion, which it believes is barred by the Sale
Approval Order entered by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York on July 5, 2009.

The litigation arises out of the discontinuation by OnStar of
services to vehicles equipped with analog hardware.  OnStar was
unable to provide services to such vehicles because the cellular
carriers which provide communication service to OnStar terminated
analog service beginning in February 2008.  In the various cases,
the plaintiffs are seeking certification of nationwide or
statewide classes of owners of vehicles currently equipped with
analog equipment, alleging various breaches of contract,
misrepresentation and unfair trade practices.

                       About General Motors

With its global headquarters in Detroit, Michigan, General Motors
Company -- http://www.gm.com/-- is one of the world's largest
automakers.  GM and its strategic partners produce cars and trucks
in 31 countries, and sell and service these vehicles through the
following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, FAW, GMC, Daewoo,
Holden, Jiefang, Opel, Vauxhall and Wuling.  GM's largest national
market is China, followed by the United States, Brazil, Germany,
the United Kingdom, Canada, and Italy.  GM's OnStar subsidiary is
the industry leader in vehicle safety, security and information
services.

General Motors Co. is 60.8% owned by the U.S. Government.  It was
formed to acquire the operations of General Motors Corporation
through a sale under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 363 following Old GM's
bankruptcy filing.  The deal was closed on July 10, 2009, and Old
GM changed its name to Motors Liquidation Co.  Old GM remains
subject to a pending Chapter 11 reorganization case before the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

GMC and three of its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 protection on
June 1, 2009 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 09-50026).


GENERAL MOTORS: Not a Defendant in Suit Over Toyota's Recall
------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. discloses that in a consolidated complaint
filed arising out of Toyota's recall of certain vehicles, it was
omitted from the list of named defendants, 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.

The company been named as a co-defendant in two of the many class
action lawsuits brought against Toyota arising from Toyota's
recall of certain vehicles related to reports of unintended
acceleration.

The two cases are:

     1. Nimishabahen Patel v. Toyota Motors North America, Inc.
        et al. (filed in the U.S. District Court for the
        District of Connecticut on Feb. 9, 2010); and

     2. Darshak Shah v. Toyota Motors North America, Inc. et al.
        (filed in the U.S. District court for the District of
        Massachusetts on or about Feb. 16, 2010).

The cases were consolidated in the multi-district proceeding
pending in the Central District of California created to
administer all cases in the Federal court system addressing Toyota
unintended acceleration issues.

On Aug. 2, 2010, a consolidated Complaint was filed in the multi-
district proceeding and the company omitted from the list of named
defendants.

                       About General Motors

With its global headquarters in Detroit, Michigan, General Motors
Company -- http://www.gm.com/-- is one of the world's largest
automakers.  GM and its strategic partners produce cars and trucks
in 31 countries, and sell and service these vehicles through the
following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, FAW, GMC, Daewoo,
Holden, Jiefang, Opel, Vauxhall and Wuling.  GM's largest national
market is China, followed by the United States, Brazil, Germany,
the United Kingdom, Canada, and Italy.  GM's OnStar subsidiary is
the industry leader in vehicle safety, security and information
services.

General Motors Co. is 60.8% owned by the U.S. Government.  It was
formed to acquire the operations of General Motors Corporation
through a sale under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 363 following Old GM's
bankruptcy filing.  The deal was closed on July 10, 2009, and Old
GM changed its name to Motors Liquidation Co.  Old GM remains
subject to a pending Chapter 11 reorganization case before the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

GMC and three of its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 protection on
June 1, 2009 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 09-50026).


GENERAL MOTORS: Named as Defendant in Canadian Pension Fund's Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. has been named as a defendant in the lawsuit
Labourers Pension Fund of Eastern and Central Canada, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. AmeriCredit Corp, et
al., 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.

The suit was filed on July 28, 2010, in the district court for
Tarrant County, Texas.  General Motors Company is one of the named
defendants.

The plaintiff seeks class action status and alleges that
AmeriCredit and the individual defendants (officers and directors
of AmeriCredit) breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating and
approving the proposed transaction between AmeriCredit and General
Motors.  General Motors is accused of aiding and abetting the
alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

Among other relief, the complaint seeks to enjoin both the
transaction from closing as well as a shareholder vote on the
proposed transaction.

According to the company, no determination has been made that the
case may be maintained as a class action, and it is not possible
to determine the likelihood of liability or reasonably ascertain
the amount of any damages.

                       About General Motors

With its global headquarters in Detroit, Michigan, General Motors
Company -- http://www.gm.com/-- is one of the world's largest
automakers.  GM and its strategic partners produce cars and trucks
in 31 countries, and sell and service these vehicles through the
following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, FAW, GMC, Daewoo,
Holden, Jiefang, Opel, Vauxhall and Wuling.  GM's largest national
market is China, followed by the United States, Brazil, Germany,
the United Kingdom, Canada, and Italy.  GM's OnStar subsidiary is
the industry leader in vehicle safety, security and information
services.

General Motors Co. is 60.8% owned by the U.S. Government.  It was
formed to acquire the operations of General Motors Corporation
through a sale under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 363 following Old GM's
bankruptcy filing.  The deal was closed on July 10, 2009, and Old
GM changed its name to Motors Liquidation Co.  Old GM remains
subject to a pending Chapter 11 reorganization case before the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

GMC and three of its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 protection on
June 1, 2009 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 09-50026).


GOOGLE INC: Fourth WiFi Sniffing Lawsuit Filed
----------------------------------------------
Benjamin Joffe, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v.  Google, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04007 (N.D. Calif. September 8,
2010), accuses the global technology company of using its
Google Street View vehicles to collect information from his
unencrypted wireless internet (WiFi) at his home, including
passwords, credit card numbers, email communications and other
personal private information without permission or consent, in
violation of the Wiretap Act.

On April 23, 2010, Peter Schaar, the German Commissioner for Data
Protection and Freedom of Information, discovered that Google
Street vehicles, in addition to taking pictures, were scanning
WiFi networks to compile a database of networks and their physical
locations for use in "location-aware" advertising services.

Upon requests for information, Google admitted that its Street
View vehicles throughout the world, including the United States,
were actually capturing payload data over wireless internet
connections.  Payload data refers to the actual data being carried
by a network, including content of websites, passwords entered,
and the contents of emails.

The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury and is represented by:

          Guido Saveri, Esq.
          R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
          Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
          SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
          706 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 217-6810
          E-mail: guido@saveri.com
                  rick@saveri.com
                  cadio@saveri.com

               - and -

          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          Michael L. Silverman, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com
                  msilverman@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com


J.C. PENNEY: Accused in Calif. Court of Not Paying Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that J.C. Penney cheats on
overtime and doesn't properly itemize paychecks, a class action
claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.


JO-ANN FABRIC: Recalls 1,800 Bamboo Roll-up Blinds With Valance
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft Stores, of Hudson, Ohio, announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,800 Bamboo Roll-up blinds with
valance.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Strangulation can occur when the lifting loop slides off the side
of the blind and a child's neck becomes entangled on the free-
standing loop, or if a child places his/her neck between the
lifting loop and the roll-up blind material.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves all bamboo roll-up blinds with valances. The
blinds were sold in two sizes: 36"x72" and 48"x72."  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10340.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft Stores nationwide between April 2009 and
December 2009.  The 36"x72" blinds were sold for $25 and the
48"x72" blinds for $30.

Consumers should immediately stop using the roll-up blinds and
return the product to the nearest Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft Stores
for a full refund.  For more information, contact Jo-Ann Fabric
and Craft Stores toll-free at (888) 739-4120 between 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or email the firm
at guest.services@joann.com/  Consumers can also visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.joann.com/


LOCAL INSIGHT: Motion to Add Berry Company as Defendant Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division, denied the plaintiff's motion to add The Berry Company
LLC, as a defendant in a lawsuit filed against CBD Media Finance
LLC, according to Local Insight Regatta Holdings, Inc.'s Aug. 16,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Berry Company is the company's principal operating subsidiary
while CBD Media is an affiliate.

In March 2010, a complaint was filed against CBD Media, an
affiliate and customer of the company, relating to CBD Media's
decision to extend by three months the 12-month publication life
of the 2008/2009 editions of its print directories in the
Cincinnati metropolitan area.  The lawsuit was brought as a
putative class action on behalf of all businesses and persons that
bought advertising in the directories in question.

No class has been certified in this matter.

In May 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to add The Berry Company
as a defendant in the lawsuit.  In July 2010, the Court denied the
plaintiff's motion to add The Berry Company as a defendant in the
lawsuit and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.

In August 2010, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with
respect to the court's decision.

Headquartered in Englewood, Colorado, Local Insight Regatta
Holdings -- http://www.localinsightregattaholdings.com/ -- is a
publisher of print and online yellow page directories in the
United States.


LOWE'S HOME: Drywall Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Nov. 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Bobby Peters has scheduled a hearing in Vereen v.
Lowe's Home Centers, No. SU10-CV-2267B (Ga. Super. Ct., Muscogee
Cty.), to consider approval of a settlement in class action
litigation claiming that Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., and Lowe's
HIW, Inc., sold allegedly defective drywall and caused property
damage or personal injury.  The $6.5 million settlement offers
payments of Lowe's gift cards and cash payments between $50 and
$4,500.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 23, 2010, the
settlement has drawn criticism from consumer advocates who say too
much money is being awarded to the plaintiffs' attorneys and has
the plan for alerting Lowe's customers to the nationwide
settlement is inadequate.

The Settlement Class includes persons in the United States who (1)
purchased, installed or had installed defective drywall from
Lowe's anytime before July 27, 2010, or (2) who were owners or
residents of real property (house, apartment, condominium,
building, etc.) in which defective drywall that was purchased from
Lowe's anytime before July 27, 2010, was installed.  To ask for a
payment, you must complete and submit a Claim Form.  You can get a
Claim Form at http://www.DrywallSettlement.info/or by calling
1-877-497-3512 and sending it to:

         Lowe's Drywall Settlement
         P.O. Box 869066
         Plano, Texas 75086-9066

The deadline to submit claims is 180 days after the date of the
Fairness Hearing.  The Claim Deadline will be no earlier than
May 18, 2011.

The Plaintiff Class is represented by:

         Austin Gower, Esq.
         1425 Wynnton Road
         P.O. Box 5509
         Columbus, GA 31906

              - and -

         Don Barrett, Esq.
         DON BARRETT, P.A.
         404 Court Square
         P.O. Box 927
         Lexington, MS 39095

              - and -

         Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
         PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, L.L.P.
         P.O. Box 71
         Plaquemine, LA 70765

              - and -

         Dewitt Lovelace, Esq.
         LOVELACE LAW FIRM, P.A.
         12870 U.S. Hwy. 98 West
         Miramar Beach, FL 32550

Class Counsel will ask the Court for attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses of $2,166,000.  Class Counsel will request an award of
$5,000 to the Representative Plaintiff for his service on behalf
of the whole Class.

Lowe's is represented by:

         William B. Gaudet, Esq.
         ADAMS AND REESE LLP
         701 Poydras Street
         New Orleans, LA 70139


METLIFE INC: Court Dismisses Class Action Filed by Policyholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Holm, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that a
federal judge in Nevada threw out a lawsuit against MetLife Inc.
that had alleged the insurer misled policyholders over a common
type of account life insurers establish for beneficiaries as an
alternative to paying out benefits in a single lump-sum check.

Lawyers for the plaintiff had been seeking class-action status for
MetLife beneficiaries whose payouts were placed into the accounts,
saying the insurer had breached their contracts and unduly
profited at their expense.

The type of account in question, called a retained-asset account
by the insurance industry, has drawn scrutiny from state and
federal officials in recent months. The Nevada ruling is another
in a string of cases in which judges have ruled largely in favor
of the insurers, and against those who contend the companies are
unjustly profiting from the accounts at the expense of grieving
beneficiaries.

Insurers typically use the retained-asset accounts as the default
method for paying beneficiaries. The insurers place the death
benefit into the interest-bearing accounts and send what some
companies call a "checkbook" for withdrawals. They can attempt to
earn more from investing the money than they pay out in interest
to the beneficiaries.

The plaintiff in the Nevada case had argued, in part, that she and
others were entitled to the profit MetLife had earned because the
New York-based insurer had said in materials it sent to her that
she would "pay nothing for the account."

The judge wrote that "any profit from investment earnings in
excess of its contractual liabilities to . . . account holders is
no more a fee or charge than is the profit earned by a bank from
investing deposits in a checking account a fee or charge to the
depositor."

Curtis Coulter, a lawyer for the plaintiff, didn't immediately
return a call seeking comment. A spokesman for MetLife said the
insurer was "very pleased with this decision."


NUFARM LTD: Shareholders Likely to File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Andrew Marshall, writing for The Land, reports shareholders in
leading listed agribusinesses, Nufarm and Elders, are likely to
have class actions against the two companies proceeding in court
within the next few months, following this year's shock slump in
profit results.

Both companies blame a collapse in the global glyphosate market
for catching them unprepared and resulting in their profit
forecasts being much more optimistic than reality.

National law firm, Slater and Gordon, was approached by Nufarm
Limited shareholders wanting a class action investigation after
the herbicide and insecticide maker suddenly halved its underlying
net profit guidance in July.

The firm had earlier initiated investigations into Elders
following its June 22 revelation that earnings were well below
previous guidance.

Another legal firm, Maurice Blackburn, is also exploring a
potential class action against Nufarm.

Slater and Gordon has three other similar class action allegations
proceeding against property companies Centro and GPT Group and
pharmaceuticals giant, Sigma.

Nufarm has delivered five downgrades in 18 months and further
angered investors last week by announcing an unexpected blowout in
net debt had resulted in it breaching its banking covenants.

Nufarm chairman, Don McGauchie, has promised to shake up the
company's finance department in the wake of its run of forecasting
blunders which have cut more than $2 billion from the value of
Australia's biggest herbicide producer in the past year.

He said it was clear Nufarm must improve its budgeting and
forecasting.

On July 14, Nufarm downgraded its guidance for the full year
ending July 31 by 50% from an operating net profit after tax of
$110-$130 million, to just $55-$65 million.

"Rural shareholders are among those joining institutional
investors with serious concerns about how Nufarm halved its profit
guidance, which had previously been confirmed on numerous
occasions since March," said Slater and Gordon senior associate,
Ben Phi.

In April the company raised $250 million from its shareholder
ranks under an entitlement offer, but investors' newly acquired
shares fell 35pc in price after the July profit downgrade.

Mr. Phi said if the company had properly informed the market about
the glyphosate price war and reduced sales activity shareholders
would have been able to make up their own minds about its profit
expectations.

The proposed class action will allege Nufarm engaged in misleading
or deceptive conduct when it provided its profit guidance on
March 2, breaching its continuous disclosure obligations
throughout the period.

Mr. Phi said the law firm was not taking its investigation lightly
and hoped to shortly finalize its preparations for court for both
Elders and Nufarm shareholders.

The Elders class action, which has also involved input from rural-
based shareholders who make up sizeable proportion of the share
register, also relates to alleged misleading guidance about
earnings from chemical sales and the live export market.

"We've spoken to quite a few shareholders in the bush and have
identified a number of common issues between Nufarm and the Elders
claims," Mr. Phi said.

Nufarm managing director, Doug Rathbone, has defended Nufarm's
performance, saying it had kept the market informed.

He maintained glyphosphate prices and sales had simply not lifted
as much as he had expected when Nufarm made its March forecast,
which coincided with the capital raising.

A sharp fall in Nufarm's share price last week triggered new
speculation it could be in line for a takeover by Japan's Sumitomo
Corporation, which paid $14 a share for a 20pc stake early this
year.

Sumitomo has, however, previously stated it is happy to be a
partner with Nufarm to co-develop products and gain access to its
extensive distribution network in North and South America,
Indonesia, Europe and Australasia.


ORIENT PAPER: Defends Securities Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Orient Paper, Inc., defends a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit alleging violation of federal securities 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.

On and shortly after Aug. 6, 2010, certain purported shareholder
class action and derivative lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against the
company and certain of its directors and officers.

The lawsuits allege that the company and certain of its officers
and directors issued materially false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose adverse facts known to them regarding the
company's business and financial results and, therefore, violated
federal securities laws and state laws.

All of the allegations made by these law suits are based on a
third-party inaugural "research report" issued by an entity known
as Muddy Waters, LLC.  The "research report" alleged, among other
things, inflated revenue for fiscal year 2008 and 2009 and
misappropriation of some $30 million of investor funds by the
company.

Orient Paper, Inc. -- http://www.orientpaperinc.com/-- through
its wholly owned subsidiary, Shengde Holdings, Inc., controls and
operates Baoding Shengde Paper Co., Ltd., and Hebei Baoding Orient
Paper Milling Co., Ltd.  Founded in 1996, HBOP is engaged in the
production and distribution of products such as corrugating medium
paper, offset printing paper, and other paper and packaging-
related products in China.  The company uses recycled paper as its
primary raw material.  Baoding Shengde, founded in June 2009
located in Baoding, is engaged in the production and distribution
of digital photo paper.  As one of the largest paper producers in
Hebei Province, China, HBOP is strategically located in Baoding, a
city in close proximity to Beijing where the majority of
publishing houses are based.  Orient Paper is led by an
experienced management team committed to diversifying the
company's product offering and delivering tailored services to its
customers.


PINNACLE GAS: Inks MOU to Settle Shareholder Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc., entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a consolidated suit captioned In re
Pinnacle Gas Resources Shareholder Litigation, 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 Feb. 23, 2010, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Powder Holdings, LLC, and Powder Acquisition Co., a
direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Powder Holdings.  Powder
Holdings is controlled by an investor group led by Scotia Waterous
(USA) Inc. and includes certain members of the company's
management team.

The company is a party to two stockholder class action lawsuit
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  On March 24, 2010, the
Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order consolidating the two
actions under the caption In re Pinnacle Gas Resources Shareholder
Litigation, C.A. No. 5313-CC (Del. Ch.) and appointing co-lead
counsel.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
entering into the merger agreement with Powder and Powder
Holdings, taking actions designed to deter higher offers from
other potential acquirers and failing to maximize the value of
Pinnacle to its stockholders.

In addition, the lawsuit alleges that DLJ Merchant Banking, as a
controlling stockholder of Pinnacle, violated fiduciary duties to
Pinnacle stock holders and that Powder and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the other
defendants.  The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, injunctive
relief prohibiting the Merger, and costs of the action including
reasonable attorneys' fees.

On May 24, 2010, the company and its directors entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding in anticipation of settling the
shareholder lawsuit.

Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, the company
agreed to make additional proxy disclosures regarding the
interests of the company's executive officers in the surviving
entity and furnish additional information regarding FBR's analysis
and fairness opinion.  In return the shareholders will provide a
release of their claims against the company, its directors, Powder
and DLJ.

The company and its directors, Powder and DLJ do not admit any
wrongdoing and entered into the Memorandum of Understanding to
avoid the distraction, burden and expense of further litigation.
The settlement is subject to confirmatory discovery, negotiation
of a definitive settlement agreement, and approval by the Delaware
Chancery Court.  Powder and DLJ have agreed to the terms of the
Memorandum of Understanding.

Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc. is an independent energy company
engaged in the acquisition, exploration and development of
domestic onshore natural gas reserves. It focuses on the
development of coalbed methane (CBM) properties located in the
Rocky Mountain region.  Pinnacle holds CBM acreage in the Powder
River Basin in northeastern Wyoming and southern Montana as well
as in the Green River Basin in southern Wyoming.  Pinnacle Gas
Resources was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Sheridan,
Wyoming.


REDLINE COMMS: Siskinds Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Siskinds LLP disclosed Friday that it has filed a
proposed securities class action against Redline Communications
Group Inc. (TSX: RDL).  Also named as defendants are RDL's
auditors, KPMG LLP, as well as the principal subsidiary of RDL,
Redline Communications, Inc., and certain of RDL's current and
former officers and directors, including RDL's Board Chairman,
Philippe de Gaspe Beaubien III, RDL's former CEO, Majed Sifri, and
RDL's former CFO, Thomas Hearne.

The class action arises from RDL's recently announced restatement
of its financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2006,
2007 and 2008, and for the three-month periods ended March 31,
June 30, and September 30, 2009.  The plaintiffs, who are seeking
$15 million in damages, allege among other things that RDL
misrepresented that its financial statements had been compiled in
accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles.

The class action is brought on behalf of all persons and entities
who acquired securities of RDL or of its subsidiary, Redline
Communications, Inc., during the period of December 6, 2006 to
March 15, 2010.

                        About Siskinds

Siskinds LLP, with offices in Toronto and London and an affiliate
in Quebec City, is one of Canada's leading class action law firms.
Siskinds was counsel to the class in the first class action
certified under the Ontario Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and has
successfully resolved more securities class actions than any other
law firm in Canada.


SALAMANDER INNISBROOK: Seeks Suit Resolution Through Mediation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Salamander Innisbrook, LLC, continues to work with a federally
appointed mediator in order to resolve a complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, 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 Feb. 27, 2009, four former employees filed a Complaint
in Federal Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division, on behalf of themselves and others who are similarly
situated.  Thirteen individuals opted into the Michael LeFave et
al. suit as class members joining the original four.

The claim alleges unlawful employment practices including
violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act. Plaintiffs' "Class" for the
class action was conditionally certified but remains subject to
decertification pending further factual analysis by the Court.
The company maintains that all employment actions were for
legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons, and it intends to
continue to vigorously defend these matters.  Nevertheless, the
company's attorneys are working with a federally appointed
mediator to resolve all of these legal actions, and the company
anticipates a complete settlement within the limits of insurance
coverage.

On July 16, 2007, Salamander Innisbrook, LLC, together with its
affiliates, Salamander Innisbrook Securities, LLC, and Salamander
Innisbrook Condominium, LLC completed the purchase of the
Innisbrook Resort and Golf Club and all of the equity interest in
Golf Host Securities, Inc.  The company assumed control and
operation of the Rental Pool Lease Operations which is a
securitized pool of condominiums owned by participating
condominium owners (the "Participating Owners") and rented as
hotel rooms to guests of the Resort; an average of 429 owners or
594 hotel rooms participate at any given time.  The Rental Pool
obligated the company to make quarterly distributions of a
percentage of room revenues under the Amended and Restated
Innisbrook Rental Pool Master Lease Agreement, dated Jan. 1, 2004.
The MLA also entitled Participating Owners to 50% reimbursement of
the refurbishment costs of their units during Phase I through IV
and 25% for Phase V refurbishments.  Other resort facilities
include four 18-hole golf courses, four restaurants, three
convention facilities, a health spa, fitness center, tennis and
recreation facilities, themed water park and five swimming pools.


SAS CARGO: Settles Class Action Lawsuits for $13.9 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Dow Jones Newswires reports SAS said Friday it will pay $13.9
million, along with notice costs to settle class action lawsuits
in the United States against SAS Cargo.

SAS Cargo, along with numerous other air cargo carriers, has been
named as a defendant in a number of class-action lawsuits in the
U.S. which were brought in spring 2006, after the U.S. Department
of Justice and the European Commission each announced
investigations into possible price fixing in the air cargo
industry.

The settlement agreement will have an adverse effect on the SAS
Group's liquidity and earnings, amounting to approximately SEK105
million during the third quarter of 2010.


SMURFIT-STONE: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Filed by Kleen Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Brown, writing for St. Louis Today, reports Smurfit-Stone
Container Corp. is one of nine companies nationwide to be named in
a federal antitrust class action lawsuit filed Thursday.

Minnesota-based Kleen Products filed the suit in the U.S. District
Court, Northern District of Illinois, alleging that Smurfit-Stone,
which has dual headquarters in St. Louis and Chicago, and eight
other defendants conspired to set prices for containerboard, a raw
material used to make boxes and other corrugated containers.

The other defendants named in the suit are Packaging Corp. of
America, International Paper, Norampac Industries Inc., Cascades
Inc., Domtar Corp., Weyerhaeuser Co., Georgia Pacific LLC, and
Temple-Inland Inc.

A Smurfit-Stone spokeswoman said the company is reviewing the suit
and declined to comment.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Clinicians Have Until Oct. 5 to File Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lowes at Medscape Medical News reports clinicians who have
been paid by UnitedHealth Group for out-of-network services have
until October 5 to file a claim in the $350 million settlement of
a class-action lawsuit alleging that the insurer systematically
underpaid such providers.

A spokesperson for the American Medical Association, one of the
plaintiffs in the suit, estimates that most physicians are
eligible for some slice of the settlement pie. The more claims
filed, the smaller the slices of the pie will be.

However, an executive of a company that is helping physicians file
settlement claims estimates that only 20% of eligible clinicians
will actually submit the necessary paperwork, based on past class-
action settlements involving the medical profession. In light of
that projection, a typical physician filing a claim might receive
between $1000 and $1500, said Tim Schmidt, chief executive officer
of Managed Care Advisory Group in Toledo, Ohio. The company's work
is promoted on the AMA Web site.

The AMA, other medical societies, individual physicians and
patients, and several unions sued UnitedHealth Group in 2000 over
how it calculated "usual, customary, and reasonable" charges of
physicians, which form the basis for the insurer's out-of-network
payment rates. The insurer relied on a UCR database developed by a
subsidiary called Ingenix to set these rates. Plaintiffs in the
class-action suit contended that UnitedHealth Group and Ingenix
manipulated the database to lowball UCR charges, and therefore
what it paid out-of-network providers.

In an investigation sparked by the lawsuit, New York Attorney
General Andrew Cuomo determined that the insurer underpaid some
out-of-network physicians in his state by as much as 28%. This
practice hurt not only physicians but also patients, who found
themselves owing bigger balances to their providers.

On January 13, 2009, Mr. Cuomo wrested an agreement from
UnitedHealth Group for it to shut down the Ingenix database and
contribute $50 million toward creating an independently operated
UCR database for the entire industry (scheduled to launch later
this year). Two days later, UnitedHealth Group agreed to settle
the class-action suit brought by the AMA and the other plaintiffs
and pay $350 million to short-changed patients, physicians, and
other healthcare providers, such as nurse practitioners,
psychologists, and chiropractors. The insurer notes that the
settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing.

The settlement covers clinicians who filed out-of-network claims
not only with UnitedHealth Group but also its subsidiaries and
affiliates, which include Oxford Health Plans, Golden Rule
Insurance, Mid-Atlantic Medical Services, and PacifiCare Health
Systems. The claims must apply to services or supplies provided
between March 15, 1994, and November 18, 2009 -- the so-called
class period.

       AMA Has Posted Online Advice on How to File a Claim

The AMA has published an online, step-by-step guide on how
physicians can file a claim in the settlement, as well as a set of
frequently asked questions. Physicians can obtain more advice from
the AMA's Practice Management Center at 1-800-621-8355. In
addition, they can contact Berdon Claims Administration, the
company responsible for processing settlement claims, at 1-800-
433-1073 or unitedhealthcare@berdonclaimsll.com.

The AMA stresses the importance of getting started on filing a
claim well before the October 5 deadline, especially when it comes
to ordering a report from Berdon Claims Administration on covered
out-of-network services and supplies that an individual physician
provided to patients from January 1, 2002, to May 28, 2010. This
report plays a key role in documenting claims for the entire 15-
year class period.

Physicians who want to outsource the chore of claims submission
can turn to MCAG, which will offer a discounted fee -- a
percentage of claims money collected -- for AMA members. The
company states that physicians who use their services are likely
to collect more than if they act on their own. MCAG can be reached
at 1-800-355-0466 or physicianservices@mcaginc.com.

The AMA and other medical societies have filed similar class-
action lawsuits against 3 other large insurers -- WellPoint,
Aetna, and Cigna -- that used UCR data from Ingenix to set
reimbursements for out-of-network physicians. Those cases are
still pending.


VESTIN REALTY: Post-Judgment Settlement Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego Superior Court gave its final approval to the post-
judgment settlement in a breach of contract class action lawsuit
where Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc., and Vestin Realty Mortgage
II, Inc., are named as defendants, according to VRM I and VRM II's
Aug. 16, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

VRM I, VRM II and Vestin Mortgage, Inc., were defendants in a
breach of contract class action filed in San Diego Superior Court
by certain plaintiffs who alleged, among other things, that they
were wrongfully denied roll-up rights in connection with the
merger of Fund I into VRM I and VRM II.

The court certified a class of all former Fund I unit holders and
Fund II unit holders who voted against the mergers of Fund I into
VRM I and Fund II into VRM II.  The trial began in December 2009
and concluded in January 2010.

On Feb. 11, 2010, the Defendants were notified of a Tentative
Statement of Decision, in their favor issued by the Superior Court
for the State of California in San Diego following a trial.  In
the Tentative Statement, the Court found that there was no roll-
up, and therefore, no breach of contract.  The Court entered
judgment for the Defendants on March 18, 2010.

Defendants and Plaintiffs have agreed to a post-judgment
settlement by which Plaintiffs will not appeal the pending
judgment in consideration of a waiver by the Defendants of any
claim to recover costs from the Plaintiffs.

The Court granted final approval of this settlement of post-
judgment rights on July 9, 2010.

Vestin Group, Inc. -- http://www.vestingroup.com/-- is investing
in commercial real estate.  Through subsidiaries, the firm
originates, invests in, and services mortgages secured by
commercial properties such as apartment complexes, office
buildings, shopping centers, and assisted living facilities.  Its
Vestin Mortgage subsidiary manages two real estate investment
trusts and a real estate investment fund that focus on mortgages
and deeds of trust.


VITACOST.COM INC: Defends "Miyahira" Securities Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vitacost.com, Inc., defends a putative class action complaint
captioned Miyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc., Ira P. Kerker, Richard
P. Smith, Stewart Gitler, Allen S. Josephs, David N. Ilfeld,
Lawrence A Pabst, Eran Ezra, and Robert G. Trapp, Case 9:10-cv-
80644-KLR, 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 May 24, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
against the company and certain current and former officers and
directors by a stockholder on behalf of herself and other
stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between
Sept. 24, 2009 and April 20, 2010.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The complaint alleges that defendants
violated the federal securities laws during the period by, among
other things, disseminating false and misleading statements and/or
concealing material facts concerning our current and prospective
business and financial results.  The complaint also alleges that
as a result of these actions our stock price was artificially
inflated during the class period.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and
expenses.

Vitacost.com, Inc. -- http://www.vitacost.com/-- is a leading
online retailer and direct marketer of health and wellness
products, including dietary supplements such as vitamins,
minerals, herbs or other botanicals, amino acids and metabolites,
as well as cosmetics, organic body and personal care products,
sports nutrition and health foods.  Vitacost.com, Inc. sells these
products directly to consumers through its website, as well as
through its catalogs.  Vitacost.com, Inc. strives to offer its
customers the broadest product selection of healthy living
products, while providing superior customer service and timely and
accurate delivery.

                             *********

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  * * *