CAR_Public/100920.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, September 20, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 185

                             Headlines

AIR FRANCE: Accused of Engaging in Price-Fixing Conspiracy
ALLOY INC: Wants Amended Complaint Over Zelnick Merger Dismissed
ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Hearing on Proposed Settlement Set for Nov. 19
ASIC: Ariff Victims Plan to File Class Action Lawsuit
AVIAT NETWORKS: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Denied

BJ'S WHOLESALE: Expects Suit Resolution by End of Fiscal Year
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Recalls Light-up Rings and Star Glasses
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Consolidated Amended Complaint Due Sept. 27
CHARLIE CRIST: Collier Circuit Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Suit
CITIMORTGAGE INC: Suit Over Late Fees Still Pending in California

DEL MONTE: Defends Suit by Moline and Lowe in California
DEL MONTE: Appeals in Pet Food MDL Settlement Dispute Ongoing
EDUSHAPE LTD: Recalls 213,500 Starbuilder and Stars Building Sets
ELI LILLY: Class in Suit Over Zyprexa Prescription Decertified
ENGLISH MONTREAL: Trial for Class Action Suit Still Months Away

FIRST DATA: Removes "POS Lease Overcharge" Suit to N.D. Calif.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Class Suit Over Gender Discrimination
GREAT SOUTHERN: Law Firm Seeks Another Funding Commitment to Suit
HAWAII: Governor Faces Teachers & Retirees' Class Action
JACKSON HEWITT: Agrees to Settle Brown's CSOA Suit in Ohio

JACKSON HEWITT: Defends Virginia RAL Customers' Suit
JACKSON HEWITT: Continues to Oppose Wooley's Certification Plea
JACKSON HEWITT: Appeal on Dismissal of "Gomez" Suit Pending
JACKSON HEWITT: Norris Files Notice of Appeal on Dismissed Suit
JACKSON HEWITT: Fugate Appeals Dismissed Missouri Suit

JACKSON HEWITT: Ohio Court Dismissed RAL-Related "Thomas" Suit
JACKSON HEWITT: Wants "Carriere" Suit in Louisiana Dismissed
MF GLOBAL: Must Face Class Suit Over 2008 Trading Scandal
MINNESOTA: Reaches $3 Million Settlement in METO Class Suit
SCREEN ACTORS: Agrees to Independent Audit of Foreign Levies

SEARCHMEDIA HOLDING: Faces Securities Class Suit in California
SMITH & WESSON: Defends Securities Suit in Massachusetts
SUN HEALTHCARE: Faces Wage & Hour Violations Suit in California
SYNGENTA CROP: Holiday Shores' Motion to Compel Discovery Pending
TOBACCO COMPANIES: Get $270 Million Reprieve From Justice Scalia

WRIGHT COUNTY EGG: Faces Class Suit Over Salmonella Contamination

                             *********

AIR FRANCE: Accused of Engaging in Price-Fixing Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that 15
international airlines conspired to fix prices in a scheme
favoring "collusion over competition," passengers claim in a
federal antitrust class action.  The class claims that as far back
as early 2000, the airlines began increasing international fares
at the same time.

"The close timing and amount of defendants' increases were not
coincidences, but rather the product of a collusive agreement to
fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices of base passenger
fares and fuel surcharges on international flights," the complaint
states.

Lead plaintiff Caroline Joy claims, for example, that Air New
Zealand charged $918 for coach airfare from San Francisco to
Auckland, exactly the same price as Qantas.

Other airlines named as defendants include Air France, KLM Royal
Dutch Airline, Continental Airlines, Singapore Airlines and Cathay
Pacific Airways.  The class claims the airlines made millions, or
tens of millions of dollars from the price-fixing.

The class claims the airlines met secretly, destroyed
incriminating emails, staggered the dates on which airfare changes
were announced and lied to consumers about the real reasons behind
the fare increases, which the airlines often attributed to fuel
surcharges.

The complaint cites a U.S. Justice Department investigation of
several defendants airlines, which led to a guilty plea from
Qantas in 2008, which paid a $61 million criminal fine.

Cathay Pacific and Air France and KLM also admitted guilt after
DOJ investigations in 2008 and agreed to pay fines of $60 million
(Cathay Pacific) and $350 million (Air France and KLM, which have
merged).

Cathay Pacific's CEO Tony Tyler admitted that its acts "'were in
conflict with U.S. antitrust laws and we very much regret this,'"
according to page 80 of the complaint.

The class demands treble damages for antitrust conspiracy.

A copy of the Complaint in Joy v. Air France, et al., Case No. 10-
cv-04137 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/15/Airfix.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          G. Scott Emblidge, Esq.
          Sylvia M. Sokol, Esq.
          Matthew Yan, Esq.
          MOSCONE EMBLIDGE & SATER LLP
          220 Montgomery St., Suite 2100
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-362-3599
          E-mail: emblidge@mesllp.com
                  sokol@mesllp.com
                  yan@mesllp.com


ALLOY INC: Wants Amended Complaint Over Zelnick Merger Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alloy, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss an amended complaint
arising out of its planned merger with ZelnickMedia LLC, according
to the company's Sept. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2010.

On June 28, 2010, the company entered into a definitive Agreement
and Plan of Merger with Alloy Media Holdings, L.L.C., and
Lexington Merger Sub Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alloy
Media.  Alloy Media is a newly-formed entity to be owned by ZM
Capital, L.P. and other co-investors.  In addition, certain
members of management of Alloy, including Matthew C. Diamond,
Chief Executive Officer and James K. Johnson, President and Chief
Operating Officer, in connection with such transaction will
exchange a portion of their Alloy shares for an equity interest in
Alloy Media.

On June 29, 2010, the company, its directors, and ZelnickMedia LLC
were named as defendants in a putative class action complaint,
captioned Teitelbaum v. Diamond., et al., C.A. No. 5604, filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

On July 8, 2010, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned City of Livonia
Employees Retirement System v. Diamond, et al., C.A. No. 5626.
This lawsuit also named as defendants Alloy Media Holdings,
L.L.C., Lexington Merger Sub Inc., Natixis Caspian Private Equity,
LLC, Rosemont Solebury Co-Investment Fund, L.P. and Genspring
Family Offices, LLC.

On July 26, 2010, the actions were consolidated under the caption
In re Alloy, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 5626.

On Aug. 9, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
purportedly on behalf of a class of stockholders, alleging that
the intrinsic value of Alloy common stock is materially in excess
of the amount offered for those securities in the merger and that
the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to the merger price, thereby depriving plaintiffs of the
opportunity to realize any increase in the value of Alloy stock.

The amended complaint also alleges that the Preliminary Proxy
omits material information concerning the merger and is materially
misleading.  The amended complaint further alleges that Zelnick,
Parent, Merger Sub and the other additional defendants named
therein, aided and abetted the supposed breaches of fiduciary duty
by our directors.  The action seeks injunctive and other equitable
relief, damages, fees and costs.

Simultaneously with filing their amended complaint, plaintiffs
filed a motion for expedited proceedings, seeking an order setting
a schedule for expedited discovery and a hearing on their
application for injunctive relief prior to the shareholder
meeting.  On Aug. 25, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion.

On Aug. 27, 2010, defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint and to stay discovery pending resolution of the motions
to dismiss.

Alloy, Inc. -- http://www.alloymarketing.com/-- is one of the
country's largest providers of media and marketing programs
reaching targeted consumer segments.  Alloy manages a diverse
array of assets and services in digital, display, direct mail,
content production and educational programming.  Alloy works with
over 1,500 companies, including half of the Fortune 200.


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Hearing on Proposed Settlement Set for Nov. 19
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lead counsel for Plaintiffs has disclosed, pursuant to an Order of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, a hearing will be held on November 19, 2010 at 11:30 a.m.
before the Honorable Joanna Seybert, Long Island Courthouse, 100
Federal Plaza, Central Islip, New York  11722-4438, to determine
whether the proposed Settlements of the Action as to defendant
Arthur Andersen LLP and as to defendant KPMG LLP should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; to
determine whether to approve the allocation among Class Members of
an aggregate settlement fund of $1,750,000 (consisting of proposed
settlement amounts of $500,000 for Arthur Andersen, $700,000 for
KPMG and $550,000  from settlements with other defendants
previously approved by the Court); to consider the application of
Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses and for an award of
costs and expenses to Lead Plaintiffs and to consider a final
judgment dismissing the Action with prejudice.

If you have not received the full Notice of Pendency and Partial
Settlement of Class Action you may obtain a copy by contacting the
Claims Administrator at:

     Allou Securities Litigation
     c/o Berdon Claims Administration, LLC
     P.O. Box 9014
     Jericho, NY 11753-8914
     Telephone: (800) 766-3330
     Facsimile: (516) 931-0810
     Web site: http://www.berdonclaims.com/

If you wish to share in the distribution of the Settlement fund,
you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of
Claim") to the claims Administrator, which must be postmarked no
later than January 12, 2011, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery.

If you fail to file a proper Proof of Claim form, you will not
share in the Settlements, but you will be bound by the Final
Judgments of the Court and you will be enjoined from asserting the
Released Claims against the Released Parties.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class with regard to the
proposed settlements with Andersen and KPMG, you must submit a
valid request for exclusion postmarked by November 5, 2010, in the
manner and form explained in the full printed Notice.  All persons
in the Class who have not requested exclusion will be bound by the
Settlements.

Any objection to any of the matters to be considered at the
hearing referred to above must be filed with the Court and mailed
or delivered so as to be received by each of the following no
later than November 5, 2010.

Clerk of the Court               Stephen T. Rodd
United States District Court     Stephanie Amin-Giwner
for the Eastern District         Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP
of New York                      212 East 39th Street
100 Federal Plaza                New York, NY 10016
Central Islip, NY 11722-4438
                                 Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs

Christopher Harris, Esq.         Gary F. Bedinger, Esq.
Latham & Watkins LLP             Kevin A. Burke, Esq.
885 Third Avenue                 Howrey LLP
New York, NY 10022               601 Lexington Avenue, 54th Floor
                                 New York, NY 10022
Counsel for Arthur Anderson
                                 Counsel for KPMG

Please do not contact the Court regarding this Notice.


ASIC: Ariff Victims Plan to File Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports dozens of people who lost out to a rogue
Newcastle administrator are gearing up for a class action lawsuit
against the corporate regulator.

A Senate inquiry into the insolvency industry has called for
tougher penalties for practitioners who are not insured or who
overcharge.

The inquiry was told people affected by banned administrator
Stuart Ariff did not get a court ordered multi-million dollar
payout because he was not insured.

Singleton businessman Bernie Wood says he is part of a group
taking legal action against the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission.

"You know we were awarded, a group of us, $5 million and we've
seen absolutely nothing of it," he said.

"I mean we felt really, really let down and it just turned out to
be a hollow victory you know to be ordered to pay back the money
only to find out he didn't have it."


AVIAT NETWORKS: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of Delaware has denied Aviat Networks,
Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated complaint alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, according to
the company's Sept. 9, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
July 2, 2010.

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

This action relates to the restatement of the company's prior
financial statements as discussed in its fiscal 2008 Annual Report
on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Sept. 25, 2008.

Similar complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court of
Delaware on October 6 and October 30, 2008.

Each complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5  promulgated
thereunder, as well as violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and seeks, among other relief,
determinations that the action is a proper class action,
unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs.

The actions were consolidated on June 5, 2009 and a consolidated
class action complaint was filed on July 29, 2009.

On July 27, 2010, the Court denied the motions to dismiss that the
company and the officer and director defendants had filed.

Aviat Networks, Inc. -- http://www.aviatnetworks.com/--
previously known as Harris Stratex Networks, Inc. is a leading
wireless expert in advanced IP network migration, building the
foundation for the 4G/LTE broadband future.  The company offers
best-of-breed wireless transmission solutions including LTE-ready
microwave backhaul and a complete portfolio of essential service
options that enable wireless public and private telecommunications
operators to deliver advanced data, voice and video and mobility
services around the world.  Aviat Networks is agile and adaptive
to anticipate what's coming to help our customers make the right
choices, and our products and services are designed for flexible
evolution, no matter what the future brings.  With global reach
and local presence on the ground we work by the side of our
customers, allowing them to quickly and cost effectively seize new
market and service opportunities, while managing migration toward
an all- IP future.


BJ'S WHOLESALE: Expects Suit Resolution by End of Fiscal Year
-------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., said in a Sept. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it
expects a final resolution of a purported class action by the end
of the fiscal year.

In November 2008, BJ's was sued in a purported class action
brought on behalf of "current and former department and other
assistant managers," in which plaintiffs principally alleged that
they had not been compensated for overtime work as required under
federal and Massachusetts law. (Caissie v. BJ's Wholesale Club.,
Case No. 3:08-cv-30220.)

In the third quarter of 2009, the company recorded a pretax charge
of $11.7 million in connection with a proposal to settle this
claim and related payments.
For the first six months of 2010, the company paid $9.2 million
into a settlement fund and $0.1 million in related legal fees.

As of July 31, 2010, the remaining reserve for related payments in
this matter was $2.4 million.  The company expects a final
resolution of this matter by the end of the fiscal year.

BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. -- http://www.bjs.com/-- is a warehouse
club operator in the eastern United States.  BJ's revenues are
derived from the sale of a range of food and general merchandise
items, the sale of gasoline and from membership fees.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Recalls Light-up Rings and Star Glasses
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
CEC Entertainment, Inc., of Irving, Texas, announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,100,000 Light-up Rings and 120,000 Star Glasses.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

If crushed or pulled apart, the plastic casing can break into
small pieces and possibly expose the batteries, posing an
ingestion hazard to children.  If ingested, the batteries may be
damaging to the stomach, intestine, esophagus or nasal mucus
membrane.

There have been two reported incidents involving the Light-Up
Rings.  One involved a child swallowing a battery, the other
involved a child inserting a battery into his nostril.  There are
no reported incidents involving the Star Glasses.

This recall involves:

Light-Up Rings -- The rings were distributed as part of a
promotional product offering or during parent-teacher association
conventions.  The ring measures 1-1/8 inches across and is made of
plastic with a black elastic band.  The ring comes in several
colors: blue, green, purple, yellow, and pink.  The back of the
ring is fastened either with screws or glue.

Star Glasses -- The glasses were distributed as part of a birthday
package.  The glasses measure about 5-1/2 inches across by 2-1/2
inches tall and are made of red translucent plastic and have the
words Chuck E.  Cheese's painted on the side.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10345.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Chuck E Cheese's Restaurants from April 2009 through June 2010
(Light-up Rings) and April through August 2010 (Star Glasses).

Consumers should immediately take the Light-Up Ring away from
children and return it to any Chuck E.  Cheese's to receive their
choice of either a refund of $1.00 plus four Chuck E. Cheese's
tokens or a Soccer Promo-Cup plus four Chuck E. Cheese's tokens.
Consumers should immediately take the Star Glasses away from
children and return them to any Chuck E.  Cheese's for your choice
of either a refund of $4.99 or a Flashing Hands prize product.

For additional information, contact Chuck E. Cheese's at (888)
778-7193 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday
through Friday, email the company at
guestrelations@cecentertainment.com  or visit the firm's Web site
at http:/www.chuckecheese.com/


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Consolidated Amended Complaint Due Sept. 27
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation provides the following
update to purchasers of securities of Cell Therapeutics, Inc.
during the period between May 5, 2009 and March 19, 2010,
inclusive. The Court on August 2, 2010, appointed a Lead Plaintiff
and Lead Counsel in the class action lawsuit pending in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington
brought under the federal securities laws. The date to file a
consolidated amended complaint is September 27, 2010.

Among the claims in the action as consolidated by the Court are
claims for alleged misstatements and omissions brought under the
Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of purchasers of Cell Therapeutic
common stock and warrants for the purchase of common stock sold to
the public pursuant to a Registration Statement and Prospectus
that commenced on or about July 22, 2009 and closed on or about
July 28, 2009 ("Offering"). If you purchased Cell Therapeutics'
stock on the Offering at the Offering price of $1.30 per share of
common stock and one warrant pursuant to the Cell Therapeutics
Registration Statement and Prospectus and wish to learn more about
this litigation and your rights as a class member, contact Brower
Piven:

     BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
     1925 Old Valley Road
     Stevenson, MD 21153
     Telephone: 410/415-6701
     E-mail: piven@browerpiven.com
     Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/


CHARLIE CRIST: Collier Circuit Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aisling Swift, writing for Naples Daily News, reports a Collier
Circuit judge on Tuesday denied Gov. Charlie Crist's motion to
dismiss a lawsuit demanding that he refund $7.5 million in
donations he received as a Republican running for U.S. Senate.

Senior Collier Circuit Judge Jack Schoonover agreed the lawsuit
could move forward and he'll hear further arguments Tuesday, when
the donors' attorney, Rep. Tom Grady, will ask that the two
plaintiffs be certified as a class to represent about 2,000 donors
to Mr. Crist's Republican campaign before his switch to an
independent candidate.

If successful, the judge also will rehear Mr. Grady's motion for a
preliminary injunction, which he lost Aug. 30. The judge ruled
he'd first have to certify the lawsuit as a class-action.

"It's very important that the motion for preliminary injunction be
heard Tuesday," Mr. Grady said afterward, surrounded by TV cameras
and reporters. "I think Mr. Crist is doing everything he can to
have this heard after the election."

Scott Weinstein of Fort Myers, who is defending Mr. Crist with co-
counsels J. Andrew Meyer and Rachel Soffin, maintained it wasn't a
class-action complaint because not all plaintiffs are in similar
situations.

"There are thousands of people who have different reasons why they
gave Gov. Crist campaign donations," Mr. Weinstein said after the
hearing, noting some still support Mr. Crist.

Mr. Crist wasn't at the three-hour hearing. Neither were the
plaintiffs, Linda Morton, a Lely mother of four, and John Rood of
Jacksonville, a retired U.S. ambassador.

Their lawsuit, filed June 22 in Circuit Court, alleged they were
deprived of the right to support a Republican candidate and now
their money is being used to oppose Republican Marco Rubio, who is
running against Mr. Crist and Democrat Kendrick Meek.

Mr. Crist's attorneys had argued the lawsuit belonged in U.S.
District Court and moved it there in July, but Mr. Grady won a
motion last month to return it to Circuit Court, arguing he'd sued
under state laws, unjust enrichment, breach of contract and breach
of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing. It seeks a
refund of $7.5 million in Mr. Crist's campaign coffers, the amount
left before his switch.

On Tuesday, Mr. Weinstein called the lawsuit "absurd and
ridiculous."

"They've alleged they each made contributions with strings
attached," Mr. Weinstein said. "They've alleged there was one
singular term, that the governor qualify as a Republican
candidate."

He noted Mr. Grady didn't sue in federal court because the Federal
Election Campaign Act allows Mr. Crist to keep the money. "The big
fear is the governor is going to use that money to win and Mr.
Rubio is going to lose," he added.

Throughout, the judge asked questions. "What is a Republican?"
Judge Schoonover asked, wondering if it required an oath.

Mr. Weinstein, a Republican, said he never took an oath, and
added: "You can be the most left-wing person, but you can qualify
as a Republican."

Mr. Grady argued Mr. Weinstein was trying to make the lawsuit
something it wasn't. "The defense is trying to color this as some
political scheme to affect [Mr.] Crist in the election," he added.

He called the Republican Party important, arguing, "Charlie Crist
with an R by his name is a different package than Charlie Crist
without an R. ... Parties matter. They do important things for
candidates."

Mr. Grady argued donors had the expectation Mr. Crist would run as
a Republican and noted Mr. Crist returned $9,600 in contributions
to his friend, Jim Greer, the state's indicted former GOP
chairman, after he asked for a refund.

After the ruling, Mr. Weinstein denied Mr. Grady's accusations
that Mr. Crist's attorneys were using delaying tactics, noting
they'd worked through Labor Day weekend, Rosh Hashanah, he
canceled his daughter's medical procedure in Miami on Wednesday,
he'll be New Orleans court Thursday and Yom Kipur begins Friday
evening. He added: "Six thousand years ago, Rosh Hashanah was not
created as a delaying tactic."

He assured the judge he wasn't there to whine, but needed time.

"You are free to whine," Judge Schoonover quipped. "It's part of
the profession."


CITIMORTGAGE INC: Suit Over Late Fees Still Pending in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Did you sign up for a loan modification with CitiMortgage and were
placed into a trial program with reduced payments, only to be
rejected from the program and imposed late fees and experienced
other financial repercussions?

Milberg LLP has filed a class action against CitiMortgage, on
behalf of mortgage borrowers who have been wrongfully charged late
fees and had their credit-worthiness ruined after being rejected
from the permanent loan modification program, despite complying
with the trial period guidelines.

Consumers that were rejected from the permanent loan modification
program through no fault of their own should find themselves in no
worse position than they entered it. Instead, CitiMortgage failed
to honor its agreements, and its misrepresentations about the
program, enacted to help homeowners reduce their payments and keep
their homes, have left customers financially devastated.

For more detail regarding the class action, you may view the
complaint here:

                        http://is.gd/fg36T

Although we are prosecuting this case as a class action, no class
has yet been certified, and there can be no guarantee that one
will ever be certified, or that you will be a member. If a class
is certified, we will post further details here. Please visit the
Milberg website for more information about the firm. If you wish
to discuss this matter with us, or have any questions concerning
your rights and interests with regard to this matter, please
contact either of the following attorneys:

     Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
     Sabrina S. Kim, Esq.
     MILBERG LLP
     One California Plaza
     300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: (213) 617-1200
     Facsimile: (213) 617-1975
     E-mail: jwesterman@milberg.com
             skim@milberg.com

          - and -

     Andrei Rado, Esq.
     Jessica Sleater, Esq.
     MILBERG LLP
     One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
     New York, NY 10119
     Telephone: (212) 594-5300
     Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
     E-mail: arado@milberg.com
             jsleater@milberg.com


DEL MONTE: Defends Suit by Moline and Lowe in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Foods Company defends a suit alleging violations of
California's False Advertising Act, among others.

On Oct. 13, 2009, Kara Moline and Debra Lowe filed a class action
complaint against the company in San Francisco Superior Court,
alleging violations of California's False Advertising Act, Unfair
Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the company engaged in
false and misleading advertising in the labeling of Nature's
Recipe Farm Stand Selects dog food.  The plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits in an undisclosed
amount, and attorneys' fees.  Additionally, the plaintiffs are
seeking class certification.

No updates were reported in the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Aug. 1, 2010.

Del Monte Foods Company -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is one of
the country's largest and most well-known producers, distributors
and marketers of premium quality, branded food and pet products
for the U.S. retail market, generating approximately $3.6 billion
in net sales in fiscal 2009.  With a powerful portfolio of brands
including Del Monte(R), S&W(R), Contadina(R), College Inn(R), Meow
Mix(R), Kibbles 'n Bits(R), 9Lives(R), Milk-Bone(R), Pup-
Peroni(R), Meaty Bone(R), Sausages(R) and Pounce(R), Del Monte
products are found in eight out of ten U.S. households.  The
company also produces, distributes and markets private label food
and pet products.


DEL MONTE: Appeals in Pet Food MDL Settlement Dispute Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals filed by four class members to their denied objections on
the court approved settlement in the matter entitled In re Pet
Food Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1850, which names Del
Monte Foods Co. as one of the defendants, are pending.

Beginning with the pet food recall announced by Menu Foods, Inc.
in March 2007, many major pet food manufacturers, including the
company, announced recalls of select products.  The company
believes there have been over 90 class actions and purported class
actions relating to these pet food recalls.  The company has been
named as a defendant in seven class actions or purported class
actions related to its pet food and pet snack recall, which it
initiated March 31, 2007.

The named plaintiffs in these cases allege or alleged that their
pets suffered injury and/or death as a result of ingesting the
company's and other defendants' allegedly contaminated pet food
and pet snack products.  By order dated June 28, 2007, five cases
were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey and consolidated with other purported pet food class
actions under the federal rules for multi-district litigation.

The five cases are:

     1. Carver v. Del Monte filed on April 4, 2007 in the U.S.
        District Court for the Eastern District of California;

     2. Ford v. Del Monte filed on April 7, 2007 in the U.S.
        District Court for the Southern District of California;

     3. Hart v. Del Monte filed on April 10, 2007 in state court
        in Los Angeles, California;

     4. Schwinger v. Del Monte filed on May 15, 2007 in the U.S.
        District Court for the Western District of Missouri; and

     5. Tompkins v. Del Monte filed on July 13, 2007 in the U.S.
        District Court for the District of Colorado.

The plaintiffs and defendants in the multi-district litigation
cases, including the five consolidated cases in which the company
was a defendant, tentatively agreed to a settlement which was
submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on May 22, 2008.

On May 30, 2008, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement.  Pursuant to the Court's order, notice of the
settlement was disseminated to the public by mail and publication
beginning June 16, 2008. Members of the class were allowed to opt-
out of the settlement until Aug. 15, 2008.

On Nov. 19, 2008, the Court entered orders approving the
settlement, certifying the class and dismissing the complaints
against the defendants, including the Company.  The total
settlement was $24.0 million.  The portion of the company's
contribution to this settlement was $0.25 million, net of
insurance recovery.

Four class members have filed objections to the settlement, which
objections have been denied by the Court.  On Dec. 3, 2008 and
Dec. 12, 2008, these class members filed Notices of Appeal.

No updates were reported in the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Aug. 1, 2010.

Del Monte Foods Company -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is one of
the country's largest and most well-known producers, distributors
and marketers of premium quality, branded food and pet products
for the U.S. retail market, generating approximately $3.6 billion
in net sales in fiscal 2009.  With a powerful portfolio of brands
including Del Monte(R), S&W(R), Contadina(R), College Inn(R), Meow
Mix(R), Kibbles 'n Bits(R), 9Lives(R), Milk-Bone(R), Pup-
Peroni(R), Meaty Bone(R), Sausages(R) and Pounce(R), Del Monte
products are found in eight out of ten U.S. households.  The
company also produces, distributes and markets private label food
and pet products.


EDUSHAPE LTD: Recalls 213,500 Starbuilder and Stars Building Sets
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Edushape Ltd., of Deer Park, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of
about 13,500 Giant Starbuilder and Giant Stars building sets.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

Plastic knobs can break from the center of the star, posing a
choking hazard to young children.

CPSC and Edushape have received three reports of knobs breaking
off from the center of the star. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves all Giant Starbuilders and Giant Stars
building sets.  The giant stars measure 5-inches in diameter and
are made of opaque plastic.  Each star has six knobs protruding
from a ring-shaped center.  The Giant Starbuilder set contains
red, green, yellow and blue stars.  The Giant Star building set
contains red, green, yellow, blue, orange and pink stars.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10346.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
small retail stores nationwide and online at Target.com, Toys R
Us.com, Amazon.com and CSN through Walmart Marketplace from
January 2007 through May 2010 for between $25 and $35.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled star blocks away
from children and contact Edushape for a replacement set or credit
towards another Edushape product of equal or lesser value.  For
additional information, contact Edushape at (800) 404-4744 between
9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.edushape.com/


ELI LILLY: Class in Suit Over Zyprexa Prescription Decertified
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit decertified a class action accusing
Eli Lilly of encouraging doctors to overprescribe its
antipsychotic drug Zyprexa for off-label uses, leading to higher
drug costs.

A group of insurers, unions and other health care payers filed a
class action against the drug maker, claiming Eli Lilly downplayed
the risks and side effects of Zyprexa, including hyperglycemia,
diabetes and substantial weight gain.  A 1993 study showed that
Zyprexa users gained an average of 1.5 pounds per week, according
to the plaintiffs.

The payers also accused Eli Lilly of promoting the drug for off-
label uses, including the treatment of depression, anxiety and
elderly dementia.  However, the Food and Drug Administration has
only approved Zyprexa to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

By 2002, almost two-thirds of Zyprexa prescriptions were for off-
label uses.  Accordingly, prices jumped from $188 per prescription
in 1996 to $368 in 2006, at which point the drug cost $150 more
than rival drugs.

As the FDA required more warning labels, prescription sales fell
50 percent between Zyprexa's peak in 2003 and 2008.  The
plaintiffs attributed this drop "almost entirely" to a decline in
off-label prescriptions.

In 2005, an insurance company in Tennessee filed a class action
against Eli Lilly, claiming the company operated a racketeering
enterprise, and engaged in mail and wire fraud by deliberately
misrepresenting the drug's safety and efficacy.

An expert estimated that the higher price of Zyprexa and its off-
label promotion cost insurers and other third-party payers between
$4 billion and $7.7 billion.

A federal judge certified the class action and rejected Eli
Lilly's motion to dismiss, finding that the drug maker could have
increased the price and demand for Zyprexa by leading "doctors to
continue to prescribe, and plaintiffs to continue to pay for,
greater amounts . . . than they would have absent the fraud."

In other words, doctors relied on Eli Lilly's misrepresentations
when they wrote too many Zyprexa prescriptions, which led to the
drug's higher cost, according to the plaintiffs' theory.

But the Manhattan-based federal appeals court ruled that such a
claim must be established by individualized, not generalized,
proof.

"[G]eneralized proof of reliance by doctors cannot complete the
causation chain," Judge Gerard Lynch wrote, because Eli Lilly was
not "the only source of information on which doctors based
prescribing decisions."

Judge Lynch pointed out that physicians prescribing Zyprexa "may
have relied on Lilly's alleged misrepresentations to different
degrees, or not at all," making it impossible to generalize proof
of causation.

The panel reversed class certification and vacated the lower
court's order denying Eli Lilly's motion for summary judgment on
the overpricing claims.

Arcsight agreed to sell itself to Hewlett-Packard through an
unfair process for an unfair price of $1.5 billion, or $43.50 a
share, though it closed at $43.91 the day the deal was announced,
shareholders claim in Santa Clara County Court, Calif.

A copy of the decision in UFCW LOCAL 1776, et al. v. Eli Lilly and
Company, et al., Docket No. 09-cv-00222 (2nd Cir.), is available
at http://is.gd/fcRg7

The Plantiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Samuel Issacharoff, Esq.
          BONNIE AND RICHARD REISS PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
          New York University School of Law
          40 Washington Square South, 411J
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: 212-998-6580

               - and -

          James R. Dugan, Esq.
          Stephen Murray, Jr., Esq.
          Douglas R. Plymale, Esq.
          MURRAY LAW FIRM
          Poydras Center
          650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-322-1260

               - and -

          Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
          Lauren G. Barnes, Esq.
          Kristen J. Parker, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142-1531
          Telephone: 617-482-3700

               - and -

          Andrea Bierstein, Esq.
          HANLY CONROY BIERSTEIN SHERIDAN FISHER & HAYES LLP
          112 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10016-7416
          Telephone: 212-784-6400

Eli Lilly and Company, the Defendant-Appellant, is represented by:

          Robert A. Long, Esq.
          Michael X. Imbroscio, Esq.
          Jonathan L. Marcus, Esq.
          Mark W. Mosier, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          1201 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20004-2401
          Telephone: 202-662-6000

               - and -

          Nina M. Gussack, Esq.
          Thomas E. Zemaitis, Esq.
          Anthony Vale, Esq.
          Paul V. Avelar, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Eighteenth and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
          Telephone: 215-981-4000


ENGLISH MONTREAL: Trial for Class Action Suit Still Months Away
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Branswell, writing for The Montreal Gazette, reports it's
been more than three years since Quebec Superior Court authorized
a class action against the English Montreal School Board and
Renwick Spence, a retired teacher and convicted sex offender.

But a trial still seems a long way off.

The timeline for pre-trial proceedings agreed to by all parties
calls for the EMSB and Spence to file their statements of defense
in November, said Careen Hannouche, one of the lawyers
representing members of the class action.

Once the whole file is in order, all parties have to advise the
court that they're ready for a trial date, Ms. Hannouche said.
That's scheduled to be completed at the end of February.

It's not surprising that the process has taken the time it has,
said Ms. Hannouche, who doesn't expect a trial date to be set
before next spring or early summer. "It's not exceptional," she
said. "It is an important file and it does involve a lot of
specific facts and a big school board."

Mr. Spence, who taught at Montreal West High School, pleaded
guilty to abusing eight male students between 1967 and 1981. The
boys ranged in age from about 13 to 16.

The sexual abuse occurred at Mr. Spence's secluded cottage in
Morin Heights, north of Montreal.

Mr. Spence, 81, was sentenced to 30 months in prison in December
2007. During a parole hearing in 2008, he admitted there could
have been more victims than the eight who filed complaints against
him. He was granted full parole in 2009.

Ms. Hannouche says the lawyers have been contacted by 12 members
who are part of the class action in addition to the representative
plaintiff, who is identified by the pseudonym "Sebastian."

The class action alleges Mr. Spence abused his position of
authority, inviting students to his cottage and abusing them
physically, sexually and mentally. It also contends the EMSB,
which was then called the Protestant School Board of Greater
Montreal, was aware of the abuse and didn't act.

The board, which declined to comment, has argued in the past that
it wasn't aware of Mr. Spence's activities and that the suit
should be thrown out because Mr. Spence wasn't actually teaching
when the offences occurred.


FIRST DATA: Removes "POS Lease Overcharge" Suit to N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Azmie Madanat, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. First Data Corporation, et al., Case No.-CV-497691
(Calif. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty.), was filed on August 6, 2010.
The plaintiff brings claims on behalf of all California merchants:
(1) who were charged for monthly lease payments -- for First Data
credit card point of service ("POS") processing equipment -- in an
amount above the contractual rates; and (2) who were charged for
lease payments after returning their POS Terminals prior to their
lease termination.  Mr. Madanat says the credit card processing
company's practice is unlawful and unfair, constitutes breach of
contract and violates Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200.

On the basis of "minimum diversity" jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1332(D)(2)(A), First Data, on September 13, 2010,
removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of California, and
the Clerk assigned Case No. 10-cv-04100 to the proceeding.

Mr. Madanat, who owns and operates "Hot Wings", a small food stand
inside the food mart of a gas station located in Oakland,
California, leased a POS terminal from the defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ali Abtahi, Esq.
          Idene Saam, Esq.
          ABTAHI LAW FIRM
          1528 S. El Camino Real, Suite 204
          San Mateo, CA 94402
          Telephone: (650) 341-1300
          E-mail: aabtahi@abtahilaw.com
                  isaam@abtahilaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bobbie J. Wilson, Esq.
          Joren Bass, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 344-7000
          E-mail: BWilson@perkinscoie.com
                  Jbass@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          J. Patrick Corrigan, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          101 Jefferson Drive
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 838-4300
          E-mail: Pcorrigan@perkinscoie.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Class Suit Over Gender Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Sachs has engaged in systemic and pervasive discrimination
against its female professional employees, a lawsuit filed
September 15, 2010, in federal court in New York alleges.

The lawsuit, Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs, Inc., Case No. 10-6950
(S.D.N.Y.), filed by three highly-credentialed women represented
by Outten & Golden LLP and Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, accuses Goldman Sachs, a leading global investment banking,
securities and investment management firm, of engaging in a
pattern and practice of gender discrimination against its female
Associates, Vice Presidents, and Managing Directors.  The women
allege violations of federal and city laws, including Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York City Human Rights
Law.  The case is pending before United States District Court
Judge Leonard Sand.

According to the complaint, the "violations of [Goldman Sachs']
female employees' rights are systemic, are based upon company-wide
policies and practices, and are the result of unchecked gender
bias that pervades Goldman Sachs' corporate culture.  They have
not been isolated or exceptional incidents, but rather the regular
and predictable result of Goldman Sachs' company-wide policies and
practices."

"The gender-equality issues raised by this lawsuit are all too
familiar -- Goldman Sachs systematically undervalues the efforts
and achievements of its female employees.  This is an important
step in our efforts to eradicate discrimination within the
financial-services industry," said plaintiffs' attorney Adam T.
Klein of Outten & Golden LLP of New York, New York.

"This case challenges Goldman Sachs' practice of treating its
talented female professionals like disposable, second class
citizens," said plaintiffs' attorney Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP of San Francisco, California.
"By coming forward, the plaintiffs are working to ensure a level
playing field across Wall Street."

The complaint charges that, among other things, Goldman Sachs
compensates its female professionals less than similar male
professionals, disproportionately promotes men over equally or
more qualified women, and offers better business opportunities and
professional support to its male professionals.

Attorneys Adam T. Klein, Cara E. Greene, and Jennifer Liu of
Outten & Golden LLP and Kelly M. Dermody, Anne Shaver, and Heather
Wong of Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP represent
The plaintiffs are represented by:

     Adam T. Klein, Esq.
     Cara E. Greene, Esq.
     Jennifer Liu, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 245-1000
     Facsimile: (212) 977-4005
     E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com
             ceg@outtengolden.com
             jliu@outtengolden.com

          - and -

     Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
     Anne Shaver, Esq.
     Heather Wong, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN LLP
     275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
     Telephone: 415.956.1000
     Facsimile: 415.956.1008
     E-mail: kdermody@lchb.com
             ashaver@lchb.com
             hwong@lchb.com

The case is Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs, Inc., Case No. 10-6950
(S.D.N.Y.).

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a global financial firm that
provides investment banking management services to corporations,
governments, and individuals around the world.  In 2009, Goldman
Sachs generated $45 billion in net revenues and $13 billion in net
earnings, ranking number 40 on the Fortune 500 list of America's
largest corporations.  People interested in the lawsuit may
provide information by visiting http://www.goldmangendercase.com/
or by calling 1-800-998-3469 to leave a message for plaintiffs'
counsel.  Members of the media can also obtain a copy of the
complaint and this press release by contacting Brendan De Coteau
at 415-956-1000.

                    About the Named Plaintiffs

H. Christina Chen-Oster worked for Goldman Sachs' Convertible
Bonds department as a Vice President for eight years in New York,
New York.  She holds a B.S. from M.I.T.

Lisa Parisi worked for Goldman Sachs' Asset Management division,
first as a Vice President and then as a Managing Director, for
seven years in New York, New York, and Atlanta, Georgia.  She
holds a B.A. from Adelphi University and an M.B.A. from New York
University Stern School of Business.

Shanna Orlich worked for Goldman Sachs' Capital Structure
Franchise Trading Group as a Summer Associate and then as an
Associate for one year in New York, New York.  She holds a B.S.
from Arizona State University.  She holds a joint J.D./M.B.A. from
Columbia University.

Ms. Chen-Oster, Ms. Parisi, and Ms. Orlich each allege claims
against Goldman Sachs for intentional discrimination, adverse
impact discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
In addition, Ms. Chen-Oster alleges a claim for pregnancy
discrimination in violation of Title VII.

                       About the Law Firms

Plaintiffs are being represented by two law firms:  the
plaintiffs' employment firm Outten & Golden LLP of New York, New
York and Westport, Connecticut and the national class action firm
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, of San Francisco,
California, New York, New York, and Nashville, Tennessee.  These
firms also represented female Financial Advisors in the Amochaev
v. Smith Barney gender discrimination case, which resulted in a
$33 million settlement.

Outten & Golden LLP -- http://www.outtengolden.com/-- is a
30-plus attorney firm with offices in New York and Westport, CT.
O&G represents plaintiffs in a wide variety of employment law
matters, including national class and impact statutory
discrimination cases, major class-based wage and hour violations,
and contract negotiations.  O&G represented plaintiff-intervenor
Allison Schieffelin in a pattern or practice sex discrimination
suit prosecuted with the EEOC against Morgan Stanley that resulted
in a $54 million settlement and substantial injunctive relief and
has handled discrimination claims against numerous other major
Wall Street firms.

Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP --
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/-- is a 60-plus attorney firm with
offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville.  Lieff Cabraser
has represented plaintiffs in a wide variety of class action
litigation, including employment discrimination and civil rights,
wage and hour, and pension benefits litigation.  Since 2003, The
National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top
plaintiffs' law firms in the nation.  Lieff Cabraser is one of
only two plaintiffs' law firms in the United States to receive
this honor for the last seven consecutive years.


GREAT SOUTHERN: Law Firm Seeks Another Funding Commitment to Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Gluyas, writing for The Australian, reports that Bendigo
and Adelaide Bank has warned investors in the failed Great
Southern scheme of risks if they stop making loan repayments.

Chief executive Mike Hirst said investors in the Great Southern
managed investment scheme risked bankruptcy, payment of compound
interest and loss of tax deductions if they stopped making loan
repayments.

Mr. Hirst issued the threat as law firm Macpherson & Kelley seeks
another funding commitment to its class action against Great
Southern and its directors and financiers, including Bendigo.

"Before committing more money, you should seriously consider the
relative benefit of doing this versus exposing yourself to the
financial risk of not repaying your loan, and ask yourself how
much more money M&K will require from you before you can expect a
resolution," Mr. Hirst said in a letter.

But M&K principal Ron Willemsen hit back by saying he was not
surprised by the "aggressive" tone of the letter. "They are
resorting to a fear campaign to frighten people who have
legitimate claims into paying back their loans," he said. "The
bank has intimidated some people into resuming payments, but it's
not having a big impact."

Last month, Bendigo reported a 189% jump in annual profit to
$242.6 million. While the bank only booked $25 million of
provisions against the Great Southern scheme, it reported a big
increase -- from $15.5 million to $181.8 million -- in the amount
of investor loans that were more than 90 days in arrears.

Bendigo said it had $550 million in Great Southern investor loans
when the company collapsed. Mr. Hirst also warned that investors
might have been credit-listed, limiting their ability to obtain
finance until their loans were brought up to date.

He said Bendigo regarded the loans as enforceable and would pursue
its options, including legal action. He said M&K appeared to have
made "no meaningful progress" with its class action, with only one
action filed covering two of the 18 schemes established since
2005. The law firm had failed to attract the support of a
litigation funder.

Mr. Willemsen responded that investors had demonstrated a
willingness to fund the action themselves. He laid the blame on
Bendigo for any delays, and said the firm was about to file a
series of class actions in the Victorian Supreme Court covering
"every other Great Southern project". "There might be 15 different
cases," he said.


HAWAII: Governor Faces Teachers & Retirees' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Gina Mangieri at KHON2 reports 15,000 Hawaii teachers and retirees
are covered under a health benefit plan called the Voluntary
Employees Beneficiary Association, or V.E.B.A trust. Other state
workers are covered under the employer-union benefits trust fund
or E.U.T.F.

"What the state sends over to us on the V.E.B.A trust is much less
than what they pay the EUTF," said V.E.B.A trustee Joan Lewis.

Yet as of December a state law will require teachers to switch to
the E.U.T.F. plan, a fund that the governor warned last spring is
insolvent and on the brink of default. An infusion of 15,000 new
members is intended to spread the risk of coverage costs while
collecting new contributions.

"The forced transfer of the teachers into the E.U.T.F. system is
designed to prop up that failing system on the backs of the
teachers," said Paul Alston, attorney for the plaintiffs.

"Certainly teachers should not be thrown under the bus in order to
uphold a failing system," high school teacher Wray Jose.

So they're suing in a class-action filing that calls the move
unconstitutional. The state supreme court ruled this spring that
health benefits acquired by retired government workers are
guaranteed under Hawaii's constitution. These plaintiffs say that
should be precedent for this case.

"It's only fair to expect after teaching for 30 years and
dedicating my time with the kids that I'm given what was promised
to me," said retired school teacher Gail Kono.

After more than 13 years the V.E.B.A. trust had managed several
periods with a surplus, but the plaintiffs allege the state took
it -- nearly $4 million, and they want it back for their own
plan's reserves.

"We believe that the E.U.T.F. has been concealing the extent of it
financial problems by violating the normal standards of government
accounting," said Mr. Alston.

The plaintiffs estimate the switch could cost families $300 more a
month for coverage.

The state says it is reviewing the suit.


JACKSON HEWITT: Agrees to Settle Brown's CSOA Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc., has agreed to settle a purported
class action complaint filed by Willie Brown, according to the
company's Sept. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

On Sept. 26, 2006, Willie Brown brought a purported class-action
complaint against the company in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas,
Cuyahoga County, on behalf of Ohio customers who obtained RALs
facilitated by the company, for an alleged failure to comply with
Ohio's Credit Services Organization Act, and for alleged unfair
and deceptive acts in violation of Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices
Act, and seeking damages and injunctive relief.

On Nov. 10, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss, or
alternatively, to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration.  On
May 5, 2009, the Court granted the company's motion to stay
proceedings and to compel individual arbitration of Plaintiff's
claims, and denied the company's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the Court's
decision to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration.  On May 5,
2009, the Court granted the company's motion to stay proceedings
and to compel individual arbitration of Plaintiff's claims, and
denied the company's motion to dismiss.

On Oc. 1, 2009, Plaintiff filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County, seeking
reversal of the lower Court's order.

On June 7, 2010, the parties settled the matter on an individual
basis for a de minimis amount, agreed to dismiss the matter with
prejudice, and without any admission of liability or wrongdoing
filed a settlement stipulation with the Court of Appeals.

On June 9, 2010, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's appeal pursuant
to the settlement stipulation.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/-
- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and
company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson
Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its customers
with accurate tax return preparation services and electronic
filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: Defends Virginia RAL Customers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. defends a purported class-action
complaint pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, according to the company's Sept. 9,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

On Oct. 30, 2006, Linda Hunter (now substituted by Christian
Harper and Elizabeth Harper as proposed class representatives)
brought a purported class-action complaint against the company in
the U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia, on
behalf of West Virginia customers who obtained RALs d by the
company, seeking damages for an alleged breach of fiduciary duty,
for alleged breach of West Virginia's Credit Service Organization
Act, for alleged breach of contract, and for alleged unfair or
deceptive acts or practices in connection with the company's RAL
facilitation activities.

On March 13, 2008, the Court granted the company's partial motion
for summary judgment on plaintiff's breach of contract claim.  On
July 15, 2008, the company answered the first amended complaint.

On Feb. 10, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class.
The company opposed that motion.  On Feb. 11, 2009, Plaintiffs
filed a motion for partial summary judgment.  On the same day, the
company filed a motion for summary judgment.

On March 6, 2009, the company opposed Plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment.  On April 7, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a
motion seeking the certifications of four legal questions to the
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.

On Nov. 12, 2009, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
ordered the review of those four certified legal questions.

The case is in its pretrial stage.

Following a decision by the West Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals, the company will continue to litigate this matter
vigorously in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of West
Virginia.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/-
- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and
company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson
Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its customers
with accurate tax return preparation services and electronic
filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: Continues to Oppose Wooley's Certification Plea
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc., continues to oppose Brent
Wooley's motion for class certification, according to the
company's Sept. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

On April 20, 2007, Brent Wooley brought a purported class-action
complaint against the company and certain unknown franchisees in
the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint, which was subsequently amended, was brought on
behalf of customers who obtained tax return preparation services
that allegedly included false deductions without support by the
customer that resulted in penalties being assessed by the IRS
against the taxpayer for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Practices Act, and the Racketeering and Corrupt
Organizations Act, and alleging unjust enrichment and breach of
contract, seeking compensatory and punitive damages, restitution,
and attorneys' fees.

The alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Practices Act relate to representations regarding tax
return preparation, Basic Guarantee and Gold Guarantee coverage
and denial of Gold Guarantee claims.

Following dispositive motions, on Dec. 24, 2008, the company
answered Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint with respect to the
remaining breach of contract claim.

On Aug. 18, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file a
Fifth Amended Complaint.

On Jan. 29, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint.

On Feb. 12, 2010, the company answered the Fifth Amended
Complaint.

On April 14, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The company opposed that motion.

A decision by the Court is currently pending.  The case is in its
pretrial stage.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/-
- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and
company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson
Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its customers
with accurate tax return preparation services and electronic
filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: Appeal on Dismissal of "Gomez" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of Alicia Gomez on the dismissal of her purported
class-action complaint against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.,
remains pending in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

On Feb. 16, 2009, Ms. Gomez brought a purported class-action
complaint against the company in the Circuit Court of Maryland,
Montgomery County, on behalf of Maryland customers who obtained
RALs facilitated by the company, for an alleged failure to comply
with Maryland's Credit Services Businesses Act, and for an alleged
violation of Maryland's Consumer Protection Act, and seeking
damages and injunctive relief.

On March 18, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss.

On June 18, 2009, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss in all respects, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint.  On
July 17, 2009, Plaintiff filed an appeal in the Maryland Court of
Special Appeals.

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

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and
company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson
Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its customers
with accurate tax return preparation services and electronic
filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: Norris Files Notice of Appeal on Dismissed Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quiana Norris has filed a notice of appeal on the dismissal of an
amended complaint against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.,
according to the company's Sept. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 31, 2010.

On April 14, 2009, Quiana Norris brought a purported class-action
complaint against the company in the Superior Court of Indiana,
Marion County, on behalf of Indiana customers who obtained RALs
facilitated by the company, for an alleged failure to comply with
Indiana's Credit Services Organization Act, and seeking damages
and injunctive relief.

On May 1, 2009, the company filed a notice removing the complaint
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

On June 8, 2009 the company filed a motion to dismiss.  On Dec. 7,
2009, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss in all
respects, dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint.

On Jan. 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.  On
Feb. 4, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint.

On June 28, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss in all respects, dismissing the Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint with prejudice.

On July 28, 2010, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/-
- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and
company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson
Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its customers
with accurate tax return preparation services and electronic
filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: Fugate Appeals Dismissed Missouri Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Sherita Fugate has filed a notice of appeal on the Circuit Court
of Missouri, Jackson County's dismissal of a purported class-
action complaint against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.,
according to the company's Sept. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 31, 2010.

On April 29, 2009, Sherita Fugate brought a purported class-action
complaint against the company in the Circuit Court of Missouri,
Jackson County, on behalf of Missouri customers who obtained RALs
facilitated by the company, for an alleged failure to comply with
Missouri's Credit Services Organization Act, for an alleged
violation of Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act, and seeking
damages and injunctive relief.

On May 29, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss.

On March 10, 2010, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss in all respects, dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff has the right to appeal.  If Plaintiff appeals the
Court's decision, the company will continue to contest this matter
vigorously.

On April 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and
company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson
Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its customers
with accurate tax return preparation services and electronic
filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: Ohio Court Dismissed RAL-Related "Thomas" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County has dismissed a
purported class action complaint against Jackson Hewitt Tax
Service Inc., in connection with its refund anticipation loans,
according to the company's Sept. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 31, 2010.

On Sept.2, 2009, Nancee Thomas brought a purported class action
complaint against the company in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas,
Cuyahoga County, on behalf of Ohio customers who obtained RALs
facilitated by the company, for an alleged failure to comply with
Ohio's Credit Services Organization Act, and seeking damages and
injunctive relief.

On Oct. 15, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss.  On Dec.
8, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint adding Paul
Thomas as an additional plaintiff.

On Dec. 11, 2009, the parties filed a joint motion to apply the
previously filed motion to dismiss briefing regarding the original
Complaint to the First Amended Complaint.

On March 25, 2010, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss.  On April 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and
company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson
Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its customers
with accurate tax return preparation services and electronic
filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: Wants "Carriere" Suit in Louisiana Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss a
purported class action complaint filed by Cecile Carriere,
according to the company's Sept. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 31, 2010.

On April 29, 2010, Cecile Carriere brought a purported class
action complaint against the company in the District Court for the
Parish of St. Tammany, Louisiana, on behalf of Louisiana customers
who obtained RALs and other loans facilitated by the company, for
an alleged failure to comply with Louisiana loan broker statutes,
for rescission, payment of a thing not owed, and seeking damages
and injunctive and declaratory relief.

On June 9, 2010, the Company removed the matter to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  On June 16,
2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/-
- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and
company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson
Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its customers
with accurate tax return preparation services and electronic
filing.


MF GLOBAL: Must Face Class Suit Over 2008 Trading Scandal
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports MF Global Holdings
Ltd. must face a class-action lawsuit accusing the brokerage of
misleading investors about its risk management before a 2008
trading scandal, a federal appeals court said on Tuesday.

The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals said a lower court judge
erred in dismissing the lawsuit against MF Global, a futures and
options specialist run since March by former New Jersey Governor
and Goldman Sachs Group Inc Co-Chief Executive Officer Jon
Corzine.

MF Global's market value fell about $1.1 billion, or 40 percent,
on Feb. 28 and 29, 2008, following the revelation that a single
trader that week lost about $141 million by speculating in wheat
futures.

The investor lawsuit, led by a group of pension funds, accused MF
Global of misleading them about its risk practices in a prospectus
and registration statement issued when the New York-based company
went public in July 2007.

Other defendants in the case include British hedge fund and
onetime parent Man Group Plc, as well as various officers,
directors and underwriters.

In a July 2009 ruling, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero
dismissed the case, pointing to cautionary statements in the
prospectus about MF Global's risk management methods.

But a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit said this ruling was
too broad.

"Characterizations of MF Global's risk-management system -- that
the system was 'robust,' for example -- invite the inference that
the system will reduce the firm's risk," Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs
wrote for the appeals court. "Cautionary words about future risk
cannot insulate from liability the failure to disclose that the
risk has transpired."

The Second Circuit also reinstated a claim alleging that the
prospectus did not disclose that traders had no limits when
trading for clients. "At least as to phone orders, the firm's risk
management controls did not reliably constrain brokers who
executed trades on behalf of clients," Judge Jacobs wrote.

Among the plaintiffs are pension funds in Illinois, Iowa and
Massachusetts, as well as an institutional investor group.

Mark Rosen, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, declined immediate
comment, saying he had yet to fully review the ruling. David
Anders, a lawyer for MF Global, did not immediately return a call
seeking comment.

The case is Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System et al, v.
MF Global Ltd, U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 09-3919.


MINNESOTA: Reaches $3 Million Settlement in METO Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
KARE11.com reports a $3 million settlement has been reached in a
federal class action lawsuit brought by three families against the
State of Minnesota and other defendants for restraining and
secluding residents with developmental disabilities, prior to
September, 2008, at Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a state
operated facility.

The settlement, reached after a two-day mediation ending Sept. 13
evening, requires approval by U.S. Federal District Court Judge
Donovan Frank.

In the settlement, the State and Plaintiff families agree to work
together over the next 60 days to develop appropriate policies and
procedures for use at METO and the Minnesota Department of Human
Services (DHS).

The parties also agree to form a committee to include stakeholders
within the developmental disabilities community to study, review
and modernize the DHS rule (Rule 40), which governs and protects
people with developmental disabilities, to reflect current best
practices, including the use of positive and social behavioral
supports, and the development of placement plans consistent with
the principle of the "most integrated setting" and "person
centered planning, and development of an "Olmstead Plan"
consistent with the 1999 U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead
v. L.C., 527 U.S. 582 (1999).

Shamus O'Meara, lead counsel for the families and partner with the
law firm of Johnson & Condon, P.A., stated, "This settlement, if
approved by the Federal Court, will establish lasting, positive
change for the families who have been through so very much in this
difficult, emotional situation. The State and the families have
jointly agreed to develop effective policies and practices for the
treatment and care of people with developmental disabilities,
including those who are sent to state operated facilities. We
recognize and appreciate the State of Minnesota's commitment to
partner with the families on this extremely important effort."

He added, "This settlement is a defining moment for the families
in this lawsuit, and for all families of people with developmental
disabilities in Minnesota."

The three Plaintiff families named in the lawsuit, who would serve
as class representatives should the settlement be approved by the
Federal Court, include Jim Brinker/Daren Allen, Elizabeth Jacobs,
and Jim and Lorie Jensen, on behalf of their sons, Thomas, Jason,
and Bradley, who were METO residents.

Jim Brinker stated, "Thomas was sent to METO for throwing paint at
school. It took us a long time to get him out. We are thankful for
a settlement with the State and DHS which promises to develop
appropriate protections to ensure that the most vulnerable in our
communities such as those with developmental disabilities receive
the treatment and respect they deserve."

Jim and Lorie Jensen stated, "Parents of children with
developmental disabilities struggle every day to find answers and
help. We believe the agreement allows DHS to work with the
developmental disabilities community to create the necessary
training and resources to help our family and other families who
struggle with important decisions for their loved ones."

Beth Jacobs stated, "My son has been through much over the past
three years. I am hopeful that he can be happy and will now
receive the appropriate treatment and care he needs for his
condition."

Dr. L. Read Sulik, M.D., assistant commissioner for Chemical and
Mental Health Services at DHS, which oversees the METO program,
said the department is pleased to reach a settlement and noted the
practices described in the lawsuit had ended.

"The Department of Human Services recognizes the vulnerability of
individuals with developmental disabilities who are in our care,"
Sulik said. "We are fully committed to working with families and
the disability community to provide the safest and highest quality
care for our most vulnerable citizens and will work to reduce and
eventually eliminate the reliance on seclusion and restraints in
treatment settings."

The lawsuit, originally filed in July 2009, contended METO staff
routinely restrained residents in a prone face down position and
placed them in metal handcuffs and leg hobbles, placed residents
in seclusion and isolation rooms for extended time periods, and
deprived them of visits from family members, among other claims.

The lawsuit sought damages for violations of the federal civil and
constitutional rights of residents with developmental
disabilities, and asked the Court to enter an injunction against
the State to prohibit its restraint and seclusion practices, and
to declare them unconstitutional.

The defendants have denied liability for all of the claims.


SCREEN ACTORS: Agrees to Independent Audit of Foreign Levies
------------------------------------------------------------
Dave McNary, writing for Variety.com, reports the Screen Actors
Guild has agreed to an independent audit of its foreign levies
program as part of a proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit
filed by Ken Osmond.

SAG reached a preliminary agreement a month ago but had not
previously disclosed details of the settlement of Mr. Osmond's
2007 suit, which was filed over how it disburses money collected
from foreign tax revenues.

SAG has asserted that it has collected $16.37 million since the
program began and has paid out $8.47 million through more than
237,000 individual checks to members -- including $1.3 million
over the past month.

Attorneys for Mr. Osmond filed the motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement Monday last week in Los Angeles Superior Court.
A hearing has been set for Sept. 20 before Los Angeles Superior
Court Judge Carl West.  Mr. Osmond's attorneys, Neville Johnson
and Paul Kiesel, asked that a final hearing take place on Nov. 16.

The agreement between the two sides requires the hiring of an
independent consultant to perform a one-time review of the program
and make recommendations to improve the processing of the funds to
SAG members. This must be done within three months of finalizing
the settlement. It also provides for:

   * an annual review of the program by a Big Four accounting
     firm;

   * publication of the existence of the program and availability
     of the funds;

   * "reasonable efforts" by SAG to pay 90% of the funds to
     members within three years; and

   * administrative costs of the program be paid from interest of
     collected levies and from an administrative fee charged to
     performers who receive the payments.

The proposed settlement is similar to one reached by the Writers
Guild of America in June.

The suit by Mr. Osmond alleged SAG mishandled those funds and
lacked authority to oversee them in the first place. SAG has long
denied that it has done anything wrong.

"In this action, plaintiff alleges, in essence that SAG has
collected substantial amounts, and earned interest theron, of
foreign levy funds without authorization," the settlement filing
said. "SAG has denied and continues to deny each and every claim
and contention alleged in the action."

What's at stake in Mr. Osmond's suit are "foreign levies"
collected from countries through mechanisms such as taxes on video
sales and rentals to compensate copyright holders for reuse. The
foreign levies for American creatives began to flow in 1989 after
the U.S. agreed to the terms of the Berne Convention, which
established the right of authorship for individuals who create
works of art.

SAG, the WGA and the DGA began collecting the foreign funds in the
early 1990s on behalf of members and nonmembers who had a stake in
films and TV programs.  Mr. Osmond's suit contends SAG overstepped
its authority to make those agreements and never disclosed them
until he and Jack Klugman threatened to file suit.

SAG general counsel Duncan Crabtree-Ireland said, "Although we
vehemently dispute the fundamental premise of the litigation, we
are pleased to have resolved this dispute in its early stages and
look forward to continuing our efforts to distribute funds as
quickly and efficiently as possible."

SAG and WGA member Eric Hughes, who has tracked the issue on his
http://www.screenrights.netsite, said Sept. 13 the proposed
settlement is confusing, in that it appears to exclude several
classes of performers for whom foreign levies are collected --
those who collect residuals under AFTRA agreements; documentaries
and reality shows; and performers in the adult film industry. He
also said the proposed settlement fall short in not containing a
requirement that SAG allow funds to revert or "escheat" to the
state if performers can't be located.

Mr. Hughes contends SAG hasn't resolved the issue of "unpaid
residuals" due to nonmembers, two years after announcing a "Get
Your Money" program to distribute $25 million in unpaid residuals
to 66,000 people it could not locate. Mr. Hughes has asserted
those funds have actually come through foreign royalties while
SAG's denied that assertion.

"I'm still trying to figure out what audiovisual works produced
under a SAG collective bargaining agreement President Kennedy
appeared in or plaintiffs' counsel Neville L. Johnson," he added.
"Or why SAG can't locate Mr. Johnson."

A copy of the Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Class Action Settlement; Memorandum of Points and Authorities
and Declaration of Neville L. Johnson in Osmond v. Screen Actors
Guild, Inc., et al., Case No. 377780 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty.) (West J.), are available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/15/SAG%20settlement.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Neville L. Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP
          439 N. Canon Dr., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: 310-975-1080
          E-mail: njohnson@jjllplaw.com

               - and -

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP
          8648 Wilshire Blvd.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: 310-854-4444


SEARCHMEDIA HOLDING: Faces Securities Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of SearchMedia
Holdings Limited (formerly, Ideation Acquisition Corp.) between
April 1, 2009 and August 20, 2010, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint names SearchMedia and certain of the Company's
current and former executive officers and directors as defendants.
Ideation was a blank check company organized under the laws of the
State of Delaware on June 1, 2007, and formed for the purpose of
acquiring, through a merger, capital stock exchange, asset
acquisition or other similar business combination, one or more
businesses.  On April 1, 2009, the Company announced an agreement
to purchase SearchMedia International Limited, a purported
nationwide multi-platform media company in China.  On October 30,
2009, Ideation completed the acquisition of SMIL and changed its
name to SearchMedia.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and/or omitted
material facts, in the joint proxy statement and prospectus (the
"Joint Proxy/Prospectus") disseminated regarding the Merger, as
well as in other public statements issued during the Class Period
related to the Merger and SMIL. Additionally, the Complaint
alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to
disclose material adverse facts about SearchMedia's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) SMIL was improperly recognizing revenue; (2)
certain of SMIL's accounts receivable related to sales generated
primarily in the in-elevator business were uncollectible, (3)
SMIL's financial results during the Class Period were materially
overstated; (4) SMIL's financial results were not prepared in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");
(5) SMIL lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (6)
as a result of the above, SMIL's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 20, 2010, SearchMedia announced that the historical
financial statements of SMIL for the 2007 and 2008 fiscal years
would have to be restated and that the financial statements from
these periods can no longer be relied upon. SearchMedia informed
investors that it estimated that SMIL's revenue in 2007 and 2008
had been overstated by approximately $6 million and $25 million,
respectively.

As a result of this news, SearchMedia's stock plummeted almost 23%
to close as $2.62 per share on August 20, 2010. The Company's
stock continued its slide to close at $0.92 per share on
August 23, 2010 or approximately another 35% down.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 15, 2010. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact:

     Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
     Noah R. Wortman, Case Development Director
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     919 North Market Street, Suite 980
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Telephone: 888-969-4242
                302-295-5310
     Facsimile: 302-654-9430
     E-mail: info@rigrodskylong.com
     Web site: http://www.rigrodskylong.com

In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however,
affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this
matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden
City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative
and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate
governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary
duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in
state and federal courts throughout the United States.


SMITH & WESSON: Defends Securities Suit in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. continues to defend a consolidated
securities suit pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, according to the company's Sept. 9,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

The company, its Chairman of the Board, its Chief Executive
Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer were named in
three similar purported securities class-action lawsuits.  The
complaints in these actions, which have been consolidated into one
action, were brought individually and on behalf of all persons who
purchased securities of our company between June 15, 2007 and Dec.
6, 2007.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for alleged violations of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The company has filed a Motion to Dismiss the litigation.  On
March 26, 2009, the Court dismissed the company's Chairman of the
Board from the litigation.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification and the
company is opposing that motion.  The company's brief in
opposition was filed on March 8, 2010.

On May 11, 2010, the Court certified the consolidated action as
consisting of a class of persons who purchased the company's
securities between June 15, 2007 and Dec. 6, 2007 and suffered
damage as a result.

Court scheduled discovery concerning the facts of this action
ended on May 28, 2010.  Examination of any experts put forth by
the parties ends on Oct. 1, 2010.  The parties will then have
until Oct. 29, 2010 to move for summary disposition of the case.

The consolidated suit is Hwang, et al. v. Smith & Wesson Holding
Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-cv-30238 (D. Mass.) (Ponsor, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO PEASE TABACCO BURT & PUCILLO
          One Liberty Square, 8th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300
          Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
          E-mail: jblock@bermanesq.com

               - and -

          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: drosenfeld@csgrr.com

Representing the defendants are:

          John A. Sten, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          One International Place
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 310-6283
          Facsimile: (617) 310-6001
          E-mail: stenj@gtlaw.com

               - and -


          Francis D. Dibble, Jr., Esq.
          BULKLEY, RICHARDSON & GELINAS, LLP
          1500 Main Street, Suite 2700
          P.O. Box 15507
          Springfield, MA 01115-5507
          Telephone: (413) 272-6246
          Facsimile: (413) 272-6804
          E-mail: fdibble@bulkley.com


SUN HEALTHCARE: Faces Wage & Hour Violations Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sun Healthcare Group, Inc., faces a lawsuit filed in a California
Superior Court, according to the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The suit was filed on Sept. 2, 2010, by a former employee of a
subsidiary of the company's medical staffing company, alleging
violation of various wage and hour provisions of the California
Labor Code.   The lawsuit has been filed as a purported class
action on behalf of the former employee and all those similarly
situated.

The complaint alleges that the aggregate claim is less than $5
million.  The company is in the process of investigating the
allegations set forth in the complaint.

Sun Healthcare Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries provide nursing,
rehabilitative and related specialty healthcare services
principally to the senior population in the United States.  Sun's
core business is providing, through its subsidiaries, inpatient
services, primarily through 166 skilled nursing centers, 16
combined skilled nursing, assisted and independent living centers,
10 assisted living centers, two independent living centers and
eight mental health centers.  On a consolidated basis, Sun has
annual revenues of $1.9 billion and approximately 30,000 employees
in 46 states.  At June 30, 2010, SunBridge centers had 23,209
licensed beds located in 25 states, of which 22,427 were available
for occupancy.  Sun also provides rehabilitation therapy services
to affiliated and non-affiliated centers through its SunDance
subsidiary, medical staffing services through its CareerStaff
Unlimited subsidiary and hospice services through its SolAmor
subsidiary.  In May 2010, Sun announced a plan to restructure its
business by separating its real estate assets and its operating
assets into two separate publicly traded companies, subject to the
approval of stockholders and other conditions.  The Separation
will be accomplished by distributing to stockholders the stock of
SHG Services, Inc., a Sun subsidiary that will own and operate the
operating subsidiaries.Substantially all of Sun's owned real
estate assets will continue to be owned by Sun, which will, after
the Separation, merge into its subsidiary, Sabra Health Care REIT,
Inc. Following this merger, SHG Services, Inc. will change its
name to Sun Healthcare Group, Inc.  The common stock of both
companies is expected to trade on the NASDAQ Global Select Market.
The Separation is expected to be completed in the fourth quarter
of 2010.


SYNGENTA CROP: Holiday Shores' Motion to Compel Discovery Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Record's Amelia Flood reports another discovery
dispute has arisen in one of a series of proposed class action
suits against the maker of the herbicide atrazine.

Lead plaintiff Holiday Shores Sanitary District filed a motion
earlier this month asking for a hearing on a motion to compel
against defendant Syngenta Crop Protection Inc.

The motion was filed Sept. 3. A hearing date has not yet been set.

Holiday Shores claims Syngenta has balked at its request for
discovery documents and depositions on the grounds that some of
what of the plaintiff has asked for are protected by the First
Amendment.

Syngenta has not yet filed a response to the motion to compel.

Holiday Shores and several other named plaintiffs, including the
cities of Carlinville and Mount Olive, are suing a number of
makers and distributors of products containing atrazine.

Atrazine is an herbicide commonly used by farmers.

The plaintiffs claim that the weed killer runs off farm fields and
contaminates their drinking water supplies.

While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found that
atrazine is safe in drinking water supplies up to three parts per
billion, the plaintiffs contend that smaller amounts can cause
health problems.

Although the suits have been pending since 2004, discovery has
only been proceeding since last year.

Plaintiff attorney Stephen Tillery has also filed a federal class
action suit against Syngenta and its Swiss parent company in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

That suit, filed earlier this year, includes a class of water
providers in Illinois, Missouri, Kansas and other states.

The federal suit alleges similar claims to those in the older
Madison County suits.

Syngenta had moved to have the 2004 Madison County case dismissed
or stayed pending the outcome of the federal action.

The company argued that the federal case's proposed class could
include the Holiday Shores class members and would provide broader
relief.

The plaintiffs had argued that there was no guarantee the Holiday
Shores plaintiffs would be included in the federal suit and that
if they weren't, they would have no other recourse.

The plaintiffs also pointed to the Madison County case's age and
standing after six years as reasons why it should continue.

Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder denied motions to
dismiss and stay the suit on Aug. 31.

Moves by a number of third parties to stop discovery requests and
depositions are also pending.  Those groups include the University
of Chicago, Illinois Farm Bureau and chemical trade groups.

Judge Crowder has those moves under advisement.

In the motion to compel, Mr. Tillery argues that his team has
served 13 separate notices of video discovery on Syngenta only to
be thwarted in their discovery attempts.

He claims the company tried to resolve the dispute with Syngenta's
counsel, Kurtis Reeg, and that the company had promised to provide
documents as requested.

However, the motion goes on to state that as of Sept. 1, Syngenta
informed the plaintiffs that it would instruct its witnesses not
to respond to any questions related to lobbying and third party
matters, claiming there are First Amendment protections.

The company also declined to produce documents related to its
financial contributions to trade groups, memberships and
communications between it and third parties.

The motion asks the court for an emergency hearing to argue the
motion to compel, for the court to make Syngenta comply with its
deposition and discovery requests and that the court clarify a
2009 order regarding the discovery scope.

Mr. Reeg represents Syngenta. He also represents United Agri-
Products in the Holiday Shores class action pending against it.

The Syngenta case is Madison case number 04-L-710.

The atrazine class actions are case numbers 04-L-708 to 04-L-713.


TOBACCO COMPANIES: Get $270 Million Reprieve From Justice Scalia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
has temporarily blocked a state court order requiring tobacco
companies to pay $270 million for a smoking cessation program in
Louisiana.

Justice Scalia granted a request from the companies on Tuesday,
but said he would reconsider his order later this month after
hearing from Louisiana plaintiffs who won a class action lawsuit
against the cigarette makers.

The companies lost their bid in state court to throw out the award
or at least delay the payment. They want the high court to throw
out the judgment against them and relieve them of having to pay
out the money while the case is being appealed.


WRIGHT COUNTY EGG: Faces Class Suit Over Salmonella Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE LAW GROUP, LTD. filed the first nationwide class action
lawsuit Wednesday, September 15, 2010, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago,
against Wright County Egg and Hillandale Farms a day following
revelations that lab tests found hundreds of cases of salmonella
contamination at the Iowa farm in a nearly two-year period before
the outbreak that prompted the largest recall of eggs in national
history this summer.

In a letter to the owner of Wright County Egg, Austin "Jack"
DeCoster, leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee said
tests confirmed 426 cases of salmonella contamination between
September 2008 and the past July, and 73 that were "potentially"
positive for the strain of the disease involved in this year's
outbreak.

The committee's leaders asked DeCoster to explain why those test
reports weren't included in material the company provided to
Congress so far, and demanded that the company produce "all
documents relating to your response to the test results" by
Wednesday [Sept. 15].

"Despite the committee's specific request, your response on
September 11, 2010, did not include the 73 potentially positive
results for Salmonella enteritidis," Energy and Commerce Committee
Chairman Henry Waxman and investigations subcommittee chairman
Bart Stupak wrote. "It also did not show whether Wright County Egg
took appropriate steps to protect the public after receiving the
positive test results."

Federal investigators reported finding salmonella bacteria in
chicken feed and in barn and walkway areas at the farms, as well
as rodents, piles of manure, uncaged birds and flies too numerous
to count, the FDA said.

Food and Drug Administration inspectors reported in August that
neither Wright County nor Hillandale fully followed their plans to
prevent Salmonella enteritidis.

The lawsuit accuses both farms of numerous egregious safety
violations including the failure to comply with federal and state
laws, including the Egg Safety rule, which effectively created an
environment allowing salmonella enteriditis to infect producing
hens.

In an earlier news release, the firm said: Class members include
all purchasers of eggs from Wright County Egg and Hillandale Farms
from April 9, 2010 (Julian date 99) to August 21 (Julian date
230). The FDA reports that at least 550 million eggs have been
recalled so far. Purchasers are seeking reimbursement.

The lawsuit also seeks recoveries on behalf of all consumers who
died or were injured from salmonella enteriditis contaminated
eggs. The FDA reports that the salmonella infected eggs has
sickened nearly 2,000 people. "According to the recently enacted
Egg Safety Rule, for every case reported, there may be 38 cases
that go unreported," said Chicago attorney, Kenneth B. Moll.
"Therefore, there may be over 76,000 class members seeking
recovery for death and serious injuries from salmonella
enteriditis contaminated eggs," Mr. Moll said.

The lawsuit also seeks to establish a medical monitoring program
for class members who were injured or at risk for future injuries.
According to Moll, "Infections from salmonella enteriditis can
spread into the bloodstream, then to other areas of the body, such
as the bone marrow or the meningeal linings of the brain. The
infections can lead to severe and fatal injuries, including
endocarditis. In addition, class members who recovered from
salmonellosis may later develop recurring joint pain, reactive
arthritis, and Reiter's syndrome."

The lawsuit accuses both farms of numerous egregious safety
violations including the failure to comply with federal and state
laws, including the Egg Safety rule, which effectively created an
environment allowing salmonella enteriditis to infect producing
hens.

According to Attorney Moll, "immediately following the filing of
the lawsuit, we will seek, on behalf of all class members, an
order from the court to conduct an immediate inspection, survey,
photography, videotaping, testing, and sampling of the premises on
both farms."

Attorney Moll has represented claimants in several high profile
product liability cases including Tobacco, Firestone, Ford, the
dietary supplement, Metabolife, the drugs Vioxx, Bextra, Baycol,
and the 2000 Sara Lee Litigation which involved hundreds of
individuals injured after eating Sara Lee's Ball Park Frank
hotdogs contaminated with the bacteria strain, Listeria
monocytogenes.

To view a list of the eggs affected by the recall, visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.thelawgroupltd.com/

The firm can be reached at:

     Pamela G. Sotoodeh, Esq.
     THE LAW GROUP, LTD.
     Three First National Plaza, 50th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: 312-558-6444
     Facsimile: 312-558-1112
     E-mail: pgs@thelawgroupltd.com

                             *********

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  * * *