CAR_Public/100921.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 21, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 186

                             Headlines

AUSTRALIA: Talks Between Residents & Casey Council to Continue
BARNES & NOBLE: California Court Dismisses "Hostetter" Suit
BARNES & NOBLE: Booksellers Unit Wants "Minor" Suit Dismissed
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Coquitlam School District Faces Class Action
CALAMOS INVESTMENTS: Trustees Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duties

CASEY'S GENERAL: Remains a Defendant in Two "Hot Fuel" Suits
CASEY'S GENERAL: Wants Consolidated Suit in Iowa Dismissed
CASEY'S GENERAL: Motion to File Second Amended Suit Pending
CASEY'S GENERAL: Faces Suit by OLERS in Iowa
DENVER: Colorado SC Affirms Defense Fees Ruling in Class Action

DG FASTCHANNEL: Faces Class Action Over Pathfire Service
FELTEX INC: 100 More Shareholders Join Class Action
FOOT LOCKER: Sued for Sending Unsolicited Text Advertisements
GAP INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Wage and Hour Violations
GREAT SOUTHERN: Bendigo Bank to Sue Non-Paying Borrowers

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Settles 3 Inkjet Printer Suits in Calif.
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Defends Three Class Actions in Canada
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Inks Agreement to Settle "Bagget" Suit
HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Steavens" Suit Consolidated with "Cunningham"
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Plaintiffs' Appeal on California Suits Pending

HYDRO-QUEBEC: Faces Class Suit Over Computerized Billing Problems
INCO INC: Appeals $36 Million Award in Pollution Class Action
INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES: Faces Price-Fixing Class Suit in Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: First Aussie Joins Class Action v. DePuy Unit
KINDER MORGAN: $200 Million Shareholder Settlement Proposed

MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Securities Suit in Texas Still in Early Stages
MICROTUNE INC: Faces 5 Class Suits Over Zoran Merger in Texas
NOVA SCOTIA: Court Sets Hearing on Class Suit Boundaries in Dec.
NOVELL INC: Plaintiffs Dismiss Suits Against Board of Directors
NOVELL INC: Notices of Appeal on Settlement Approval Pending

PINNACLE SPORTS: Accused in N.J. Suit of Deceptive Advertising
QUALITY EGG: Sued in Iowa Over Alleged Salmonella Poisoning
RINGLEADER DIGITAL: Faces Class Suit Alleging Privacy Violations
SUN LIFE OF CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over Disability Insurance
TARGET CORP: Court Orders Parties to Submit Briefing Schedule

YORK UNIVERSITY: Law Firm Mulls Appeal of Certification Denial


                             *********

AUSTRALIA: Talks Between Residents & Casey Council to Continue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Brady at Berwick News reports the law firm representing
methane gas affected Cranbourne residents says it is confident
mediation talks with Casey council are on the right track.

Discussions between the two parties were held two weeks ago and
have now been rescheduled for later in the month.

Slater and Gordon is representing more than 600 Brookland Greens
residents in a class action after methane gas leaked into the
estate from the nearby Stevensons Road closed landfill in
September 2008.

Associate for Slater and Gordon Manisha Blencowe said it would
return to the negotiating table on September 28.

"We're hopeful that discussions are moving in the right
direction," Ms. Blencowe said.

"We're confident that some of the impediments have been resolved."

Casey mayor Lorraine Wreford said the council maintained a range
of parties contributed to the disaster.

It is estimated the council will spend more than $100 million to
cover remediation works at the landfill, and has spent $42 million
in the past 18 months.

The State Government has confirmed it will chip in $17.5 million
to the clean-up.

"The Council will continue to undertake a comprehensive works and
monitoring program, both on the site and within the estate," Mayor
Wreford said.

"The City of Casey is hopeful of a resolution at the mediation
proceedings."


BARNES & NOBLE: California Court Dismisses "Hostetter" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The matter Hostetter v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., et al.,
has been dismissed by the Superior Court for the State of
California, according to Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s Sept. 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

On Dec. 4, 2008, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for
the State of California making the following allegations against
defendants with respect to hourly managers or assistant managers
at Barnes & Noble stores located in the State of California:

     (1) failure to pay wages and overtime;
     (2) failure to provide meal and/or rest breaks;
     (3) waiting time penalties; and
     (4) unfair competition.

The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number of any
such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf
the purported class.

On March 4, 2009, B&N Booksellers filed an answer denying all
claims.  On March 5, 2009, B&N Booksellers removed this matter to
federal court.

Discovery concerning purported class member wages, hours worked,
and other matters has commenced.

The plaintiff moved for class certification on October 19, 2009.
On Jan. 25, 2010, the Court denied certification in its entirety,
leaving only Hostetter's individual claim.

On Feb. 3, 2010, the plaintiff filed a petition under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(f) with the Ninth Circuit seeking permission
to file an interlocutory appeal of the certification denial.  The
Ninth Circuit denied plaintiff's petition on April 15, 2010.

In July 2010, B&N Booksellers settled the plaintiff's individual
claim, inclusive of attorneys' fees and costs, for $18,500.  In
exchange, the plaintiff released all claims.  The case has been
dismissed with prejudice.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. -- http://www.barnesandnobleinc.com/-- the
world's largest bookseller and a Fortune 500 company, operates 717
bookstores in 50 states.  Barnes &  Noble College Booksellers,
LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Barnes &  Noble, also operates
633 college bookstores serving nearly 4 million students and
faculty members at colleges and universities across the United
States.  Barnes & Noble is the nation's top bookseller brand for
the seventh year in a row, as determined by a combination of the
brand's performance on familiarity, quality, and purchase intent;
the top bookseller in quality for the second year in a row and the
number two retailer in trust, according to the EquiTrend(R) Brand
Study by Harris Interactive(R).  Barnes & Noble conducts its
online business through Barnes & Noble.com (http://www.bn.com/),
one of the Web's largest e-commerce sites, which also features
more than one million titles in its eBookstore
(http://www.bn.com/ebooks). Through Barnes & Noble's NOOK(TM)
eReading product offering, customers can buy and read eBooks on
the widest range of platforms, including NOOK eBook Readers,
devices from partner companies, and hundreds of the most popular
mobile and computing devices using free NOOK software.


BARNES & NOBLE: Booksellers Unit Wants "Minor" Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss
the matter Minor v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al.,
according to Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s Sept. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 31, 2010.

On May 1, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
against B&N Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State
of California alleging wage payments by instruments in a form that
did not comply with the requirements of the California Labor Code,
allegedly resulting in impermissible wage payment reductions and
calling for imposition of statutory penalties.  The complaint also
alleges a violation of the California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General Act and seeks restitution of such allegedly
unpaid wages under California's unfair competition law, and an
injunction compelling compliance with the California Labor Code.

The complaint alleges two subclasses of 500 and 200 employees,
respectively (there may be overlap among the subclasses), but
contains no allegations concerning the number of alleged
violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the
purported class.

On June 3, 2009, B&N Booksellers filed an answer denying all
claims.

Discovery concerning purported class member payroll checks and
related information is ongoing.

On Aug. 19, 2010, B&N Booksellers filed a motion to dismiss the
case for lack of a class representative when the name plaintiff
advised she did not wish to continue to serve in that role.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. -- http://www.barnesandnobleinc.com/-- the
world's largest bookseller and a Fortune 500 company, operates 717
bookstores in 50 states.  Barnes &  Noble College Booksellers,
LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Barnes &  Noble, also operates
633 college bookstores serving nearly 4 million students and
faculty members at colleges and universities across the United
States.  Barnes & Noble is the nation's top bookseller brand for
the seventh year in a row, as determined by a combination of the
brand's performance on familiarity, quality, and purchase intent;
the top bookseller in quality for the second year in a row and the
number two retailer in trust, according to the EquiTrend(R) Brand
Study by Harris Interactive(R).  Barnes & Noble conducts its
online business through Barnes & Noble.com (http://www.bn.com/),
one of the Web's largest e-commerce sites, which also features
more than one million titles in its eBookstore
(http://www.bn.com/ebooks). Through Barnes & Noble's NOOK(TM)
eReading product offering, customers can buy and read eBooks on
the widest range of platforms, including NOOK eBook Readers,
devices from partner companies, and hundreds of the most popular
mobile and computing devices using free NOOK software.


BRITISH COLUMBIA: Coquitlam School District Faces Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Steffenhagen, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports a Canadian
law firm with a reputation for high-profile class-action lawsuits
targeting companies such as Facebook, Toyota and Sony is taking
aim at fees charged by B.C. public schools, which it contends are
illegal.

The Merchant Law Group, based in Regina, has commenced an action
against the Coquitlam school district on behalf of Anne
McGuinness, who was asked last year to pay $45 for a course
workbook for her student. When she refused, the school withheld
the child's report card until she made payment, according to a
statement of claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court.

The statement says the district was "unjustly enriched" by
charging fees it knows to be illegal and should pay restitution to
Ms. McGuinness and other parents who were similarly charged for
public education.

In a telephone interview from his Regina office, Tony Merchant
said the Coquitlam action is just the beginning, and he plans to
seek certification for class-action lawsuits over school fees in a
number of districts in B.C. and Saskatchewan -- two provinces
where he says the law is clear in requiring public education to be
free of charge. He said his firm, which is involved in about 100
class-action lawsuits over issues as diverse as the price of
chocolate, photo radar and asbestos, is prepared to spend hundreds
of thousands of dollars to fight on behalf of parents who can't
afford to go to court themselves, knowing "school boards can whip
you with their eyes closed."

"[We'll] throw a lot of resources into battle," he said, adding
that school fees have become a huge drain on parents.

The B.C. government amended the law regarding fees in 2007
following a court ruling that said schools may not charge for
courses -- including electives -- that are part of the regular K-
12 program. They may charge, however, for special academies, tools
and materials in trade programs, musical instruments and optional
field trips.

They may also collect fees from students who want to use superior
supplies in courses such as woodworking and art and they may bill
for specific student activities.

Still, schools appear to have interpreted the law differently. For
example, Centennial secondary in Coquitlam charged Grade 9
students taking physical education $70 this year. Across town,
Riverside secondary charged only a $5 refundable lock fee for the
same course. District communications manager Cheryl Quinton said
the Centennial fee was for optional opportunities, such as guest
instructors and field trips.

The Merchant firm isn't the only one fighting B.C. fees. North
Vancouver lawyer James Poyner is seeking certification of a class-
action lawsuit over tuition charged by school districts for summer
school classes from 2004 to 2006 -- before the government declared
such fees illegal.

His application was heard in B.C. Supreme Court several months ago
but a decision has yet to be rendered.


CALAMOS INVESTMENTS: Trustees Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. John P. Calamos, Sr., et al. , Case No. 2010-CH-39590
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. September 13, 2010), accuses six
trustees and a former trustee of the Calamos Convertible
Opportunities Fund of causing the replacement of leveraging
beneficial to the common shareholders of the Fund with less
favorable debt financing, to further their own interests and those
of the Fund's investment advisor and its affiliates, in breach of
their fiduciary duties owed to the Fund's common shareholders.
Mr. Brown has owned common shares in the Calamos Convertible
Opportunities and Income Fund since March 21, 2006.

The Fund is a closed-end investment company organized as a
Delaware statutory trust on April 17, 2002.  Mr. Brown says the
Fund issued seven series of auction market preferred shares, which
as equity securities, had no maturity and did not ever have to be
repaid.

AMPS bore a preferred dividend right to its holders, with the
dividend rate reset periodically through an auction rate
mechanism, which provided liquidity to its holders.  Mr. Brown
explains that since February 13, 2008, auctions have consistently
failed, which failures rendered auction rate securities, including
the AMPS issued by the Fund, illiquid.  To date, liquidity has not
returned.

Mr. Brown states that the Fund was not obligated to redeem the
AMPS, nor did the auctions failures materially adversely affected
the Fund's rights and obligations with respect to the AMPS.
Nonetheless, the Complaint says the defendants caused the Fund to
redeem approximately 72.9% of all outstanding AMPS (approximately
$280 million) between June 2, 2008, and June 26, 2008, at their
issue price of $25,000 per share, and to replace the AMPS with new
financing that was less advantageous to the common shares.  Then,
between August 13, 2009, and August 24, 2009, the Defendants
caused the Fund to redeem all then-outstanding AMPS, again at
their issue price of $25,000 per share, and again to replace the
redeemed AMPS with financing that was less advantageous for the
common shareholders.  The Complaint says that the AMPS were
redeemed at prices that exceeded their market value.

Mr. Brown related that the replacement borrowing are
disadvantageous compared with the AMPS, because:(1) the effective
costs are higher; (2) the term is finite, while the AMPS have a
perpetual term; and (3) the constraints are significantly greater
(the Fund did not have to pledge its assets as collateral for the
AMPS and it only had to have $2 in gross assets for every $1 in
AMPS outstanding versus $3:1 under the replacement borrowing).

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 357-0370
          E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Joshua S. Devore, Esq.
          Joshua M. Kolsky, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                  jdevore@cohenmilstein.com
                  jkolsky@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Gary Gotto, Esq.
          James A. Bloom, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK, P.L.C.
          3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 248-0088
          E-mail: ggotto@krplc.com
                  jbloom@krplc.com

                 Another Suit Filed in N.D. Ill.;
                 Calamos Says Suit Without Merit

Calamos Investments disclosed that a law firm has filed a putative
class action lawsuit, purportedly on behalf of a class of common
shareholders of Calamos Convertible Opportunities and Income Fund
(NYSE: CHI), alleging breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment in
connection with the redemption of auction rate preferred
securities following the collapse of auction markets in February
2008.  The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The named defendants include Calamos Asset Management, Inc.,
Calamos Advisors LLC, the Calamos Convertible Opportunities and
Income Fund, current trustees and one former trustee of such Fund.
Calamos Advisors and Calamos Asset Management believe the lawsuit
is without merit and intend to defend themselves vigorously
against the charges.

This case, although filed on behalf of a different named
plaintiff, asserts the same purported claims as a similar class
action filing that was made and recently dismissed in U.S.
District Court, and subsequently re-filed in state court in
Illinois.

Calamos Investments -- http://www.calamos.com/-- is a globally
diversified investment firm offering equity, fixed-income,
convertible and alternative investment strategies, among others.
The firm serves institutions and individuals around the world via
separately managed accounts and a family of open-end and closed-
end funds, providing a risk-managed approach to capital
appreciation and income-producing strategies.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Remains a Defendant in Two "Hot Fuel" Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's General Stores, Inc., remains a defendant in two suits
over its motor fuel practices, 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 is named as a defendant in four lawsuits brought in
the federal courts in Kansas and Missouri against a variety of
gasoline retailers.  The complaints generally allege that the
company, along with numerous other retailers, has misrepresented
gasoline volumes dispensed at its pumps by failing to compensate
for expansion that occurs when fuel is sold at temperatures above
60 degrees Fahrenheit.  Fuel is measured at 60 degrees Fahrenheit
in wholesale purchase transactions and computation of motor fuel
taxes in Kansas and Missouri.

The complaints all seek certification as class actions on behalf
of gasoline consumers within those two states, and one of the
complaints also seeks certification for a class consisting of
gasoline consumers in all states.  The actions generally seek
recovery for alleged violations of state consumer protection or
unfair merchandising practices statutes, negligent and fraudulent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and
violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; several seek
injunctive relief and punitive damages.

These actions are among a total of 45 similar lawsuits that have
been filed since November 2006 in 27 jurisdictions, including 25
states, the District of Columbia, and Guam against a wide range of
defendants that produce, refine, distribute and/or market gasoline
products in the United States.  On June 18, 2007, the Federal
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the
pending hot fuel cases -- officially, the "Motor Fuel Temperature
Sales Practices Litigation" -- be transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City, Kansas, for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, including
rulings on discovery matters, various pretrial motions, and class
certification.  Discovery efforts by both sides were substantially
completed during the ensuing months, and the plaintiffs filed
motions for class certification in each of the pending lawsuits.

In a Memorandum and Order entered on May 28, 2010, the Court ruled
on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in two cases
originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, American Fiber & Cabling, LLC v. BP West Coast Products,
LLC, et. al., Case No. 07-2053, and Wilson v. Ampride, Inc., et.
al., Case No. 06-2582, in which the company is a named Defendant.

The Court determined that it could not certify a class as to
claims against the company in the American Fiber & Cabling case,
having decided that the named Plaintiff had no standing to assert
such claims.  However, in the Wilson case the Court certified a
class as to the liability and injunctive aspects of the
Plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment and violation of the
Kansas Consumer Protection Act against the Company and several
other Defendants.

With respect to claims for unjust enrichment, the class certified
consists of all individuals and entities (except employees or
affiliates of the Defendants) that, at any time between Jan. 1,
2001 and the present, purchased motor fuel at retail at a
temperature greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit, in the state of
Kansas, from a gas station owned, operated, or controlled by one
or more of the Defendants.  As to claims for violation of the
KCPA, the class certified is limited to all individuals, sole
proprietors and family partnerships (excluding employees or
affiliates of Defendants) that made such purchases.

The Court also ordered the parties to show cause in writing why
the Wilson case and the American Fiber & Cabling case should not
be consolidated for all purposes.  The matter is now under
consideration by the Court.  No trial date has been set.

Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/-- operates
convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store in nine
Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Wants Consolidated Suit in Iowa Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Casey's General Stores, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss a
consolidated suit pending in the Iowa District Court in and for
Polk County, 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.

                          Mercier Action

On April 28, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Iowa District Court in and for Polk County, captioned Mercier
v. Casey's General Stores, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. CE65196,
on behalf of a putative class of the company's shareholders
against the company and the Board.

The plaintiff in the Mercier Complaint asserts a claim for breach
of fiduciary duty in connection with the Offer and seeks an order
requiring the Board to place the company up for auction and/or to
conduct a market check and requiring the Company to make full and
fair disclosure of all material facts to the class before the
completion of an acquisition; a declaration that the Board has
breached its fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the class; and an
award of fees, expenses and costs.

However, pursuant to a stipulation between the company and the
plaintiff in such action, the company need not answer or otherwise
respond to the Mercier Complaint until such time as the plaintiff
either files an amended complaint or informs the company that it
does not intend to amend the complaint.

                           Howie Action

On June 29, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Iowa District Court in and for Polk County, captioned Howie v.
Myers, et al., Civil Action No. CL118607, on behalf of a putative
class of the company's shareholders against the company and the
Board.

In the Howie Complaint, the plaintiff asserts a claim for breach
of fiduciary duty in connection with the Offer, and seeks, among
other things, an order requiring the Board to undertake an
evaluation of alternative transactions and to redeem the Rights,
an injunction preventing any material transactions or changes to
the company's business and assets other than under court
supervision and an award of damages as well as fees, expenses and
costs.

On Aug. 4, 2010, the Iowa District Court in and for Polk County
consolidated the Howie Complaint into the Mercier Complaint and
appointed counsel in the Mercier Complaint as lead counsel.  On
Aug. 16, 2010, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an
amended and consolidated petition.

In addition to the claims asserted and relief sought in the
original Mercier complaint, the amended and consolidated petition
asserts a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty against
the Board and seeks, among other things, an order requiring the
Board to terminate the recapitalization plan.

On Aug. 23, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated action.  On Sept. 2, 2010, the plaintiffs in the
consolidated action filed their opposition to the company's motion
to dismiss the consolidated action.

Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/-- operates
convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store in nine
Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Motion to File Second Amended Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint against Casey's General Stores, Inc., remains pending,
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 July 21, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,
captioned Kentucky State District Council of Carpenters Pension
Trust Fund v. Myers, et al., Case No. 4:10-cv-00332, on behalf of
a putative class of the company's shareholders against the company
and the Board.

In the Carpenters Pension Trust Complaint, the plaintiff asserts a
claim for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Offer,
and seeks, among other things, a declaration that the Board has
breached its fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the class, an
injunction preventing the Board from initializing defensive
measures which may render the acquisition of the company unduly
burdensome or expensive for a potential acquirer, an order
requiring the Board to rescind or redeem the Rights or declaring
the Rights invalid and invalidating amendments to certain
employment agreements, imposition of a constructive trust in favor
of plaintiff and the class and an award of plaintiff's costs.

On Aug. 13, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Carpenters Pension Trust Complaint.  On Aug. 20, 2010, the
plaintiffs in the Carpenters Pension Trust Complaint filed an
amended complaint.

In addition to the claims asserted and relief sought in the
initial complaint, the amended complaint asserts claims that the
Board violated Section 20(a) and Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder for allegedly making untrue
or misleading statements in the Schedule 14D-9 and the company's
2010 Proxy Statement, and includes allegations that the
recapitalization plan was in breach of the Board's fiduciary
duties.

On Aug. 25, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Carpenters Pension Trust
Complaint filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order seeking to bar the company and the Board from
enforcing Section 8.7 of the Note Agreement relating to changes of
control and also seeking an expedited trial on the matter.

On Aug. 30, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Carpenters Pension Trust
Complaint filed a motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint.  In addition to the claims asserted and relief sought
in the initial complaint and amended complaint, the purported
second amended complaint includes a claim against the holders of
the Notes for aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duty by
the Board and seeks an order declaring the recapitalization plan
invalid and in derogation of the Board's fiduciary duties.

On Sept. 3, 2010, the Company filed a response to plaintiff's
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.  On Sept. 7,
2010, the plaintiff in the Carpenters Pension Trust Complaint
filed a reply in support of its motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint.

Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/-- operates
convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store in nine
Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Faces Suit by OLERS in Iowa
--------------------------------------------
Casey's General Stores, Inc., faces a purported class action and
shareholder derivative complaint captioned Oklahoma Law
Enforcement Retirement System v. Myers, et al., Civil Action
No. CL119217, 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 suit was filed on Aug. 9, 2010, in the Iowa District Court in
and for Polk County, both on behalf of a putative class of the
company's shareholders and derivatively on behalf of the company,
against the company and the Board.

In the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System Complaint, the
plaintiff asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with the Offer, and seeks, among other things, a
declaration that the Board has breached its fiduciary duties to
the class, an injunction preventing the Board from implementing
defensive measures that would impede the class's ability to
consider or accept the Offer, an order requiring the Board to
rescind or redeem the Rights or declaring the Rights invalid, an
order requiring the Board to terminate the recapitalization plan,
an order requiring corrective disclosures, imposition of a
constructive trust in favor of plaintiff and the class and an
award of plaintiff's costs.

Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/-- operates
convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store in nine
Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.


DENVER: Colorado SC Affirms Defense Fees Ruling in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports the
Colorado Supreme Court has affirmed an appeals court ruling on
attorney fees in a case involving a class action lawsuit brought
against the city and county of Denver.

The lawsuit concerns alleged environmental contamination at Denver
International Airport. The Court, in an opinion filed Monday last
week, rejected an argument by the plaintiffs that a trial court
must exclude fees and costs for work that may be useful in
companion litigation. It was the third in a series of appeals
involving the suit.

In the personal injury action filed pursuant to the state's
Governmental Immunity Act, the plaintiffs -- including Terri
Crandall, Joann Hubbard and others -- sought damages and
injunctive relief against Denver, alleging injuries suffered from
"environmental problems" occurring at the Denver airport,
specifically Concourse B.

Justice Mary Mullarkey, who authored the opinion, writes that this
is the second time the Court has reviewed a decision by the
appeals court in "this long-running dispute."

The case has been dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. The present dispute concerns the award of costs and
attorneys fees to the city and county of Denver.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the award was not reduced
enough to account for work by Denver's attorneys that would be
useful in separate but related litigation between the parties in
federal court.

On cross-appeal, Denver challenged the district court's conclusion
that the award should be reduced at all on this basis.

The appeals court concluded that the district court erred in
reducing the award and reversed the decision.

The Court, in its ruling, affirmed the appeals court's ruling and
holds that a reduction cannot be permitted based on state
statutes.

Justice Mullarkey also writes that the Court's conclusion is
"bolstered by the legislative history."

"Colorado appellate courts have twice reviewed the legislative
intent as portrayed by the legislative history of sections 13-16-
113(2) and 13-17-201. We have previously concluded that 'the
legislature intended to award attorney fees in a narrow category
of baseless tort cases, namely those cases that were so lacking in
substance that they could not survive a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted,'"
according to the opinion.

The plaintiffs argue that because the statutes are intended to
have a "deterrent effect," they are compensatory and not punitive,
and therefore, a court should not award fees and costs for work
that will be useful in continuing litigation. The Court says that
argument "lacks logic."

The Court, in its opinion, concludes that the "unambiguous nature"
of the mandate is supported by legislative history and because of
it, they cannot read into the statutes the exception the
plaintiffs argue.

The Court wrote that it was important to note that the plaintiffs'
arguments in favor of reducing fees and costs wasn't a question of
the "reasonableness" of those fees and costs. The plaintiffs, they
said, have never argued that Denver's request for attorneys fees
was the product of unreasonable billing rates or inflated hours.


DG FASTCHANNEL: Faces Class Action Over Pathfire Service
--------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, disclosed that a class action
law suit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of DG FastChannel,
Inc., stock between February 16, 2010 through August 29, 2010,
including purchasers of the Company's April 8, 2010 public
offering of common stock.

The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose
materially adverse conditions relating to a material shift in
customer mix for the Company's Pathfire service. Defendants took
advantage of the artificially inflated stock price. During the
Class Period, Ginsburg sold approximately 1,085,484 shares for
proceeds of approximately $40 million, and on April 8, 2010, the
Company sold approximately $108 million in common stock in a
public offering at a price of $31.50 per share.

The material facts adversely affecting the Company were disclosed
on August 30, 2010, when DG FastChannel issued a press release
disclosing these adverse conditions to the public. This caused
shares of DG FastChannel to decline from a prior day close on
August 29, 2010 of $24.54 per share, to close at $15.11 per share,
a decline of $9.43 per share or approximately 38% on heavier than
usual volume.

If you purchased DG FastChannel common stock during the Class
Period of February 16, 2009 through August 29, 2010, and you wish
to serve as lead plaintiff in this action, you must move the Court
no later than November 12, 2010. 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 a member of
the proposed class.

If you would like to discuss this action or if you have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights as a potential
class member or lead plaintiff, you may contact:

     Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
     Arthur J. Chen, Esq.
     ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
     One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
     New York, NY 10119
     Telephone: (212) 279-5050
     Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
     Toll Free: (800) 440-8986
     E-mail: jfruchter@aftlaw.com
             achen@aftlaw.com

Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP has extensive experience
prosecuting securities class action cases, and the firm has been
ranked among the leading class action law firms in terms of
recoveries achieved by a survey of class action law firms
conducted by Institutional Shareholder Services.


FELTEX INC: 100 More Shareholders Join Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Kelly Gregor, writing for New Zealand Herald, reports about 100
more shareholders in carpet company Feltex have joined an 1800-
strong class action against the business' former management in a
bid to get some of their money back.

The investors' lawyer, Christchurch-based Austin Forbes, QC, told
the Business Herald about 1,800 former Feltex shareholders had now
signed up for the class action.

The plaintiffs were seeking investors to join as soon as possible,
as the six-year timeframe to bring an action was nearing an end.

Feltex collapsed in September 2006 after it was floated in May
2004, and these proceedings are based on alleged breaches of its
2004 prospectus.

A hearing on November 8 in the High Court at Christchurch will
discuss whether the plaintiffs have an arguable case, whether the
defendants should be awarded security for costs and whether any
details in the statement of claim should be struck out.

A trial date is not expected to be set during the hearing.

The proceedings are filed under the name of Eric Houghton, who is
listed as the main plaintiff in the case.

Mr. Houghton lost $20,000 when Feltex collapsed in September 2006.
He said the 1800 or so shareholders invested a collective amount
of over $100 million.

The class action alleges the prospectus when Feltex floated in May
2004 had information that was misleading or wrong, or omitted to
make information available that would have affected people's
decision to invest in Feltex.

The listed defendants include former chairman Tim Saunders, former
chief executive Sam Magill and former directors John Feeney, Craig
Horrocks, Peter Hunter, Peter Thomas and Joan Withers. The
defendants tried to have the case thrown out of court but lost
their appeal.

They have denied the claims.

Also targeted in the action is Credit Suisse First Boston Asian
Merchant Partners -- the firm that offered Feltex for sale -- as
well as Credit Suisse Private Equity and the joint lead managers
of the float, First New Zealand Capital and Forsyth Barr.

Last month, former Feltex directors Messrs. Saunders, Feeney,
Hunter, Thomas and John Hagen were found not guilty of alleged
Securities Act breaches at the Auckland District Court.

Mr. Thomas said during a post-verdict press conference that the
directors would seek compensation.

When Feltex collapsed in 2006 about 8,000 investors lost millions.


FOOT LOCKER: Sued for Sending Unsolicited Text Advertisements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carmella Miller, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Foot Locker, Inc., Case No. 2010-CH-39683 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty. September 13, 2010), accuses the footwear retailer
of sending unsolicited advertisements in the form of text messages
to the cellular telephones of consumers, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  The Complaint says that as a
result, consumers were harmed because they frequently have to pay
their cell phone service providers either for each text message
they receive or incur an usage allocation deduction to their text
plan.

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

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          Michael J. McMorrow, Esq.
          Ryan D. Andrews, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6470


GAP INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Wage and Hour Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Gap, Inc. continues to face class action lawsuits in which
plaintiffs allege that the company violated federal and state wage
and hour and other laws.

The plaintiffs in some actions seek unspecified damages or
injunctive relief, or both.

These actions are in various procedural stages, and some are
covered in part by insurance.

No specific details regarding the pending lawsuits were disclosed
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.

The Gap, Inc. -- http://www.gapinc.com/-- is a global specialty
retailer offering clothing, accessories and personal care products
for men, women, children and babies under the Gap, Old Navy,
Banana Republic, Piperlime and Athleta brands.  The company
operates stores in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom,
France, Ireland and Japan.  It also has franchise agreements with
unaffiliated franchisees to operate Gap and Banana Republic stores
in many other countries worldwide.


GREAT SOUTHERN: Bendigo Bank to Sue Non-Paying Borrowers
--------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sweeney, writing for the Bendigo Advertiser, reports Bendigo
Bank has begun legal action against a dozen borrowers involved in
the failed Great Southern managed investment schemes.

A further 2300 loans have been credit listed as the Bendigo and
Adelaide Bank works to recoup more than $177 million from
borrowers refusing to pay.

Managing director Mike Hirst told the Bendigo Advertiser that
while most borrowers were continuing to repay their loans, a
number involved in a class action against Great Southern with
Macpherson + Kelley Lawyers were refusing.

Mr. Hirst has sent a letter to more than 1300 investors declaring
failure to continue repayments could put personal assets at risk
and lead to bankruptcy.

Debts from borrowers involved in the failed managed investment
schemes started at $574 million in May last year when Great
Southern collapsed under hundreds of millions of dollars debt.

"Now there's $453 million owing," Mr. Hirst said.

"The majority of investors are still paying, it's mainly those
involved in the class action."

Mr. Hirst said it was in the bank and borrowers' best interest for
loans to be repaid quickly.

"People are expected to pay compound interest and the longer it
takes the more compound interest (is payable)," he said.

Macpherson + Kelley Lawyers are considering up to 15 class
actions, but just one, which covers two of the agribusiness
investment schemes, has been lodged with the Victorian Supreme
Court.

Investors alleged Great Southern failed to disclose facts about
the long-term sustainability of the project and that as a
consequence the loans provided by Bendigo Bank were void and
unenforceable.

Mr. Hirst said the class action was out of their hands.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Settles 3 Inkjet Printer Suits in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. has entered into an agreement to settle three
suits over the "smart chip" used in certain inkjet printing
products, 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 is involved in lawsuits the alleges breach of express
and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and
unfair business practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among
other things, that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet
printing products in order to register ink depletion prematurely
and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration
date that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to
consumers, or both.  The plaintiffs have also contended that
consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart
chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its
full capacity or to choose competitive products.

                       Blennis v. HP

The lawsuit was filed on Jan. 17, 2007 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California where the plaintiffs are
seeking class certification, restitution, damages (including
enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees.  A class certification hearing was scheduled for
May 21, 2010 but was taken off of the calendar.

                        Rich v. HP

The lawsuit was filed against HP on May 22, 2006 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The suit
alleges that HP designed its color inkjet printers to
unnecessarily use color ink in addition to black ink when printing
black and white images and text.  The plaintiffs are seeking to
certify a nationwide injunctive class and a California-only
damages class.

A class certification hearing was scheduled for May 7, 2010 but
was taken off of the calendar.

                     Consolidated Suit

A consolidated lawsuit captioned In re HP Inkjet Printer
Litigation is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California where the plaintiffs are seeking class
certification, restitution, damages (including enhanced damages),
injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

On Jan. 4, 2008, the court heard plaintiffs' motions for class
certification and to add a class representative and HP's motion
for summary judgment.

On July 25, 2008, the court denied all three motions.  On March
30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class
certification.  A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification scheduled for April 9, 2010 was postponed.

                    Settlement Agreement

On Aug. 25, 2010, HP and the plaintiffs in In re HP Inkjet Printer
Litigation, Blennis v. HP and Rich v. HP entered into an agreement
to settle those lawsuits on behalf of the proposed classes, which
agreement is subject to approval of the court before it becomes
final.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the lawsuits will be
consolidated, and eligible class members will each have the right
to obtain e-credits not to exceed $5 million in the aggregate for
use in purchasing printers or printer supplies through HP's
website.

As part of the proposed settlement, HP also agreed to provide
class members with additional information regarding HP inkjet
printer functionality and to change the content of certain
software and user guide messaging provided to users regarding the
life of inkjet printer cartridges.  In addition, class counsel and
the class representatives will be paid attorneys' fees and
expenses and stipends in an amount that is yet to be approved by
the court.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider
of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs)
and large enterprises, including customers in the government,
health and education sectors.  The company's offerings span multi-
vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and
business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance,
application development and support services, and consulting and
integration services; enterprise information technology
infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server
technology, networking products and resources, and software that
optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and
other access devices, and imaging and printing-related products
and services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Defends Three Class Actions in Canada
------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. and its subsidiary, Hewlett-Packard (Canada)
Co., defend three class actions in Canada, 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.

Four class actions against HP and its subsidiary were filed in
Canada:

     -- one commenced in British Columbia in February 2006,

     -- two commenced in Quebec in April 2006 and May 2006,
        respectively, and

     -- one commenced in Ontario in June 2006.

The lawsuits alleges breach of express and implied warranty,
unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and unfair business
practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among other things,
that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet printing
products in order to register ink depletion prematurely and to
render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration date
that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to
consumers, or both.  The plaintiffs contend that consumers
received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart chip
limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its full
capacity or to choose competitive products.  The plaintiffs seek
class certification, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive
relief and unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive
damages.

A class authorization hearing for one of the cases pending in
Quebec was tentatively scheduled for Dec. 10, 2009; that hearing
has been postponed and no new date has been set by the court.

In March 2010, one of the Quebec cases was voluntarily dismissed
by the plaintiff.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider
of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs)
and large enterprises, including customers in the government,
health and education sectors.  The company's offerings span multi-
vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and
business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance,
application development and support services, and consulting and
integration services; enterprise information technology
infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server
technology, networking products and resources, and software that
optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and
other access devices, and imaging and printing-related products
and services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Inks Agreement to Settle "Bagget" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. has entered into an agreement to settle the
matter Kelsea Baggett v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al., 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 suit is a consumer class action filed against HP on June 6,
2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California alleging that HP employs a technology in its LaserJet
color printers whereby the printing process shuts down
prematurely, thus preventing customers from using the toner that
is allegedly left in the cartridge.

The plaintiffs also allege that HP fails to disclose to consumers
that they will be unable to utilize the toner remaining in the
cartridge after the printer shuts down.

The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of
purchasers of all HP LaserJet color printers and seeks unspecified
damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys'
fees and costs.

On Sept. 29, 2009, the court granted HP's motion for summary
judgment against the named plaintiff and denied plaintiff's motion
for class certification as moot.

On Nov. 3, 2009, the court entered judgment against the named
plaintiff.

On Nov. 17, 2009, plaintiff filed an appeal of the court's summary
judgment ruling with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

On Aug. 25, 2010, HP and the plaintiff entered into an agreement
to settle the lawsuit on behalf of the proposed class, which
agreement is subject to approval of the court before it becomes
final.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement, eligible class
members will each have the right to obtain e-credits not to exceed
$5 million in the aggregate for use in purchasing printers or
printer supplies through HP's website.  In addition, class counsel
and the class representative will be paid attorneys' fees and
expenses and stipends in an amount that is yet to be approved by
the court.

The suit is Kelsea Baggett v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al., Case
No. 07-cv-00667 (C.D. Calif.) (Guilford, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
         KABATECK BROWN KELLNER
         644 South Figueroa Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Phone: (213) 217-5000
         E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com

              - and -

         Darren T Kaplan, Esq.
         CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES
         1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2300
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Phone: (404) 873-3900
         E-mail: dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com

Representing the defendant are:

         Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq.
         GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: (213) 229-7000
         E-mail: sliversidge@gibsondunn.com

              - and -

         Robert Particelli, Esq.
         MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         1701 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: (215) 963-5000
         Fax: 215-963-5001
         E-mail: rparticelli@morganlewis.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Steavens" Suit Consolidated with "Cunningham"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The matter Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
Corporation, has been consolidated with Cunningham and Cunningham,
et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, for pretrial
purposes, 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.

Hewlett-Packard Co.'s subsidiary, Electronic Data Systems
Corporation, faces several purported class actions alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other
damages based on allegations that various employees of EDS or HP
have been misclassified as exempt employees under the FLSA.

Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
Corporation is a purported collective action filed on May 10,
2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York claiming that current and former EDS employees involved in
installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were
misclassified as exempt employees.

Another purported collective action, Steavens, et al. v.
Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on Oct. 23,
2007, is also now pending in the same court alleging similar
facts.  The Steavens case has been consolidated for pretrial
purposes with the Cunningham case.

A third purported collective action, Azar v. Electronic Data
Systems Corporation, which was filed in the same court on February
20, 2009, has been settled.  Under the terms of the  Azar
settlement, HP agreed to pay an amount that is immaterial to HP.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider
of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs)
and large enterprises, including customers in the government,
health and education sectors.  The company's offerings span multi-
vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and
business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance,
application development and support services, and consulting and
integration services; enterprise information technology
infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server
technology, networking products and resources, and software that
optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and
other access devices, and imaging and printing-related products
and services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Plaintiffs' Appeal on California Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the ruling granting summary
judgment in favor of Hewlett-Packard Co.'s subsidiary, Electronic
Data Systems Corporation, remains pending, 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 plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other
damages based on allegations that various employees of EDS or HP
have been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and/or the California Labor Code.

Heffelfinger, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a
class action filed in November 2006, in California Superior Court,
claiming that certain EDS information technology workers in
California were misclassified exempt employees.

The case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, which, on Jan. 7, 2008,
certified a class of information technology workers in California.

On June 6, 2008, the court granted the defendant's motion for
summary judgment.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is
pending.

Two other purported class actions originally filed in California
Superior Court, Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
Corporation, which was filed on March 16, 2009, and George, et al.
v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on April
2, 2009, allege similar facts.  The  Karlbom case is pending in
San Diego County Superior Court, and the  George case is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
and has been consolidated for pretrial purposes with the
Cunningham and  Steavens cases.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider
of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs)
and large enterprises, including customers in the government,
health and education sectors.  The company's offerings span multi-
vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and
business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance,
application development and support services, and consulting and
integration services; enterprise information technology
infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server
technology, networking products and resources, and software that
optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and
other access devices, and imaging and printing-related products
and services.


HYDRO-QUEBEC: Faces Class Suit Over Computerized Billing Problems
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Moore, writing for The Montreal Gazette, reports Quebecers
are being overbilled, underbilled or not billed at all because of
problems with Hydro-Quebec's new $500-million customer-service
computer network, plaintiffs in a proposed class-action lawsuit
contend.

Those opting for Hydro's equalized payment plan have been
particularly plagued by billing problems, according to legal
documents filed at the Montreal courthouse Thursday.

There are two representative claimants; one woman who didn't
receive a bill for months and one woman who was overbilled.

According to the class-action request filed by the Montreal law
firm of Paquette Gadler Inc., the utility has received 160,000
consumer complaints about billing since the system was installed
in 2008.

Should the class-action suit be accepted by a judge, claimants
would be seeking moral, exemplary and punitive damages in addition
to expenses they incurred because of incorrect billing.

The final bill for Hydro-Quebec, which has about 2.8 million
residential clients, could be substantial.

Lawyers representing Hydro-Quebec had not received copies of the
court documents Thursday evening, said a utility spokesperson who
had no comment to make regarding the matter.

This summer, a Quebec Superior Court judge authorized a class-
action suit against Hydro-Quebec that was launched by the same
legal firm.

That suit, pertaining to late charges and interest fees, could
cost the utility between $65 million and $100 million, lawyer John
Gadler said.

Hydro-Quebec's new invoice format, instituted as the utility's new
computer network came on line, generated waves of complaints to
consumer groups.

A 2008 account in The Gazette quoted a utility spokesperson as
saying that Hydro's new customer-services network, which
incorporated about 200 different systems, required some fine-
tuning.

According to the court documents filed Thursday, Hydro-Quebec has
failed to live up to its promise of quality customer service and
transparency in its dealings with the public.

Customers who sought equalized payment plans often did so in a bid
to manage their budgets and avoid "unpleasant surprises" in the
monthly bills, the suit noted.

Adding insult to injury, some clients could have been overbilled
and then charged fees as a consequence of the computer glitches.

The claim cites the case of a legal secretary who did not receive
a utility bill between October 2008 and June 2009.

After a $822.43 bill arrived, she was told to wait until matters
were resolved only to receive, in July 2010, a bill for over
$4,300 that included "administration" fees.

Her co-claimant, a member of the Quebec Order of Chemists, was
overbilled despite efforts to tender accurate readings of her
meter to the utility, according to the claim.

The original cost estimate for Hydro-Quebec revamped computer
network was about $270 million, but that amount grew to about $500
million, the documents say.

If the class-action suit is accepted by the courts, claimants
would have to prove damages, Mr. Gadler said in an interview.


INCO INC: Appeals $36 Million Award in Pollution Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daryl-Lynn Carlson at The Financial Post reports the first Ontario
environmental class action to make it through a full trial before
a judge is now heading to the province's Court of Appeal.

Smith v. Inco has piqued interest in the legal community after a
101-day trial in the Ontario Superior Court.  In July, Justice
Joseph Henderson awarded $36 million.

The plaintiffs alleged that an Inco Inc. nickel refinery, which
operated between 1916 and 1984, caused contamination and reduced
property values for almost 8,000 residents living near Port
Colborne and Welland in southern Ontario. Vale later purchased
Inco.

Alan Lenczner, Esq., of Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin, along
with Larry Lowenstein, Esq., of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt,
represent Inco. Mr. Lenczner said they have appealed several
aspects of Justice Henderson's ruling.

Mr. Lenczner noted the judge found that "Inco engaged in a lawful
business operation in Port Colborne for many years," had complied
with Ministry of Environment regulations and "reduced emissions of
nickel from its refinery over time and eventually ceased nickel
emissions altogether in 1984."

Mr. Lenczner said "where the nickel particles have blended into
the soil and become invisible without creating toxicity, there
cannot be any physical damage to property, let alone material
physical damage."

The trial judge found liability against Inco on the basis of
Rylands v. Fletcher, a landmark 1868 English tort case dealing
with the legal responsibilities a commercial business has to its
neighbors.

In referring to the case, Justice Henderson wrote, "the nickel and
nickel particles are not dangerous per se, but an escape of these
elements from the Inco lands has the potential to cause damage to
neighboring properties. This satisfies the second element of a
Rylands claim."

In his appeal, Mr. Lenczner argues that legal test set out in
Rylands should not apply to a "permitted, regulated, industrial
activity where there is no escape of a dangerous substance and
where the emissions occurred over a period of 66 years."

The trial judge also found that, between 1999 and 2008, house
prices on average rose by 63.85% in Welland and by 59.5% in Port
Colborne -- a difference of 4.35% over a decade. The trial judge
compensated the class by that percentage, or $4,514 per property,
for 7,965 residential properties.

Mr. Lenczner said "this small variation between comparable
communities over 10 years, which constitutes a difference of less
than one-half of a per cent per year, does not imply the
consequence of nickel emissions."

Kirk Baert, Esq., from Koskie Minsky in Toronto, along with Eric
Gillespie, Esq., of Cunningham & Gillespie, represented the
plaintiffs. Mr. Baert said the case is significant because most
reach a settlement long before going to trial.

He said it took six years just to get the case certified in
Ontario. The first two levels of courts declined certification,
but the Ontario Court of Appeal gave it the green light. The
Supreme Court of Canada denied any further appeal.

"The trial decision shows that these cases are do-able," Mr. Baert
said . "They will be long and complicated, but you have to
persevere."

He said the case exemplifies the benefits of class actions. "This
really shows that the [Ontario Class Proceedings] Act is doing
what it's supposed to do and allowing hard, but meritorious, cases
to be litigated successfully," he said.

Gabrielle Kramer, of Borden Ladner Gervais, and colleague Barry
Glaspell wrote a paper about the court's decision.

They noted "The trial judge specifically rejected Inco's argument
that Rylands v. Fletcher is restricted to an isolated escape. The
judge concluded that if an unnatural substance is brought onto a
property which creates a potential danger for a neighbour, and the
substance escapes and causes damage, then there is no reason to
restrict Rylands v. Fletcher to a single isolated escape."

They noted also that Inco "unsuccessfully argued that a class
member is not entitled to make a claim for diminution of property
value unless they had sold or attempted to sell the property. On
an alternative analysis, the court could have found that property
was damaged when it was 'severely contaminated;' however, this
analysis would have likely resulted in the claims being out of
time."

In an interview, Ms. Kramer said the case is a "front-runner" and
she expected it would be appealed.

She said since no other environmental class actions have reached
trial in Ontario -- there have been several in Quebec --
ascertaining damages is challenging.

"It's difficult to find market evidence because there are very few
cases to look at," she said. "It's something that environmental
lawyers are all struggling with, so it will be very interesting
and helpful to get an appeal decision on this case."


INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES: Faces Price-Fixing Class Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Jamison at San Francisco Weekly reports a hangar-ful of
airlines is facing a class-action lawsuit filed in San Francisco
that alleges an "international conspiracy" to fix prices and bilk
travelers.

The suit was filed Tuesday last week in U.S. District Court by San
Francisco resident Caroline Joy, who is represented by the law
firm Moscone Emblidge & Sater LLP.  It names numerous
international airlines as defendants, including Air France, Air
New Zealand, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Qantas Airways, and Cathay
Pacific Airways.

The complaint asserts that these and other airlines "began
imposing air fare increases, including fuel surcharge increases,
on international air passengers at approximately the same time and
in the same amount."

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

The suit makes reference to a U.S. Justice Department
investigations into price-fixing against some of the defendant
airlines.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: First Aussie Joins Class Action v. DePuy Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Harper at the Australian Associated Press reports an
Australian man who is going back under the knife after having a
faulty hip replacement is the first in the country to join a
United States class action against pharmaceutical giant Johnson
and Johnson.

In August, DePuy Orthopaedics, an arm of Johnson & Johnson,
recalled two versions of its ASR model artificial hip implant due
to a high early failure rate.

The recall could affect up to 93,000 people worldwide, with one in
every eight recipients requiring a replacement within five years.

Brisbane-based Bob Lugton, 66, is the first Australian to join a
group action being brought in the US against the manufacturer.

Mr. Lugton, whose health has been severely compromised through
leakage of cobalt into his body and degradation of the hip joint,
will go under the surgeon's knife again in October.

His replacement hip should have lasted for 15 to 20 years, but
just 18 months after his initial operation in January 2008, his
health began to deteriorate.

Unless he has the second operation, which will be risky in itself,
he has been told he will not walk and the hip could snap inside
his leg.

"My implant will crack off the top of my femur bone," he told
reporters at a media conference with his solicitor.

But another worrying problem is the high cobalt levels, which for
him are 750 per cent above normal levels.

"The cobalt is eating away my bones," said the grandfather of
five.

"My other hip area is now painful. I have pain in the bone area in
my foot and I have terrible problems with my eyes now.

"The effect it has on your life is pretty devastating."

He has lost about 15% of his fitness and it has restricted his
time with his young grandchildren, two of whom were with him on
the day, two-year-old Angus and five-year-old Khloe Lugton.

Mr. Lugton said he was not suing for the money, but to alert
others to the potentially life-threatening problem of undergoing
repetitive surgery and the unknown side-effects from the cobalt.

Shine Lawyers' solicitor Rebecca Jancauskas, who is representing
Mr. Lugton, said they expected up to 700 Australians to be
affected out of the 5000 implants that have been inserted.

"Bob is the first Australian to join a group legal action in the
United States against DePuy Orthopaedics, an arm of Johnson &
Johnson," Ms. Jancauskas said.

"This has the hallmarks of being one of the biggest medical stuff-
ups this country has seen."

Ms. Jancauskas said she was unaware of how many people had so far
joined the class action in the US, but estimated it to be in the
hundreds.

"It is fair to say that this could become a multi-million-dollar
lawsuit," she said.

"I encourage DePuy to act swiftly to put this right."

Mr. Lugton said he would have to fork out the money for his second
operation but is lucky to have private health insurance.

Despite DePuy having recalled the products, they have said they
would only consider reimbursing for the surgery if the patient
paid upfront and then handed over all their X-rays and prothesis.

The Australian Orthopaedic Association (AOA) has said figures
released on Thursday show hip replacement operations are among the
most successful major medical procedures, despite the recall.

In the past five years, slightly more than 1000 patients have been
fitted with the ASR Resurfacing Device and fewer than 4000 have
the ASR Conventional Hip Device.

Comment was being sought from Johnson & Johnson.


KINDER MORGAN: $200 Million Shareholder Settlement Proposed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable David E. Bruns will convene a hearing at 9:30 a.m.
on Nov. 12, 2010, to consider the fairness of a $200 million
settlement proposed in In re Kinder Morgan, Inc., Shareholder
Litigation, Consolidated Case No. 06-C-801 (Kan. Dist. Ct., Div.
12, Shawnee Cty.).  The proposed settlement applies to holders of
KMI shares May 20, 2006 -- the date KMI publicly announced its
receipt of a proposal to purchase all publicly held shares in KMI
-- and May 30, 2007 -- the closing date of the merger by whcih all
SMI shares were exchanged for $107.50 per share.

Proofs of claim must be filed by Dec. 17, 2010.  The Garden City
Group is serving as the Claims Administrator.

Objections to the settlement pact must be filed and served by
Oct. 26, 2010.

Additional reporting about this litigation appeared in the Class
Action Reporter on Aug. 25, 2010.


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Securities Suit in Texas Still in Early Stages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The matter styled Material Yard Workers Local 1175 Benefit Funds,
et al. v. The Men's Wearhouse, Inc., Case No. 4:09-cv-03265,
remains in its early stages, 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. 8, 2009, the company was named in a federal securities
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The class period alleged in the complaint runs from March 7, 2007
to Jan. 9, 2008.  The primary allegations are that the company
issued false and misleading press releases regarding its guidance
for fiscal year 2007 on various occasions during the alleged class
period.  The complaint seeks damages based on the decline in the
company's stock price following the announcement of lowered
guidance on Oct. 10, 2007, Nov. 28, 2007, and Jan. 9, 2008.

The case is in its early stages and discovery has not begun.

The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. -- http://www.menswearhouse.com/-- is a
specialty retailer of men's suits and a provider of tuxedo rental
product in the United States and Canada.  At Jan. 30, 2010, the
company operated 1,259 retail stores, with 1,142 stores in the
United States and 117 stores in Canada.  Its United States retail
stores are operated under the brand names of Men's Wearhouse (581
stores), Men's Wearhouse and Tux (454 stores) and K&G (107 stores)
in 47 states and the District of Columbia.  Its Canadian stores
are operated under the brand name of Moores Clothing for Men in 10
provinces.  It also operates a corporate apparel and uniform
program (operated as Twin Hill) and, in the Houston, Texas area, a
retail dry cleaning and laundry business (operated as MW
Cleaners).  At Jan. 30, 2010, it operated 581 Men's Wearhouse
apparel stores in 47 states and the District of Columbia.  These
stores are referred to as Men's Wearhouse stores or traditional
stores.


MICROTUNE INC: Faces 5 Class Suits Over Zoran Merger in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
citybizlist Staff reports Microtune Inc. said shareholders against
its proposed acquisition by Zoran Corp. (Nasdaq: ZRAN) had filed
five purported class-action lawsuits alleging breach of fiduciary
duties by the company's board, according to an SEC filing.

The Plano, Texas-based developer of silicon tuners for set-top
boxes on Sept. 8 agreed to be acquired for $166 million by
Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Zoran, a developer of digital signal
processing technology with offices in Burlington, Mass.

Microtune said one class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas by Steven
Goldstein, an alleged stockholder; and four others were filed in
the state court of Collin County, Texas. Goldstein's suit names
the two companies and the board of Microtune as defendants and
seeks, among other things, an injunction against the consummation
of the merger.

The other lawsuits name as defendants Microtune, Zoran and its
subsidiary Maple. Two of them also name Microtune CFO Justin
Chapman.

Microtune is led by President and CEO James Fontaine, a 23-year
veteran of the electronics industry. Before joining Microtune, he
was president of the Fontaine Group, an incubating firm. From 1994
to 1996, James Fontaine held executive positions at Cirrus Logic
after his start-up Pixel Semiconductor was acquired by the
chipmaker.

Co-founder Dr. Levy Gerzberg leads Zoran as president and CEO.
Previously, he served as associate director of Stanford
University's Electronics Laboratory.


NOVA SCOTIA: Court Sets Hearing on Class Suit Boundaries in Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy King, writing for The Cape Breton Post, reports newly
defined boundaries for a class action lawsuit related to
contamination associated with the operation of the Sydney steel
plant and coke ovens site will be the subject of a Nova Scotia
Supreme Court hearing in December.

Ray Wagner, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said they are continuing
to work out new boundaries for the class. Justice John Murphy
issued a partial ruling in June indicating he will certify the
matter as a class-action but will only do so once the proposed
class -- residents and property owners within a 5.6 kilometre
radius of Victoria Road and Laurier Street -- is significantly
narrowed.

A new map will be filed with the courts by Nov. 19, and the
hearing will take place Dec. 16.

"It will be dealing with class boundaries and see if that is
satisfactory, in terms of what we propose," Mr. Wagner said. "The
defendants will have an opportunity to say that it should be
something different or shouldn't be something at all, I guess."

He added he expects Justice Murphy will likely rule on the day of
the hearing or shortly afterward.

Mr. Wagner wouldn't say in detail what they are now proposing for
boundaries, but still says it will be about 31% of the size of the
original proposal.

"Once we take out the industrial lands, that will even be reduced
more," he said. "We're hopeful it will be (satisfactory), and if
not we'll be asking the court what is satisfactory."

If Justice Murphy decides it is still too large, Mr. Wagner said
they'll then try again.

Mr. Wagner previously said the new boundaries will probably apply
to the core of Sydney, including the neighbourhoods of Whitney
Pier, Ashby and the north end, noting that given Sydney's
topography, the contaminants tended to follow water courses more
than wind patterns.

The lawsuit against Ottawa and the province was filed six years
ago. No defences have been filed and discovery hasn't yet taken
place. The representative plaintiffs are seeking some financial
compensation and a medical monitoring fund.

The class action will be certified on several causes of action --
for both residents and property owners on the basis of breach of
fiduciary duty, strict liability and nuisance, and for property
owners for negligence. Justice Murphy has also added negligent and
intentional battery and trespass.

Once Justice Murphy approves the boundaries, a certification order
will be filed and then they will move into discovery. Mr. Wagner
said there could be up to nine million documents disclosed by the
provincial and federal governments.

A trial looking at the issues common to the class will follow,
which could still be several years away.

"Unfortunately it has taken so long, not for lack of trying, I can
tell you that, but here we are now and we're going to follow this
through to the end," Mr. Wagner said.

It is the first environmental class action to be certified in the
province.

About 400 plaintiffs have signed on to the case to date.


NOVELL INC: Plaintiffs Dismiss Suits Against Board of Directors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in two purported class action lawsuits against Novell,
Inc.'s Board of Directors have agreed to voluntarily dismiss their
respective complaints, 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 two suits are:

     (1) Waldon v. Hovsepian; and
     (2) Fitzgerald v. Hovsepian.

The suits were filed March 5, 2010, in Massachusetts Superior
Court, Middlesex County.  The complaints name the company's Board
of Directors as defendants, and allege breaches of fiduciary
duties in connection with the unsolicited, conditional proposal
from Elliott Associates to acquire the company for $5.75 per share
in cash.  The complaints do not define a putative class period.

The plaintiffs seek to enjoin further alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and costs and attorneys' fees.

In July 2010, the plaintiffs agreed to a voluntary dismissal
without prejudice of the respective complaints.

Novell, Inc. -- http://www.novell.com/-- through its
infrastructure software and ecosystem of business partnerships,
integrate mixed information technology  (IT) environments,
allowing people and technology to work as one.  The company has
four segments: Open Platform Solutions, Identity and Security
Management, Systems and Resource Management, and Workgroup.


NOVELL INC: Notices of Appeal on Settlement Approval Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
yet to decide on the notices of appeal filed by certain parties in
a consolidated amended class action complaint against
SilverStream, which Novell, Inc., acquired in July 2002.  The
notices of appeal were filed in connection with the Court's final
approval of a settlement agreement resolving the complaint,
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.

SilverStream and several of its former officers and directors, as
well as the underwriters who handled SilverStream's two public
offerings, were named as defendants in several class action
complaints that were filed on behalf of certain former
stockholders of SilverStream who purchased shares of SilverStream
common stock between Aug. 16, 1999, and Dec. 6, 2000.

These complaints are closely related to several hundred other
complaints that the same plaintiffs have brought against other
issuers and underwriters.

These complaints all allege violations of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.

In particular, they allege, among other things, that there was
undisclosed compensation received by the underwriters of the
public offerings of all of the issuers, including SilverStream.

A Consolidated Amended Complaint with respect to all of these
complaints was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District
of New York, on April 19, 2002.

Various parties participated in settlement discussions and reached
a proposed settlement agreement.

This agreement received preliminary approval from the Court in
June 2009.

After notice to the plaintiff class, the settlement agreement
received final approval from the Court on Sept. 10, 2009.

Certain parties have filed Notices of Appeal from the Court's
decision.

Novell, Inc. -- http://www.novell.com/-- through its
infrastructure software and ecosystem of business partnerships,
integrate mixed information technology  (IT) environments,
allowing people and technology to work as one.  The company has
four segments: Open Platform Solutions, Identity and Security
Management, Systems and Resource Management, and Workgroup.


PINNACLE SPORTS: Accused in N.J. Suit of Deceptive Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Pinnacle Sports Equipment
sells a Triad Titanium Necklace by claiming it can boost energy
levels, improve metabolism, and so on, a class action claims in
Bergen County Court, Hackensack, N.J.

A copy of the Complaint in Hoffman v. Pinnacle Sports Equipment,
Inc., Case No. 8330-10 (N.J. Super. Ct., Bergen Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/16/PullIt.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harold M. Hoffman, Esq.
          240 Grand Ave.
          Englewood, NJ 07631
          Telephone: 201-569-0086
          E-mail: hoffman.esq@verizon.net


QUALITY EGG: Sued in Iowa Over Alleged Salmonella Poisoning
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that six named plaintiffs filed a
class action against Quality Egg dba Wright County Egg and
Hillandale Farms of Iowa, alleging salmonella poisoning, in
Chicago Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Dwyer, et al. v. Quality Egg, LLC,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-05847 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/16/BadEggs.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Pamela G. Sotoodeh, Esq.
          Kurt D. Hyzy, Esq.
          THE LAW GROUP, LTD.
          Three First National Plaza, 50th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-558-6444


RINGLEADER DIGITAL: Faces Class Suit Alleging Privacy Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Kravets, writing for Wired.com, reports a New York mobile-
web advertising company was hit Wednesday with a proposed class
action lawsuit over its use of an HTML5 trick to track iPhone and
iPad users across a number of websites, in what is believed to be
the first privacy lawsuit of its kind in the mobile space.

The company, Ringleader Digital, uses HTML5's client-side
database-storage capability as a substitute for the traditional
cookie tracking employed by all major online ad companies. Mobile
Safari users visiting sites with Ringleader ads are assigned a
unique ID number which is stored by the browser, and recalled by
Ringleader whenever they revisit.

But the tracker, labeled RLDGUID, does not go away when one clears
cookies from the browser. Ars Technica reported two weeks ago that
users savvy enough to find and delete the database have found it
returning mysteriously with the same ID number as before -- a
result the lawyers suing Ringleader say they've reproduced.

"You can't get rid of that database," says Majed Nachawati, a
Dallas attorney behind the Ringleader lawsuit. "You're left with
this database tracking you and your phone and your viewing habits
on the net, which is a violation of federal privacy laws."

Ringleader said it committed no wrongdoing. "To the extent that
the plaintiffs are alleging that Ringleader violated any laws
relating to consumers' privacy, Ringleader intends to defend its
practices vigorously," Bob Walczak, CEO of Ringleader Digital,
said in an e-mail.

The lawsuit lodged Wednesday in Los Angeles federal court also
names as defendants a number of companies who'd allegedly been
serving the Ringleader trackers on the mobile versions of their
sites: Surfline, WhitePages.com, The Travel Channel, CNN Money,
Go2 and Merriam-Webster's dictionary site.

The lawsuit comes in the wake of a similar suit filed in July
against MTV, ESPN, MySpace, Hulu, ABC, NBC and Scribd for using
storage in Adobe's Flash player to re-create cookies deleted by
users of nonmobile devices, allegedly in violation of federal
computer-intrusion law.

In Threat Level's testing Thursday, the RLDGUID uncookie was still
being served from The Travel Channel, Go2 and Merriam-Webster, but
not the other sites named in the lawsuit. In Wired.com's tests,
the database entry did not reappear. It's not known if Ringleader
has changed its system's behavior.

HTML5's database storage is a highly touted feature designed to
allow websites to locally store data on the user's computer -- a
boon for offline use of a browser app.

The Ringleader site provides an opt-out action that can be
implemented by pointing your mobile phone's browser to a special
page on its website referenced in its privacy policy. How anybody
would know that is unclear, because the sites in Ringleaders
networks do not inform consumers of that fact, according to the
lawsuit.

"Please note that opting out does not stop advertisements from
being served to your mobile device, rather, it prevents us from
associating non-personally identifiable data with your device's
browser starting from the time you implement the opt-out utility,"
reads Ringleader's opt-out page. "It does not affect data
collected prior to that time."


SUN LIFE OF CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over Disability Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------------
An occupationally disabled woman suffering from severe back injury
has filed a motion seeking class action certification on behalf of
fellow policyholders in a lawsuit against Sun Life Financial
Assurance Company of Canada, claiming that Sun Life violated
insurance reforms issued by the State of Michigan's Insurance
Commissioner and applicable to disability insurance contracts
delivered within the state.  The lawsuit seeks class action status
for all persons who were covered under short and long-term
disability contracts issued by Sun Life after June 1, 2007 and
which contained so-called "discretionary proof" clauses, and had
their claims denied by Sun Life.

The lawsuit against Sun Life seeks to overturn all denied,
suspended, or terminated claims, and require the company to
reimburse policyholders for their lost benefits.

The lawsuit was filed by Reyna Allen, a former hourly employee for
a pharmaceutical company, whose disability claim was denied after
several attempts to overturn the denial using Sun Life's mandated
appeals process failed.  After Ms. Allen exhausted the company's
internal appeals, Sun Life claimed that it was "not satisfied"
that Ms. Allen's medical condition had caused a loss of income.

The 2008 disability insurance contract issued by Sun Life to Ms.
Allen contained a discretionary proof clause requiring that "Proof
must be satisfactory to Sun Life."  The lawsuit alleges that the
contract was issued in violation of insurance regulations and that
Sun Life was deciding claims using the illegal clauses.  For
years, Sun Life maintained that the language "unambiguously
conferred" it with the discretion to decide whose claims it would
or would not pay.

Discretionary clauses have been the subject of intense scrutiny by
state regulators and insurance commissioners.  The clauses provide
that an insurer will pay a disability claim only if it is
"satisfied" with the policyholder's proof.  Many insured persons
claim that despite extensive proof of medical disability,
including surgical reports, treatment records, and doctors'
affidavits, Sun Life and other insurers are "never satisfied,"
leaving them without disability coverage.  Other states have
called discretionary clauses "misleading" and say that they
overwhelmingly favor the insurer against policyholders.

On June 1, 2007, the State of Michigan Insurance Commissioner
outlawed the insertion of any discretionary clauses in disability
contracts delivered within the state.  The insurance industry
challenged the Michigan regulation, and on March 18, 2009, a
federal appeals court decision found that the Michigan regulation
was valid and lawful in American Council of Life Insurers v. Ross,
558 F.3d 600 (6th Cir. 2009).

"Discretionary clauses have been used by Sun Life and other
insurance companies to wrongfully deny valid disability claims for
many years," said John J. Conway, one of the attorneys
representing Ms. Allen. "This is the reason that they were
outlawed."

"Our litigation seeks to stop Sun Life from using these illegal
clauses against hard-working people dealing with a medical
condition and loss of their income.  When a person has private
insurance when illness or injury strikes, they should not be
forced onto public assistance," said Mr. Conway.

"The class we seek to represent are people who acted responsibly.
They purchased insurance coverage in the event that they became
sick or injured. The class action motion seeks to stop Sun Life
from wrongfully denying claims by holding its policyholders to a
higher level of proof than Michigan law requires," said Gerard
Mantese, one of the attorneys representing Ms. Allen.

"Insurers, like Sun Life, are hurting our residents when they are
most vulnerable. As a result, everyone in Michigan suffers because
these individuals cannot pay their medical bills, their house
payments, or car payments.  Often times, these residents file for
bankruptcy, their homes fall into foreclosure, and the only place
to turn is to public assistance.  All the while they had insurance
that was supposed to protect them," said Mr. Conway.

"A class certification will force Sun Life to comply with Michigan
law or stop selling their insurance contracts within our State,"
concluded Mr. Mantese.

The case is Allen v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Case
No. 10-12043 (E.D. Mich.).  The case is before the Honorable John
Corbett O'Meara.

Contact:

     John J. Conway, Esq.
     JOHN J. CONWAY, PC
     26622 Woodward Ave., Ste. 225
     Royal Oak, MI 48067
     Telephone: 313-961-6525
     Cellphone: 313-574-2148

          - and -

     Gerard Mantese, Esq.
     MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN AND WILLIAMSON, PC
     1361 E. Big Beaver
     Troy, MI 48083
     Telephone: 248-457-9200
     Cellphone: 248-515-6419


TARGET CORP: Court Orders Parties to Submit Briefing Schedule
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The St. Clair County Record reports the
parties in a slow-moving 2008 class action suit in St. Clair
County against Target are moving forward again.

A case management conference on Sept. 8 saw the first action in
the suit since last year.

St. Clair County Circuit Judge Patrick Young signed an order
giving the parties in the case 30 days to submit a briefing
schedule to him on the issue of class certification in the suit
led by led plaintiff Brian Buehlhorn.

If the parties can't agree on that schedule, Judge Young will take
up the matter Oct. 20 at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. Buehlhorn is leading one of several proposed class actions
filed against Target and other retailers over the effectiveness of
their immune system supplements.

All of the suits were filed by the same team of attorneys
including Paul Weiss of Chicago and Richard Burke of St. Louis.

In his suit, Mr. Buehlhorn claims that Target's Immunity
Supplement does not boost the immune system as claimed.

While a class has yet to be certified in the case, the plaintiff
successfully added claims from Minnesota, California and Florida
last year.

There were no filings in the case after October of last year until
the Sept. 8 order.

The suit seeks damages not to exceed $75,000 per individual class
member.

The defendant is represented by Robert Bassett, Esq., and others.

The case is St. Clair case number 08-L-667.


YORK UNIVERSITY: Law Firm Mulls Appeal of Certification Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cassandra Chin, contributor for Excalibur, reports a lawsuit
against York University that was seeking $250 million in damages
associated with losses endured by students during the CUPE 3903
strike almost two years ago was turned down Sept. 9.

Juroviesky LLP, the law firm representing the York students who
petitioned for the lawsuit, is currently deciding whether to
appeal the decision.

Kevin Caspersz, a representative for Juroviesky LLP, said that the
Honourable Ontario Superior Court Justice Maurice Cullity denied
the certication of the case.

"[Juroviesky LLP] felt we had a good chance this time and that it
is still a good case," said Mr. Caspersz.

He said that the judge's decision was final and that there would
be no further reimbursements towards the students.

Alex Bilyk, York director of media relations, said that York
stands behind the court's decision.

Following a teaching assistant union strike that closed the
university for three months in the 2008-2009 academic year, the
longest ever for an English-speaking university, then-fourth-year
student Jonathan Turner led a class action lawsuit against York
administration.

More than 5,000 students joined the suit by signing up online at
yorktookmymoney.com.

According to Mr. Caspersz, the lawsuit claimed damages of a
compressed academic year (from 26 weeks of study to 23 weeks),
loss of the February reading week, intrusion into summer jobs and
loss of rent, parking fees and tuition.

Krisna Saravanamuttu, president of the York Federation of Students
(YFS), said that while it is unfortunate students could not
receive some money back, the student union did launch a tuition
refund campaign in which York participated willingly, agreeing to
compensate students with credits for classes they may have missed.
The YFS also demanded a 12% refund from the York administration
for all tuition fees paid by full and part-time students, which
was denied.

Peter Shurman Thornhill MPP, backed students during the strike and
urged CUPE 3903 to return to work.

"I don't blame the students for taking action," he said. "They
deserve compensation."  Mr. Shurman stated that if his team wins
the upcoming election, the issue of union petitions at the
university level will be brought to the table.

"With 50,000 students held at bay, with no voice -- especially
when only a particular union has a grievance -- it has to be
addressed in a method that doesn't put the students education on
hold, [and still] satisfies the demands of the union."

Mr. Saravanamuttu agreed.

"The employer and workers need to speak to each other in good
faith to avoid labour disruptions," he said.

                             *********

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  * * *