CAR_Public/100922.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 22, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 187

                             Headlines

1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Settlement Agreement Gets Final Approval
ADVANTA CORP: Suit Against Officers Removed to Eastern Penn.
ADVANTA CORP: Removed as Defendant in Steamfitters Suit
ADVANTA CORP: Removed as Defendant in ERISA-Violations Suit
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Court Limits Scope of Class in "Jimenez" Suit

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Webb Klase Files Class Suit Over Interest Rates
ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Faces Class Suit Over Data Security Breach
AON CONSULTING: Delaware State Retirees Swamp Lawyers With Calls
ASHLEY FURNITURE: Faces Class Suit on Overtime Pay Miscalculation
ASOTIN COUNTY: Settles Jail Booking Fee Litigation for $31,000

BLUE CROSS: Sued for Exposing Customers to Identity Theft
BURLINGTON COAT: Recalls 10,000 Hooded Jackets and Sweatshirts
CALIFORNIA CONVALESCENT: Accused in Calif. of Not Paying Overtime
CHALMETTE REFINING: Mishandled Hazardous Chemicals, Suit Alleges
CHINA-BIOTICS: Rosen Firm Files Securities Class Suit in Calif.

CLOROX CO: Settles Toilet Bowl Cleaner Litigation for $8 Million
COMPONENT HARDWARE: Settles Class Suit for $2.5 Million
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Receives Copy of "Karam" California Suit
ESURANCE INSURANCE: Faces Class Suit Over "Under-Insured" Policies
EXPRESS INC: Estimates Possible Exposure to Suit at $1.9-$3.4MM

FOX CO: Employees' Bankruptcy Claims Must Be Filed by Oct. 15
GENERAL GROWTH: Court to Hold Fairness Hearing on December 9
INTERNATIONAL COFFEE: Recalls 1,600 Tea Sets
LOWE'S HOME: Settles Dryer Duct Litigation for $3.85 Million
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Final Okay of "Stephens" Settlement Pending

LULULEMON ATHLETICA: "Kohlenberg" Settlement Final Okay Pending
MAGMA DESIGN: Appellate Court Says Genesis Doesn't Owe Amount
MICROSOFT CORP: 9th Cir. Remands "Kelley" Suit to District Court
MOBILE CONTENT PROVIDERS: Settles Class Suits for $3.2 Million
MYREXIS INC: Not Named a Defendant in 2nd Amended Javelin Suit

PACIFIC GAS: Faces Class Suit Over San Bruno Explosion
PHILADELPHIA HOUSING: Sued Over Undisclosed Lobbying Activities
POM WONDERFUL: Faces Class Suit in Florida Over Health Claims
RECOLOGY INC: Removes "Daniels" Labor Complaint to N.D. Calif.
REMEC INC: No Ruling Yet on Agreement with Plaintiffs

RINGLEADER DIGITAL: Suit Complains About Media Stamp Program
SANOFI-AVENTIS: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
SEMTECH CORP: Calif. Court Certifies Securities Class Suit
SHORETEL INC: Settles Consolidated Securities Suit for $3-Mil.
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Settles Securities Suit; Hearing on Jan. 21

TOYS R US: Agrees to Settle Pennsylvania Consumer Suit


                             *********

1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Settlement Agreement Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court gave its final approval to
the settlement agreement resolving a suit against 1-800-
FLOWERS.COM, Inc., according to the company's Sept. 10, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended June 27, 2010.

On Dec. 21, 2007, plaintiff Thomas Molnar, on behalf of himself
and a putative class, filed suit against the company claiming
false advertising, unfair business practices, and unjust
enrichment seeking unspecified monetary damages.

The company admitted to no wrongdoing with respect to this matter,
but entered into a settlement agreement with the parties to this
matter in order to avoid protracted litigation.

The presiding trial Judge's Order Granting Final Approval of the
Class Action Settlement and Entry of Judgment was issued May 17,
2010.

The Company has sent out the applicable notices to the class
members, and the company accrued for the estimated cost of the
settlement of approximately $900,000 within its general and
administrative expenses.

1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. -- http://www.1800flowers.com/-- is the
world's leading florist and gift shop.  For more than 30 years, 1-
800-FLOWERS(R) (1-800-356-9377) has been providing customers with
fresh flowers and the finest selection of plants, gift baskets,
gourmet foods, confections, balloons and plush stuffed animals.


ADVANTA CORP: Suit Against Officers Removed to Eastern Penn.
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed against certain current and former executive
officers and directors of Advanta Corp. has been removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
according to the company's Sept. 10, 2010, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In June 2010, certain current and former executive officers and
directors of the company were named along with other unaffiliated
parties as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in
the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
Neither the company nor any of its subsidiaries was named as a
defendant.

This lawsuit was brought on behalf of William Underland and all
other similarly situated persons who purchased the company's
senior unsecured debt securities between June 24, 2007 and Nov. 8,
2009.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants made
misleading and inaccurate statements and failed to disclose
material information about the business and prospects of the
company and its subsidiaries in the registration statement under
which the Debt Securities were sold.  The complaint alleges that
plaintiff and other members of the purported class purchased Debt
Securities in reliance on defendants' allegedly misleading and
inaccurate statements and omissions during the Debt Securities
Class Period.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.

On July 23, 2010, the defendants removed the lawsuit to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Advanta Corp. -- http://www.advanta.com/-- has had a 59-year
history of being a leading innovator in the financial services
industry and of providing great value to its stakeholders,
including its senior retail note holders and shareholders, prior
to the recent reversals.  It has also been a major civic and
charitable force in the communities in which it is based,
particularly in the Greater Philadelphia area.


ADVANTA CORP: Removed as Defendant in Steamfitters Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Advanta Corp. has been removed as a defendant in an amended
complaint filed by the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund,
according to the company's Sept. 10, 2010, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In October 2009, the company and certain current or former
executive officers of the company, were named as defendants in a
purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  This lawsuit was
brought on behalf of Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund and all
other similarly situated stockholders who purchased the company's
Class A and/or Class B Common Stock between Oct. 31, 2006 and Nov.
27, 2007.

In August 2010, an amended complaint was filed removing the
company as a defendant, naming certain current and former
directors of the company and certain former officers of ABC as
additional defendants, and amending the Class Period to cover the
period between Oct. 16, 2006 and Jan. 30, 2008.

The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants made
false and misleading statements regarding the company's business
and financial results, which allegedly caused the plaintiff and
other members of the purported class to purchase shares of the
Company's Class A and Class B Common Stock at inflated prices
during the Class Period.  The amended complaint also alleges that
certain of the defendants sold shares for substantial gains during
the Class Period. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and such equitable/injunctive relief as the court
deems just and proper.

Advanta Corp. -- http://www.advanta.com/-- has had a 59-year
history of being a leading innovator in the financial services
industry and of providing great value to its stakeholders,
including its senior retail note holders and shareholders, prior
to the recent reversals.  It has also been a major civic and
charitable force in the communities in which it is based,
particularly in the Greater Philadelphia area.


ADVANTA CORP: Removed as Defendant in ERISA-Violations Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Advanta Corp. has been removed as a defendant in an amended
complaint alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, according to the company's Sept. 10, 2010, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In October and November 2009, the company and certain of its
directors and current or former officers were named as defendants
in purported class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

These lawsuits were brought on behalf of named plaintiffs Matthew
A. Ragan, Paula Hiatt, Pamela G. Yates and Joann Claflin and all
other similarly situated persons who were participants in or
beneficiaries of the Advanta Corp. Employee Stock Ownership Plan
and/or the Advanta Corp. Employee Savings Plan and whose Plan
investments included the company's common stock at any time
between Oct. 31, 2006 and Nov. 8, 2009.

In August 2010, an amended complaint was filed that consolidates
the lawsuits that were filed separately in 2009.  The amended
complaint also removes the company as a defendant and names
certain current or former officers of the company as additional
defendants.

The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to
prudently manage the Plans' investments in the company's
securities and by failing to avoid inherent conflicts of interest
resulting in losses to the Plans.  The lawsuit seeks compensation
for the Plans' losses in an unspecified amount.

Advanta Corp. -- http://www.advanta.com/-- has had a 59-year
history of being a leading innovator in the financial services
industry and of providing great value to its stakeholders,
including its senior retail note holders and shareholders, prior
to the recent reversals.  It has also been a major civic and
charitable force in the communities in which it is based,
particularly in the Greater Philadelphia area.


ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Court Limits Scope of Class in "Jimenez" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Jimenez alleges that Allstate Indemnity Company breached its
insurance contract when it calculated the value of Mr. Jimenez's
claim using the market value of his property rather than using the
replacement value less depreciation, capped at the policy's limit.
Jimenez's class certification motion is not due until November 29,
2010, but Allstate, apparently faced with overly broad discovery
requests, has moved preemptively to limit the scope of any class
later certified.  Allstate contends that any class should be
limited to a) Michigan policyholders with 2) dates of loss on or
after October 22, 2006, exactly one year before the complaint was
filed.

Mr. Jimenez moved to strike Allstate's motion on grounds that it
is a preemptive attempt to limit the scope of any class certified,
and therefore procedurally improper.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan denied Mr. Jimenez's motion, and granted in part and
denied in part Allstate's motion.

Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III, ruled that any class eventually
certified in the lawsuit Jimenez v. Allstate Indemnity Company,
Case No. 07-cv-14494, will exclude persons with landlord package
policies covering residences located in Michigan with dates of
loss before October 22, 2006.

A copy of the court's opinion is available for free at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100915a10


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Webb Klase Files Class Suit Over Interest Rates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta law firm Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC has filed a class
action lawsuit against American Express alleging that the company
unilaterally increased consumer interest rates in violation of the
applicable credit card agreements.  The complaint asserts that
these increases were contrary to American Express' long-standing
practice of tying its rates on many credit card accounts to the
Prime Rate, the interest rate charged by banks to their most
creditworthy customers. This commitment was established in the
company's form contracts and through years of consistent dealings
with customers according to the suit. The complaint states that
American Express raised rates even for consumers who have always
maintained their good standing by satisfying all account
requirements, such as making required payments and not exceeding
credit limits. Furthermore, the plaintiff claims American Express
has taken such action even against those whose credit scores and
general creditworthiness have not declined. The suit requests that
customers be refunded all excessive interest charges in addition
to several other forms of relief. The case, styled Meeks v.
American Express Centurion Bank, Inc., is pending in the Superior
Court of Fulton County, Georgia and has been assigned Case Number
2010CV190851.

According to the suit, for several years Mr. Meeks was charged a
"fixed-variable" interest rate equal to the Prime Rate plus a
"marginal rate" of 2.99 percent. In this manner, the plaintiff
claims the company's interest rates tracked the Prime Rate, moving
up when the Prime Rate climbed and down when the Prime Rate fell.
The complaint asserts that the company unilaterally ended this
practice in late 2008 and throughout 2009 by periodically
increasing customers' marginal rates such that -- even as the
Prime Rate fell to historic lows -- customers suffered higher and
higher interest charges. For example, Mr. Meeks' marginal rate
went from 2.99 percent to 11.99 percent and thus, even with the
Prime Rate at 3.25 percent, American Express charged him interest
of over 15 percent, according to the lawsuit. Mr. Meeks claims the
improper and excessive rate hikes have cost him hundreds of
dollars and more than doubled his monthly payments.

The lawsuit asserts that American Express imposed these higher
rates even on existing customer balances. In addition, the suit
alleges that American Express's offer that customers could reject
this interest rate increase by freezing or closing their credit
card accounts is inadequate because, as the company is well aware,
most consumers rely on their credit card accounts and closing any
credit line has a negative impact on a consumer's credit score. As
a result, the complaint contends that customers have been forced
to accept American Express' unilateral rate increases.


ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Faces Class Suit Over Data Security Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Helfand, writing for the Los Angeles Times, reports an
applicant for Anthem Blue Cross insurance has sued the giant
insurer over allegations that it failed to protect his
confidential information from computer hackers who gained access
to the company's internal records earlier this year.

The lawsuit, filed by Patrick Magorien of Sacramento, stems from a
security breach involving attorneys who were suing Anthem and
gained access to private information of people who had applied for
insurance.

Mr. Magorien says in his lawsuit that his Social Security number,
address and credit card numbers were released, potentially
exposing him to identity theft. Mr. Magorien had also provided
personal medical information to Anthem when he applied for
insurance in June 2009.

His suit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, seeks class
action status on behalf of others whose personal data were
compromised.

"I'm really concerned for me personally and for everyone else who
lost information," said Mr. Magorien, 25. "There is a lot of stuff
in there that is really important."

Anthem declined to comment on the lawsuit. But in a June 18 letter
to Mr. Magorien and in a subsequent public statement, the Woodland
Hills insurer said it addressed the problem as soon as it learned
about the breach. Anthem did not say how many people were
affected.

In the public statement, the company said: "Anthem Blue Cross is
committed to protecting the privacy and security of our members'
and applicants' personal information, in accordance with all
applicable laws and regulations."


AON CONSULTING: Delaware State Retirees Swamp Lawyers With Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
J.L. Miller, writing for The News Journal at Delaware Online,
reports the Wilmington lawyers handling the lawsuit against Aon
Consulting for inadvertently releasing state retirees' personal
information on the Internet are pleading: Don't call us, we'll
call you.

Bruce Hudson and Mark Billion, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of
Milton retiree Gail Slaughter and are seeking to have it certified
as a class-action lawsuit, said their phones have been ringing
with calls from pensioners wanting to know what they have to do to
become part of the lawsuit.

The short answer: They don't have to do anything.

"We are getting inundated with calls, understandably, from the
retirees," Mr. Hudson said.

Mr. Billion said there is no need for retirees to call. If the
lawsuit is certified as a class action -- something expected to
take months -- all 22,193 retirees will be notified.

At that point, they will be told that they are part of the
affected class, and they will be given an opportunity to opt out
if they wish. Otherwise, they will automatically be included in
the lawsuit.

"It's a pretty straightforward process. They don't need to contact
anyone," Mr. Billion said.

If the Superior Court lawsuit is certified as a class action,
Billion said, the case will go to trial or a settlement will be
reached.

If they win the case or there is a settlement, the pensioners
"will share in the rewards on an equal basis," he said.

The retirees' Social Security numbers were included in a request
for proposals that Aon, the state's benefits consultant, had
prepared to solicit bids from insurers interested in providing
vision coverage.

That document, which also included the retirees' age and gender,
but not their names, was posted on the state's procurement Web
site from Aug. 16 to Aug. 20 before it was discovered and removed.
The breach was disclosed on Aug. 30.

Catherine Kempista, spokeswoman for the Office of Management and
Budget, said calls from pensioners have slacked off, though they
surged two weeks ago when OMB sent a follow-up letter to retirees.
There have been no reports of any fraudulent activity on the
retirees' accounts, Ms. Kempista said.

The state has struck a deal with Aon to provide the retirees with
three years of free credit monitoring through Experian, one of the
three national credit bureaus.

The initial deal was for one year, but after an outcry from the
pensioners, who bombarded the state, Aon, Experian and The News
Journal with phone calls, that offer was extended to three years.

Ms. Kempista said OMB urges pensioners who have not yet signed up
to do so. The enrollment deadline is Nov. 28.

Pensioners should call Experian at (866) 252-0121. Those who did
not receive or misplaced the letter from Aon containing their
Experian activation code should call Aon at (866) 623-6047 from
8 a.m. to 8 p.m. weekdays.


ASHLEY FURNITURE: Faces Class Suit on Overtime Pay Miscalculation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Fitzsimmons at WFMZ-TV News reports a furniture maker in
Berks County is the target of a class action lawsuit.

A Wyomissing-based law firm filed the suit against Ashley
Furniture in Ontelaunee Township.

The suit claims the company miscalculated the overtime pay of some
hourly employees and violated the state's Minimum Wage Act.

Ashley Furniture officials said they haven't seen the suit, but
that all employees have been fully paid all the money they're
owed.


ASOTIN COUNTY: Settles Jail Booking Fee Litigation for $31,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: ALL INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE BOOKED INTO THE
                    ASOTIN COUNTY JAIL FROM DECEMBER 6, 2004,
                    TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2009, WHO WERE CHARGED
                    A BOOKING FEE AT THE TIME OF BOOKING AND
                    WHO PAID MONEY TOWARDS THAT BOOKING FEE.

YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A PENDING CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT.

There is a proposed Settlement for a class action pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington entitled Daniel K. Garrison v. Asotin County, Case No.
CV-07-00392-JLQ This litigation alleges that Asotin County Jail's
booking fee policy of charging inmates a booking fee at the time
they are arrested and booked into Jail, without any type of pre-
deprivation hearing, is a violation of their constitutional due
process rights.  The Defendant Asotin County denies all
allegations, and is settling this action to avoid the burden and
uncertainty of further litigation.

Under the proposed Settlement, the Class of persons defined in
bolded capital letters above may be eligible to participate in a
settlement of $31,361.38, which does not cover any Plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees, expenses, and other costs that the Court may
award.

A hearing will be held on December 30, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. before
the Honorable Justin L. Quackenbush, United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of Washington, located at 920 West
Riverside Avenue, Spokane, WA 99201, to decide whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved.

Class Counsel is:

         Breean Lawrence Beggs
         Paukert & Troppmann, PLLC
         522 W. Riverside Ave, Suite 560
         Spokane, WA 99201

If you have any questions, you are entitled to consult with Class
Counsel by calling toll-free number 1-888-496-2996, or 1-888-720-
2704 Ext. 235.

Please note: In order to receive a Class Benefit, each Class
Member must complete and submit a Claim Form.  The deadline to
mail your Claim Form is December 15, 2010.  You may obtain a copy
of the Official Notice and Claim Form, and Settlement Agreement by
contacting counsel at the telephone number listed above, or you
may download a copy at http://www.wrcip.us/

HOW TO OBJECT OR OPT-OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT

Any objections to the settlement must comply with the filing and
service requirements outlined in the Official Notice referred to
above, and must be submitted by December 15, 2010.  If you choose
to opt-out of the settlement, you will not be bound by the
settlement of the Litigation.  If you opt-out, however, you will
not be eligible to receive the Class Benefit.

NO INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT


BLUE CROSS: Sued for Exposing Customers to Identity Theft
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Blue Cross of California dba
Anthem Blue Cross subjected its customers to identity theft and
medical privacy invasion by letting hackers into its computer
network on or before June 18, a class action claims in Los Angeles
Superior Court.


BURLINGTON COAT: Recalls 10,000 Hooded Jackets and Sweatshirts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Burlington Coat Factory, of Burlington, N.J., announced a
voluntary recall of about 10,000 Hooded Jackets and Sweatshirts.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The hooded jackets and sweatshirts have drawstrings through the
hood and/or waist which can pose a strangulation or entrapment
hazard to children.  In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines to
help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on the
neck and waist drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and
sweatshirts.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves:

  Brand Name    Description               Color       Size
  ---------     -----------               -----       -----
  Aeropostale   Boys' pullover
                sweatshirt with
                Aeropostale printed
                on front                   Brown     Boys' size
                                                     Small

  Apple Bottom  Girls' zippered velvet
                jacket with "Apple
                Bottom" embroidered on
                Back                       Brown     Girls' size 7
                                                     -  16

  Deere Park    Boys' zippered jackets     Red and
                                           Blue       Boys' sizes

  Disney
  Winnie
  the Pooh      Zippered jackets with
                a picture of Winnie
                the Pooh on the front
                of the Jacket              Blue
                                           with
                                           white
                                           sleeves
                                           with
                                           green and
                                           blue
                                           stripes
                                           on the
                                           sleeves       2T,
                                                         3T, 4T

Gray Wolf       Zippered jacket with
                Grey Wolf tag inside
                jacket and drawstring
                waist                      Dark Blue     13 - 14


Jonathon
Stone          Zippered jacket with
               "55" printed on front.
               J.stone" is printed on
               tag on Back of neck of
               the Garment                 Blue, red
                                           and white         L

Kani Gold      Boys' zippered
               Sweatshirt                  Brown, black
                                           and grey        Youth L
                                                           (16/18)

Miletta        Zippered Jackets            Black with
                                           faux fur cuffs
                                           and hood        Medium
                                                           (9 -
                                                           10)

Mirika         Girls' zippered
               Sweatshirts with
               embroidery on sleeves       Red            Medium

New York       Girls' zippered
               sleeveless
               Sweatshirt with "33
               New York" embroidered
               on jacket                   Light Blue      Small

Ruff Stuff     Boys' zipper and snap
               close jackets               Blue and
                                           light blue      Size 14
                                                            - 16

Sergio Benini   Zippered heavy
                Jackets with snaps          Brown         Medium

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10347.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China, Cambodia, Korea,
and United States and sold through Burlington Coat Factory and
other retailers nationwide from January 1995 through September
2009 for between $7 and $30.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard or return the garment to
Burlington Coat Factory for a full refund or credit.  For
additional information, contact Burlington Coat Factory toll-free
at (888) 223-2628 between 8:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/


CALIFORNIA CONVALESCENT: Accused in Calif. of Not Paying Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that California Convalescent
Hospital of Pasadena stiffs workers for overtime, a class action
claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.


CHALMETTE REFINING: Mishandled Hazardous Chemicals, Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Massey, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports a class
action claiming the Sept. 6 chemical release from the Chalmette
Refining facility in St. Bernard Parish was caused by untrained
employees was filed Sept. 8 in federal court in New Orleans.

Lauren Stone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, claims that unknown chemicals that were toxic, noxious
and harmful were released into the atmosphere.

The defendant is accused of failing to properly handle and contain
the hazardous and harmful substance, allowing faulty and
insufficient procedures and work practices, failing to properly
warn petitioners to keep away from the substances, and failing to
properly inspect their equipment and plant facility.

Chalmette Refining is also accused of acting in a careless and
negligent manner without due regard for the safety of others,
failing to implement rules and regulations pertaining to the safe
operation of the tasks being conducted at the time of the
accident, inadequate and negligent training and hiring, failing to
avoid or mitigate the accident, employing untrained and poorly-
trained employees and failing to properly train their employees.

Stone states the defendant failed to recognize the incident,
failed to warn and failed to bring the situation under control.

On behalf of herself and other potential class members, Ms. Stone
is seeking damages for medical expenses, lost wage, loss of
earning capacity, fear, anguish, discomfort, inconvenience, pain
and suffering, emotional distress, psychiatric and psychological
damages, evacuation and property damage. Stone plaintiff is also
seeking an award of interest, punitive damages, court costs and
attorney fees.

Ms. Stone is represented by:

     Daniel Becnel Jr., Esq.
     Matthew Moreland, Esq.
     Salvadore Christina, Esq.
     Christopher Devon Becnel, Esq.
     Toni Becnel, Esq.
     BECNEL LAW FIRM LLC
     P.O. Drawer H
     106 W. Seventh St.
     Reserve, LA 70084
     Telephone: (985) 536-1186

          - and -

     Jerrold Parker, Esq.
     PARKER WAICHMAN ALONSO
     3301 Bonita Beach Rd, #101
     Bonita Springs, FL 34134
     Telephone: (239) 390-1000

          - and -

     Camilo K. Salas III, Esq.
     SALAS & CO.
     650 Poydras, Suite 1650
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Telephone: 504-799-3080
     Facsimile: 504-799-3085

U.S. District Judge Helen G. Berrigan is assigned to the case.

Case No. 2:10cv02957


CHINA-BIOTICS: Rosen Firm Files Securities Class Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., disclosed Friday that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the
securities of China-Biotics, Inc., during the period between
July 10, 2008 and August 30, 2010, seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of federal securities laws.

To join the China-Biotics class action, visit the firm's website
at http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or
Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The Complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against China-Biotics and
certain of its present and former officers and directors for
making material misstatements and omissions about the Company's
true financial condition. According to the Complaint, during the
Class Period Defendants misled investors about the quality,
nature, and quantity of China-Biotics' purported retail outlets
and stores. The Complaint also alleges that China-Biotics' fiscal
2008 financial statements filed with the SEC are materially false
because the Company's fiscal 2008 financial statements filed with
Chinese authorities reported merely a fraction of the cash,
revenue and income set forth in the Company's 2008 financial
statements with the SEC. The Complaint asserts that when this
adverse information began to enter the market, the price of China-
Biotics securities dropped, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 16, 2010. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
         Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: 212-686-1060
                    917-797-4425
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         Facsimile: 212-202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


CLOROX CO: Settles Toilet Bowl Cleaner Litigation for $8 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
An $8 million settlement has been proposed in Hartless v. Clorox
Company, Case No. 06-cv-02705 (S.D. Calif.) (Bencivengo, J.) -- a
class action lawsuit about Clorox Automatic Toilet Bowl Cleaner
with Bleach (CATBC) and Clorox's claim that CATBC does not harm
plumbing.  Each package of Clorox Automatic Toilet Bowl Cleaner
with Bleach ("CATBC" or "Drop-In Tablets") states that the toilet
cleaner "does not harm plumbing."  The Plaintiff claims that this
statement is deceptive.  The Plaintiff claims that the chemicals
in the Drop-In Tablets corrode the toilet tank parts, in
particular, causing the rubber and plastic parts to deteriorate
until the flush mechanism fails or no longer seals properly.  The
Plaintiff also claims that Clorox -- based on its own tests --
knew or should have known that the Drop-In Tablets would
deteriorate the toilet tank parts, and yet sold the product by
telling its customers that CATBC would not harm their plumbing.
Clorox denies all wrongdoing and contends that CATBC is safe for
plumbing when used as directed.

You are a member of the Class if you purchased, used or suffered
any property damage from use of CATBC from Dec. 13, 2002 to Sept.
15, 2010.  Specifically excluded from the Class are: (a) all
federal court judges who have presided over this Action and their
immediate family; (b) all persons who have submitted a valid
request for exclusion from the Class; (c) Defendant's employees,
officers, directors, agents, and representatives and their family
members; and (d) those who purchased CATBC for the purpose of
resale.

Claim forms and additional information about the settlement are
available at http://www.catbcsettlement.com/which is hosted by
The Garden City Group, Inc.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on Nov. 22, 2010, to
consider final approval of the settlement and payment of
attorneys' fees to Class Counsel.

The Plaintiff Class is represented by:

         Leslie Hurst, Esq.
         Blood, Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP
         600 B Street, Suite 1550
         San Diego, CA 92101

Clorox is represented by:

         Sabrina Strong, Esq.
         O'Melvney & Myers LLP
         400 South Hope Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90071


COMPONENT HARDWARE: Settles Class Suit for $2.5 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Hausfeld LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP disclosed a $2.5 million
settlement with Component Hardware Group, Inc. (CHG) in In re Food
Service Equipment Hardware Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-cv-
1849-WSD (N.D.Ga.).  Hausfeld LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP serve
as the class counsel law firms leading the case.

In this antitrust class action, the plaintiffs allege that certain
manufacturers and distributors of food service equipment products,
including Kason Industries, Inc. and others, engaged in
anticompetitive behavior from 2004 to 2009, including unlawfully
allocating customers among themselves.  CHG has settled the
lawsuit without admitting any liability to avoid the costs and
burdens associated with defending class action litigation.

To resolve plaintiffs' claims, CHG has agreed to pay $800,000 in
cash in two installments and to provide a 2.75% rebate to
participating class members over two years for certain products.
The parties estimate that the total value of the rebate is $1.7
million, bringing the total value of the settlement to $2.5
million.  The settlement awaits court approval as the plaintiffs
continue to pursue antitrust claims against Kason Industries, Inc.
and others.

Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on this case are Michael Hausfeld
and Megan Jones; Labaton Sucharow LLP attorneys working on this
case are Hollis Salzman and Ryan Kriger.

Hausfeld LLP -- http://www.hausfeldllp.com/-- based in
Washington, D.C., is a global law firm providing litigation
services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition
law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and
environmental law. In addition to the Washington office, the firm
has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and
London.

Labaton Sucharow LLP -- http://www.labaton.com/-- with offices in
New York, New York and Wilmington, Delaware, is one of the
country's premier law firms representing institutional investors
in class action and complex securities litigation, as well as
consumers and businesses in class actions seeking to recover
damages for anticompetitive practices. The Firm has been a
champion of investor and consumer rights for over 45 years,
seeking recovery of current losses and necessary governance
reforms to protect investors and consumers. Labaton Sucharow has
been recognized for its excellence by the courts and its peers.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Receives Copy of "Karam" California Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., in a Sept. 13, 2010, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, disclosed that
it has received a copy of a complaint in a purported class action
lawsuit naming the company and several executive officers as
defendants.

The complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, alleges that the company and the
other defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business
and prospects in violation of federal securities laws.  The
plaintiff seeks damages for the purported class.

The complaint was filed on Aug. 31, 2010 and is captioned, Jimmy
Elias Karam v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., Jack P. Massimino, Peter
C. Waller, Matthew A. Ouimet and Kenneth S. Ord.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is one of the
largest post-secondary education companies in North America.  The
company's mission is to prepare students for careers in demand or
for advancement in their chosen field.  Through its Everest,
WyoTech and Heald campuses, Corinthian offers diploma and
associate degree programs in a variety of high-demand occupational
areas, including healthcare, business, criminal justice,
transportation technology and maintenance, construction trades and
information technology.


ESURANCE INSURANCE: Faces Class Suit Over "Under-Insured" Policies
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran, writing for The Madison County Record, reports a
newly filed class action lawsuit in Madison County claims
"under-insured" policies sold by Esurance Insurance Services are
of no value.

Lukus Keeling claims he purchased automobile insurance through
Esurance on Oct. 6, 2009. The policy Keeling purchased included a
provision in case he got into an accident with an under-insured
driver, in which case Esurance promised to pay $20,000 per person
and $40,000 per accident, according to the complaint filed
Sept. 8.

However, because Illinois law sets the minimum limit for bodily
injury liability coverage at $20,000 per person and $40,000 per
accident, any Illinois driver who could potentially collide with
Mr. Keeling would have the same coverage. Therefore, Mr. Keeling
or any other Illinois resident who purchased the same insurance
coverage would never be able to make a claim against his under-
insured motorist coverage, the suit states.

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendant continues to sell
$20,000/$40,000 Underinsured Motorist Coverage to its customers,
charging them for 'coverage' that is wholly illusory," the
complaint says.

In his complaint, Mr. Keeling alleges Esurance violated the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. He
also accuses the company of negligent misrepresentation,
fraudulent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, the suit
states.

Mr. Keeling is asking the court to certify his case as a class
action, to award statutory, common law and punitive damages, to
award attorneys' fees and to force the defendants to disgorge and
place in constructive trust ill-gotten funds. In addition, he
wants the court to prevent Esurance from continuing its behavior
and to award other relief it deems just.

Mr. Keeling and the putative class will be represented by:

     James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
     CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
     8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100
     St. Louis, MO 63105
     Toll Free: (800) 721-2519
     Telephone: (314) 725-7700
     E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com

          - and -

     E. Ryan Bradley, Esq.
     THE BRADLEY LAW FIRM
     130 South Bemiston, Suite 706
     Clayton, MO 63105
     Telephone: (314) 721-9111
     E-mail: ryan@thebradleylawfirm.com

Madison County Circuit Court case number: 10-L-936.


EXPRESS INC: Estimates Possible Exposure to Suit at $1.9-$3.4MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Express, Inc., in its Sept. 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July
31, 2010, estimates that the potential exposure for losses related
to the purported class action lawsuit against the company ranges
from approximately $1,900,000 to $3,400,000.

The complaint was originally filed on Feb. 18, 2009, and an
amended complaint was filed on March 18, 2009.

The amended complaint contains six counts:

     (1) failure to provide required meal breaks to the class
         members and failure to pay the class members for missed
         meal breaks, including premium payments required by
         California law;

     (2) failure to provide required rest breaks to the class
         members and failure to pay the class members for missed
         rest breaks, including premium payments required by
         California law;

     (3) failure to pay wages in a timely manner to employees
         who were terminated or quit;

     (4) failure to pay overtime or premium payments in a timely
         manner;

     (5) failure to provide accurate wage statements; and

     (6) violations of Section 17200 of the California Business
         and Professions Code.

The company estimated that the potential exposure for losses
related to this lawsuit ranges from approximately $1,900,000 to
$3,400,000 and has accrued an amount on the Consolidated Balance
sheet as of July 31, 2010 to reflect its best estimate of this
risk.  The company adds that as the situation develops and more
information becomes available, the amount of the reserve may
increase or decrease accordingly.

Express, Inc. -- http://express.com/-- is the sixth largest
specialty retail brand of women's and men's apparel in the United
States.  The company has 30 years of experience offering a
distinct combination of fashion and quality for multiple lifestyle
occasions at an attractive value addressing fashion needs across
work, casual, jeanswear and going-out occasions.  The company
currently operates 576 retail stores, located primarily in high-
traffic shopping malls, lifestyle centers and street locations
across the United States and Puerto Rico, and also distributes its
products through the company's e-commerce Web site.


FOX CO: Employees' Bankruptcy Claims Must Be Filed by Oct. 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
         If You Were an Employee of Fox Co., Inc.,
     on or after May 31, 2002, A Class Action Lawsuit
                Could Affect Your Rights

PLEASE NOTE THAT IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO
SHARE IN THE PROCEEDS OF THE SETTLEMENTS DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE.

Your rights may be affected by a lawsuit pending in the Pierce
County Superior Court, Cause No. 05-2-08756-6 and captioned Curry
v. Fox Co., Inc.  The pleadings and other records in this
litigation may be examined and copied during regular business
hours at the Office of the Superior Court, 930 Tacoma Avenue
South, Room 110, Tacoma, WA 98402.  You may also obtain documents
for your review from class counsel at the address listed below.

Am I a Member of the Class?

The class definition includes the following members: "All
nonsalaried employees of Fox Co., Inc., who worked for Fox Co.,
Inc., at anytime between May 31, 2002 through December 31, 2005
and were compensated as a piece rate worker whether now employed
by Fox Co., Inc. or not.

What is the lawsuit about?

Defendants Fred Fox and Darcy Fox have filed for bankruptcy
protection under Western Washington Bankruptcy Court Case No.09-
48718. Any payment to class claimant by Fred Fox and Darcy Fox
will be paid on a pro-rata basis in relation to other unsecured
claims filed in this bankruptcy case. Pursuant to Pierce County
Superior Court Order dated September 15, 2006, the Court granted
liability under RCW 49.46.130 for unpaid overtime wages owed to
hourly employees, liability under RCW 49.46.130 for unpaid
overtimes wages owed to piece rate workers, and liability under
RCW 49.52.070 for willful failure to pay overtime wages owed to
hourly employees and piece workers against Fox Co., Inc., Fred
Fox, Jane Doe Fox, and Melody Fox.  Prior to the bankruptcy filing
of Fred and Darcy Fox, Defendants reached a settlement with
Plaintiff's class in which Defendants would pay to the class
claimants, pursuant to the claims process, a total amount not to
exceed $450,000 and not less than $200,000!

Rights and Obligations of Class Members

If you believe you are a claimant and you would like to obtain a
form to submit a claim or object to this process, please read the
information in this paragraph. To share in the benefits of the
proposed settlement, you must be a class member who was employed
by Fox Company Inc. as a piece rate worker and received a
paycheck, between the dates of May 31, 2002 and December 31, 2005.
You must also complete a Proof of Claim Form that can be obtained
by writing or calling: Brian L. Budsberg at the number and address
listed below. You may also obtain a claim form by visiting the Web
site http://curryvfox.com/and downloading a claim form.  In order
to for your claim to be submitted in a timely manner, you must
complete and post mark your completed proof of claim to:

         Brian L. Budsberg, Esq.
         Budsberg Law Group, P.L.L.C.
         P.O. Box 1489
         Olympia, WA 98507
         Telephone: (360) 584-9093
         E-mail: trustee@budsberg.com

by October 15, 2010.  All claims must be postmarked or delivered
to the firm no later than October 15, 2010.  You may have received
a claim form and copy of this notice by mail at your last known
address.  Additionally, if you object to this process please file
your objection with the bankruptcy court by submitting this
objection to the bankruptcy court by submitting your objection the
bankruptcy court 1717 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2209, Courtroom I,
Tacoma, Washington 98402 during regular business hours and
submitting a copy of your objection to Brian L. Budsberg at the
address listed above.


GENERAL GROWTH: Court to Hold Fairness Hearing on December 9
------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel for Plaintiffs in the lawsuit In Re General Growth
Properties, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master File No. 08-cv-6680 in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, announce the proposed settlement of
this class action. The Settlement Class is defined as: All
participants or beneficiaries in the General Growth 401(k) Savings
Plan at any time between April 30, 2007, and April 16, 2009,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), whose Plan account(s) held
investments in General Growth Properties, Inc. common stock and/or
the General Growth Properties, Inc. Common Stock Fund for their
benefit during the Class Period, other than the Defendants and
their immediate family members.

The Plaintiffs in this litigation allege that Defendants breached
their fiduciary duty to the Plan and its participants by allowing
them to purchase or hold GGP common stock in the Plan during the
Class Period. The parties have reached an agreement to settle the
litigation.  While the parties have decided to settle the case,
Defendants adamantly deny any wrongdoing.  On August 19, 2010, the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, certified this case as a class action
for settlement purposes and directed that this Notice be
publicized to inform potential Settlement Class members of the
pending litigation.  A fairness hearing has been scheduled for
December 9, 2010, at the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Everett McKinley Dirksen United
States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois
60604, before the Honorable James B. Zagel.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and have not received
a Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action describing the
litigation, the proposed settlement, and your rights as a Class
member, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by visiting
www.berdonclaims.com, by calling 800-766-3330, or by identifying
yourself as a Settlement Class member and writing to: GGP ERISA
Litigation, c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC, P.O. Box 9014,
Jericho, NY 11753-8914.

Inquiries should NOT be directed to the Court or the Clerk of the
Court.


INTERNATIONAL COFFEE: Recalls 1,600 Tea Sets
--------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
International Coffee & Tea, LLC, dba The Coffee Bean & Tea
Leaf(R), of Los Angeles, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
about 1,600 Tea Sets.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Sparking from the metallic decorations on the tea sets can result
if used in a microwave oven, posing a risk of fire.

International Coffee & Tea has received one report from a consumer
of a tea cup sparking when used in a microwave oven.  No injuries
have been reported.

This recall involves the Tea for One "Flourish" design tea pot
set, which includes a stackable teapot and cup.  The teapot and
cup are white ceramic with matching metallic foil decorations on
each. The tea cup is marked "Dishwasher and microwave safe" and
"Made in China" on the bottom, in English and French.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10348.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf(R) stores in California, Arizona and
Nevada for about $12, and online at http://www.coffeebean.com/
for about $10 from March 2010 through August 2010.

Consumers should return the tea sets to The Coffee Bean & Tea
Leaf(R) stores for a full refund.  Consumers who purchased the
product on-line can contact The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf company for
instructions on returning the tea sets by mail.  For additional
information, contact The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf (R) at (800) 832-
5323/(800) TEA LEAF between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time,
Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.coffeebean.com/


LOWE'S HOME: Settles Dryer Duct Litigation for $3.85 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
A national settlement has been reached in Kaiser-Flores v. Lowe's
Home Centers, Inc., Case No. 08-cv-00045 (W.D.N.C.) and Eckstein
v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., Case No. 08-cv-00095 (W.D.N.C.).
The $3.85 million settlement provides $20 payments to all persons
who purchased a clothes dryer from a Lowe's store and received
from Lowe's delivery and hookup of that dryer with a foil or
plastic transition duct in the United States who submit valid
Claim Forms by Dec. 18, 2010.  Claim forms and additional
information are available at http://www.dryerductsettlement.com/
which is hosted by Rust Consulting, Inc.

The lawsuit claims that Lowe's sold clothes dryers and then
delivered and hooked up those dryers using a foil or plastic
transition duct rather than a rigid metal vent as directed by
dryer manufacturers.  Lowe's denies it did anything wrong.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on Dec. 14, 2010, to
consider whether to approve the Settlement, and a request by Class
Counsel for attorneys' fees.  Class Counsel will also ask for a
payment of up $2,500 for each Class Representative who helped the
lawyers on behalf of the whole Class.

The Plaintiff Class is represented by:

         Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         120 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500
         Boca Raton, FL 33432

Lowe's is represented by:

         Kimball R. Anderson, Esq.
         Winston & Strawn LLP
         35 W. Wacker Dr.
         Chicago, IL 60601


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Final Okay of "Stephens" Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval of the settlement agreement entered into by
lululemon athletica inc. and the plaintiffs in the matter Mia
Stephens et al. v. lululemon athletica inc., is pending in the San
Diego Superior Court, California, according to the company's Sept.
10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2010.

On April 2, 2009, three former hourly company employees filed a
class action lawsuit alleging that the company violated various
California Labor Code sections by requiring employees to wear
lululemon clothing during working hours without reimbursing such
employees for the cost of the clothing and by paying certain bonus
payments to its employees in the form of lululemon gift cards
redeemable only for lululemon merchandise.

The complaint also alleges that the company owes waiting time
penalties as the result of failing to pay employees all wages due
at the time of termination.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

The company and the plaintiffs have reached an agreement on
settlement terms and the agreement has received tentative approval
from the court.

lululemon athletica inc. -- http://www.lululemon.com/-- is a
designer and retailer of technical athletic apparel primarily in
North America.  Its yoga-inspired apparel is marketed under the
lululemon athletica brand name.  The company offers a line of
apparel and accessories, including fitness pants, shorts, tops and
jackets designed for athletic pursuits, such as yoga, dance,
running and general fitness.  It offers a line of performance
apparel and accessories for both women and men.  The company's
fitness-related accessories include an array of items such as
bags, socks, underwear, yoga mats, instructional yoga digital
versatile discs, water bottles and headbands.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: "Kohlenberg" Settlement Final Okay Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval of the settlement agreement entered into by
lululemon athletica inc. and the plaintiff in the matter Brett
Kohlenberg et al. v. lululemon athletica inc., is pending in the
Orange County Superior Court, California, according to the
company's Sept. 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1,
2010.

On March 26, 2009, a former hourly Company employee filed a class
action lawsuit alleging that the company violated various
California Labor Code sections by failing to pay its employees for
certain rest and meal breaks and "off the clock" work, and for
penalties related to waiting times and failure to provide itemized
wage statements.

The company and the plaintiffs have reached an agreement on
settlement terms and the agreement has received tentative approval
from the court.  Plaintiffs and the company must now go through
the process of obtaining final approval.

lululemon athletica inc. -- http://www.lululemon.com/-- is a
designer and retailer of technical athletic apparel primarily in
North America.  Its yoga-inspired apparel is marketed under the
lululemon athletica brand name.  The company offers a line of
apparel and accessories, including fitness pants, shorts, tops and
jackets designed for athletic pursuits, such as yoga, dance,
running and general fitness.  It offers a line of performance
apparel and accessories for both women and men.  The company's
fitness-related accessories include an array of items such as
bags, socks, underwear, yoga mats, instructional yoga digital
versatile discs, water bottles and headbands.


MAGMA DESIGN: Appellate Court Says Genesis Doesn't Owe Amount
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Genesis
Insurance Company, under its policy, does not owe the settlement
amount that it had paid towards resolving a securities class
action against Magma(R) Design Automation Inc., according to the
company's Sept. 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1,
2010.

In Genesis Insurance Company v. Magma Design Automation, et al.,
Case No. 06-5526-JW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Genesis seeks a declaration of its rights
and obligations under an excess directors and officers liability
policy for defense and settlement costs arising out of the
securities class action against the company, in re Magma Design
Automation, Inc. Securities Litigation, as well as a related
derivative lawsuit.

Genesis seeks a return of $5.0 million it paid towards the
settlement of the securities class action and derivative lawsuits
from the company or from another of the company's excess directors
and officers liability insurers, National Union.  The company
contends that either Genesis or National Union owes the settlement
amounts, but not the company.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the company and
National Union, finding that Genesis owed the settlement amount.
Genesis appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the
company cross-appealed.

On July 12, 2010, the court of appeal reversed, ruling that
Genesis does not owe the settlement amount under its policy, and
remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

                 The Securities Suit

On June 13, 2005, The Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust filed a
putative shareholder class action suit against:

      -- Magma Design Automation, Inc.,
      -- Rajeev Madhavan,
      -- Gregory C. Walker, and
      -- Roy E. Jewell.

The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose
information regarding the risk of Magma infringing intellectual
property rights of Synopsys, Inc., in violation of Section 10(b)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and prays for unspecified damages.

In March 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  The plaintiff filed a further
amended complaint in June 2006, which the defendants again moved
to dismiss.  The defendants' dismissal motion was granted in part
and denied in part by an order dated Aug. 18, 2006.  Specifically,
the order dismissed claims against several of the defendants.

On Nov. 30, 2007, the parties agreed to a settlement.  Pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of
the Court, a settlement for $13.5 million was proposed in the suit
"In re Magma Design Automation, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. C-05-2394 CRB."

The settlement class includes all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Magma Design Automation
during the period between Oct. 23, 2002, through April 12, 2005,
inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
July 7, 2008.  On Dec. 5, 2008, the court held a hearing on final
approval of the settlement and requested that plaintiff submit
additional information, including information on claims by class
members.  The court granted final approval to this settlement on
March 27, 2009.

Magma(R) Design Automation Inc. -- http://www.magma-da.com/--
electronic design automation (EDA) software provides the "Fastest
Path to Silicon"(TM) and enables the world's top chip companies to
create high-performance integrated circuits (ICs) for cellular
telephones, electronic games, WiFi, MP3 players, digital video,
networking and other electronic applications.  Magma products are
used in IC implementation, analog/mixed-signal design, analysis,
physical verification, circuit simulation and characterization.
The company maintains headquarters in San Jose, Calif., and
offices throughout North America, Europe, Japan, Asia and India.
Magma's stock trades on Nasdaq under the ticker symbol LAVA.


MICROSOFT CORP: 9th Cir. Remands "Kelley" Suit to District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed
the certification decision of the district court for abuse of
discretion in the lawsuit Kelley v. Microsoft Corporation, No.
09-35699.

The lawsuit involves alleged misrepresentations and omissions in
Microsoft Corporation's pre-release marketing of its Windows Vista
operating system.  Plaintiffs-Appellants Dianne Kelley, Kenneth
Hansen, Jim Walters, Matt Morales, Russell Hall, and Don Schroder
appeal the denial of their motion for narrowed class certification
of two classes proposed after the district court decertified their
original class.

The district court held that the putative classes failed to meet
the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3).

The Ninth Circuit noted that the district court failed properly to
conduct the predominance inquiry under Rule 23(b)(3) and the
district court did not consider whether other elements of a claim
under the Washington Consumer Protection Act present questions of
law or fact common or individual to the class members, and what
effect those questions, if any, have on the Rule 23(b)(3)
predominance inquiry.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's
denial of class certification and remand to the district court for
further certification proceedings consistent with this
disposition. "We stress that by doing so, we express no view
concerning whether on a proper analysis, the denial of class
certification would be within the district court's discretion."

A copy of the court's opinion is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100914134


MOBILE CONTENT PROVIDERS: Settles Class Suits for $3.2 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
A group of mobile content providers, including Cylon, Cellfish
Media, Predicto Mobile, Too Lazy, the application provider 3C
Interactive, and the aggregator OpenMarket, have agreed to settle
a number of class action lawsuits against them, involving claims
that these companies charged wireless subscribers for "mobile
content" without authorization.  To be clear, the Defendants have
denied any wrongful conduct, and the settlement is in no way a
judgment or ruling by the Court that any party engaged in any
wrongful or illegal conduct.

"Mobile content" refers to electronic products such as ringtones,
games, graphics, news, and other alerts that are provided through
mobile phones and are charged directly to consumers' mobile phone
bills.  Although a relatively new form of commerce, mobile content
has evolved to form a large and increasingly important industry.

The settlement has been preliminarily approved by the Circuit
Court of Cook County in Illinois; it provides for refunds for
unauthorized mobile content charges to settlement members, and
attorney's fees of up to $3.2 million.  Settlement members are
eligible to receive a one-time cash award of $10.00, or a refund
of up to three months of content subscription charges. Per the
lawsuits FAQ's: Members of the settlement class include any person
in the U.S. and its territories who, at any time prior to
September 13, 2010, was billed and paid for unauthorized content
from any of the settling Defendants.

Individuals can find out if they are eligible by scanning past
phone records for short codes that identify the various mobile
content companies. Participants in the AT&T, Mobile Messenger,
Media Breakaway, mBlox, m-Qube or Jamster! Settlements are not
eligible.

In addition to the payout, the Defendants are required to agree to
adhere to certain guidelines for mobile content sales and
marketing -- including properly disclosing billing terms -- as
well as promptly refunding unauthorized content.

Attorneys Jay Edelson, Myles McGuire, Rafey S. Balabanian, and
Steven L. Lezell of Edelson McGuire, LLC, were appointed by the
Court to serve as the attorneys for the class. Full details can be
found at www.MobileChargesClassAction.com.  Class members may also
call the claims administrator directly at 1-888-505-5589 or class
counsel at 1-866-354-3015.

Plaintiffs' counsel can be reached at:

     Myles McGuire, Esq.
     EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
     Telephone: 1-312-589-6370
     Facsimile: 1-312-589-6378
     E-mail: mmcguire@edelson.com


MYREXIS INC: Not Named a Defendant in 2nd Amended Javelin Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Myrexis, Inc., was not named a defendant in a second amended
complaint originally filed against Javelin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
according to the company's Sept. 13, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2010.

Beginning on Dec. 23, 2009, several putative stockholder class
action lawsuits were filed against Javelin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
members of Javelin's board of directors, Myrexis, Inc. and MPI
Merger Sub, a wholly owned subsidiary of Myrexis, Inc., in the
Suffolk Superior Court Business Litigation Session in
Massachusetts.

The actions, first served on Javelin on Jan. 5, 2010, styled
Schnipper v. Watson et al., Parrish v. Watson et al. and Andrews
v. Driscoll et al., alleged, among other things, that the members
of Javelin's board of directors violated their fiduciary duties by
failing to maximize value for Javelin's stockholders when
negotiating and entering into the Agreement and Plan of Merger
with Myrexis and MPI Merger Sub, dated Dec. 18, 2009, pursuant to
which MPI Merger Sub was to be merged with and into Javelin, with
Javelin continuing after the merger as the surviving corporation
and a wholly owned subsidiary of Myrexis.

The complaints also alleged that Myrexis, MPI Merger Sub and
Javelin aided and abetted those purported breaches.  Plaintiffs
sought, among other things, to enjoin the proposed merger or, in
the alternative, to rescind the proposed merger should it occur
before the lawsuits were resolved.

On Jan. 13, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed
order consolidating the actions.  The order was entered by the
court on Jan. 21, 2010.  Pursuant to the stipulation, plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint on Feb. 23, 2010.
Plaintiffs also filed an "emergency" motion seeking expedited
discovery, which defendants opposed.

After a March 12, 2010, hearing on the motion for expedited
discovery, the court denied the motion.  On April 19, 2010, after
receipt of an acquisition proposal from Hospira, Inc., Javelin
terminated the merger agreement with Myrexis.

On May 3, 2010, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking leave
to serve a second amended complaint challenging the potential
acquisition of Javelin by Hospira.  In addition, on May 5, 2010,
plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking expedited discovery
from Javelin and an order preliminarily enjoining the potential
acquisition of Javelin by Hospira.

Myrexis and MPI Merger Sub were not named as defendants in the
putative second amended complaint and plaintiffs' emergency
motions did not seek any relief against Myrexis or MPI Merger Sub.
Hospira acquired Javelin via a tender offer and the case was
subsequently dismissed with prejudice against the Javelin
defendants on July 16, 2010.

Myrexis, Inc. -- http://www.myrexis.com/-- is a biotechnology
company focused on discovering, developing, and commercializing
novel treatments for cancer.  The company has leveraged a unique
understanding of the genetic causes of human disease to generate a
robust pipeline of clinical and preclinical product candidates.
These include compounds with distinct mechanisms of action and
novel chemical structures that have first-in-class and/or best-in-
class therapeutic potential.  Myrexis is led by an experienced
management team with expertise in human genetics, protein-protein
interaction technology and chemical proteomic drug discovery.


PACIFIC GAS: Faces Class Suit Over San Bruno Explosion
------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys at Audet & Partners, LLP, a San Francisco, California-
based trial law firm, have filed a class action complaint (Case #
CIV498932) against Pacific Gas & Electric Company arising out of
the devastating explosion and fire in San Bruno, California. Filed
in San Mateo State Court in California, the complaint seeks class
wide damages and the immediate release by PG&E of the "One Hundred
Million-Dollar Fund" promised by PG&E to the San Bruno community
and its residents.

As alleged in the filed class action complaint, the plaintiff, a
resident of San Bruno, seeks to represent the San Bruno community
as a whole impacted by the San Bruno Explosion and Fire, including
homeowners, renters and small businesses. As has been reported,
the explosion appears to be the result of lack of proper
precautions and updates to PG&E gas pipes that run through and
near residential areas of San Bruno. At least 37 homes have been
reported to be totally uninhabitable and residents of San Bruno in
the surrounding areas had to flee their homes due to the explosion
and fire.

"From the reports we have received, it appears that PG&E's $100
million dollar pledge was nothing more than a public relations
move, and we are asking the Court to place the funds in an escrow
account so that the community can decide what to do with the
funds," stated lead plaintiff's attorney William M. Audet of Audet
& Partners, LLP.

Furthermore, as Mr. Audet pointed out, "we need to immediately
provide for financial advances to cover rent and other costs for
those who no longer have a home to live in, and we need to have
the community -- not PG&E -- decide the proper use of the funds."
According to the allegations in the complaint, because PG&E
essentially bears the legal responsibility, thus it should bear
the financial responsibility for the losses incurred due to the
explosion.

"All of the class members have been impacted, and this class
action complaint is the first step to expedite the payment to
those injured by the explosion and fire," stated William M. Audet.

More information about this case is available at:

                        http://is.gd/fkDDc

Audet & Partners, LLP, is a San Francisco Bay Area based law firm.
The law firm represents individuals, governmental entities, small
businesses and shareholders in product liability, tort,
negligence, consumer, construction defect, investment fraud,
securities, insider trading, antitrust, environmental, whistle
blower, aviation and employment cases. The founding partner,
attorney William M. Audet, has served as court-approved lead
counsel in dozens of federal and state cases throughout the United
States.

Mr. Audet can be reached at:

     William M. Audet
     AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
     Telephone: 415-982-1776
     E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com


PHILADELPHIA HOUSING: Sued Over Undisclosed Lobbying Activities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that the
Philadelphia Housing Authority forced employees to contribute
money and gifts for "lavish" parties where attendance was
mandatory, workers say in a federal class action.  Lead plaintiff
Jenelle Scott claims the PHA also deducted money from employees'
paychecks to support a nonprofit that lobbied for federal funds.

The class claims that when PHA Chief of Police Richard Zappile was
organizing a 10th anniversary party for PHA Director Carl Greene,
he sent out invitations asking guests to donate $1,000 to $5,000
to Tenant Support Services (TSSI).

"Soon after plaintiff began working as defendant Greene's
administrative assistant, she was compelled to contribute money
and gifts to defendant Greene for parties she was required to
attend," according to the complaint.

Any organization that receives federal funding must disclose its
lobbying activities, but the PHA has not disclosed lobbying
activities since 2002, the class claims.

"But the money TSSI received from defendant Mr. Zappile's
solicitation went towards a lavish 10th anniversary party for
defendant Greene," according to the complaint.  "Defendant TSSI
received more than $38,000.  Approximately half of the money went
to pay for the party, 'which left TSSI with a $21,934 profit.'"

The PHA has an annual budget of $345 million, funded by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development through the Moving to
Work Demonstration Program and Annual Contributions Contract,
according to the complaint.

"The PHA is prohibited from using any federal funds for lobbying
activity or to influence or attempt to influence the awarding of
any federal contract and it must certify that no federally
appropriated funds have been used for that purpose and it must
disclose if any funds other than federally appropriated funds were
used for that purpose," according to the complaint.
About 300 people belong to the class, which is suing the PHA, the
Pennsylvania Institute of Affordable Housing Professionals, PHA-
Tenant Support Services, Mr. Greene, Mr. Zappile, PHA assistant
executive director Diane Rosenthal, PHA communications manager
Kirk Dorn and PHA-Tenant Support Services director Asia Coney.

"In addition to money demanded for gifts and parties for defendant
Greene, plaintiff Scott was forced to donate a portion of her
paycheck to a nonprofit corporation defendant Greene created -
defendant Pennsylvania Institute of Affordable Housing
Professionals (PIAHP)," according to the complaint.

The class claims that PHA representatives told employees that
PIAHP exists solely to lobby HUD for funds that would prevent cuts
and layoffs.  Deductions from paychecks continued from 2006 to
September 2010, according to the complaint.

"The PHA required employees to contribute a portion of their
weekly paycheck or make a lump sum annual contribution to
defendant PIAHP to fund the aforementioned lobbying activities,"
according to the complaint.  "However, based upon the fact that
defendant Greene never disclosed any lobbying activities for HUD
funding, it appears that defendant PIAHP's stated purpose is
questionable.  This is further supported by the fact that it laid
off 22 percent of its workforce.  Yet, defendant PHA continued
taking money from employees' paychecks that went to defendant
PIAHP."

PIAHP president Dorn claimed that the contributions were
voluntary, according to the complaint.

The class seeks an injunction and punitive damages for civil
rights violations and conversion.

A copy of the Complaint in Scott v. The Philadelphia Housing
Authority, et al., Case No. 10-cv-04723 (E.D. Pa.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/17/Philly.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Pileggi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL PELIGGI
          303 Chestnut St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: 215-627-8516

               - and -

          L. Kenneth Chotiner, Esq.
          THE CHOTINER FIRM
          1818 Market St., Suite 3620
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-564-6544


POM WONDERFUL: Faces Class Suit in Florida Over Health Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Starling at NUTRAingredients-usa.com reports a class action
has been lodged in a Florida state court alleging POM Wonderful
misled consumers with at least six different health claims, as the
Californian pomegranate pioneer's legal battles multiply.

The plaintiff alleges POM misled consumers with claims that it
could benefit atherosclerosis; blood pressure; prostate cancer;
erectile function; cardiovascular disease; cholesterol levels and
other age related medical conditions.

The action, lodged in August, cites Food and Drug Administration,
National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business
Bureaus and the UK Advertising Standards Authority warnings
against some of POM's claim making as grounds for the complaint.

It comes at a time POM is fighting battles on many fronts. Just
last week it sued the Federal Trade Commission over standards it
is employing when assessing the veracity of claims.

Last week also saw a verdict delivered in a case POM mounted
against fellow juice maker Welch's over its own pomegranate juice
claims.  Welch's was told to amend labeling that was found to
imply its juices were 100% pomegranate when they were not, but the
court found, while this had deceived consumers, it had not damaged
POM's own business.

Ongoing are actions POM has mounted against Coca Cola Minute Maid,
PepsiCo Tropicana and Ocean Spray alleging misleading claims about
the contents of their pomegranate-containing juice products.

In its defense Coke said its Minute Maid pomegranate-containing
juice met FDA labeling requirements, which the US District Court
of California agreed with in a summary judgment. But POM is
appealing that verdict in the 9th District Circuit Court.

                         Class action

Ivan Wasserman, a Washington DC-based advertising and labeling
attorney at Manatt Phelps & Phillips, said the class action filed
by Robbins, Geller, Rudman and Dowd was indicative of a developing
claims-skeptical environment in the US.

"Even for companies working diligently to accurately communicate
the health benefits of their products, it seems like it is
becoming almost inevitable that if you have success in the market
at some point you will find yourself defending a class action," he
said. "It is a real shame. In our practice, we are seeing more and
more every year."

New York-based food and drug attorney Marc Ullman from Ullman
Shapiro and Ullman agreed and questioned the motivation of the
Florida action and many others.

"I'm not surprised to see actions like this but most of these
actions are not motivated by public health, rather firms and
individuals chasing a quick buck," he said.

The class action alleges violations of Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act and breach of express warranty. It
seeks restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive
relief, a corrective advertising campaign, costs, and attorney's
fees.

POM is also involved in action with its former legal firm, Hogan
Lovells, over unpaid legal fees. It was in this case that an FTC
investigation into POM's activities was revealed and which led POM
to seek and win an injunction against media reporting of that
investigation.


RECOLOGY INC: Removes "Daniels" Labor Complaint to N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hezzack Daniels, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Recology Inc., et al., Case No. 10-501563 (Calif.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed on August 12, 2010.
The plaintiff accuses the solid waste management services provider
of not paying for all hours worked, failing to maintain accurate
employee time records, failing to furnish wage and hour
statements, and unfair business practices in violation of the
Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200.  Mr. Daniels, individually,
further asserts claims against all defendants for disability or
perceived disability discrimination, in violation of Government
Code Sec. 12940.  Mr. Daniels says that defendants at all times
were aware that he had Type-1 Diabetes, a disability within the
meaning of Government Code Sec. 12926.1, yet suspended him from
work without pay for three months when be failed to provide a
urine sample during a drug test conducted by the defendants as
part of his employment.  Mr. Daniels says his disability causes
him, when his insulin levels are abnormal, not to be able to
urinate.

On September 15, 2010, Recology Inc., et al., removed the lawsuit
to the Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned
Case No. 10-cv-04140 to the proceeding.  The defendants say that
this is a civil action of which the district court has original
jurisdiction under U.S.C. 1331, and is one which may be removed
pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(b).  The
defendants add that plaintiff's claims require substantial
interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, and is
therefore entirely preempted by Sec. 301 of the Labor Management
Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185.

The removal notice states that Mr. Daniels commenced working for
Recology San Francisco on May 2, 2008, as a  "sorter/classifier,"
whose job is to sort, weigh, and transfer solid waste at
defendant's recycling facility in San Francisco, and that from the
beginning of his employment, Mr. Daniels has been a member of the
Sanitary Truck Drivers and Helpers Union, Local 350.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Hoffman, Esq.
          Alec Segarich, Esq.
          HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1550
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 362-1111
          E-mail: mhoffman@employment-lawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Rod M. Fliegel, Esq.
          Alison S. Hightower, Esq.
          Aimee E. Axelrod, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          A Professional Corporation
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108.2693
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          E-mail: rfliegel@littler.com
                  ahightower@littler.com
                  aaxelrod@littler.com


REMEC INC: No Ruling Yet on Agreement with Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
has yet to issue a ruling on the agreement entered into by REMEC,
Inc., and the plaintiffs in a dismissed consolidated securities
fraud lawsuit.  Under the agreement, the parties agreed to request
dismissal of the Appeal and Cross Appeal, exchange releases, and
accept the final judgment of the District Court, according to the
company's  Sept. 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

              - and -

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

              - and -

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

Representing the defendants is:

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


RINGLEADER DIGITAL: Suit Complains About Media Stamp Program
------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that an
advertising firm's Media Stamp program exploits HTML5 on iPhones
and other hand-held mobile devices by collecting data that allow
advertisers to track users' "browsing movements across the entire
Internet," a class action claims in Federal Court.  "All of this
happens before Plaintiffs even have a chance to say 'no thank
you.'"

Manhattan-based Ringleader Digital allegedly describes its Media
Stamp program as "the mobile equivalent of an online cookie,"
which is how advertisers typically track web users' preferences.
Ringleader simply applied this concept to iPhones and other mobile
devices that use HTML5 to operate their web browsers, the lawsuit
claims.

HTML5 contains local storage databases where Web sites can store
information on the mobile devices to enhance browsing.

"Defendants, specifically Ringleader Digital, found a way to
exploit these databases for their own advantage," the complaint
states.

"When a mobile device that uses Media Stamp is accessed,
Ringleader's own databases collect information from the mobile
device and the Media Stamp technology assigns Plaintiff's mobile
device a 'unique' identifying number," the lawsuit states.

"Ringleader stores this number on its database and also uses the
HTML5 storage databases on the users' hand-held mobile device to
store the assigned 'unique' identifying number."

The class says the ID numbers allow Ringleader, advertisers and
web publishers "to track a user's browsing movements across the
entire Internet and not just one particular site."

The plaintiffs say Ringleader "is having little difficulty selling
its product" to the owners of companies like Surfline, CNN, Travel
Channel, Accuweather, Whitepages.com, Go2 Media, Medialets and
Merriam-Webster's i.word.com -- all named as defendants.

Though immensely useful to advertisers, Media Stamp poses "obvious
privacy concerns," the class claims, because it allows web
publishers and ad firms to track users' browsing habits without
their permission.

Even if users find the HTML5 database on their phones, they can't
delete it, because it "simply recreates itself only moments
later," according to the lawsuit.

"[O]nce Ringleader Digital 'stamps' a mobile device, that unique
number and the database assigned for that number are forever a
part of the device without ever requesting the Plaintiffs'
permission to do so," the complaint states.

Class members are suing for privacy violations, unfair
competition, and computer fraud and abuse.  They demand punitive
damages and an order barring the defendants from using the so-
called "flash cookies" without their consent.

A copy of the Complaint in Aughenbaugh, et al. v. Ringleader
Digital, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____ (C.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/17/Ringleader.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel R. Tamez, Esq.
          GNAU & TAMEZ LAW GROUP, LLP
          1010 Second Ave., Suite 1750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-446-6736
          E-mail: danieltamez@sdinjuryattorney.com

               - and -

          Majed Nachawati, Esq.
          Bryan Fears, Esq.
          FEARS NACHAWATI LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          4925 Greenville Ave., Suite 715
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: 214-890-0711
          E-mail: mn@fnlawfirm.com
                  fears@fnlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeremy R. Wilson, Esq.
          Kenneth P. Trosclair, Esq.
          WILSON TROSCLAIR & LOVINS, P.L.L.C.
          302 N. Market St., Suite 510
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: 214-484-1930


SANOFI-AVENTIS: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Carol Engle and Dave Johnson, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Sanofi-Aventis, U.S., Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-04141 (N.D. Calif. September 15, 2010), bring claims against
the pharmaceutical company for refusing to pay overtime
compensation, failing to provide off-duty meal periods, and
failing to keep accurate time records, in violation of
California's wage and hour laws and related regulations.

Plaintiffs are former employees of Sanofi-Aventis who worked as
sales representatives, a position, plaintiffs claim, is not exempt
from the overtime provision of California wage and hour laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Hoyer, Esq.
          HOYER & ASSOCIATES
          Michael S. Sorgen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL S. SORGEN
          240 Stockton, 9th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 956-1360


SEMTECH CORP: Calif. Court Certifies Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has
certified a plaintiff class in the matter In Re: Semtech
Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:07-CV-07114-CAS,
according to the company's Sept. 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Aug. 1, 2010.

In August 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the company and certain current and former officers on behalf of
persons who purchased or acquired Semtech securities from Aug. 27,
2002 until July 19, 2006.  The case alleges violations of Federal
securities laws in connection with the company's past stock option
practices.

A very similar lawsuit, filed in October 2007 by another
plaintiff, was not served.

In February 2008, the Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement
System filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California for consolidation of the cases, appointment
of MPERS as lead plaintiff, and approval of selection of counsel.
The MPERS motion was granted in late March 2008, and a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed in May 2008,
initiating the consolidated action with MPERS as the lead
plaintiff.

In December 2008, the Court granted motions to dismiss in favor of
defendants Jason Carlson (former Chief Executive Officer of the
company) and Mohan Maheswaran (current Chief Executive Officer of
the company) regarding claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Court denied all other motions of all defendants, including
other motions to dismiss brought in relation to alternate
allegations raised against Messrs. Carlson and Maheswaran, who
remain pending as defendants in the matter.

Following a May 2010 District Court ruling adverse to the company
on the discoverability and production of certain materials over
which the company asserts privileges and exclusions from
production, the company sought and has since been granted approval
from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to seek review of the
District Court's ruling and order.

Appellate proceedings on the evidentiary issue are proceeding.

Most recently, on Aug. 23, 2010, the Court certified the plaintiff
class (as proposed by plaintiffs) to be persons who purchased or
acquired Semtech securities from Aug. 27, 2002 until July 19,
2006.

Discovery proceedings are ongoing at this time, subject to certain
scheduling impacts relating to the appeal of the evidentiary
matter now pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Semtech Corporation -- http://http://www.semtech.com/-- supplies
analog and mixed-signal semiconductors for high-end consumer,
computing, communications and industrial equipment.  Products are
designed to benefit the engineering community as well as the
global community.  The company is dedicated to reducing the impact
it, and its products, have on the environment.  Internal green
programs seek to reduce waste through material and manufacturing
control, use of green technology and designing for resource
reduction.  Publicly traded since 1967, Semtech is listed on the
NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol SMTC.


SHORETEL INC: Settles Consolidated Securities Suit for $3-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
ShoreTel, Inc. has agreed to settle the consolidated class-action
suit, In Re ShoreTel, Inc. Securities Litigation, for
$3 million, according to the company's Sept. 10, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.

On Jan. 16, 2008, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit,
captioned Watkins v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
ShoreTel, certain of its officers and directors, and the
underwriters of its initial public offering.

On Jan. 29, 2008, a second purported stockholder class-action
complaint, captioned, Kelley v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al., was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the same defendants.

Both complaints purport to bring suit on behalf of those who
purchased the company's common stock pursuant to its initial
public offering on July 3, 2007.  Both complaints purport to
allege claims for violations of the federal securities laws and
seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

The lawsuits were consolidated, and a consolidated amended class
action complaint, captioned In Re ShoreTel, Inc. Securities
Litigation, was filed on June 27, 2008.  The consolidated
complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of those who purchased
the company's common stock pursuant to the initial public offering
on July 3, 2007 and purports to allege claims for violations of
the federal securities laws.  The consolidated complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

On Feb. 2, 2009, the Court issued an order granting the company's
motion to dismiss the complaint but granted the Plaintiffs 30 days
to file an amended complaint.

A second consolidated amended class action complaint was
subsequently filed on March 2, 2009.

The consolidated action is purportedly brought on behalf of those
who purchased the company's common stock pursuant to the initial
public offering on July 3, 2007, purports to allege claims for
violations of the federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.

The company and counsel for the lead plaintiffs reached an
agreement in principle in February 2010 to settle the litigation,
pursuant to which, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing
of any kind, the company would pay the plaintiff class $250,000
with the remaining $2.75 million funded by insurance.

This agreement, which is subject to final documentation and Court
approval, would resolve all the claims in the litigation.

ShoreTel, Inc. -- http://www.shoretel.com/-- is the provider of
brilliantly simple Unified Communication (UC) solutions based on
its award-winning IP business phone system.  The company offers
organizations of all sizes integrated, voice, video, data, and
mobile communications on an open, distributed IP architecture that
helps significantly reduce the complexity and costs typically
associated with other solutions.  The feature-rich ShoreTel UC
system offers the lowest total cost of ownership (TCO) and the
highest customer satisfaction in the industry, in part because it
is easy to deploy, manage, scale and use.  Increasingly, companies
around the world are finding a competitive edge by replacing
business-as-usual with new thinking, and choosing ShoreTel to
handle their integrated business communication.  ShoreTel is based
in Sunnyvale, California, and has regional offices in Austin,
Texas, United Kingdom, Sydney, Australia and Munich, Germany.


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Settles Securities Suit; Hearing on Jan. 21
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Spectranetics Corporation has entered into a settlement to
resolve the matter In re Spectranetics Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 08-cv-2048-REB-KLM, according to the
company's Sept. 13, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Several securities class action lawsuits were filed against the
company and certain of its executives in 2008.  In 2009, these
cases were consolidated into one case in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado, and a group of investors identified
as the Spectranetics Investor Group was appointed lead plaintiff.

On Aug. 4, 2009, the Spectranetics Investor Group filed its
consolidated class action complaint, naming the company, John
Schulte, Guy Childs, Jonathan McGuire, Emile Geisenheimer, and
Craig Walker as defendants.  The consolidated complaint asserts
claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 alleging that the
defendants either failed to disclose, made false and misleading
statements, and/or participated in a common plan, scheme and
unlawful course of conduct involving, among other things, improper
marketing, promoting and testing its products and the products of
third parties for unapproved uses; payments to medical personnel
in connection with these uses; withholding data from the FDA; the
lack of effective regulatory compliance controls and adequate
internal and financial controls; and materially inflating the
company's financial results as a result of this conduct.

Lead Plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages,
legal fees and such other relief as the court may deem proper.
The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint on Sept. 18, 2009.  Various motions were subsequently
filed opposing and supporting the dismissal and the Court has not
yet ruled on these motions.

In accordance with a Stipulation of Settlement entered into as of
Sept. 7, 2010, the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors have entered into a settlement of the
consolidated class action.

The settlement is subject to approval by the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado.  As set forth more
fully in the Stipulation, if the settlement is given final
approval by the Court, among other things, (i) the claims against
Spectranetics and its officers and directors will be dismissed
with prejudice and released and (ii) Spectranetics will pay $8.5
million for the benefit of the settlement class to be funded by
its insurers.

                  Fairness Hearing on January 21

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado has
preliminarily approved a proposed class settlement in In Re
Spectranetics Corporation Securities Litigation.

District Judge Robert E. Blackburn certifies, for purposes of
effectuating the Settlement, a settlement class of all Persons
that purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of The
Spectranetics Corporation from March 16, 2007, to September 4,
2008, inclusive. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Settling
Class Action Defendants and their corporate affiliates; any
officers or directors of Spectranetics; members of their immediate
families, and their heirs, successors, and assigns. Also excluded
from the Settlement Class are those Persons who timely and validly
request exclusion from the Settlement Class pursuant to the Notice
of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement to be sent to
the Settlement Class.

The Court authorized the Settling Class Action Plaintiff's Counsel
to retain the firm of Rust Consulting as Claims Administrator to
supervise and administer the notice and claims procedures.

No later than September 24, 2010, the Claims Administrator will
send the Notice and the Proof of Claim to all Settlement Class
Members.  Requests for Exclusions must be submitted no later than
November 23, 2010.

A Settlement Hearing will be held on January 21, 2011, at 2:30
p.m. to determine whether the proposed settlement of the Class
Action, should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate as to
the members of the Settlement Class.

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

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100913854

The Spectranetics Corporation -- http://www.spectranetics.com/
-- develops, manufactures, markets and distributes single-use
medical devices used in minimally invasive procedures within the
cardiovascular system. The Company's products are sold in 40
countries throughout the world and are used to treat arterial
blockages in the heart and legs as well as the removal of
problematic pacemaker and defibrillator leads.

The company's Vascular Intervention (VI) products include a range
of peripheral and cardiac laser catheters for ablation of occluded
arteries above and below the knee and within coronary arteries.
The company also markets aspiration and thrombectomy catheters for
the removal of thrombus and support catheters to facilitate
crossing of coronary and peripheral arterial blockages.  The Lead
Management (LM) product line includes excimer laser sheaths and
cardiac lead management accessories for the removal of problematic
pacemaker and defibrillator cardiac leads.


TOYS R US: Agrees to Settle Pennsylvania Consumer Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Toys "R" Us, Inc., has reached a settlement in principle to settle
a consumer class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's Sept.
10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

On July 15, 2009, the Court granted the class plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in a consumer class action commenced in
January 2006, which was consolidated with an action brought by two
Internet retailers that was commenced in December 2005.

Both actions allege that Babies "R" Us agreed with certain baby
product manufacturers to impose, maintain or enforce minimum price
agreements in violation of antitrust laws.

In addition, in December 2009, a third Internet retailer filed a
similar action and another class action was commenced making
similar allegations involving most of the same Defendants.

On or about May 19, 2010, the parties in the consumer class
actions reached a settlement in principle which provided that the
company will contribute $17 million to the overall settlement.

The parties expect to negotiate a written settlement agreement
that will be subject to District Court approval.

Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission notified the company in
April 2009 that it had opened an investigation related to the
issues in those cases and to confirm our compliance with a 1998
FTC Final Order that prohibits the company from, among other
things, influencing its suppliers to limit sales of products to
other retailers, including price club warehouses.  The company
discloses that it has complied with the FTC Final Order and are
cooperating with the FTC.

Toys "R" Us' Inc. -- http://www.toysrus.com/-- is the world's
leading specialty toy and juvenile products retailer, offering a
differentiated shopping experience through its family of brands.
It currently sells merchandise in more than 1,560 stores,
including 848 Toys "R" Us and Babies "R" Us stores in the United
States, and more than 510 international stores and 200 licensed
stores in 33 countries and jurisdictions.  In addition, it
exclusively operates the legendary FAO Schwarz brand and sells
distinctive toys in the brand's flagship store on Fifth Avenue in
New York City.  With its portfolio of e-commerce sites including
Toysrus.com, Babiesrus.com, eToys.com, FAO.com and
babyuniverse.com, it provides shoppers with a broad online
selection of distinctive toy and baby products.  Headquartered in
Wayne, NJ, Toys "R" Us, Inc. employs approximately 70,000
associates worldwide.


                             *********

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  * * *