CAR_Public/100929.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

         Wednesday, September 29, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 192

                             Headlines

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: "Bateman" Case Remains Stayed Pending Appeal
AMERICAN EQUITY: Continues to Defend Sales Litigation in Calif.
AMERICAN EQUITY: Trial in "Stephens" Re-Scheduled to November
ARENA PHARMA: Faces Securities Violations Suit in California
CANO PETROLEUM: Fifth Circuit Upholds Dismissal Ruling

CHICAGO: Sued for Fraudulent Issuance of Parking Ticket
DRIL-QUIP: Named as Defendant in Suits Over Deepwater Incident
DYNAMEX INC: Further Certification Hearing Set for October 25
IMMERSION CORP: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Set for October 29
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Final Approval of Settlement Agreement Pending

MARCUS CORP: Goodman Files Second Amended Complaint
PEABODY ENERGY: Remains a Defendant in "Comer" Suit
POSTROCK ENERGY: Records Additional $400,000 Settlement Costs
QWEST COMMS: Colorado Court Denies Motion for Reconsideration
REDDY ICE: Motion to Dismiss Direct Purchaser's Suit Denied

REDDY ICE: Motion to Dismiss Indirect Purchaser's Suit Pending
REDDY ICE: Continues to Defend Suit in Ontario
REDDY ICE: Has Yet to Be Served Alberta Suit
REDDY ICE: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending
SEARS ROEBUCK: Arguments on Motion to Dismiss or Stay Suit Heard

SYNGENTA CROP: Non-Parties in Atrazine Suit Allowed Discovery
TELLABS INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in Ill.
WAL-MART STORES: Chamber of Commerce Files Brief With High Court
* Colleges Face More Suits Following Report of Deceptive Practices

                             *********

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: "Bateman" Case Remains Stayed Pending Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case No. 07-cv-00052 (C.D.
Calif.) (Feess, J.), which names AMC Entertainment, Inc., as a
defendant, remains stayed pending the plaintiff's appeal on the
denial of his renewed motion for class certification.

The suit was filed in January 2007, before the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, alleging violations of the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act.

The FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates nor more
than the last five numbers of a credit or debit card may be
printed on electronic receipts given to customers.  It imposes
significant penalties upon violators where the violation is
deemed to have been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to
actual losses incurred by the cardholder.

The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class
action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion
for class certification without prejudice pending the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in an appeal from a
denial of certification in a similar FACTA case.

On June 3, 2008, the President of the United States of America
signed the FACTA reform bill.  The bill specifies that if a
company printed the expiration date on credit card receipts, but
otherwise complied with FACTA, it did not willfully violate the
law.  The legislation does not specifically address the situation
where more than five digits of the credit card are printed on a
receipt.

The Ninth Circuit appeal was subsequently dismissed after the
parties reached a settlement.

On Oct. 24, 2008, the District Court denied the plaintiff's
renewed motion for class certification.  The plaintiff has
appealed the decision.

The case is stayed pending the appeal.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
         Ira Spiro, Esq.
         SPIRO MOSS BARNESS
         11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Telephone: (310) 235-2468
         E-mail: greg@spirmoss.com
                 ira@spiromoss.com

Representing the defendants is:

          David E. Novitskim, Esq.
          THELEN REID BROWN RAYMANS AND STEINER
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048
          Telephone: (213) 576-8097
          Facsimile: (213) 576-8080


AMERICAN EQUITY: Continues to Defend Sales Litigation in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Company continues to
defend the matter In Re: American Equity Annuity Practices and
Sales Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Western Division.

The suit is a consolidated action involving several lawsuits filed
by individuals, and the individuals are seeking class action
status for a national class of purchasers of annuities issued by
the company.

The named plaintiffs in this consolidated case are Bernard
McCormack, Gust Anagnostis by and through Gary S. Anagnostis and
Robert C. Anagnostis, Regina Bush by and through Sharon Schipiour,
Lenice Mathews by and through Mary Ann Maclean and George Miller.

The allegations generally attack the suitability of sales of
deferred annuity products to persons over the age of 65.

The plaintiffs seek recessionary and injunctive relief including
restitution and disgorgement of profits on behalf of all class
members under California Business & Professions Code section 17200
et seq. and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act;
compensatory damages for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting of breach of fiduciary duty; unjust enrichment and
constructive trust; and other pecuniary damages under California
Civil Code section 1750 and California Welfare & Institutions
Codes section 15600 et seq.

No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

American Equity Investment Life Holding Company, through its
wholly-owned operating subsidiaries, is a full service
underwriter fixed annuity and life insurance products, with a
primary emphasis on the sale of index and fixed rate index
annuities.


AMERICAN EQUITY: Trial in "Stephens" Re-Scheduled to November
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the matter Stephens v. American Equity Investment Life
Insurance Company, et al., pending in the San Luis Obispo Superior
Court, San Francisco, California, has been re-scheduled for
November 2010, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The suit was filed Nov. 29, 2004.  The plaintiffs in the case
represent a class of individuals who are California residents and
who either purchased their annuity from the company through a
co-defendant marketing organization or who purchased one of a
defined set of particular annuities issued by the company.

The named plaintiffs in this case are: Chalys M. Stephens and John
P. Stephens.

The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and restitution on behalf of
all class members under California Business & Professions Code
section 17200 et seq.; compensatory damages for breach of contract
and breach of fiduciary duty; other pecuniary damages under
California Civil Code section 1750 and California Welfare &
Institutions Codes section 15600 et seq.; and punitive damages
under common law causes of action for fraud and breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Trial in this matter, originally scheduled for September 2010, has
been re-scheduled for November 2010.

American Equity Investment Life Holding Company, through its
wholly-owned operating subsidiaries, is a full service underwriter
fixed annuity and life insurance products, with a primary emphasis
on the sale of index and fixed rate index annuities.


ARENA PHARMA: Faces Securities Violations Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc., faces a class action lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
according to the company's Sept. 22, 2010, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The suit was filed on Sept. 20, 2010, on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of the company between May 11, 2009, and September
16, 2010, alleging that the company and certain of its employees
engaged in violations of the Securities Act of 1933, or Securities
Act, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or Exchange Act, and
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act and the
Exchange Act.

Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company focused on discovering, developing and commercializing
oral drugs that target G protein-coupled receptors, an important
class of validated drug targets, in four major therapeutic areas:
cardiovascular, central nervous system, inflammatory and metabolic
diseases.  Arena's most advanced drug candidate, lorcaserin, is
intended for weight management and has completed a pivotal Phase 3
clinical trial program. Arena has filed an NDA for lorcaserin, and
the FDA has assigned a PDUFA date of Oct. 22, 2010, for review of
the application.  Arena's wholly owned subsidiary, Arena
Pharmaceuticals GmbH, has granted Eisai Inc. exclusive rights to
market and distribute lorcaserin in the United States.


CANO PETROLEUM: Fifth Circuit Upholds Dismissal Ruling
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the ruling
dismissing a suit against Cano Petroleum, Inc., according to the
company's Sept. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

On Oct. 2, 2008, a lawsuit (08 CV 8462) was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, against
David W. Wehlmann; Gerald W. Haddock; Randall Boyd; Donald W.
Niemiec; Robert L. Gaudin; William O. Powell, III and the
underwriters of the June 26, 2008 public offering of Cano common
stock ("Secondary Offering") alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.  Messrs. Wehlmann, Haddock, Boyd, Niemiec, Gaudin
and Powell were Cano outside directors on June 26, 2008.  At the
defendants' request, the case was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On July 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
added as defendants Cano, Cano's Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board, Jeff Johnson, Cano's former Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, Morris B. "Sam" Smith,
Cano's current Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
Ben Daitch, Cano's Vice President and Principal Accounting
Officer, Michael Ricketts and Cano's former Senior Vice President
of Engineering and Operations, Patrick McKinney, and dismissed
Gerald W. Haddock, a former director of Cano, as a defendant.

The amended complaint alleges that the prospectus for the
Secondary Offering contained statements regarding Cano's proved
reserve amounts and standards that were materially false and
overstated Cano's proved reserves.  The plaintiff is seeking to
certify the lawsuit as a class action lawsuit and is seeking an
unspecified amount of damages.

On July 27, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit.  On
Dec. 3, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas granted motions to dismiss all claims brought by the
plaintiffs.

On Dec. 18, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

On April 5, 2010, Cano filed its appellate brief to support its
position.  On April 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed their response
brief.

On Aug. 4, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas of all claims by the plaintiffs.  By affirming
the decision of the lower court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit agreed that the plaintiff's complaint failed to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and thus found
merit in dismissing the lawsuit.

Cano Petroleum, Inc. -- http://www.canopetro.com/-- is an
independent Texas-based energy producer with properties in the
mid-continent region of the United States. Cano's primary focus is
on increasing domestic production from proven fields using
enhanced recovery methods.


CHICAGO: Sued for Fraudulent Issuance of Parking Ticket
-------------------------------------------------------
Innocent Obi, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. City of Chicago, et al., Case No. 2010-L-010850 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. September 23, 2010), brings charges against
Officer J. Jackson and the revenue department of the City of
Chicago, for the fraudulent and illegal issuance of a parking
ticket to the vehicle plaintiff allegedly parked on a no-parking
zone along Midway Plaisance Drive in the west direction off
Cottage Grove on July 26, 2010, despite the absence of a sign
stating that Park/Standing was prohibited at the site of the
alleged parking violation.  Rather, the photos taken by the
plaintiff show a road sign showing direction to drive only, but no
sign prohibiting parking or standing at any time.

Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, demands a trial by jury.  Mr. Obi
can be reached at:

          Innocent Obi
          P.O. Box 490122
          Chicago, IL 60649
          Telephone: (773) 841-6166


DRIL-QUIP: Named as Defendant in Suits Over Deepwater Incident
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dril-Quip, Inc., has been named as a defendant in six class-action
lawsuits in connection with the Deepwater Horizon incident,
according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

On April 22, 2010, a deepwater Gulf of Mexico drilling rig known
as the Deepwater Horizon that was operated by BP Exploration &
Production, Inc., sank after an explosion and fire that began on
April 20, 2010.  Crude oil flowing from the well site has spread
across thousands of square miles of the Gulf of Mexico and has
reached the United States Gulf Coast.  Efforts to contain the flow
of hydrocarbons from the well are being led by the United States
government and by BP and its affiliates.  In addition, there were
eleven fatalities and a number of injuries as a result of the
explosion and fire. The cause of the explosion, fire, and
resulting oil spill is being investigated by numerous industry
participants, governmental agencies, and Congressional committees.

The company is a party to an ongoing contract with an affiliate of
BP to supply wellhead systems in connection with BP's Gulf of
Mexico operations, and the company's wellhead and certain of its
other equipment were in use on the Deepwater Horizon at the time
of the incident.

The company has been named along with other unaffiliated
defendants in six class-action lawsuits and three other lawsuits
that allege pollution damage claims, personal injuries and/or
business losses arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident.
These actions were filed against the company between May 11, 2010
and July 21, 2010 in federal courts in the Eastern District of
Louisiana and the Northern, Middle and Southern Districts of
Florida and in state court in Mobile County, Alabama.

The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, violation of
state and federal environmental and other laws and regulations,
negligence, gross negligence, strict liability and/or property
damages and generally seek awards of unspecified economic,
compensatory and punitive damages.

The company has retained counsel and is investigating and
evaluating the claims, the theories of recovery, damages asserted,
and its respective defenses to all of these claims.

Dril-Quip is a leading manufacturer of highly engineered offshore
drilling and production equipment which is well suited for use in
deepwater, harsh environment and severe service applications.


DYNAMEX INC: Further Certification Hearing Set for October 25
-------------------------------------------------------------
A further certification hearing in an amended complaint against
Dynamex, Inc., is set for Oct. 25, 2010, according to the
company's Sept. 22, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
July 31, 2010.

On April 15, 2005, a putative class action was filed against the
company by a former independent contractor in the Superior Court
of California, Los Angeles County, alleging that the company
unlawfully misclassified its California drivers as independent
contractors, rather than employees, and asserting, as a
consequence, entitlement on behalf of the purported class
claimants to overtime compensation and other benefits under
California wage and hour laws, reimbursement of certain operating
expenses, and various insurance and other benefits and the
obligation of the Company to pay employer payroll taxes under
federal and state law.

In early February 2009, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint,
which among other matters, added an additional named Plaintiff.

Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification in June 2009,
seeking the certification of a Class with four Subclasses, each
dependent on the type of service rendered by the independent
contractor and the weight of the vehicle provided by the
independent contractor.  On July 28, 2009, the Court granted the
Motion.

The four subclasses were each subject to between four and eight
exclusions.

In January 2010, the Parties agreed to a process whereby the Court
modified its earlier Order granting certification of a Class to
clarify that the earlier Order "conditionally" granted
Certification.  The Order initiated a process whereby a
questionnaire was to be sent by an impartial Class Administrator
to each potential member of the Class to gather information.

As a part of the process, the Court would dismiss from the Class
those individuals who failed to respond to the questionnaire
within the allotted time.  Incomplete or deficient questionnaires
could be cured through written or telephonic inquiry by the Class
Administrator.  Approximately 260 questionnaires were timely
returned.

Further clarification and additional information has been
requested from approximately 120 of the individuals returning the
questionnaires with a due date of Aug. 12, 2010.

A further certification hearing will be held on Oct. 25, 2010, and
a tentative trial date has been set for April 4, 2011.

Dynamex, Inc. -- http://www.dynamex.com/-- is a provider of same-
day delivery and logistics services in the U.S. and Canada.
Through its network of business centers, the company provides
same-day, on-demand, door-to-door delivery services utilizing its
ground couriers.


IMMERSION CORP: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Set for October 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on Immersion Corporation's motion to dismiss the
matter In re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation, is set
for Oct. 29, 2010, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In September and October 2009, various putative shareholder class
action and derivative complaints were filed in federal and state
court against the company and certain current and former Immersion
directors and officers.  On Sept. 2, 2009, a securities class
action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and certain of
its current and former directors and officers.

Over the following five weeks, four additional class action
complaints were filed. One of these four actions was later
voluntarily dismissed.

The securities class action complaints name the company and
certain current and former Immersion directors and officers as
defendants and allege violations of federal securities laws based
on the company's issuance of allegedly misleading financial
statements.  The various complaints assert claims covering the
period from May 2007 through July 2009 and seek compensatory
damages allegedly sustained by the purported class members.

On Dec. 21, 2009, these class actions were consolidated by the
court as In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation. On the
same day, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel.

Following the company's restatement of its financial statements,
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on April 9, 2010.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on June 15, 2010.
The hearing on defendants' motion is scheduled for
Oct. 29, 2010.

Immersion Corporation -- http://www.immersion.com/-- is the
leading innovator in haptics technology; the company's touch
feedback solutions deliver a more compelling sense of the digital
world.  Using Immersion's high-fidelity haptic systems, partners
can transform user experiences with unique and customizable touch
feedback effects; excite the senses in games, videos and music;
restore "mechanical" feel by providing intuitive and unmistakable
confirmation; improve safety by overcoming distractions while
driving or performing a medical procedure; and expand usability
when audio and visual feedback are ineffective.  Immersion's
TouchSense technology provides haptics in mobile phone,
automotive, gaming, medical and consumer electronics products from
world-class companies. With over 900 issued or pending patents in
the U.S. and other countries, Immersion helps bring the digital
universe to life.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Final Approval of Settlement Agreement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval of the settlement agreement resolving a
consolidated action against Juniper Networks, Inc., remains
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On July 14, 2006, and Aug. 29, 2006, two purported class actions
were filed in the Northern District of California against the
company and certain of the company's current and former officers
and directors.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the Court consolidated the two actions as In re
Juniper Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C06-04327-JW,
and appointed the New York City Pension Funds as lead plaintiffs.
The lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on
Jan. 12, 2007, and filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on April 9, 2007.

The Amended Consolidated Complaint alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by manipulating stock option
grant dates to coincide with low stock prices and issuing false
and misleading statements including, among others, incorrect
financial statements due to the improper accounting of stock
option grants.  The Amended Consolidated Complaint asserts claims
for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Juniper Networks' publicly-traded securities
from July 12, 2001, through and including Aug. 10, 2006.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages in an unspecified amount.

On June 7, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain
of the claims, and a hearing was held on Sept. 10, 2007.
On March 31, 2008, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.  The order
dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' section 10(b) claim to the
extent it was based on challenged statements made before July 14,
2001.  The order also dismissed, with leave to amend, plaintiffs'
section 10(b) claim against Pradeep Sindhu. The order upheld all
of plaintiffs' remaining claims. Plaintiffs did not amend their
complaint.

On Sept. 25, 2009, the Court certified a plaintiff class
consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the company's securities from July 11, 2003 to Aug. 10,
2006 inclusive, and were damaged thereby, including those who
received or acquired Juniper Networks' common stock issued
pursuant to the registration statement on SEC Form S-4, dated
March 10, 2004, for the company's merger with NetScreen
Technologies Inc.; and purchasers of Zero Coupon Convertible
Senior Notes due June 15, 2008 issued pursuant to a registration
statement on SEC Form S-3 dated Nov. 20, 2003.

Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and the current and
former officers and directors of the company, their immediate
families, their heirs, successors, or assigns and any entity
controlled by any such person.

On Feb. 5, 2010, the company and the lead plaintiffs entered into
an agreement in principle to settle the claims against the
company and each of the company's current and former officers and
directors.  The settlement is contingent upon approval by the
Boards of Trustees of the lead plaintiffs and approval by the
Court.

Under the proposed settlement, the claims against the company and
its officers and directors will be dismissed with prejudice and
released in exchange for a $169.0 million cash payment by the
company.  The company considers the proposed payment to be
probable and reasonably estimable and, therefore, recorded the
cash settlement amount as a pre-tax operating expense in its
consolidated statement of operations for the fourth quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

On April 12, 2010, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement and a fairness hearing was scheduled for Aug.
30, 2010, to consider whether to grant final approval of the
settlement, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010..

Juniper Networks, Inc. -- http://www.juniper.net/-- designs,
develops and sells products and services that together provide
its customers with network infrastructure that creates responsive
and trusted environments for accelerating the deployment of
services and applications over a single network.  The company
serves the networking requirements of global service providers,
enterprises and public sector organizations, which view the
network to their success.  The company offers a product portfolio,
which spans routing, switching, security, application
acceleration, identity policy and control, and management designed
to provide performance, choice and flexibility.  The company
operations are organized into two segments: infrastructure and
service layer technologies (SLT).  The company's infrastructure
segment offers scalable routing and switching products that are
used to control and direct network traffic from the core, through
the edge, aggregation and the customer premise equipment level.


MARCUS CORP: Goodman Files Second Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------
Two of The Marcus Corporation's subsidiaries continue to face a
second amended class action complaint in Nevada, according to the
company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended May 27, 2010.

On Dec. 5, 2008, a class action complaint captioned Goodman, et
al. v. Platinum Condominium Development, LLC, Case No. 09-CV-957,
was filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada for
Clark County against Platinum Condominium Development, LLC, one
of the company's subsidiaries.

On April 30, 2009, Platinum LLC was served with a summons and a
copy of an amended complaint.  The amended complaint also named
another one of the company's subsidiaries, Marcus Management LV,
as a defendant.

Subsequently, Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV removed the
case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, where
it is currently pending.

The amended complaint in Goodman seeks an unspecified amount of
damages and alleges violations of federal and Nevada law, and
that Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV made various
representations in connection with the Platinum Hotel & Spa
development in Las Vegas, Nevada.

On June 29, 2009, both Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV
moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety.  On
March 29, 2010, the District of Nevada granted in part and denied
in part the motion to dismiss, and dismissed most of the claims
against Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV without prejudice.

On April 28, 2010, Goodman filed a second amended complaint, which
Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV have answered, in part, and
moved to dismiss, in part.  The parties are currently briefing the
motion to dismiss.

The Marcus Corporation -- http://www.marcuscorp.com/-- is a
leader in the lodging and entertainment industries.  The Marcus
Corporation's movie theatre division, Marcus Theatres(R),
currently owns or manages 668 screens at 54 locations in
Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and
Ohio, and one family entertainment center in Wisconsin.  The
company's lodging division, Marcus Hotels and Resorts, owns or
manages 19 hotels, resorts and other properties in ten states.


PEABODY ENERGY: Remains a Defendant in "Comer" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Peabody Energy Corp. remains a defendant in the suit styled Comer,
et al. v. Murphy Oil Co., et al., according to the company's Aug.
6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In April 2006, residents and owners of land and property along the
Mississippi Gulf coast filed a purported class action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Mississippi
against more than 45 oil, chemical, utility and coal companies,
including the company.

The plaintiffs alleged that defendants' greenhouse gas emissions
"were a proximate and direct cause of the increase in the
destructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina," and sought damages
based on several legal theories.  The defendants filed motions to
dismiss on the grounds of lack of personal and subject matter
jurisdiction.

In August 2007, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction finding that plaintiffs'
claims are barred by the political question doctrine and for lack
of standing.

In October 2009, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) reversed in part the
decision of the trial court, holding that the plaintiffs had
standing to assert their public and private nuisance, trespass and
negligence claims.  The court held that plaintiffs did not satisfy
the prudential standing requirement for their unjust enrichment,
fraudulent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy claims and
dismissed those claims and ordered that the case be remanded to
the district court for further proceedings.

In March 2010, the Fifth Circuit vacated the panel opinion and
ordered a hearing en banc before the full Fifth Circuit to
consider plaintiffs' appeal.  After the en banc court was properly
constituted, a recusal by one of the judges resulted in the en
banc court losing its quorum.

On May 28, 2010, the Fifth Circuit issued an order indicating that
the court had no authority to reinstate the panel decision and
directing the clerk to dismiss the appeal.

Peabody Energy Corp. is the world's largest private-sector coal
company and a global leader in clean coal solutions.  With 2009
sales of 244 million tons and $6 billion in revenues, Peabody
fuels 10% of U.S. power and 2% of worldwide electricity.


POSTROCK ENERGY: Records Additional $400,000 Settlement Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------
PostRock Energy Corporation reports that in addition to the
$1,000,000 it agrees to contribute to a settlement resolving
pending securities class actions, first-filed derivative lawsuit,
and two individual securities actions pending against the company
and its current and former officers and directors, it has recorded
an additional $400,000 in additional settlement costs, according
to its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Four putative class action complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma naming
QRCP, QELP and Quest Energy GP, LLC, the general partner of the
predecessor of QELP and certain of their then current and former
officers and directors as defendants.  The complaints were filed
by certain stockholders on behalf of themselves and other
stockholders who purchased QRCP common stock between May 2, 2005,
and August 25, 2008, and QELP common units between Nov. 7, 2007,
and Aug. 25, 2008.

The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.  The complaints allege that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading
statements and concealing material facts concerning certain
unauthorized transfers of funds from subsidiaries of QRCP to
entities controlled by QRCP's former chief executive officer, Mr.
Jerry D. Cash.  The complaints also allege that, as a result of
these actions, QRCP's stock price and the unit price of QELP was
artificially inflated during the class period.

On December 29, 2008, the court consolidated these complaints as
Michael Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Quest Energy Partners LP, Quest Energy GP
LLC, Quest Resource Corporation, Jerry Cash, and David E. Grose,
Case No. 08-cv-936-M, in the Western District of Oklahoma.

On September 24, 2009, the court appointed lead the plaintiffs for
each of the QRCP class and the QELP class.  The lead plaintiffs
must file a consolidated amended complaint within 60 days after
being appointed. On October 13, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for partial modification of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 discovery stay, which the
defendants opposed and which the court denied on December 15,
2009.

On November 4, 2009, the court granted the lead plaintiffs'
unopposed request to file separate consolidated amended
complaints.  The court ordered that all pleadings and filings for
the QELP class be filed under Friedman v. Quest Energy Partners,
LP, et al., case no. 08-cv-936-M, and all pleadings and filings
for the QRCP class be filed under Jents v. Quest Resource
Corporation, et al., case no. 08-cv-968-M.

The QELP lead the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on
November 10, 2009. The consolidated complaint names as additional
defendants David C. Lawler, Gary Pittman, Mark Stansberry, Murrell
Hall, McIntosh & Co. PLLP, and Eide Bailly LLP.  The QRCP lead
the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on December 7, 2009,
which names Murrell, Hall, McIntosh & Co. PLLP, Eide Bailly LLP,
and various former QRCP directors as additional defendants.  On
December 23, 2009, QRCP and David C. Lawler filed a motion to
dismiss the Friedman complaint, and on December 28, 2009, QELP,
QEGP, Gary Pittman and Mark Stansberry filed a motion to dismiss
the Friedman complaint.  On Jan. 21, 2010, QRCP and the individual
director defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Jents complaint.
No response to the motion to dismiss has yet been filed in either
proceeding.

On February 2, 2010, mediation was held among the parties.  A
second round of the mediation was held on April 2, 2010.  An
agreement to settle all of the federal securities lawsuits has
been reached in principle.  The settlement is subject to court
approval.

On July 9, 2010, a stipulation of settlement was filed in the
consolidated action.  On July 22, 2010 a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement was filed with the court.  On July 23,
2010, an objection to the motion was filed by the Enders
derivative the plaintiff.  However, Enders has now agreed to
withdraw that objection.

The Company has agreed to contribute $1 million to the proposed
settlement of the lawsuits and recorded an additional $400,000 for
anticipated additional settlement costs.  While the Company has
recorded an accrual for these amounts in the first quarter of
2010, there can be no assurance that final approval of the
settlement will be granted by the court or that the final
settlement amount will equal the amount of the accrual.

PostRock Energy Corporation -- http://www.pstr.com/-- is a
vertically integrated independent energy company engaged in the
acquisition, exploration, development, production and
transportation of oil and natural gas in the Cherokee Basin, the
Appalachian Basin and Central Oklahoma.  PostRock has over 2,800
wells and nearly 2,200 miles of natural gas gathering pipelines in
the Cherokee Basin.  The company also owns and operates nearly 400
natural gas and oil producing wells and undeveloped acreage in the
Appalachian Basin of the northeastern United States and more than
1,100 miles of interstate natural gas transmission pipelines in
Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri.


QWEST COMMS: Colorado Court Denies Motion for Reconsideration
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied the
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on the ruling dismissing a
suit against Qwest Communications International Inc., according to
the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

A putative class action filed on behalf of certain of the
company's retirees was brought against the company, the Qwest
Group Life Insurance Plan and other related entities in federal
district court in Colorado in connection with the company's
decision to reduce the life insurance benefit for these retirees
to a $10,000 benefit.

The action was filed on March 30, 2007.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the company and
other defendants were obligated to continue their life insurance
benefit at the levels in place before we decided to reduce them.
Plaintiffs seek restoration of the life insurance benefit to
previous levels and certain equitable relief.

The district court ruled in the company's favor on the central
issue of whether we properly reserved the company's right to
reduce the life insurance benefit under applicable law and plan
documents.  The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to
assert additional claims.

In 2009, the court dismissed or granted summary judgment to the
company on all of the plaintiffs' claims.  The plaintiffs filed a
motion for reconsideration, which motion was denied by the court
on July 22, 2010.

The plaintiffs had until late August 2010 to file an appeal with
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Qwest Communications International Inc. -- http://www.qwest.com/
-- provides data, Internet, video and voice services.  The company
operates its business in the 14-state region of Arizona, Colorado,
Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North
Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.  Qwest
operates in three segments: business markets, mass markets and
wholesale markets.  The company's products and services are
provided using its telecommunications network, which consists of
voice and data switches, copper cables, fiber optic broadband
cables and other equipment.  The majority of the company's network
is located in its local service area.  Within its local service
area, Qwest's network serves approximately 10.3 million access
lines in 14 states and forms a portion of the public switched
telephone network (PSTN).


REDDY ICE: Motion to Dismiss Direct Purchaser's Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has
denied Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the direct
purchaser claims in connection with the U.S. Department of
Justice's investigation into possible antitrust violations in the
packaged ice industry.

In March 2008, the company and certain of its employees, including
members of its management, received subpoenas issued by a federal
grand jury in the Eastern District of Michigan seeking documents
and information in connection with an investigation by the
Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice into possible
antitrust violations in the packaged ice industry.

Following the announcement that the Antitrust Division of the DOJ
had instituted an investigation of the packaged ice industry, a
number of lawsuits, including putative class action lawsuits, were
filed against the company, Reddy Ice Corporation, Home City Ice
Company, Arctic Glacier Income Fund, Arctic Glacier, Inc. and
Arctic Glacier International, Inc., in various federal courts in
multiple jurisdictions alleging violations of federal and state
antitrust laws and related claims and seeking damages and
injunctive relief.

Pursuant to an Order from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the civil actions pending in federal courts have been
transferred and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

On June 1, 2009, the Court appointed interim lead and liaison
counsel for the putative direct purchaser classes.  On Sept. 15,
2009, the lead plaintiff for the putative direct purchaser class
filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The company and Arctic Glacier filed motions to dismiss the direct
purchaser complaint.

The motions by the company and Arctic Glacier to dismiss the
direct purchaser claims were denied by the Court on July 1, 2010,
according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

Home City entered into a proposed settlement agreement with the
direct purchaser plaintiffs.  A hearing to consider preliminary
approval of Home City's settlement with the direct purchasers was
set for Aug. 26, 2010.

Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/-- and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Reddy Ice Corporation, manufacture and
distribute packaged ice products.  The company consists of a
single operating segment.


REDDY ICE: Motion to Dismiss Indirect Purchaser's Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the indirect
purchaser complaint arising out of the U.S. Department of
Justice's investigation into possible antitrust violations in the
packaged ice industry, is pending

In March 2008, the company and certain of its employees, including
members of its management, received subpoenas issued by a federal
grand jury in the Eastern District of Michigan seeking documents
and information in connection with an investigation by the
Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice into possible
antitrust violations in the packaged ice industry.

Following the announcement that the Antitrust Division of the DOJ
had instituted an investigation of the packaged ice industry, a
number of lawsuits, including putative class action lawsuits, were
filed against the company, Reddy Ice Corporation, Home City Ice
Company, Arctic Glacier Income Fund, Arctic Glacier, Inc. and
Arctic Glacier International, Inc., in various federal courts in
multiple jurisdictions alleging violations of federal and state
antitrust laws and related claims and seeking damages and
injunctive relief.

Pursuant to an Order from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the civil actions pending in federal courts have been
transferred and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

On June 1, 2009, the Court appointed interim lead and liaison
counsel for the putative indirect purchaser class.

On Sept. 15, 2009, the lead plaintiff for the putative indirect
purchaser class filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The company and Arctic Glacier filed motions to dismiss the
complaint.  Home City also filed a motion to dismiss the indirect
purchaser.

The motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser complaint are
pending, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/-- and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Reddy Ice Corporation, manufacture and
distribute packaged ice products.  The company consists of a
single operating segment.


REDDY ICE: Continues to Defend Suit in Ontario
----------------------------------------------
Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., defends a putative class action filed in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada.

On March 1, 2010, a putative class action Statement of Claim was
filed against the company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
in Canada, alleging violations of Part VI of the Competition Act
and seeking general damages, punitive and exemplary damages, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, and costs.

A case conference regarding this matter was held on June 9, 2010.

In that case conference, a schedule was set for proceedings
relating to Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of a Class,
according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/-- and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Reddy Ice Corporation, manufacture and
distribute packaged ice products.  The company consists of a
single operating segment.


REDDY ICE: Has Yet to Be Served Alberta Suit
--------------------------------------------
Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., has yet to be served the putative class
action filed in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta.

On March 8, 2010, a putative class action Statement of Claim was
filed against the Company in the Court of Queen's Bench of
Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary, in Canada, alleging
violations of Part VI of the Competition Act and seeking general
damages, special and pecuniary damages, punitive and exemplary
damages, interest and costs.

This Statement of Claim has yet not been served on the company,
according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/-- and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Reddy Ice Corporation, manufacture and
distribute packaged ice products.  The company consists of a
single operating segment.


REDDY ICE: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
amended complaint asserting claims under the federal securities
laws, remains pending.

Beginning on Aug. 8, 2008, purported class action complaints have
been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan asserting claims under the federal securities laws
against the company and certain of its current or former senior
officers.

The complaints, which are substantially similar, allege that the
defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose the existence of,
and the company's alleged participation in, an alleged antitrust
conspiracy in the packaged ice industry.

The complaints purport to assert claims on behalf of various
alleged classes of purchasers of the company's common stock.

On July 17, 2009, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed
a lead plaintiff and interim lead plaintiff's counsel.  The lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on Nov. 2, 2009.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on Dec. 17, 2009.

Plaintiffs filed a response to that motion to dismiss on Jan. 18,
2010, and the company filed a reply in support of the motion on
Feb. 17, 2010, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/-- and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Reddy Ice Corporation, manufacture and
distribute packaged ice products.  The company consists of a
single operating segment.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Arguments on Motion to Dismiss or Stay Suit Heard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison County Record, reports
attorneys from both sides of a proposed Madison County class
action over a malfunctioning washing machine haggled over the
case's similarity to a pending federal case in California on
Friday.

Sears Roebuck & Co. attorney Michael Williams argued that the
younger Illinois suit led by lead plaintiff Therese Dalla Riva was
a "second bite at the apple," for her team of attorneys.

Meanwhile Lori Andrus, Esq., who's team filed both the California
case and Dalla Riva's, told Madison County Circuit Judge David
Hylla that there were enough differences between the two to
warrant Ms. Dalla Riva's suit continuing.

Sears had moved to stay or dismiss Ms. Dalla Riva's suit pending
the outcome of a potential nationwide class action filed last year
by lead plaintiff Renee Tietsworth in the U.S. Northern District
of California.

After hearing arguments Friday morning, Judge Hylla told both
parties to prepare proposed orders and that he was taking the
matter under advisement.

Ms. Dalla Riva claims that her Kenmore Elite Oasis automatic
washing machines had defective electronic control boards that
cause the machines to malfunction.

The suit includes warranty, consumer fraud and safety claims,
including those that the washer potentially explodes.

Ms. Dalla Riva claims the company deliberately concealed the
defects from her and a class of Illinois washing machine
purchasers.

Mr. Williams told Judge Hylla Friday that the Dalla Riva suit and
Tietsworth suit alleged virtually the same claims and that an
Illinois sub-class could easily be added to the California federal
case helmed by U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel.

Mr. Williams pointed to discovery in the federal case where Sears
has turned over all of its databases including those dealing with
Illinois.

The defense attorney pointed out several times Ms. Andrus'
involvement in the two cases, calling the two suits harassment and
were just another attempt by Andrus and her team to sustain claims
that Judge Fogel had thrown out of the California suit.

He told Judge Hylla that the Illinois class could seek remedy in
the federal case and what ever claims were not addressed by it
could be taken up in Illinois courts after the end of the
Tietsworth case.

"There is no indication there that the judge is unfair and that he
can't apply Illinois law to Illinois claims," Mr. Williams said of
Judge Fogel. "You've got some lawyers calling the shots and they
didn't get what they wanted there so they've come here because
they want a second shot here."

Judge Hylla questioned Mr. Williams about the differences between
the suit, particularly the "exploding washing machine" claims.

"We think the safety issue is really a red herring," Mr. Williams
replied. "All we have are regurgitated reports from the Internet."

Ms. Andrus, in her argument, dismissed the similarities in the two
cases, instead focusing on the distinct Illinois claims, including
the fear of the possible washer explosion.

Mr. Andrus told Judge Hylla the explosions were not rumors and
that one washer that did blow up was sitting in storage in
Nebraska.

Ms. Andrus said that although its owner had dropped out of the
Tietsworth case, that evidence coupled with the uniqueness of the
Illinois claims should allow Ms. Dalla Riva's suit to go forward.

"These are not made up claims," Ms. Andrus said.

Ms. Andrus told Judge Hylla that the Illinois court could deprive
Illinois residents of their recovery because Judge Fogel would not
be bound to honor the Illinois claims in his court and Sears would
potentially fight their inclusion.

Judge Hylla questioned Mr. Williams on that point.

"It does seem to me that these nationwide defendants are always in
here arguing against a nationwide class," Judge Hylla said.

Mr. Williams told Judge Hylla that Judge Fogel, as a federal
judge, could certify a nationwide class, two state classes or take
a different direction to work out the claims of the various
states' residents.

Mark Goldenberg, Ms. Andrus' co-counsel, told Judge Hylla his
client preferred to stay in Illinois, all similarities and
discovery overlap aside.

"We don't want to go try an Illinois case . . . in California,"
Mr. Goldenberg said.

Therese Dalla Riva's husband, Dr. James Dalla Riva, won a medical
malpractice case tried before Madison County Circuit Judge Andreas
Matoesian earlier this year.

Ms. Andrus is from the San Francisco firm of Andrus Anderson LLP.

Mr. Williams is from the Denver firm of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell
LLP.

Stephen Strauss, Esq., of Bryan Cave LLP of St. Louis also
represents Sears.

The Dalla Riva suit is Madison case number 10-L-203.

The Tietsworth federal case is case number 5:09-cv-00288-JF.


SYNGENTA CROP: Non-Parties in Atrazine Suit Allowed Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison County Recorder, reports
Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder will allow plaintiffs
in one of a series of proposed class actions against a maker of
the herbicide atrazine to discover evidence among non-parties to
the litigation.

In a Sept. 22 order, Judge Crowder wrote that her order seeks to
balance the third parties' First Amendment rights with what is
discoverable under Illinois law.

Overall, the order allows the plaintiffs, including Holiday Shores
Sanitation District and various Illinois municipalities, to
discover evidence that relates to exchanges between non-parties
and defendant Syngenta Crop Protection Inc.

For example, as to the Heartland Institute, an agricultural non-
profit organization, Judge Crowder ruled that information related
to Syngenta's relationship to the organization was discoverable.
Information about other members of the group is not discoverable
at this time, according to the order.

Judge Crowder also granted limited discovery with respect to Don
Coursey, a professor at the University of Chicago who studies
atrazine, the university, the Illinois Farm Bureau and other
groups.

Judge Crowder entered the ruling on various objections raised by
non-parties to the suit two days before a proposed hearing in the
case.

Those parties, trade groups and others objected to discovery
requests in the case and had moved to have them quashed.

That hearing, set for Sept. 24 and slated to deal with dueling
motions to compel, was canceled by agreement.

Holiday Shores and the other named plaintiffs proposes to lead
Illinois water providers in six class actions against the makers
and distributors of atrazine and atrazine containing products.

The plaintiffs allege the herbicide runs off farm fields and
contaminates their water supplies.

While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that
atrazine up to three parts per billion is safe in drinking water,
the suits claim smaller amounts cause unspecified human health
problems.

The plaintiffs had been seeking depositions and other discovery
from third parties including the University of Chicago, the
Illinois Farm Bureau and chemical trade groups.

They were joined in their objections to the discovery requests by
Syngenta.

The case at issue has progressed ahead of the other suits because
it is the primary maker of atrazine.

The discovery dispute is one of a series in the six year-old case.

Judge Crowder heard arguments on the matter Aug. 25.

Judge Crowder dismissed earlier arguments by the plaintiffs that
the third parties had to file privilege logs with the court in
order to stop the discovery.

Judge Crowder noted that her order is not intended to be the final
word on discovery matters in the case.

"Again, this court is well aware that discovery disputes may
continue and be ongoing," the order reads. "The court has
attempted to balance the need for discovery with the First
Amendment rights of the non-parties looking at the specific
counts. This order is not intended to be a final and definitive
statement as to any future discovery issue."

Upon the entry of the non-party order, the Syngenta case joined
the other atrazine cases under the watch of Madison County Circuit
Judge Daniel Stack,

Judge Stack originally helmed all of the atrazine cases.

The suits were transferred to Judge Crowder last year after Judge
Stack announced his retirement plans.

Judge Stack will leave the bench later this year.

However, when Judge Crowder took up Judge Stack's former asbestos
docket last month, Judge Stack took over her civil docket,
including the atrazine cases.

Kurtis Reeg, Esq., represents Syngenta.

Stephen Tillery, Esq., represents the plaintiffs.

Edward Dwyer, Esq., and Jennifer Martin, Esq., of Hodge Dwyer &
Driver of Springfield represent both the Illinois Fertilizer and
Chemical Association and Chemical Council of Illinois.

Daniel Donahue, Esq., and others represent Mr. Coursey and the
Heartland Institute.

Mary Lamb, Esq., represents the University of Chicago.

V Fluence, another third party in the suit, is represented by
Larry Helper, Esq.

Christopher Byron, Esq., represents the Farm Bureau.

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

The atrazine suits are Madison case numbers 04-L-708 to 04-L-713.


TELLABS INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tellabs, Inc., continues to defend itself in a consolidated class
action complaint alleging violation of federal securities laws,
according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 2, 2010.

On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against
Tellabs; Michael Birck, Chairman of the Board of Tellabs; and
Richard Notebaert, former CEO, President and Director of Tellabs.
Thereafter, eight similar complaints were also filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. All nine of
these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on December 3,
2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed
against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain other of
the Company's current or former officers and directors.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class
period -- December 11, 2000-June 19, 2001 -- the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making materially false
and misleading statements, including, among other things,
allegedly providing revenue forecasts that were false and
misleading, misrepresenting demand for the company's products, and
reporting overstated revenue for the fourth quarter 2000 in the
company's financial statements. Furthermore, certain of the
individual defendants were alleged to have violated the federal
securities laws by trading the company's securities while
allegedly in possession of material, non-public information about
the company pertaining to these matters. The consolidated amended
complaint seeks unspecified restitution, damages and other relief.

On January 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in its entirety.  On May 19, 2003, the Court granted
the Company's motion and dismissed all counts of the consolidated
amended complaint, while affording the plaintiffs an opportunity
to replead.

On July 11, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck and
Notebaert, and many, although not all, of the other previously
named individual defendants, realleging claims similar to those
contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class
action complaint.  The Company filed a second motion to dismiss on
August 22, 2003, seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all
claims alleged in the second consolidated amended class action
complaint.  On February 19, 2004, the Court issued an order
granting that motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.

On March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
United States Federal Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit,
appealing the dismissal.  The appeal was fully briefed and oral
argument was heard on January 21, 2005.  On January 25, 2006, the
Seventh Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing
in part the judgment of the district court, and remanding for
further proceedings. On February 8, 2006, defendants filed with
the Seventh Circuit a petition for rehearing with suggestion for
rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2006, the Seventh Circuit ordered
the plaintiffs to file an answer to the petition for rehearing,
which was filed by the plaintiffs on May 3, 2006. On July 10,
2006, the Seventh Circuit denied the petition for rehearing with a
minor modification to its opinion, and remanded the case to the
district court.

On September 22, 2006, defendants filed a motion in the district
court to dismiss some, but not all, of the remaining claims.

On October 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the U.S. Supreme
Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to appeal the
Seventh Circuit's decision. On January 5, 2007, the defendants'
petition was granted. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments
on March 28, 2007. On June 21, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court
vacated the Seventh Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

On November 1, 2007, the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments for
the remanded case.  On January 17, 2008, the Seventh Circuit
issued an opinion adhering to its earlier opinion reversing in
part the judgment of the district court, and remanded the case to
the district court for further proceedings.

On February 24, 2009, the district court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The case is now proceeding in the district court and discovery is
ongoing.  A trial date has not yet been set.

Tellabs, Inc. -- http://www.tellabs.com/-- is engaged in
designing and marketing equipment and services to communications
customers worldwide.  The company's products and services enable
its customers to deliver wireline and wireless voice, data and
video services to business and residential customers.  It sells
its products domestically and internationally through its field
sales force and distributors/partners.  The company's customers
are primarily communication services providers, including local
exchange carriers (LECs); national post, telephone and telegraph
(PTT) administrators, wireless service providers, multiple system
operators (MSOs), and competitive service providers (CSPs).  Its
customer base also includes distributors, original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs), system integrators and government agencies.
The company operates in three segments: Broadband, Transport and
Services.


WAL-MART STORES: Chamber of Commerce Files Brief With High Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed Friday an amicus brief urging
the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit's erroneous decision
to certify the largest employment class action in history. The
case is Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes.

"This is the most important class action case facing the Court in
over a decade," said Robin Conrad, executive vice president of the
National Chamber Litigation Center, the Chamber's public policy
law firm. "The Ninth Circuit radically lowered the standards for
certifying blockbuster class actions. Unless the Court steps in to
undo the mess created by the Ninth Circuit, the West Coast will
become a haven for bet-the-business class actions."

In the case, the plaintiffs are seeking to certify a class of 1.5
million current and former Wal-Mart employees alleging gender bias
in pay and promotions. In order to avoid more rigorous class
certification standards, the plaintiffs sought class action status
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2), which
prescribes the rules for class actions seeking injunctive relief
rather than money damages. However, the plaintiffs in the case are
seeking billions of dollars in damages in addition to their
request for injunctive relief. In a contentious 6-5 ruling earlier
this year, a narrowly divided Ninth Circuit adopted a loose
approach to class certification that effectively barred Wal-Mart
from presenting individualized evidence to prove it had complied
with the law. The Chamber's brief asks the Supreme Court to review
that ruling and clarify when a class may be certified under Rule
23(b)(2). This is the Chamber's sixth amicus brief in the case
since a federal district judge in 2004 first allowed the lawsuit
to proceed as a class action.

"The billion-dollar question in the case is, do defendants have a
right to present all the available evidence in their defense
regardless of whether a case is brought under the guise of a class
action," said Mr. Conrad. "The Ninth Circuit has opened the door
to nothing less than court-sanctioned shakedowns. By denying
businesses their fundamental right to defend themselves in court,
the Ninth Circuit leaves them with a harsh choice: either settle
meritless lawsuits, or potentially face financial ruin."


* Colleges Face More Suits Following Report of Deceptive Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Beth Marklein, writing for USA TODAY, reports disgruntled
students, employees and shareholders have filed a flurry of
lawsuits against for-profit colleges since a federal investigation
last month found deceptive practices at 15 campuses.

The Government Accountability Office report was released Aug. 4,
and class-action lawsuits have now been filed in California,
Colorado, Arkansas and Utah by former students and employees, who
argue in most cases that a school lied to them or misled them.

Some companies, including the University of Phoenix and Westwood
College, closed campuses or launched internal investigations after
the release of the report, which found that admissions officials
in four cases encouraged applicants to commit fraud by lying on
financial aid forms.

Shareholders have filed class-action lawsuits against at least
five schools, noting the effect of the report on stock prices and
citing securities fraud.

Lawsuits alleging deception at for-profit colleges are not new.
Last year, the parent companies of the University of Phoenix and
Westwood agreed to pay the federal government millions of dollars
each to settle separate false-claims lawsuits. In both cases, the
schools admitted no wrongdoing.

John McKernan, chairman of Education Management Corp., which
operates about 95 schools in 31 states, including Argosy
University, says lawsuits are part of the territory.
"Statistically, the bigger you get, the more (complaints) you're
going to have."

Tampa lawyer Jillian Estes, whose firm has represented students in
several class-action suits against for-profits, including Westwood
College, says she hopes the federal scrutiny will bolster
students' cases.

"We've been trying to raise this flag for so long," she says. "It
helps for judges to realize this isn't just some kids who are a
little unhappy, but a nationwide systemic problem." Westwood in
March sued Estes and her law firm for defamation.

A Texas agency has threatened to revoke or deny one company's
licenses to operate three for-profit campuses there. One college
received a similar warning in Wisconsin.

Still, tens of thousands of students say for-profit colleges are
their best option. An unprecedented 91,000 public comments were
submitted in response to a proposal that would deny federal
student aid to for-profit colleges whose graduates don't earn
enough to pay back student loans. The Education Department
estimates one-third or more came from students worried that their
college would close if the proposal is adopted.

                             *********

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  * * *