CAR_Public/100930.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, September 30, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 193

                             Headlines

ABBOT LABORATORIES: Faces Class Suit Over Similac Recall
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Court Allows Suit to Move Forward
AMCOR LTD: Judge Criticizes $1.7 Million Economist Fee
AUTOBYTEL INC: Settlement Objectors' Briefs Due October 6
BELL CANADA: Ontario Court to Hold Settlement Hearing on Oct. 28

BSQUARE CORP: Appeals on Final Settlement Approval Remain Pending
CENTERLINE HOLDING: Petition for Reconsideration Remains Pending
CHARLIE CRIST: Plaintiffs to Appeal Denial of Refund Class Suit
COMTECH TELECOMS: Pompano's Consolidation Motion Still Pending
COMTECH TELECOMMS: Faces Suit Over Proposed CPI Merger

COVENTRY HEALTH: Partial Summary Judgment Against FHGC Affirmed
COVENTRY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Amended Suit in Maryland
COVENTRY HEALTH: Defends Consolidated ERISA-Violations Suit
CROWN MEDIA: Trial in Recapitalization Suit Held in Delaware
DISH DBS: Plaintiffs' Appeal of Suit Dismissal Remain Pending

DISH DBS: Trial on Lawsuits by Retailers to Start Oct. 12
DISH NETWORK: Board Approves $60 Million Settlement
DONALDSON CO: Defends Suit by S&E Quick Lube Over Auto Filters
DONALDSON CO: Faces Suffolk County Suit Over Auto Filters
DRESS BARN: Tween Brands Agrees to Settle Wage & Hour Suit

DRESS BARN: Accord in Credit Card Suits vs. Tween Approved
EPE HOLDINGS: Enterprise Holdings Merger Unfair, Suit Says
ERNST & YOUNG: 6th Cir. Upholds Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal
EVEREST COLLEGE: Faces Class Suit in Utah Over Misleading Info
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Receives Court Okay of "Berger" Suit Settlement

INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Discovery in Restitution Suit Ongoing
INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Discovery in "Ross" Suit Ongoing
INTERSECTIONS INC: Motion to Dismiss Suit in Texas Still Pending
INTERSECTIONS INC: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Identity Protection
ISTAR FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Citiline's Suit in New York

LEAP WIRELESS: Settlement Fairness Hearing on October 4
LIVEDEAL INC: 2008 Consumer Fraud Class Suit Still Ongoing
NATIONAL CITY: Court to Hear $11 Million Settlement on December 13
NPC INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismisses Second Amended Complaint
ONVIA INC: Settlement Objectors to File Briefs by October 2010

ORLEANS PARISH: Judge Denies State's Motion to Quash Subpoenas
PRICHARD, ALABAMA: Retirees Can Pursue Class Suit in State Court
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Suit Over Delayed Benefits Payment Pending
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Still Faces Suit Over Veterans' Benefits
TELENAV INC: Faces "Smith" Suit in California Over May 2010 IPO

TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Riverside Unit Still Defends "Shellman" Suit
TONAWANDA COKE: Faces Class Suit Over Benzene Levels
TRAILER BRIDGE: Awaits Final Order Dismissing Suit in Puerto Rico
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Court Conditionally OKs Settlement of Class Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Gender Discrimination Suit Draws Attention

WEST PUBLISHING: Judge Slashes Plaintiffs Lawyers' Fees to $500K


                             *********

ABBOT LABORATORIES: Faces Class Suit Over Similac Recall
--------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Massey, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports a day
after the makers of Similac issued a recall on infant formula, a
federal class action was filed accusing the manufacturers of
unfairly and deceptively promoting the product as having safe
ingredients for infant consumption when the ingredients may cause
diarrhea and other health problems.

Kathleen A. Brandner, individually and on behalf of her minor
child, filed the class action lawsuit against Abbot Laboratories
Inc. and Sam's East d/b/a Sam's Club on Sept. 23 in federal court
in New Orleans.

Mr. Brandner and the proposed class are represented by Michael
Brandner Jr., Esq., of Brandner Law Firm in Metairie, and Stephen
S. Kreller, Esq., of The Kreller Law Firm in New Orleans.

Defendant Abbott announced a recall on Similac powder products on
Sept. 22, as the products could contain pieces of beetles and
beetle larvae.

Although the FDA has determined the beetles pose no immediate
health risks, Abbott states there is a possibility that the
tainted formula could cause gastrointestinal discomfort and cause
babies to refuse to eat.

The lawsuit accuses the defendant of failing to properly exert
quality control measures to ensure that the formula was safe for
consumption and that it did not contain beetle particles.
Abbott and Sam's Club are accused of negligence, strict liability,
intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach
of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability
and fitness for particular purpose and unjust enrichment.

The Jefferson Parish mother is asking the court to prevent the
defendants from continued misrepresentation and other negative
conduct with regard to the Similac products.

On behalf of the proposed class, Ms. Brandner is seeking an award
of refunds, general, punitive, consequential and special damages,
attorneys' fees, court costs, and pre and post-judgment interest.

U.S. District Judge Sarah S. Vance is assigned to the case.

Case No. 2:10cv03242

Courthouse News Service also reports that a woman claims in a
class action that Abbot Laboratories knew its Similac formula was
contaminated with beetles and larvae before it recalled it, and
she bought some of it for her baby.  The suit alleges deceptive
business practices and is filed in Sacramento Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Tosh-Surryhne v. Abbott Laboratories,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-02603 (E.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/27/Beetles.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Duane Westrup, Esq.
          Lawrence R. Cagney, Esq.
          Patricia K. Oliver, Esq.
          WESTRUP KLICK, LLP
          444 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 1614
          Long Beach, CA 90802-4524
          Telephone: 562-432-2551


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Court Allows Suit to Move Forward
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports a judge refused to
dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit accusing American International
Group Inc. of misleading investors about its exposure to subprime
mortgages, which led to a liquidity crisis and $182.3 billion of
federal bailouts.

Monday's ruling by U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain allows
the case to go forward and could pave the way for a trial over
AIG's near collapse. The government rescue led taxpayers to take a
nearly 80 percent stake in the New York-based insurer.

AIG spokesman Mark Herr declined to make an immediate comment.

Investors led by the State of Michigan Retirement Systems accused
AIG, executives and directors of failing to disclose the risks
that AIG had taken on through its portfolio of credit default
swaps (CDS) and a securities lending program.

Judge Swain wrote that the allegations in the class-action lawsuit
were sufficient to suggest there was "a strong inference of
fraudulent intent" in how AIG communicated publicly about the
risks in the portfolio of credit default swaps.

She also said that plaintiffs made sufficient arguments to claim
that AIG "materially misled the market" in hiding its "expansive"
CDS underwriting, repeatedly expressing confidence in its ability
to manage risk and justifying a May 2008 capital raising.

Among the defendants are Martin Sullivan, a former AIG chief
executive; Joseph Cassano, who ran AIG's Financial Products unit,
which managed the CDS portfolio; current and former directors; 34
banks that underwrote AIG securities, and former accountant
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

The lawsuit covers investors who owned AIG securities between
March 16, 2006, and September 16, 2008, when AIG received its
first bailout.

E. Powell Miller, a lawyer for the lead plaintiff, declined to
make an immediate comment, saying he had yet to confer with his
client.

Brad Karp, a lawyer for the banks, declined to make an immediate
comment. James Gamble, a lawyer for the outside directors,
declined to comment. Lawyers for Sullivan, Cassano and PwC did not
immediately return calls seeking a comment.

The case is In re: American International Group Inc 2008
Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York, No. 08-05072.


AMCOR LTD: Judge Criticizes $1.7 Million Economist Fee
-------------------------------------------------------
Elisabeth Sexton, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
plaintiffs in class actions need to reduce the amount they pay for
expert economic reports, a Federal Court judge said Monday.

In a pre-trial hearing for a damages claim by thousands of
cardboard-box customers of Amcor Ltd. and Visy Industries, Justice
Peter Jacobson said the payment of $1.7 million to an economist
was "quite extraordinary" and "a staggering amount of money".

"This seems to me to be something that really has to be dealt with
in the management of these sorts of cases," Justice Jacobson said.

"Whether for this case or for other class actions, these costs
seem to me to be almost prohibitive. We haven't even got to trial
yet."

The $1.7 million report was produced by a professor in law and
economics from the University of California, Berkeley, Daniel
Rubinfeld.

The report is yet to be released but the court has previously
heard that Professor Rubinfeld's conclusions include that during a
price-fixing cartel between 2000 and 2005, Amcor overcharged its
customers $466 million and Visy $234 million.

Amcor and Visy deny they operated the cartel.

The plaintiffs' barrister, Ian Wylie, said the report's cost
reflected "the complexity and volume of record-keeping" by the two
defendants.

"An enormous amount of time and effort has been devoted to
understanding and analysing those records," Mr. Wylie said.

"The expert concluded that once interest was taken into account
the quantum of the claim exceeds $1 billion, so one does need to
look at the proportionality of that."

The trial has been set down for six weeks from early March.


AUTOBYTEL INC: Settlement Objectors' Briefs Due October 6
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeals to a district court's final approval of a settlement
between Autoweb.com, Inc., Autobytel, Inc., and class action
plaintiffs remain pending, according to Autobytel, Inc.'s Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Autoweb.com is owned and operated by the Autobytel.

In August 2001, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Autobytel and certain of the Company's current and former
directors and officers and underwriters involved in the Company's
initial public offering.

Between April and September 2001, eight separate purported class
actions virtually identical to the one filed against Autobytel
were filed against Autoweb.com, certain of Autoweb's former
directors and officers, and underwriters involved in Autoweb's
initial public offering.

A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative
complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002. It purports to allege
violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act.
Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in Autoweb and Autobytel's initial public offering
to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at predetermined prices.

Plaintiffs also allege that the prospectus for the initial
public offering was false and misleading in violation of the
securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.
The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  The
parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
Autoweb, the underwriter defendants in the Autoweb class action
lawsuit, and the plaintiff class in the Autoweb class action
lawsuit, reached a settlement.

The insurers for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases
will make the settlement payment on behalf of the issuers,
including Autoweb.

On Oct. 6, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement.

A group of three objectors filed a petition to the Second Circuit
seeking permission to appeal the District Court's final approval
order on the basis that the settlement class is broader than the
class previously rejected by the Second Circuit in its December
2006 order reversing the District Court's order certifying classes
in six of the coordinated cases.

The six cases, which do not include Autoweb's case, are intended
to serve as test cases.  Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
petition.  Objectors, including objectors that filed the petition
seeking permission to appeal, filed six notices of appeal of the
Court's order finally approving the settlement.

Subject to court approval, the objectors to the settlement will
file their briefs in the Second Circuit no later than October 6,
2010, and answering briefs will be due no later than February 3,
2011.

Autobytel, Inc. -- http://www.autobytel.com/-- based in Irvine,
Calif., is an automotive media and marketing services company
focused on helping dealers sell cars and services, and
manufacturers build brands through marketing and advertising
primarily through the Internet.  The company owns and operates
automotive Websites, including MyRide.com, Autobytel.com,
Autoweb.com, Car.com, CarSmart.com, AutoSite.com and CarTV.com.


BELL CANADA: Ontario Court to Hold Settlement Hearing on Oct. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
An out-of-court settlement has been concluded in the class action
filed on behalf of Bell Canada and Bell Mobility's Ontario clients
who may have paid late payment charges on payments made before the
payment deadline provided on their bill.

This settlement affects Ontario Bell Canada clients who paid their
bill through their financial institution, and Ontario Bell
Mobility clients who paid their bill by check or through their
financial institution, between March 26, 2008 and August 9, 2009.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Ottawa district) will hear
the Motion to Approve the Class Action Settlement on October 28,
2010.

For more information on the settlement, please visit the Web page
of the attorneys for the class members:

     http://www.bga-law.com/bell-late-fees/ont


BSQUARE CORP: Appeals on Final Settlement Approval Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals of a final district court order approving a settlement of
shareholder class action lawsuits against BSQUARE Corporation
remain pending, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

In summer and early fall 2001, four shareholder class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors, and the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.  The
complaints were consolidated into a single action and a
Consolidated Amended Complaint, which was filed on April 19,
2002.

The operative complaint alleged violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit
purported to be a class action filed on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock during the period from October 19,
1999 to December 6, 2000.  The plaintiffs alleged that the
Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's
initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for
excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those
investors to make additional purchases of stock in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus for the Company's
initial public offering was false and misleading in violation of
the securities laws because the Company did not disclose these
arrangements.  The action sought damages in an unspecified
amount.

On December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated
a decision by the district court granting class certification in
six of the coordinated cases, which are intended to serve as
test, or "focus" cases.  The plaintiffs selected these six cases,
which do not include the Company.  On April 6, 2007, the Second
Circuit denied a petition for rehearing filed by the plaintiffs,
but noted that the plaintiffs could ask the district court to
certify more narrow classes than those that were rejected.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
the parties in the Company's case, reached a settlement in early
2009.  As part of the settlement, the insurers for the issuer
defendants will make the entire settlement payment on behalf of
the issuers, including the Company.  On October 5, 2009, the
district court granted final approval of the settlement.

Three objectors filed a petition to the Second Circuit seeking
permission to appeal the district court's final approval order on
the basis that the settlement class is broader than the class
previously rejected by the Second Circuit in its December 5, 2006
order vacating the district court's order certifying classes in
the focus cases.  Six notices of appeal have also been filed,
including one notice filed by the group of objectors that filed
the petition to appeal.

Following the district court's final approval of the settlement,
the Company determined that it is unlikely that the Company will
be liable for any damages that will not be paid for by the
Company's insurance carriers, even if any appeals are successful.
As a result, it was determined that an accrued legal fees
liability of $534,000 was no longer probable.  Consequently, this
liability was reversed, which resulted in a reduction of selling,
general and administrative expense during 2009.  "However, due to
the inherent uncertainties of litigation, subsequent events could
affect the assessment of this liability and this disclosure."

BSQUARE Corporation -- http://www.bsquare.com/-- provides
software and engineering services to companies that develop smart
devices and to companies that assist others in developing smart
devices. A smart device is a device that has a display, runs an
operating system (e.g., Microsoft Windows CE) and may be
connected to a network via a wired or wireless connection.
Founded in 1994, Bsquare is headquartered in Bellevue,
Washington, and has offices throughout North America, Europe, and
Asia.


CENTERLINE HOLDING: Petition for Reconsideration Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A petition for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit's affirmation of a district court's dismissal of a
consolidated suit against Centerline Holding Company remains
pending, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

In 2008, the company and its trustees were named as defendants in
14 shareholder putative class and/or derivative actions arising
out of its announcements in late 2007 that (i) the company had
taken steps to transition its business to more of a fund manager
and in connection with such action intended to reduce the dividend
payable on the company's common shares from that which had been
paid in prior years and (ii) the company had committed to sell and
then sold 11.0% Cumulative Convertible Preferred Shares to an
affiliate of TRCLP.

Six of these cases are putative class actions pending in federal
court in New York that assert claims under the federal securities
laws.  The other eight cases are primarily derivative actions,
although some purport also to assert class claims, arising under
state law.

On Jan. 18, 2008, the first of the federal securities putative
class actions was filed against the company and certain of its
officers and trustees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  Thereafter, five other, essentially
duplicative putative class actions were also filed in the same
court.  The complaint in each case asserted that the company and
other defendants allegedly violated federal securities law by
failing to disclose in a timely fashion its December 2007
transaction with Freddie Mac.

On May 5, 2008, the Court designated Centerline Investor Group,
which is made up of several shareholders, as lead plaintiff for
these cases.  Pursuant to the Court's stipulation and order dated
March 3, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
on July 7, 2008 in this action, In re Centerline Holding Company
Securities Litigation, No. 08 CV 00505.

The consolidated complaint also alleges violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the company's announcement of
the Freddie Mac transaction, changes to the company's business
model, and the reduction in dividend guidance policy, and seeks
an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other relief on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock
of Centerline Holding Company during the period March 12, 2007
through Dec. 28, 2007.

The defendants in this action filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on Oct. 27, 2008 and the motion was
granted by U.S District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin on Jan. 12,
2009.  Judge Scheindlin granted the plaintiff leave to replead,
and the plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on
March 13, 2009.

On April 30, 2009, the Defendants in this case filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint.  The lead Plaintiff
filed his opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss on June 12,
2009 and the Defendants filed their reply to the opposition
motion filed by the Plaintiffs on June 30, 2009.

On Aug. 4, 2009 the Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted and
the case was dismissed without leave for the plaintiff to
replead.  On Sept. 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed an appeal of the
District Court's decision with the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals.  Both the plaintiff and the defendants filed briefs in
this appeal and oral argument before the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals was held on April 7, 2010.

By summary order dated June 9, 2010, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's
claims in their entirety.

On June 23, 2010, the plaintiff filed a petition for
reconsideration and rehearing en banc of the June 9, 2010 summary
order.  No decision regarding the plaintiff's petition has yet
been rendered by the Second Circuit.

Centerline Holding Company -- http://www.centerline.com/--
provides real estate financial and asset management services,
including institutional debt and equity fund management, mortgage
banking, and primary and special loan servicing.  As of Dec. 31,
2008, it had over $14 billion of assets under management.  It has
four business groups: Affordable Housing, Commercial Real Estate,
Portfolio Management and Credit Risk Products.  Its Corporate
group, consisting of Finance and Accounting, Legal, Corporate
Communications, Operations and Risk Management departments,
supports these business groups.  The Affordable Housing and
Commercial Real Estate groups raise capital through a series of
funds to deploy into an array of real estate debt and equity
investments.  The Credit Risk Products group provides credit
support to affordable housing debt and equity products for its
Affordable Housing group and third-parties. The Portfolio
Management group provides primary and special loan servicing for
commercial real estate.


CHARLIE CRIST: Plaintiffs to Appeal Denial of Refund Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports Republican contributors to Gov.
Charlie Crist's independent campaign for the U.S. Senate aren't
giving up their quest for refunds.

The attorney for two GOP donors said Monday he will appeal a
Naples judge's denial last week of class-action status in the
case. The ruling means each contributor to the Crist campaign
would have to seek a refund through individual court action.

Some Republicans contend Gov. Crist should return at least $7.5
million given to his Senate bid before he left the GOP and became
an independent last spring. Gov. Crist's attorneys say donors have
many reasons besides party affiliation to contribute money.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal in Lakeland is being asked to
prevent the Crist campaign from spending the money in question.


COMTECH TELECOMS: Pompano's Consolidation Motion Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit
styled Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System,
etc., v. Comtech Telecommunications Corp. et al. (Case No.
09-cv-3007), to consolidate their complaint with the case styled
Lawing v. Comtech Telecommunications Corp. (Case No. 09-cv-3182),
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, according to the company's Sept. 23, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2010.

The company has been sued in two nearly identical purported class
action lawsuits both filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.

The company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
are also named as defendants.

The Complaints, filed in July 2009, allege that the company
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making materially false and misleading statements with respect to
revenue and earnings guidance for fiscal year 2009.

The plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of purchasers of the
company's stock between Sept. 17, 2008 and March 9, 2009.

The essence of the Complaints is that the company allegedly failed
to disclose certain adverse facts that were allegedly known to
exist at the time the company issued the revenue and earnings
guidance at issue in the Complaints.

The company has, to date, only been served with a complaint by the
Pompano Beach Police and Firefighters' Retirement System.

On Sept. 10, 2009, the District Court entered a scheduling order
in the Pompano Beach lawsuit, and pursuant to that order, Pompano
Beach filed a motion seeking consolidation of the two related
actions and appointment as lead plaintiff under the procedure set
out in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

On Aug. 17, 2010, the magistrate judge assigned to the matter
recommended that this motion, which was unopposed, be granted.

Comtech Telecommunications Corp. -- http://www.comtechtel.com/--
designs, develops, produces and markets products, systems and
services for communications solutions.  The company conducts its
business through three business segments: telecommunications
transmission, mobile data communications and radio frequency (RF)
microwave amplifiers.  It sells its products to a diverse customer
base in the global commercial and government communications
markets.


COMTECH TELECOMMS: Faces Suit Over Proposed CPI Merger
------------------------------------------------------
Comtech Telecommunications Corp. faces a putative stockholder
class action complaint in connection with its planned merger with
CPI International, Inc., according to the company's Sept. 23,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2010.

On July 1, 2010, a putative stockholder class action complaint was
filed against the company, CPI International and the members of
the CPI International board of directors, in the California
Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, entitled Continuum
Capital v. Michael Targoff, et al. (Case No. 110CV175940).

The lawsuit concerns the proposed merger between the company and
CPI, and generally asserts claims alleging, among other things,
that each member of CPI's board of directors breached his
fiduciary duties by agreeing to the terms of the proposed merger
and by failing to provide stockholders with allegedly material
information related to the proposed merger, and that the company
aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly
committed by the members of CPI's board of directors.
The lawsuit seeks, among other things, class action certification
and monetary relief.

On July 28, 2010, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, making
generally the same claims against the same defendants, and seeking
the same relief.  In addition, the amended complaint generally
alleges that the consideration to be paid to CPI International's
stockholders under the terms of the proposed merger is inadequate.

On Aug. 17, 2010, the magistrate judge assigned to the matter
recommended that this motion, which was unopposed, be granted.
Comtech Telecommunications Corp. -- http://www.comtechtel.com/--
designs, develops, produces and markets products, systems and
services for communications solutions.  The company conducts its
business through three business segments: telecommunications
transmission, mobile data communications and radio frequency (RF)
microwave amplifiers.  It sells its products to a diverse customer
base in the global commercial and government communications
markets.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Partial Summary Judgment Against FHGC Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana appellate court has affirmed the state trial court's
ruling approving the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment against First Health Group Corp, Inc., according to
Coventry Health Care Inc.'s Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

First Health is a subsidiary of Coventry Health Care.

Four providers who have contracts with FHGC filed a state court
class action lawsuit against FHGC and certain payors alleging that
FHGC violated Louisiana's Any Willing Provider Act, which requires
a payor accessing a preferred provider network contract to give a
one time notice 30 days before that payor uses the discounted rate
in the preferred provider network contract to pay the provider for
services rendered to a member insured under that payor's health
benefit plan.

These provider plaintiffs allege that the Act applies to medical
bills for treatment rendered to injured workers and that the Act
requires point of service written notice in the form of a benefit
identification card.  If a payor is found to have violated the
Act's notice provision, the court may assess up to $2,000 in
damages for each instance when the provider was not given proper
notice that a discounted rate would be used to pay for the
services rendered.

In response to the state court class action, FHGC and certain
payors filed a suit in federal court against the same four
provider plaintiffs in the state court class action seeking a
declaratory judgment that FHGC's contracts are valid and
enforceable, that its contracts are not subject to the Act since
that Act does not apply to medical services rendered to injured
workers and that FHGC is exempt from the notice requirements of
the Act because it has contracted directly with each provider in
its network.

The federal district court ruled in favor of FHGC and declared
that its contracts are not subject to the Act, that FHGC was
exempt from the Act's notice provision because it contracted
directly with the providers, and that FHGC's contracts were valid
and enforceable, i.e., the four provider plaintiffs were required
to accept the discounted rate in accordance with the terms of
their written contracts with FHGC.

Despite the federal court's decision, the provider plaintiffs
continued to pursue their state court class action against FHGC
and filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking damages of
$2,000 for each provider visit where the provider was not given a
benefit identification card at the time the service was performed.

In response to the motion for partial summary judgment filed in
the state court action, FHGC obtained an order from the federal
court which enjoined, barred and prevented any of the four
provider plaintiffs or their counsel from pursuing any claim
against FHGC before any court or tribunal arising under the Act.

Despite the issuance of this federal court injunction, the
provider plaintiffs and their counsel pursued their motion for
partial summary judgment in the state court action.  Before the
state court held a hearing on the motion for partial summary
judgment, FHGC moved to decertify the class on the basis that the
four named provider plaintiffs had been enjoined by the federal
court from pursuing their claims against FHGC.

The state court denied the motion to decertify the class but did
enter an order permitting FHGC to file an immediate appeal of the
state court's denial of the motion.

Even though FHGC had filed its appeal and there were no class
representatives since all four named plaintiffs had been enjoined
from pursuing their claims against FHGC, the state court held a
hearing and granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment.

The trial court granted the motion despite the fact that (1) the
court lacked jurisdiction due to the appeal filed by FHGC
challenging the denial of its motion to decertify the class; (2)
there were no named class representatives because all four named
plaintiffs had been enjoined from pursuing their claims against
FHGC; (3) none of the providers in the class ever submitted a
claim for payment to FHGC and therefore FHGC never made any
discounted payments to any of the providers in the class in the
absence of notice; (4) FHGC has contracted directly with every
provider in the class and therefore, under the Act's express
language, FHGC was exempt from giving notice under the Act; and
(5) the claims of the provider plaintiffs are time barred.  The
amount of the partial judgment was for $262 million.

Class counsel will likely claim prejudgment interest and
attorneys' fees in addition to the $262 million judgment plus post
judgment interest.

FHGC appealed both the partial summary judgment order and the
denial of class decertification order to the state's intermediate
appellate court.  The intermediate appellate court has denied the
class decertification appeal and FHGC's rehearing petition.

FHGC will file an application for a writ of appeal on the class
decertification issue with the Louisiana Supreme Court.

The decision to grant or deny the application for a writ of appeal
is at the discretion of the Louisiana Supreme Court.  The
intermediate appellate court also denied FHGC's appeal on the
summary judgment order.

FHGC's petition for a rehearing is still pending before the
intermediate appellate court.  FHGC will file an application for a
writ of appeal with the Louisiana Supreme Court if its rehearing
petition is denied.

FHGC also filed a motion with the federal court to enforce the
federal court's prior judgments and for sanctions against the
provider plaintiffs for violating those judgments which barred and
enjoined them from pursuing their claims against FHGC in the state
courts.  That motion also sought to enjoin the state courts from
proceeding in order to protect and effectuate the federal court's
judgments.

FHGC's motion was denied by the federal court.

As a result of the Louisiana appellate court's decision on July 1,
2010 to affirm the state trial court's summary judgment order, the
Company recorded a $278 million pre-tax charge to earnings during
the second quarter of 2010.  This amount represents the $262
million judgment amount plus post judgment interest in the amount
of $16 million and is included in "accounts payable and other
accrued liabilities" in the accompanying balance sheets as of June
30, 2010.  The company has accrued for legal fees expected to be
incurred related to this case, which is included in "accounts
payable and other accrued liabilities" in the accompanying balance
sheets.

In a related matter, FHGC has filed another lawsuit in Louisiana
federal district court against 85 Louisiana providers seeking a
declaratory judgment that its contracts are valid and enforceable,
that its contracts are not subject to the Act because its
contracts pertain to payment for services rendered to injured
workers, and FHGC is exempt from the notice provision of the Act
because it has contracted directly with the providers.  This
lawsuit is assigned to the same federal district court judge who
issued the decision and injunction in the lawsuit filed by FHGC
against the four provider plaintiffs in the state court action.

Coventry Health Care Inc. -- http://www.coventryhealthcare.com/--
is a diversified national managed healthcare company based in
Bethesda, Maryland, operating health plans, insurance companies,
network rental and workers' compensation services companies.
Coventry provides a full range of risk and fee-based managed care
products and services to a broad cross section of individuals,
employer and government-funded groups, government agencies, and
other insurance carriers and administrators.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Amended Suit in Maryland
-------------------------------------------------------------
Coventry Health Care Inc. continues to defend an amended complaint
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland,
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 Sept. 3, 2009, a shareholder, who owns less than 5,000 shares,
filed a putative securities class action against the company and
three of its current and former officers in the federal district
court of Maryland.

Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, three other
shareholders or investor groups filed motions with the court for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead
and liaison counsel.  By agreement, the four shareholders
submitted a stipulation to the court regarding appointment of lead
plaintiff and approval of selection of lead and liaison counsel.

The court has approved the stipulation and ordered the lead
plaintiff to file a consolidated and amended complaint by May 21,
2010.  The amended complaint has been filed.

The purported class period is Feb. 9, 2007 to Oct. 22, 2008.  The
amended complaint alleges that the company's public statements
contained false, misleading and incomplete information regarding
the company's profitability, particularly the profit margins for
its Medicare Advantage Private Fee-for-Service products.

Coventry Health Care Inc. -- http://www.coventryhealthcare.com/--
is a diversified national managed healthcare company based in
Bethesda, Maryland, operating health plans, insurance companies,
network rental and workers' compensation services companies.
Coventry provides a full range of risk and fee-based managed care
products and services to a broad cross section of individuals,
employer and government-funded groups, government agencies, and
other insurance carriers and administrators.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Defends Consolidated ERISA-Violations Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Coventry Health Care Inc. continues to defend a consolidated
amended complaint alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, 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 Oct. 13, 2009, two former employees and participants in the
Coventry Health Care Retirement Savings Plan filed a putative
ERISA class action lawsuit against the company and several of its
current and former officers, directors and employees in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties
under ERISA by offering and maintaining company stock in the Plan
after it allegedly became imprudent to do so and by allegedly
failing to provide complete and accurate information about the
company's financial condition to plan participants in SEC filings
and public statements.

Three similar actions by different plaintiffs were later filed in
the same court and were consolidated on Dec. 9, 2009.

As ordered by the court, the plaintiffs have filed a consolidated
amended complaint.

Coventry Health Care Inc. -- http://www.coventryhealthcare.com/--
is a diversified national managed healthcare company based in
Bethesda, Maryland, operating health plans, insurance companies,
network rental and workers' compensation services companies.
Coventry provides a full range of risk and fee-based managed care
products and services to a broad cross section of individuals,
employer and government-funded groups, government agencies, and
other insurance carriers and administrators.


CROWN MEDIA: Trial in Recapitalization Suit Held in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery held a trial last week on the
lawsuit relating to Crown Media Holdings, Inc.'s recapitalization
of amounts owed to HC Crown Corp.

In the second quarter of 2009, the company's Board of Directors
formed a Special Committee of three independent directors to
review and consider a May 28, 2009, proposal from HC Crown Corp.
regarding a recapitalization of the amounts owed by the company
to HC Crown and its affiliates.  HC Crown is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Hallmark Cards.

On July 13, 2009, a lawsuit was brought in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against each member of the Board of Directors of the
company, Hallmark Cards and its affiliates, as well as the
company as a nominal defendant, by a minority stockholder of the
company regarding the then proposed Recapitalization.  The
plaintiff is S. Muoio & Co. LLC which owns beneficially
approximately 5.8% of the company's Class A common stock,
according to the complaint and filings with the SEC.

The lawsuit claims to be a derivative action and a class action
on behalf of the plaintiff and other minority stockholders of the
company.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that, the defendants
have breached fiduciary duties owed to the company and minority
stockholders in connection with the Recapitalization
transactions.  The lawsuit includes allegations that if the
Recapitalization transactions are consummated, the minority
stockholders' equity and voting interests in the company would be
reduced, and that the minority stockholders could be eliminated
through a short-form merger.  The complaint requested the court
enjoin the defendants from consummating the Recapitalization
transactions and award plaintiff fees and expenses incurred in
bringing the lawsuit.

On July 22, 2009, a Stipulation Providing for Notice of
Transaction was filed with the Delaware Court of Chancery.

The Stipulation provided that the company cannot consummate the
transaction contemplated in the Recapitalization transactions
until not less than seven weeks after providing the plaintiff
with a notice of the terms of the proposed transaction, including
copies of the final transaction agreements.

If the plaintiff moved for preliminary injunctive relief with
respect to any such transaction, the parties would establish a
schedule with the Court of Chancery to resolve such motion during
the seven week period. In addition, following the decision of the
Court of Chancery, the company would not consummate any
transaction for a period of at least one week, during which time
any party may seek an expedited appeal.  The Stipulation further
provided that the plaintiff would withdraw its motion for
preliminary injunction filed on July 13, 2009, and that the
action would be stayed until the earlier of providing the notice
of a transaction or an announcement by the company that it is no
longer considering a transaction.

By a letter of Feb. 28, 2010, the plaintiff in this lawsuit
informed the Special Committee of the Board of Directors, which
considered and negotiated the Recapitalization, that the
plaintiff objected to the proposed recapitalization on the terms
set forth in the term sheet dated Feb. 9, 2010.

The plaintiff asserted, among other things, that the transactions
contemplated by the term sheet would unfairly dilute the economic
and voting interests of the company's minority stockholders, that
the transactions should be subject to a vote of the majority of
the minority stockholders and that the proposed transactions
remain inadequate.  The plaintiff indicated that if the company
executed definitive documents for the Recapitalization, the
plaintiff would pursue the litigation.

The Feb. 26, 2010, agreements executed by the company for the
Recapitalization materially followed the provisions in the
earlier term sheet.

Notice of the terms of the proposed Recapitalization, including
copies of the executed definitive documents for the
Recapitalization, was provided to the plaintiff on March 1, 2010.

On March 11, 2010, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
raising similar allegations of breach of fiduciary duty against
the Board of Directors of the company, Hallmark Cards and its
affiliates, as well as the company as a nominal defendant, and
seeking rescission of the Recapitalization rather than a
preliminary injunction enjoining the consummation of the
Recapitalization, or alternatively, an award of rescissory
damages.

The plaintiff also filed a motion for expedited proceedings and a
request that the Chancery Court set a trial date sometime in
September 2010.  Defendants have informed the Court that they do
not oppose a trial in August or September 2010 but reserve the
right to oppose rescission as an available or proper remedy.

On March 23, 2010, the Court notified the parties that the trial
was scheduled for Sept. 21, 2010.  By July 2010, all depositions
and discovery efforts were completed, unless further ordered by
the court.

Crown Media Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.hallmarkchannel.com/--
owns and operates cable television channels dedicated to high
quality, broad appeal, entertainment programming.  The company
currently operates and distributes Hallmark Channel in both high
definition (HD) and standard definition (SD) to 90 million
subscribers in the U.S.  Crown Media also operates a second 24-
hour linear channel, Hallmark Movie Channel, available in both HD
and SD.  Significant investors in Crown Media Holdings include:
Hallmark Entertainment Holdings, Inc., a subsidiary of Hallmark
Cards, Incorporated, Liberty Media Corp., and J.P. Morgan
Partners (BHCA), LP, each through their investments in Hallmark
Entertainment Investments Co.; VISN Management Corp., a for-
profit subsidiary of the National Interfaith Cable Coalition: and
The DIRECTV Group, Inc.


DISH DBS: Plaintiffs' Appeal of Suit Dismissal Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs in an antitrust action against DISH
DBS Corp. regarding the decision of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California dismissing the case remains
pending, according to the company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

On Sept. 21, 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite
subscribers filed an antitrust action against the company in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The suit also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision,
Cox, Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC
Universal, Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group, and Walt Disney
Company.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to
bundled channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the
ability to purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis.

On Oct. 16, 2009, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss with prejudice.

The plaintiffs have appealed.

DISH DBS Corp. (formerly known as EchoStar DBS Corp.), a holding
company and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network
Corporation, provides direct broadcast satellite services to
subscribers through its Dish Network segment.  The Company is
based in Englewood, Colorado.


DISH DBS: Trial on Lawsuits by Retailers to Start Oct. 12
---------------------------------------------------------
Trial on the lawsuits filed by retailers in Colorado state court
against DISH DBS Corp. will commence October 12, 2010, according
to the company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

During 2000, lawsuits were filed by retailers in Colorado state
and federal courts attempting to certify nationwide classes on
behalf of certain of the company's retailers.

The plaintiffs are requesting the Courts declare certain
provisions of, and changes to, alleged agreements between the
company and the retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to
award damages for lost incentives and payments, charge backs,
and other compensation.  The company has asserted a variety of
counterclaims.

The federal court action has been stayed during the pendency of
the state court action.

The company has filed a motion for summary judgment on all
counts and against all plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs filed a
motion for additional time to conduct discovery to enable them
to respond to the company's motion.  The state court granted
limited discovery, which ended during 2004.  The plaintiffs
claimed the company did not provide adequate disclosure during
the discovery process.  The state court agreed, and denied the
company's motion for summary judgment as a result.

In April 2008, the state court granted plaintiff's class
certification motion and in January 2009, the state court
entered an order excluding certain evidence that the company can
present at trial based on the prior discovery issues.  The state
court also denied plaintiffs' request to dismiss the company's
counterclaims.

In May 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment based
on new allegations of discovery misconduct.

In April 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for default
judgment, but upheld its prior order excluding certain evidence.

Trial is scheduled to commence on October 12, 2010.  Before trial,
the court will hold a hearing to establish the scope of its prior
evidentiary order, including the scope of an adverse inference
jury instruction.

DISH DBS Corp. (formerly known as EchoStar DBS Corp.), a holding
company and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network
Corporation, provides direct broadcast satellite services to
subscribers through its Dish Network segment.  The Company is
based in Englewood, Colorado.


DISH NETWORK: Board Approves $60 Million Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation's Board of Directors, on Sept. 20, 2010,
approved the settlement of the Retailer Class Actions.  The
settlement provides, among other things, for mutual releases of
the claims underlying the litigation, payment by the company of up
to $60 million, and the option for certain class members to elect
to reinstate certain monthly incentive payments, which the parties
agreed have an aggregate value of $23 million.  The settlement is
conditioned upon approval by the court, according to the company's
Sept. 23, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The lawsuits were filed in 2000 in Colorado state and federal
courts to attempt to certify nationwide classes on behalf of
certain of the company's retailers.  The plaintiffs are requesting
the Courts to declare certain provisions of, and changes to,
alleged agreements between DISH Network and the retailers invalid
and unenforceable, and to award damages for lost incentives and
payments, charge backs and other compensation.

DISH Network has asserted a variety of counterclaims.  The federal
court action has been stayed during the pendency of the state
court action.  DISH Network filed a motion for summary judgment on
all counts and against all plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs filed a
motion for additional time to conduct discovery to enable them to
respond to the summary judgment motion.

The state court granted limited discovery which ended during 2004.
The plaintiffs claimed DISH Network did not provide adequate
disclosure during the discovery process.  The state court agreed,
and denied the motion for summary judgment as a result.

In April 2008, the state court granted plaintiff's class
certification motion and in January 2009, the state court entered
an order excluding certain evidence that DISH Network can present
at trial based on the prior discovery issues.  The state court
also denied plaintiffs' request to dismiss DISH Network's
counterclaims.

In May 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment based
on new allegations of discovery misconduct.  In April 2010, the
court denied plaintiffs' motion for default judgment, but upheld
its prior order excluding certain evidence.

Trial is scheduled to commence on October 12, 2010. Before trial,
the court will hold a hearing to establish the scope of its prior
evidentiary order, including the scope of an adverse inference
jury instruction.

DISH Network Corporation is the third largest pay television
provider in the United States with 14.1 million subscribers as of
Dec. 31, 2009.  Annual revenues approximate $11.6 billion.


DONALDSON CO: Defends Suit by S&E Quick Lube Over Auto Filters
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donaldson Company, Inc., continues to defend a suit filed by S&E
Quick Lube relating to aftermarket automotive filters, according
to the company's Sept. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
July 31, 2010.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a
lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that twelve filter manufacturers, including the company,
engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S.
Customers for aftermarket automotive filters.

The lawsuit seeks various remedies, including injunctive relief
and monetary damages of an unspecified amount, and is a purported
class action on behalf of direct purchasers of automotive
aftermarket filters from the defendants.

Parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of a variety
of direct and indirect purchasers of aftermarket filters, have
been filed by other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in
the United States and Canada.

The U.S cases have been consolidated into a single multi-district
litigation in the Northern District of Illinois.

In addition, on April 16, 2009, the Attorney General of the State
of Florida filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois based on these same allegations.

Donaldson Company, Inc. -- http://www.donaldson.com/-- provides
filtration systems.


DONALDSON CO: Faces Suffolk County Suit Over Auto Filters
---------------------------------------------------------
Donaldson Company, Inc., faces a purported class action entitled
County of Suffolk, New York, v. Champion Laboratories, et al.,
according to the company's Sept. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended July 31, 2010.

The suit was filed in August 2010 by the county of Suffolk, New
York, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.

The Suffolk action contains allegations similar to those made in
the multi-district litigation already pending in the Northern
District of Illinois.  The multi-district litigation alleges that
twelve filter manufacturers, including the company, engaged in a
conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. Customers for
aftermarket automotive filters.

As of Sept. 1, 2010, the Company has not been served with a
complaint in either action.

Donaldson Company, Inc. -- http://www.donaldson.com/-- provides
filtration systems.


DRESS BARN: Tween Brands Agrees to Settle Wage & Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Tween Brands, Inc., has agreed to a tentative settlement resolving
a wage and hour lawsuit, according to The Dress Barn, Inc.'s Sept.
24, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2010.

Tween Brands is a subsidiary of The Dress Barn, Inc.

The suit was filed on Jan. 21, 2010, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California.  The purported class
action alleges, among other things, that Tween Brands violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act by not properly paying its employees for
overtime and missed rest breaks.

In September 2010, the parties agreed to a tentative settlement of
this wage and hour lawsuit.  The settlement is subject to
preliminary court approval, notice to the purported class members,
and final court approval.

The Dress Barn, Inc. -- http://www.dressbarn.com/-- is a
specialty retailer of apparel for women and tween girls operating
under the dressbarn, maurices and Justice names.  The Company
operates 2,477 stores.


DRESS BARN: Accord in Credit Card Suits vs. Tween Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
The settlement agreement entered into by Tween Brands, Inc., and
plaintiffs in a consolidated suit in California, has received
preliminary approval from the court, according to The Dress Barn,
Inc.'s Sept. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2010.

Tween Brands is a subsidiary of Dress Barn.

Between November 2008 and October 2009, Tween Brands was sued in
three purported class action lawsuits alleging that Tween Brands'
telephone capture practice in California violated the Song-Beverly
Credit Card Act, which protects consumers from having to provide
personal information as a condition to a credit card transaction.

All three cases were consolidated in California state court.

A mediation was held in January 2010.  The parties settled this
lawsuit in the spring of 2010.

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
July 9, 2010.  The final court approval hearing is scheduled for
December 10, 2010.

The Dress Barn, Inc. -- http://www.dressbarn.com/-- is a
specialty retailer of apparel for women and tween girls operating
under the dressbarn, maurices and Justice names.  The Company
operates 2,477 stores.


EPE HOLDINGS: Enterprise Holdings Merger Unfair, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that EPE Holdings shareholders
filed a class action to block the proposed acquisition of
Enterprise Holdings for $9 billion because the price is too low
considering the company's stock price jumped earlier this year, in
Delaware Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Fouke v. EPE Holdings, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 5844 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/24/EPE%20Holdings.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David L. Finger, Esq.
          FINGER & SLANINA, LLC
          One Commerce Center
          1201 N. Orange St., 7th floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801-1186
          Telephone: 302-573-2525

               - and -

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON BOTTINI, LLP
          501 W. Broadway St., Suite 1720
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-230-0062


ERNST & YOUNG: 6th Cir. Upholds Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld dismissal of a class action
accusing Ernst & Young of securities fraud for approving reports
that misstated Accredo's true financial condition by millions of
dollars.

Accredo relied on Ernst & Young's audit when it acquired Gentiva
Health Services in January 2002.

Gentiva turned out to be saddled with $58.5 million in
uncollectable accounts receivable, which Accredo was eventually
forced to write off because no one would buy them.

Accredo then fired Ernst & Young and sued it for accounting
malpractice.

Investors also sued the accounting firm, alleging securities
fraud.

A federal judge granted Ernst & Young's motion to dismiss the
securities fraud claim, saying the firm is not liable for
statements it only approved, but did not make.

The Cincinnati-based appeals court affirmed.

"In the end, plaintiffs' allegations do not raise a strong
inference that Ernst & Young acted with scienter in affirming
Accredo's allegedly fraudulent accounting," Judge John Gibson
wrote for the three-judge panel.

"Conclusory allegations about what Ernst & Young must or should
have known while auditing Accredo do not amount to specific
allegations that show material misstatements or omissions
committed with recklessness."

A copy of the decision in Louisiana School Employees' Retirement
System, et al. v. Ernst & Young, LLP, No. 08-6194 (6th Cir.), is
available at:

     http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0308p-06.pdf

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Joseph D. Daley, Esq.
          Mark Solomon, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-231-1058

Ernst & Young, LLP is represented by:

          L. Joseph Loveland, Esq.
          John P. Brumbaugh, Esq.
          Tracy C. Braintwain, Esq.
          Shelby S. Guilbert, Jr., Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree St. NorthEast
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: 404-572-4783

               - and -

          Paul D. Clement, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20006-4706
          Telephone: 202-737-0500


EVEREST COLLEGE: Faces Class Suit in Utah Over Misleading Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed in Salt Lake City, Utah alleges that
Everest College systematically lures potential students into its
programs with misleading information about the school's
accreditation, transferability of credits, and cost. Everest is
one of the brands used by for-profit education company Corinthian
Colleges, Inc., which is named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
Corinthian operates approximately 100 Everest campuses around the
country, and also operates Everest University Online.

The lawsuit alleges two primary forms of wrongdoing by Everest.
First, it alleges that Everest makes misrepresentations to
potential students about whether credits or degrees earned at
Everest can be transferred to other post-secondary universities
and community colleges, and, even though it informs potential
students that it is "accredited," fails to disclose that the type
of "accreditation" Everest has is not generally recognized by
other post-secondary institutions. The lawsuit alleges that
Everest "admissions counselors" lied to prospective students about
whether credits earned at Everest would be accepted for transfer
to non-profit or public universities in Utah. The result is that
students who had hoped to use the Everest programs as a "stepping
stone" to a degree from a non-profit or public university
discovered, after incurring tens-of-thousands of dollars in debt,
that their time and money had been wasted.

Second, the lawsuit alleges that Everest makes misrepresentations
and omissions about the cost of its programs. The complaint in the
lawsuit details how prospective students are lured into one-on-one
meetings with "admissions counselors" who provide the prospective
students with cost "estimates." However, Everest then has the
students apply for student loans -- which are dispersed directly
to Everest -- far in excess of those estimates.

The lawsuit was brought by three former students of Everest's Salt
Lake City campus, and alleges claims for fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and violation of Utah's Consumer Sales
Practices Act.

"By helping these students pursue their claims, we hope to shed
light on the abuses of for-profit college companies, and to force
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. to reform its practices," said
plaintiffs' attorney Melanie J. Williamson of the law firm of
Tycko & Zavareei LLP.

The lawsuit is captioned Miller, et al. v. Corinthian Colleges,
Inc., and was filed on September 24, 2010 in the Third Judicial
District Court, Salt Lake City County. Plaintiffs are represented
by the Washington, D.C. law firm of Tycko & Zavareei LLP and the
Utah law firm of Fillmore Spencer LLC. A copy of the complaint can
be downloaded from the Tycko & Zavareei LLP Web site,
http://www.tzlegal.com/or can be requested by calling either of
the firms.


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Receives Court Okay of "Berger" Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to a purported stockholder derivative and class-action
lawsuit, styled "Andrew T. Berger v. Icahn Enterprises LP, et al.,
Case No. 3522-VCS," have agreed to settle the lawsuit, according
to Icahn Enterprises, L.P.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

National Energy Group, Inc., is a defendant, together with Icahn
Enterprises and various individuals, including one of the current
directors of Icahn Enterprises GP, as additional defendants, in a
purported stockholder derivative and class action lawsuit alleging
that among other things, certain of NEGI's current and former
officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to NEGI and
its stockholders in connection with NEGI's sale of its 50%
interest in an oil and gas holding company.

Following the disposition, NEGI has had no business and its
principal assets consist of cash and short-term investments which
currently aggregate approximately $48 million.

In March, 2008, NEGI dissolved and filed a Form 15 with the SEC
deregistering its securities with the SEC under the Exchange Act.
As a result, NEGI's status as a public company has been suspended.
No cash distributions will be made to NEGI's shareholders until
the NEGI board determines that NEGI has paid, or made adequate
provision for the payment of, its liabilities and obligations,
including any liabilities relating to the lawsuit.

The parties to the lawsuit agreed to settle the lawsuit and
settlement has received court approval.  The court order is
subject to appeal.

Assuming no appeal is filed, defendant Icahn Enterprises will pay
$9.15 million into an escrow account designated by plaintiff and
the funds, after the withdrawal of plaintiff's counsel's awarded
attorneys' fee and plaintiff's awarded fee, will be distributed to
the class of NEGI stockholders represented by plaintiff.  In
addition, all claims against all defendants will be dismissed.

Icahn Enterprises L.P. -- http://www.icahnenterprises.com/--
formerly American Real Estate Partners, L.P. is a holding company
owning subsidiaries engaged in the operating businesses, which
includes Investment Management, Metals, Real Estate and Home
Fashion.


INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Discovery in Restitution Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the class action lawsuit filed by certain hourly
employees against Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc., is
ongoing, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

On June 5, 2009, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the
company by certain hourly employees alleging restitution for
unfair business practices, injunctive relief for unfair business
practices, failure to pay overtime wages, and penalties
associated therewith.

On December 23, 2009, the Company filed an answer to the
complaint, generally denying all of the plaintiff's allegations.

The parties are currently exchanging discovery in the action.  At
this early stage, the Company is unable to determine the cost of
defending this lawsuit or the impact, if any, this action may have
on its results of operations.

Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.ihhioc.com/--
is a physician owned company that acquired and began operating the
four hospital facilities: Western Medical Center in Santa Ana;
Western Medical Center in Anaheim; Coastal Communities Hospital in
Santa Ana, and Chapman Medical Center in Orange.


INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Discovery in "Ross" Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
On January 25, 2010, a potential class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company by Julie Ross.  Ms. Ross purports to represent
all similarly-situated employees and the complaint alleges causes
of action for violation of the California Labor Code and unfair
competition law.

The parties are currently exchanging initial discovery in the
action.

Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.ihhioc.com/--
is a physician owned company that acquired and began operating the
four hospital facilities: Western Medical Center in Santa Ana;
Western Medical Center in Anaheim; Coastal Communities Hospital in
Santa Ana, and Chapman Medical Center in Orange.


INTERSECTIONS INC: Motion to Dismiss Suit in Texas Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intersections Inc.'s motion to dismiss a putative class action
complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, according to the company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On Sept. 11, 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the company, Intersections Insurance Services Inc., Loeb
Holding Corp., Bank of America of America, NA, Banc of America
Insurance Services, Inc., American International Group, Inc.,
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, and
Global Contact Services, LLC.

The complaint alleges various claims based on telemarketing of an
accidental death and disability program.

The defendants each have filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims, and the motions are pending.

Intersections Inc. -- http://www.intersections.com/-- is a
leading global provider of consumer and corporate identity risk
management services.  Its premier identity theft, privacy, and
consumer solutions are designed to provide high-value
opportunities to its marketing partners, including leading
financial institutions, Fortune 100 corporations, and other
businesses.  Intersections also markets full identity theft
protection solutions under its brand, Identity Guard(R).
Intersections' consumer identity theft protection services have
protected more than 30 million consumers.


INTERSECTIONS INC: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Identity Protection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intersections Inc. is facing a putative class action complaint in
California over claims relating to identity protection services,
according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

On February 16, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Intersections, Inc., Bank of America Corporation, and FIA
Card Services, N.A., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. The complaint alleges various claims based
on the provision of identity protection services to the named
plaintiff.

The company believes it has meritorious and complete defenses to
the plaintiff's claims but believe that it is too early in the
litigation to form an opinion as to the likelihood of success in
defeating the claims. Defendants filed answers to the complaint on
May 24, 2010.

Intersections Inc. -- http://www.intersections.com/-- is a
leading global provider of consumer and corporate identity risk
management services.  Its premier identity theft, privacy, and
consumer solutions are designed to provide high-value
opportunities to its marketing partners, including leading
financial institutions, Fortune 100 corporations, and other
businesses.  Intersections also markets full identity theft
protection solutions under its brand, Identity Guard(R).
Intersections' consumer identity theft protection services have
protected more than 30 million consumers.


ISTAR FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Citiline's Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
iStar Financial Inc. continues to defend the matter Citiline
Holdings, Inc., et al. v. iStar Financial, Inc., et al., pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
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 2008, two putative class action complaints were filed
naming the company and certain of its current and former executive
officers as defendants and alleging violations.  Both suits were
purportedly filed on behalf of the same putative class of
investors who purchased common stock in the company's Dec. 13,
2007, public offering.  The two complaints were consolidated in a
single proceeding on April 30, 2008.

On Nov. 17, 2008, Plumbers Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund and
Citiline Holdings, Inc. were appointed Lead Plaintiffs to pursue
the Citiline Action.  Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint on Feb. 2, 2009, purportedly on behalf of a putative
class of investors who purchased the company's common stock
between Dec. 6, 2007 and March 6, 2008.

The Complaint named as defendants the company, certain of its
current and former executive officers, and certain investment
banks who served as underwriters in the Company's Offering.

The Complaint reasserted claims for alleged violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act, and added claims for
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.  Plaintiffs allege the defendants made certain material
misstatements and omissions relating to the company's continuing
operations, including the value of the Company's loan portfolio
and certain debt securities held by the company.

The Complaint seeks certification as a class action, unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys fees, and
rescission of the public offering.  No class has been certified.

The company and its current and former officers filed a motion to
dismiss the Complaint on April 27, 2009 and, on March 26, 2010,
the Court issued its order granting, in part, the dismissal of
certain Securities Act claims against certain of the company's
current and former officers, but denying the motion as to all
claims asserted against the company.

Accordingly, the discovery process has commenced.

New York-based iStar Financial Inc. provides custom-tailored
investment capital to high-end private and corporate owners of
real estate, including senior and mezzanine real estate debt,
senior and mezzanine corporate capital, as well as corporate net
lease financing and equity.  The company, which is taxed as a real
estate investment trust, provides innovative and value added
financing solutions to its customers.


LEAP WIRELESS: Settlement Fairness Hearing on October 4
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
has set a settlement fairness hearing for Oct. 4, 2010, in a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit against Leap Wireless
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.

Leap and certain current and former officers and directors, and
Leap's independent registered public accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, were named as defendants in a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California which
consolidated several securities class action lawsuits initially
filed between September 2007 and January 2008.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  The consolidated complaint alleges that the
defendants made false and misleading statements about Leap's
internal controls, business and financial results, and customer
count metrics.  The claims are based primarily on the Nov. 9,
2007, announcement that the company was restating certain of its
financial statements and statements made in its Aug. 7, 2007,
second quarter 2007 earnings release.

The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, a determination that the
alleged claims may be asserted on a class-wide  basis and
unspecified damages and attorney's fees and costs.

On Jan. 9, 2009, the federal court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.  On Feb. 23,
2009, defendants were served with an amended complaint which did
not name PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP or any of Leap's outside
directors.  Leap and the remaining individual defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint.

The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the class
action.  The settlement is contingent upon court approval and
provides for, among other things, dismissal of the lawsuits with
prejudice, releases in favor of the defendants, and payment to the
class of $13.75 million, including the award of attorneys' fees to
class plaintiffs' counsel.

On Feb. 18, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a motion seeking
preliminary approval by the court of the settlement and approval
of a form of notice to potential settlement class members, which
was granted on March 24, 2010.

The district court set a settlement fairness hearing for Oct. 4,
2010.

Following preliminary approval, the entire settlement amount was
paid into an escrow account by the company's insurance carriers
pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement.

Leap Wireless International, Inc. -- http://www.leapwireless.com/
-- provides innovative, high-value wireless services to a fast-
growing, young and ethnically diverse customer base. With the
value of unlimited wireless services as the foundation of its
business, Leap pioneered its Cricket(R) service. The Company and
its joint ventures operate in 35 states and the District of
Columbia and hold licenses in 35 of the top 50 U.S. markets.
Through its affordable, flat-rate service plans, Cricket offers
customers a choice of unlimited voice, text, data and mobile Web
services.  Headquartered in San Diego, Calif., Leap is traded on
the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "LEAP."


LIVEDEAL INC: 2008 Consumer Fraud Class Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Litigation of Global Education Services Inc.'s consumer fraud
class action lawsuit against LiveDeal, Inc., is still ongoing,
according to LiveDeal's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On June 6, 2008, Global Education Services, Inc., filed a
consumer fraud class action lawsuit against the Company in King
County (Washington) Superior Court.  GES has alleged in its
complaint that the Company's use of activator checks violated the
Washington Consumer Protection Act.  GES is seeking injunctive
relief against the Company's use of the checks, as well as a
judgment in an amount equal to three times the alleged damages
sustained by GES and the members of the class.  LiveDeal has
denied the allegations.  The Court denied both parties'
dispositive motions.

LiveDeal, Inc. -- http://www.livedeal.com/-- delivers best of
breed local customer acquisition services for small and medium-
sized businesses combined with a classified and Internet Yellow
Pages directory platform technology to deliver an affordable way
for businesses to extend their marketing reach to local, relevant
customers via the Internet.  Through its online property,
LiveDeal delivers local search engine marketing (SEM) through its
LiveAdvisor(TM) and LiveClicks(TM) products that combine best-of-
breed technology with a strong partnership model and an inside
sales team to create an efficient platform local businesses need
to create and optimize their Internet search advertising
campaigns.  Livedeal partners with Google, Yahoo!, MSN, ASK,
Miva, Looksmart, Superpages.com and others. LiveDeal, Inc., is
headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.


NATIONAL CITY: Court to Hear $11 Million Settlement on December 13
------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary Notice of Proposed Settlement and Settlement Hearing:

To: All Persons Or Entities Who Acquired Shares Of National City
Corporation Common Stock Pursuant To And/Or Traceable To The
Registration Statement Filed With The Securities And Exchange
Commission In Connection With National City's Acquisition Of
Fidelity Bankshares, Inc. And Who Were Damaged Thereby (The
"Settlement Class").

This Notice Was Authorized By The Court.  It Is Not A Lawyer
Solicitation.

Please Read This Notice Carefully And In Its Entirety.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an order of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, that a hearing will be
held on December 13, 2010, at 11:00 A.M., before the Honorable
Solomon Oliver, Jr., at the Carl B. Stokes United States District
Court House, 801 West Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1838,
for the purpose of determining: (i) whether the proposed
Settlement of this Action for Eleven Million Dollars ($11,000,000)
cash, plus accrued interest, should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable and adequate; (ii) whether an Order and Final
Judgment approving the Settlement and dismissing this Action on
the merits and with prejudice should be entered; (iii) whether the
release by the Settlement Class of the Released Claims, as set
forth in the Stipulation, should be provided to the Released
Parties; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is a fair
and reasonable method to allocate settlement proceeds; (v) whether
the application of Plaintiff's Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; and (vi) whether
the Lead Plaintiff should be awarded a Stipend to compensate him
for reasonable time and expense relating to the prosecution of
this Action.

If you are a member of the settlement class described above, your
rights may be affected and you may be entitled to share in the
settlement fund.  To share in the distribution of the Settlement
Fund, you must establish your rights by filing a Proof of Claim
postmarked not later than January 31, 2011.  Your failure to
submit your Proof of Claim by January 31, 2011 will subject your
claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery
in connection with the Settlement of this Action.  If you are a
member of the Settlement Class and do not request exclusion from
the Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment
and release entered in the Action, including, but not limited to,
the Final Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim.

If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of Pendency
of Class Action, Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Settlement
Fairness Hearing, and Right to Share in Settlement Fund and a
Proof of Claim form, you may obtain copies of these documents by
identifying yourself as a member of the Settlement Class and
contacting:

Claims Administrator

     National City-Fidelity Bankshares Acquisition Settlement
     c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 24654
     West Palm Beach, FL 33416
     Telephone: (888) 952-9081

All inquiries, other than requests for the forms of Notice and
Proof of Claim, should be made in writing, addressed to
Plaintiff's Lead Counsel:

     Michael J. Pucillo, Esq.
     Wendy H. Zoberman, Esq.
     BERMAN DEVALERIO
     4280 Professional Center Drive, Suite 350
     Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
     Telephone: (561) 835-9400

If you desire to be excluded from the class, you must submit a
request for exclusion postmarked no later than November 22, 2010,
in the manner and form explained in the notice. All members of the
class who have not requested exclusion from the class will be
bound by the settlement entered in the action even if they do not
file a timely proof of claim.

If you desire to object to the settlement or any of its terms, the
plan of allocation, the application for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses, or the award of a stipend to
lead plaintiff, you must submit an objection no later than
November 22, 2010, in the manner and form explained in the notice.

Please do not call or write the court or the office of the clerk
of the court or defendants' counsel for information or advice.

Dated: September 1, 2010

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO


NPC INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismisses Second Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted NPC
International, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a second amended
complaint.

On May 12, 2009, a lawsuit against the company, entitled Jeffrey
Wass, et al. v. NPC International, Inc., Case No. 2:09-CV-2254-
JWL-KGS, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas.

A First Amended Complaint, entitled Jeffrey Wass and Mark Smith,
et al. v. NPC International, Inc., was filed on July 2, 2009.  The
Complaint was brought by Plaintiffs Wass and Smith individually
and on behalf of similarly situated employees who work or
previously worked as delivery drivers for NPC.

The First Amended Complaint alleged a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid wages and excessive
deductions owed to plaintiffs and similarly situated workers
employed by NPC in 28 states, and as a class action under Colorado
law on behalf of Plaintiff Smith and all other similarly situated
workers employed by NPC in Colorado to recover unpaid minimum
wages and excess payroll deductions and certain costs relating to
uniforms and special apparel.  The First Amended Complaint alleged
among other things that NPC deprived plaintiffs and other NPC
delivery drivers of minimum wages by providing insufficient
reimbursements for automobile and other job-related expenses
incurred for the purposes of delivering NPC's pizza and other food
items.

On March 2, 2010, the Court entered an Order granting NPC's
motions for judgment on the pleadings as to all claims brought by
plaintiffs in the First Amended Complaint, with the exception of a
claim for the reimbursement of uniform costs under Colorado law.
The Order provided that the claims failed to state a claim under
the FLSA and Colorado law and, therefore, would be dismissed with
prejudice unless plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint that
cured the deficiencies in the First Amended Complaint.  The Order
also operated to moot plaintiffs' then-pending motion for
conditional collective action certification.

The Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 22, 2010,
which alleged a collective action under the FLSA on behalf of
plaintiffs and similarly situated workers employed by NPC in 28
states, and a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure on behalf of Plaintiff Smith and similarly
situated workers employed in states in which the state minimum
wage is higher than the federal minimum wage.  The Second Amended
Complaint contended that NPC deprived delivery drivers of minimum
wages by providing insufficient reimbursements for automobile
expenses incurred for the purposes of delivering NPC's pizza and
other food items.  NPC filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint on April 8, 2010.

On June 24, 2010, the Court granted NPC's motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint as to all claims filed by Plaintiff Wass,
all Plaintiffs who had opted in to the class and all putative
class members.

The only claim remaining is the individual claim of one remaining
class representative, Mark Smith.

The Court's Order did not grant Plaintiffs leave to amend the
Second Amended Complaint, but Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
leave to amend.  NPC filed an opposition to the motion on July 27,
2010.  That motion is currently pending before the Court,
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
29, 2010.

NPC International, Inc. -- http://www.npcinternational.com/-- is
a Pizza Hut franchisee and currently operates 1,143 Pizza Hut
restaurants and delivery units in 28 states.


ONVIA INC: Settlement Objectors to File Briefs by October 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------
Onvia, Inc., relates in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
that objectors to the settlement of a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit in New York will file briefs no later than
October 6, 2010.

In 2001, five securities class action suits were filed against
Onvia, certain former executive officers, and the lead underwriter
of Onvia's Initial Public Offering, Credit Suisse First Boston.
The suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who acquired
securities of Onvia between March 1, 2000, and December 6, 2000.
In 2002, a consolidated complaint was filed. The complaint charged
defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder) and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that failed to
disclose and contained false and misleading statements regarding
certain commissions purported to have been received by the
underwriters, and other purported underwriter practices in
connection with their allocation of shares in the offering.  The
complaint sought an undisclosed amount of damages, as well as
attorneys' fees.  This action is being coordinated with
approximately 300 other nearly identical actions filed against
other companies.  At the Court's request, plaintiffs selected six
"focus" cases, which do not include Onvia.  The Court indicated
that its decisions in the six focus cases are intended to provide
strong guidance for the parties in the remaining cases.

The parties in the coordinated cases, including Onvia's case,
reached a settlement.  The insurers for the issuer defendants in
the coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on behalf
of the issuers, including Onvia.  On October 5, 2009, the Court
granted final approval of the settlement.  A group of three
objectors to the settlement filed a petition to the Second Circuit
seeking permission to appeal the District Court's final approval
order.  Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the petition.  Six
notices of appeal to the Second Circuit have also been filed by
different groups of objectors, including the objectors that filed
the petition.

Subject to court approval, the objectors to the settlement will
file their briefs in the Second Circuit no later than October 6,
2010, and answering briefs will be due no later than February 3,
2011.

Onvia, Inc. -- http://www.onvia.com/-- provides information
products and research tools that help companies plan, market, and
sell to targeted markets in the United States. Its products and
services provide access to company's Onvia Online Database of
project specific information, as well as offer specialized tools
for analyzing information relevant to customer's businesses.


ORLEANS PARISH: Judge Denies State's Motion to Quash Subpoenas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro de los Rios, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports
Judge Ethel Julien denied the state's motion to quash subpoenas
sent to school superintendents in St. Bernard, St. Tammany,
Plaquemines, Washington and Jefferson parishes regarding the
effects on those school boards following Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita.

Judge Julien ruled Sept. 24 in Orleans Parish Civil District Court
on various motions in a class action suit brought by former school
employees against the Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB) and the
Louisiana State Board of Education.

New Orleans principal Eddy Oliver, teacher's aide Oscarlene Nixon
and OPSB custodian Mildred Goodwin lead the class of 7,500 current
and former OPSB employees who claim they were wrongfully
terminated after most of New Orleans' public schools were flooded
during Katrina.

The OPSB filed a motion for exception of vagueness, claiming the
plaintiffs did not list a specific act of conspiracy in their
cause of action in a fifth supplemental petition.

Judge Julien denied the motion but also ruled that no more
petitions are to be filed by the plaintiffs.

Judge Julien also ruled in a consent judgment on the final motion
by the plaintiffs to finalize a case management order to approve a
master list of possible class members for notification purposes.

New Orleans attorney Willie Zanders is representing the class in
this suit.

Assistant Attorney General Brent Hicks is representing the state
on behalf of its school boards.

New Orleans attorney Renee Smith is representing the OPSB.

This case was originally filed as an injunctive relief for Oliver,
Nixon and Goodwin, in which they claimed that the OPSB's proposed
plan to turn several of its schools into quasi-charter schools
would "end public schools in New Orleans."

The initial request, which essentially asked that teachers that
were hired by the OPSB be retained in schools that were taken over
by the RSD, was denied. But in a September 2007 ruling, Judge
Julien acknowledged other causes of action including wrongful
termination and breach of contract.

In December 2008, Judge Julien certified the class as "all current
or former employees of the OPSB prior to Hurricane Katrina." The
class includes principals, teachers, paraprofessionals, central
office administrators, secretaries, social works, food service,
maintenance and other service workers that had been hired by the
OPSB.

Orleans Parish Case 2005-12244


PRICHARD, ALABAMA: Retirees Can Pursue Class Suit in State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fox 10 News reports Prichard retirees won a key victory Monday in
their fight to receive pension money from the city.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge William Shulman denied two motions filed by
Prichard. The action allows a class action suit against the city
to proceed to state court.

Earlier this month, Scott Williams, an lawyer representing the
city said Prichard doesn't have the money to resume paying its
retirees.  Mr. Williams told Fox 10 News, "The city has no money.
The city doesn't have the ability to start paying its pensioners
like it was before."

Monday's court action does not mean any immediate relief for the
retirees. Donations for the retirees are being accepted to the
Prichard Pension Relief Fund at any Commonwealth Bank Branch.


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Suit Over Delayed Benefits Payment Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Prudential Insurance Company of America continues to face a
purported state-wide class action in Nevada over delayed death
benefits payments, according to Pruco Life Insurance Company of
New Jersey's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In April 2010, a purported state-wide class action was filed
against Prudential Insurance in Nevada state court alleging that
Prudential Insurance delayed payment of death benefits and
improperly retained undisclosed profits by placing death benefits
in retained asset accounts.

An earlier case by the same plaintiff making substantially the
same allegations was dismissed in federal court.


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Still Faces Suit Over Veterans' Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Prudential Insurance Company of America remains a defendant in
a purported nationwide class action over veterans' benefits in
Massachusetts, according to Pruco Life Insurance Company of New
Jersey's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In July 2010, a purported nationwide class action was filed in
Massachusetts against Prudential Insurance relating to retained
asset accounts associated with life insurance covering U.S.
service members and veterans.

The case is Lucey v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, Case No.
10-30163 (D. Mass.).

Representing the plaintiffs:

     Cristobal Bonifaz, Esq.
     180 Maple Street
     P.O. Box 180
     Conway, MA 01341
     Telephone: (413) 369-4263


TELENAV INC: Faces "Smith" Suit in California Over May 2010 IPO
---------------------------------------------------------------
TeleNav, Inc., faces a purported stockholder class action in
connection with its May 13, 2010, initial public offering,
according to the company's Sept. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2010.

On Sept. 2, 2010, a purported stockholder class action was filed
by David Smith in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (Case No. 3:10-CV-03942-SC) against the
company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain of its
underwriters for the company's May 13, 2010 IPO.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the company's common stock pursuant to its May
13, 2010 IPO, traceable to the company's Form S-1/A Registration
Statement and Prospectus filed with the SEC on May 13, 2010.

The complaint alleges that the company, certain of its officers
and directors, and certain of its underwriters for the IPO
violated the Securities Act by issuing the Registration Statement
and Prospectus, which the plaintiff alleges contained material
misstatements and omissions in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the
company failed to disclose in its May 13, 2010 Registration
Statement and Prospectus that it would soon be renegotiating its
current contract with Sprint, the company's largest customer,
which would result in the revenue being reduced.

The complaint seeks class certification, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and such other relief
as the court may deem proper.

The company says it expects that other purported plaintiffs will
file claims in this case.

TeleNav, Inc. -- http://www.telenav.com/-- provides consumer
location-based services (LBS), enterprise LBS and automotive LBS.
TeleNav's solutions provide consumers, wireless service providers,
enterprises and automakers with location-specific, real-time,
personalized services such as GPS navigation, local search, mobile
advertising, mobile commerce, location tracking and workflow
automation.  TeleNav's technology is available across more than
500 types of mobile phones, all major mobile phone operating
systems and a broad range of wireless network protocols.
TeleNav's service providers and partners include AT&T, Bell
Mobility, Boost Mobile, China Mobile, Cincinnati Bell, Ford Motor
Company, NII Holdings, Rogers, Sprint Nextel, Telcel, T-Mobile UK,
T-Mobile USA, U.S. Cellular, Verizon Wireless and Vivo Brazil.


TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Riverside Unit Still Defends "Shellman" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Riverside Cement Co.,
continues to defend a purported class-action complaint, Virginia
Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al.

The lawsuit was filed in late April 2008, in the Riverside County
Superior Court of the State of California.

The lawsuit against three of the company's subsidiaries purports
to be a class action complaint for medical monitoring for a
putative class defined as individuals who were allegedly exposed
to chrome 6 emissions from the company's Crestmore cement plant.

The complaint alleges an increased risk of future illness due to
the exposure to chrome 6 and other toxic chemicals.

The suit requests, among other things, establishment and funding
of a medical testing and monitoring program for the class until
their exposure to chrome 6 is no longer a threat to their health,
as well as punitive and exemplary damages.

Since the Shellman lawsuit was filed, five additional putative
class action lawsuits have been filed in the same court.  The
putative class in each of these cases is the same as or a subset
of the putative class in the Shellman case, and the allegations
and requests for relief are similar to those in the Shellman case.
As a consequence, the court has stayed four of these lawsuits
until the Shellman lawsuit is finally determined.

No updates were reported in the company's Sept. 24, 2010, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Aug. 31, 2010.

Texas Industries, Inc. -- http://www.txi.com/-- is a supplier of
heavy construction materials in the United States through its
three business segments: cement, aggregates and consumer products.
The company's cement segment produces gray Portland cement and
specialty cements.  Its cement production and distribution
facilities are concentrated primarily in Texas and California.
The company's aggregates segment produces natural aggregates,
including sand, gravel and crushed limestone, and specialty
lightweight aggregates.  Its consumer products segment produces
primarily ready-mix concrete and, to a lesser extent, packaged
products.  The company is a supplier of natural aggregates and
ready-mix concrete in Texas and northern Louisiana, and to a
lesser extent, in Oklahoma and Arkansas.


TONAWANDA COKE: Faces Class Suit Over Benzene Levels
----------------------------------------------------
WGRZ.com reports attorneys representing people living in Kenmore,
the Tonawanda's, Grand Island and Riverside filed a class action
lawsuit against Tonawanda Coke Monday.

Named in the suit are Tonawanda Coke, its owner J.D. Crane and
Environmental Controls Manager Mark Kamholz. Attorney Charles H.
Cobb says "These lawsuits are about justice and accountability."
Mr. Cobb goes on to say "Tonawanda Coke has operated with impunity
while it polluted our community for decades."

The Department of Environmental Conservation found that benzene
levels in the air were, at times, 75 times greater than the New
York State guidelines. The Environmental Protection Agency also
raided the plant last December, seizing records and arresting the
Environmental Controls manager, alleging a number of violations,
including obstruction of justice.

A number of individual lawsuits are expected to follow.

The litigation team held a community information meeting Tuesday
evening to discuss citizens' rights.  The meeting was held at the
Northwest Community Center at 155 Lawn Avenue in Buffalo.


TRAILER BRIDGE: Awaits Final Order Dismissing Suit in Puerto Rico
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trailer Bridge, Inc., is awaiting a final court order dismissing
it with prejudice from a consolidated class action lawsuit filed
by shippers in Puerto Rico, according to Trailer Bridge's Form
10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On April 17, 2008, the Company received a subpoena from the
Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice seeking
documents and information relating to a criminal grand jury
investigation of alleged anti-competitive conduct by Puerto Rico
ocean carriers.  Company representatives have met with United
States Justice Department attorneys and pledged the Company's full
and complete cooperation with the DOJ investigation.  The Company
has made document submissions to the DOJ in response to the
subpoena.  To date, neither the company nor any of its employees
has been charged with any wrongdoing in this investigation and we
will continue to cooperate with government officials.

Following publicity about the DOJ investigation, beginning on
April 22, 2008, shippers in the Puerto Rico trade lane, and in one
case indirect consumer purchasers within Puerto Rico, have filed
at least 41 purported class actions against domestic ocean
carriers, including Horizon Lines, Sea Star Lines, Crowley Liner
Services and the Company. The actions alleged that the defendants
inflated prices and engaged in other allegedly anti-competitive
conduct in violation of federal antitrust laws and seek treble
damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

The actions, which were filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, and the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, were consolidated
into a single multi-district litigation proceeding (MDL 1960) in
the District of Puerto Rico for pretrial purposes.  Plaintiffs'
lead counsel has filed a number of amended class action complaints
under seal.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss that complaint with the
court.  On April 30, 2010, in a non-final order, the Court granted
the Company's motion to be dismissed with prejudice as to the
claims of the named plaintiffs.  This order will not become final
and appealable until a further order or judgment is entered by the
Court.

Trailer Bridge, Inc. -- http://www.trailerbridge.com/-- provides
integrated trucking and marine freight service to and from all
points in the lower 48 states and Puerto Rico and Dominican
Republic, bringing efficiency, service, security and
environmental and safety benefits to domestic cargo in that
traffic lane.  This total transportation system utilizes its own
trucks, drivers, trailers, containers and U.S. flag vessels to
link the mainland with Puerto Rico via marine facilities in
Jacksonville, San Juan and Puerto Plata.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Court Conditionally OKs Settlement of Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Volkswagen and Audi have agreed to pay sludge-related maintenance
costs for nearly 480,000 vehicles as part of a proposed settlement
conditionally approved in federal court.  The order filed
Thursday, September 23, 2010 by Judge Joseph L. Tauro in Boston,
defined the group, or "class," that can benefit from the
settlement as all current and former owners and lessees of Audi's
A4 (model year 1997-2004) and Volkswagen's Passat (model year
1998-2004) that were equipped with a 1.8 liter turbo engine.

The class action lawsuit alleges that the 1.8 liter turbo engines
were overly prone to the formation of oil sludge and coking
deposits. These deposits cause abnormally high incidence of engine
failure even when maintained according to the manufacturer's
maintenance recommendations.

The multidistrict litigation, which was consolidated in
Massachusetts in 2006, also alleges that the auto companies failed
to honor an 8-year unlimited warranty extension issued in 2004 by
denying claims brought by vehicle owners with sludge-related
engine failure.

Under the settlement agreement, the companies have agreed to cover
100 percent of the maintenance costs for owners/lessees with
proper documentation of required oil changes, and 50 percent for
those without proper documentation. The settlement also provides
owners and lessees eligibility for a 10-year/120,000 mile enhanced
oil sludge warranty.  In addition, all class members who currently
own or lease the covered vehicles will receive revised oil
maintenance recommendations.

The Court also ordered that notice to the settlement class will
be provided by mail and published in USA Today on or before
December 29, 2010.

Co-Lead Class Counsels for the plaintiffs are Peter McNulty
(McNulty Law Firm, CA.), Kirk D. Tresemer (Irwin & Boesen, P.C.,
CO.) and Russell D. Henkin (Berger & Montague, P.C., PA.).
Defendants are represented by Herzfeld & Rubin PC.

The Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for March 11, 2011, at the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in
Boston.


WAL-MART STORES: Gender Discrimination Suit Draws Attention
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hood at ConsumerAffairs.com reports the Wal-Mart
discrimination class action, involving allegations that the mega-
corporation systematically discriminates against female employees,
is drawing attention from advocates for laborers and corporations
alike.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the case as a class
action in August, rejecting Wal-Mart's argument that the massive
number of people involved -- the class could potentially encompass
over one million employees -- renders the case "unmanageable."

Late last month, Wal-Mart asked the Supreme Court to hear the
case, contending that the appeals court's decision "contradicts
numerous decisions of other appellate courts and even the Supreme
Court itself."

Because of its potential precedential value -- the case is the
largest employment class action ever certified, and could open the
proverbial floodgates for similar actions -- the suit is drawing
attention from both sides of the aisle.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's primary lobbying group
for businesses, is the latest to take sides. It has filed an
amicus brief on Wal-Mart's behalf, urging the high court to hear
the case.

"This is the most important class action case facing the Court in
over a decade," Robin Conrad, executive vice president of the
Chamber's Litigation Center, said in a statement. "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."

The brief, the sixth filed by the Chamber since the case was first
certified in 2004, says the "narrowly divided" Ninth Circuit's
"contentious 6-5 ruling" essentially sanctions "a loose approach
to class certification that effectively [bars] Wal-Mart from
presenting individualized evidence to prove it [has] complied with
the law."

                      Corporations at Risk

Mr. Conrad warned that the suit threatens the very existence of
every corporation.

"The Ninth Circuit has opened the door to nothing less than court-
sanctioned shakedowns," Mr. Conrad said. "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."

Meanwhile, labor advocates contend that the suit is a crucial tool
in their fight to provide fair working conditions.

Richard Seymour, an attorney who focuses on employment class
action lawsuits, told USA Today that the situation is "a no-win
proposition for employers." According to Mr. Seymour, no matter
what the outcome of the appeal, plaintiffs will have a better idea
of how to get similar actions certified in the future.

Wal-Mart also has a friend in Judge Sandra Ikuta, who dissented
from the Ninth Circuit's decision.

Never before has such a low bar been set for certifying such a
gargantuan class," Ikuta wrote in her opinion. She said the
plaintiffs' case was built on "general and conclusory allegations,
a handful of anecdotes and statistical disparities that bear
little relation to the alleged discriminatory decisions." Ikuta's
approach and precedent could provide a path for the Supreme Court
if it decides to take the case and overturn the Ninth Circuit's
opinion.

              Wal-Mart Gets Backing From 19 Companies
                     at U.S. Supreme Court

Greg Stohr, writing for Bloomberg News, reports Intel Corp.,
Altria Group Inc., Bank of America Corp. and 16 other companies
called on the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
appeal that seeks to limit class-action lawsuits by workers.

Should the court agree to hear the case, it would likely become
the most significant business dispute before the justices. Robin
Conrad, who heads the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's litigation arm,
this week called the dispute the "800-pound gorilla" of the
court's 2010-11 docket. The court is likely to say later this year
whether it will hear arguments.

The companies, which also include Microsoft Corp. and General
Electric Co., argued that judicial approval of a class action puts
enormous pressure on defendants to settle, even if the claim is
frivolous.

"Because the specter of potentially enormous class-wide liability
compels defendants to settle even meritless claims, class
certification decisions are often tantamount to a decision on the
merits," 18 of the companies argued. Intel filed a separate brief,
making similar arguments.

The other companies signing the brief were Chrysler Group LLC,
Cigna Corp., Del Monte Foods Co., Dole Food Co., Dollar General
Corp., DuPont Co., Hewlett-Packard Co., Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
McKesson Corp., PepsiCo Inc., Tyson Foods Inc., UnitedHealth Group
Inc., United Parcel Service Inc. and Williams Cos.

                           Same Jobs

Wal-Mart is accused in the 2001 suit of paying women less than men
for the same jobs and giving female workers fewer promotions. In
April, a federal appeals court ruled 6-5 that the case could
proceed as a class action on behalf of women who worked at Wal-
Mart since 2001.

Wal-Mart contends the claims of workers around the country are too
diverse to proceed as a single case under the rules that govern
federal lawsuits.

Brad Seligman, an attorney for the workers, said last month that
"only the size of the case is unusual, and that is a product of
Wal-Mart's size and the breadth of the discrimination we
documented."

The case is Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, 10-277.


WEST PUBLISHING: Judge Slashes Plaintiffs Lawyers' Fees to $500K
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports the
roller-coaster ride isn't over yet for plaintiffs lawyers
attempting to recover legal fees in the antitrust case against the
parent company of BAR/BRI.

U.S. District Judge Manuel Real in Los Angeles, citing an
"egregious breach of McGuireWoods's ethical duties," on Monday
granted $500,000 in fees to the firm -- significantly less than
the $12 million originally awarded in a $49 million settlement
with West Publishing Corp. in 2007.

The settlement resolved a class action by 300,000 consumers who
alleged they paid an average $1,000 in overcharges for the bar
examination review course because West Publishing conspired to
monopolize the market in a secret deal with Kaplan Inc., which
sells preparatory courses for the Law School Aptitude Test.

Monday's hearing was the latest in a developing saga over legal
fees. In addition to McGuireWoods, several other attorneys want
fees for having represented groups of plaintiffs who objected to
the original settlement on ground of conflict of interest.
Specifically, they argued that incentive payments worth $25,000 to
$75,000 that McGuireWoods promised to five class representatives
were tied to the value of the settlement -- providing little
reason to fight rather than make a deal.

Judge Real approved the settlement but slashed the incentive
payments.

Last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
settlement but reversed Judge Real's decision regarding the fees,
concluding that the incentive payments, even if eliminated,
presented a "disturbing appearance of impropriety." The panel
asked Judge Real to reassess the fees.

On remand, Judge Real awarded no fees to McGuireWoods, saying the
firm violated the California Rules of Professional Conduct by
failing to inform class members about the incentive awards.

On a motion for reconsideration, Sidney Kanazawa, a partner in the
Los Angeles office of McGuireWoods, said there "clearly was no
egregious conduct by McGuireWoods," since similar incentive awards
were approved in other cases and everyone knew about the awards in
the BAR/BRI case. Furthermore, he wrote, the awards didn't harm
class members, and any conflict was nullified when Real rejected
the awards.

The firm has spent more than $1.25 million in expenses and about
$5.6 million in attorney time, according to court documents.

On Monday, Judge Real read his decision from the bench. The
$500,000 in fees cover the period between July 10, 2007, and
Sept. 10, 2010.

Outside the courtroom following the hearing, Mr. Kanazawa had no
comment. He later provided an e-mailed statement: "We are
disappointed and will appeal."

Judge Real denied motions for reconsideration filed by several
lawyers for the objectors, whose fees were reduced earlier this
year.


                             *********

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  * * *