CAR_Public/101005.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 5, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 196

                             Headlines

AMERICAN PUBLIC: Plaintiff Submissions in Securities Suit Sought
BA CREDIT: BofA's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Suit Pending
BNY MELLON: Defends Suit Over Securities Lending Program
BNY MELLON: Ivy Assets Defends Suits Over Madoff Investments
BNY MELLON: Remains a Defendant in Suit Over MCC's Debt Issue

CARTER-REED: High Court Allows Relacore False Ad Suit to Proceed
DELTA-T GROUP: Court Certifies Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practice
EMPLOYERS MUTUAL: Appeals Judge's Decision Certifying Class Suit
EUROPEAN AIRLINES: Face Airfreight Cartel Class Action Suit
FEDEX GROUND: Sued in Vermont for Misclassifying Drivers

FISHER-PRICE: Recalls 7,150,000 Toddler Tricycles
FISHER-PRICE: Recalls 120,000 Stand 'n Play Rampway
FISHER-PRICE: Recalls 1,075,000 High Chairs
FISHER-PRICE: Recalls 2,925,000 Infant Toys
FLUOR ENTERPRISES: Accused in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Overtime

FORCE PROTECTION: Settles Shareholder Class Actions for $24-Mil.
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Suit in Canada Over 15-Passenger Vans
FORTINET INC: Defends Suit by Former Stockholder in California
GLOBAL CASH: Court Gives Final Nod to $5.85 Million Settlement
GLOBALSTAR INC: Agreement in "Ladmen Partners" Suit Now Final

GLOBALSTAR INC: Settlement in "Walsh and Kesler" Gets Okay
GOLDMAN SACHS: Dec. 15 Fairness Hearing on $29-Mil. Settlement
GREEN MOUNTAIN: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
HANSEN MEDICAL: Defends Second Amended Complaint in California
INTERNATIONAL COAL: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending

JCG INDUSTRIES: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
JEFFREY ALLEN: Sued for Non-Payment of Interest on Rental Deposit
L-1 IDENTITY: Being Sold for Too Little, Conn. Suit Claims
MATRIX SERVICE: Subsidiary Settles Two Suits for $4 Million
NUFARM: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Profit Forecast

OLYMPUS CORP: Accused in Calif. Suit of Deceptive Advertising
OPTEUM INC: Dec. 9 Securities Litigation Settlement Hearing Set
PALL CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in New York
PCS EDVENTURES!.COM: Faces Two Shareholder Suits
SAVIENT PHARMA: New York Court Dismisses Class Action Suit

SPIRIT AERO: Court Says Case Can't Proceed as Class Action
SPIRIT AERO: Continues to Defend "Harkness" Suit in Kansas
UAL CORP: Preliminary Injunction Motion Denied in Merger Suit
WEBSTER BANK: Settles Suit Over Overdraft Fees for $2.8 Million

* U.S. Plaintiff Firms Supporting Canadian Class Action Suits


                             *********

AMERICAN PUBLIC: Plaintiff Submissions in Securities Suit Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gilman and Pastor, LLP announced Notice of Deadline in the
securities fraud class action lawsuit which was commenced in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of West
Virginia against American Public Education, Inc. and certain of
APEI's officers on behalf of a class consisting of all purchasers
of APEI common stock (NASDAQ: APEI) during the period between
August 1, 2009 and August 5, 2010, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that APEI violated federal securities fraud
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements related to APEI's business operations in violation of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The defendants issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements regarding
APEI's compliance with governmental regulations, and APEI's growth
and foreseeable profitability.

On or about August 5, 2010, the United States General Accounting
Office released a report which concluded that for-profit
educational institutions like APEI and other for-profit
educational institutions had engaged in an illegal and fraudulent
course of action designed to recruit students and over-charge the
federal government for the cost of said education.  Following the
release of the GAO report, the U.S. Department of Education
initiated an investigation of APEI's practices and shares of APEI
collapsed, falling almost 30% in one trading day.

The APEI securities class action complaint alleges that the
Defendants made positive statements in press releases and SEC
filings regarding APEI's operational performance and future growth
projections and that these statements were false because:

    (1) Defendants inflated APEI's results by inducing students to
enroll in APEI's scholastic and educational programs and engaged
in other manipulative recruiting tactics;

    (2) Defendants had materially overstated APEI's growth
prospects by failing to properly disclose that defendants had
engaged in illicit and improper recruiting activities, thereby
artificially inflating APEI's reported results and future growth
prospects; and

    (3) APEI did not maintain adequate systems of internal
operation or financial controls which would have permitted APEI's
reported operational statements and foreseeable growth prospects
to be true and accurate or reliable.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of APEI during the
Class Period.  If you purchased or otherwise acquired APEI shares
during the Class Period, between August 1, 2009 and August 5,
2010, and either lost money on the transaction or still hold the
shares, you may wish to join in this action.  If you wish to serve
as a lead plaintiff, a party representative that acts on behalf of
other class members, you may do so if the Court determines that
the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by
the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may
retain Gilman and Pastor, LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to
serve as your counsel in this action.

To discuss your rights as an APEI shareholder, including as to the
recovery of your losses, or to obtain additional information,
please contact Gilman and Pastor, LLP at http://www.investment-
losses.com/ , by email at rpotkay@gilmanpastor.com  or by calling
toll-free (877) 428-7374.

Gilman and Pastor, LLP represents institutional and individual
investors in class actions, complex securities and corporate
governance litigation.

CONTACT:

          Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq.
          GILMAN AND PASTOR, LLP
          16 Fourteenth Ave.
          Wareham, MA 02571
          Telephone: (877) 428-7374
          E-mail: kgilman@gilmanpastor.com


BA CREDIT: BofA's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation's motion to dismiss a second amended
consolidated complaint remains pending, according to BA Credit
Card Trust's Sept. 28, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2010.

Bank of America and certain of its subsidiaries are defendants in
putative class actions filed on behalf of retail merchants that
accept Visa and MasterCard payment cards.  Additional defendants
include Visa, MasterCard, and other financial institutions.

Plaintiffs, which seek unspecified treble damages and injunctive
relief, allege that the defendants conspired to fix the level of
interchange and merchant discount fees and that certain other
practices, including various Visa and MasterCard rules, violate
federal and California antitrust laws.

The class actions, the first of which was filed on June 22, 2005,
are coordinated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, together with
individual actions brought only against Visa and MasterCard, under
the caption In Re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Anti-Trust Litigation.  On Jan. 8, 2008, the District
Court dismissed all claims for pre-2004 damages.

On May 8, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification,
which the defendants opposed.  On Jan. 29, 2009, the class
plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint.

The class plaintiffs have also filed two supplemental complaints
against certain defendants, including Bank of America Corporation
and certain of its subsidiaries, relating to MasterCard's 2006
initial public offering and Visa's 2008 initial public offering.
The supplemental complaints, which seek unspecified treble damages
and injunctive relief, assert, among other things, claims under
federal antitrust laws.  On Nov. 25, 2008, the District Court
granted defendants' motion to dismiss the supplemental complaint
relating to the MasterCard IPO, with leave to amend.  On Jan. 29,
2009, plaintiffs amended the MasterCard IPO supplemental complaint
and also filed a supplemental complaint relating to the Visa IPO.

Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the second amended
consolidated complaint and the MasterCard IPO and Visa IPO
supplemental complaints.

Bank of America Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries have
entered into agreements with Visa and other financial institutions
that provide for sharing liabilities in connection with certain
antitrust litigation against Visa, including In Re Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust Litigation (the
Visa-Related Litigation).  Under these agreements, Bank of America
Corporation's obligations to Visa in the Visa-Related Litigation
are capped at Bank of America Corporation's membership interest in
Visa USA, which currently is 12.9%.  Under these agreements, Visa
Inc. placed a portion of the proceeds from the Visa IPO into an
escrow to fund liabilities arising from the Visa-Related
Litigation, including the 2008 settlement of Discover Financial
Services v. Visa USA, et al. and the 2007 settlement of American
Express Travel Related Services Company v. Visa USA, et al.  Since
the Visa IPO, Visa Inc. has added funds to the escrow, which has
the effect of repurchasing Visa Inc. Class A common stock
equivalents from the Visa USA members, including Bank of America
Corporation.

The primary asset of BA Credit Card Trust is the collateral
certificate, Series 2001-D, representing an undivided interest in
BA Master Credit Card Trust II, whose assets include the
receivables arising in a portfolio of unsecured consumer revolving
credit card accounts. BA Master Credit Card Trust II, therefore,
may be considered a significant obligor in relation to BA Credit
Card Trust.


BNY MELLON: Defends Suit Over Securities Lending Program
--------------------------------------------------------
Bank of New York Mellon Corp. is defending a proposed class action
suit in connection with its securities lending program.

A number of participants in the securities lending program, which
is associated with BNY Mellon's asset servicing business, have
filed or threatened lawsuits against BNY Mellon or its affiliates.
The lawsuits were filed on various dates from 2008 to 2010.

The participants allege that they have incurred losses, including
losses related to investments in Sigma Finance Inc. and Lehman
Brothers Holdings, Inc., and seek damages as to those losses.  One
such pending case seeks to proceed as a class action.  The
participants assert contractual, statutory, and common law claims,
including claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty,
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.

Bank of New York Mellon Corp. provides a comprehensive array of
services that enable institutions and individuals to manage and
service their financial assets, operating in 36 countries and
serving more than 100 markets worldwide.  The company strives to
be the global provider of choice for asset and wealth management
and institutional services and be recognized for our broad and
deep capabilities, superior client service and consistent
outperformance versus peers. Our global client base consists of
financial institutions, corporations, government agencies, high-
net-worth individuals, families, endowments and foundations and
related entities.  At June 30, 2010, the company had $21.8
trillion in assets under custody and administration and $1.0
trillion in assets under management, serviced $11.6 trillion in
outstanding debt and, on average, the company processes $1.5
trillion of global payments per day.


BNY MELLON: Ivy Assets Defends Suits Over Madoff Investments
------------------------------------------------------------
Ivy Asset Management LLC defends a number of suits in connection
with investments made to Bernard L. Madoff and his company,
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.

Ivy Asset is a subsidiary of Bank of New York Mellon Corp.

Ivy or its affiliates have been named in a number of civil
lawsuits filed from 2008 to 2010 relating to certain investment
funds that invested with Madoff.

Ivy acted as a sub-advisor to the managers of some of those funds.
Plaintiffs allege that the funds suffered losses in connection
with the Madoff investments.  Plaintiffs assert various causes of
action including securities and common-law fraud.

Certain of the cases seek to proceed as class actions and/or to
assert derivative claims on behalf of the funds, 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.

Bank of New York Mellon Corp. provides a comprehensive array of
services that enable institutions and individuals to manage and
service their financial assets, operating in 36 countries and
serving more than 100 markets worldwide.  The company strives to
be the global provider of choice for asset and wealth management
and institutional services and be recognized for our broad and
deep capabilities, superior client service and consistent
outperformance versus peers.  Its global client base consists of
financial institutions, corporations, government agencies, high-
net-worth individuals, families, endowments and foundations and
related entities.  At June 30, 2010, the company had $21.8
trillion in assets under custody and administration and $1.0
trillion in assets under management, serviced $11.6 trillion in
outstanding debt and, on average, the company processes $1.5
trillion of global payments per day.


BNY MELLON: Remains a Defendant in Suit Over MCC's Debt Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of New York Mellon Corp. remains a defendant in a number of
putative class actions and non-class actions brought by numerous
plaintiffs, in connection with its role as indenture trustee for
debt issued by affiliates of Medical Capital Corporation.

The actions, filed in late 2009, allege that The Bank of New York
Mellon breached its fiduciary and contractual obligations to the
holders of the underlying securities, and seek unspecified
damages, 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 a separate action, the SEC has alleged that Medical Capital,
along with certain of its affiliates and principals, engaged in
securities fraud.  The court ordered the appointment of a
permanent receiver over Medical Capital.  The Bank of New York
Mellon is not a party to the SEC action.

Bank of New York Mellon Corp. provides a comprehensive array of
services that enable institutions and individuals to manage and
service their financial assets, operating in 36 countries and
serving more than 100 markets worldwide.  The company strives to
be the global provider of choice for asset and wealth management
and institutional services and be recognized for our broad and
deep capabilities, superior client service and consistent
outperformance versus peers.  Its global client base consists of
financial institutions, corporations, government agencies, high-
net-worth individuals, families, endowments and foundations and
related entities.  At June 30, 2010, the company had $21.8
trillion in assets under custody and administration and $1.0
trillion in assets under management, serviced $11.6 trillion in
outstanding debt and, on average, the company processes $1.5
trillion of global payments per day.


CARTER-REED: High Court Allows Relacore False Ad Suit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abigail Field, writing for DailyFinance, reports the New Jersey
Supreme Court handed a victory to both the plaintiffs and
advocates of truth in advertising last week when it ruled that
lawsuits against the maker of dietary supplement Relacore could go
forward as a class action.

If you've ever heard of Relacore, or purchased it for $40 a bottle
at a drug store, it's surely only because of the product's
marketing campaign: Relacore's a pill, and there's no way to tell
what it does just by looking at it.  Contrast that with say, a
screwdriver or a cell phone.  Unless a marketer persuaded you --
or a friend who had in turn been persuaded by a marketer -- to buy
it, there's no way you'd just pick it off the shelf and pop it in
your mouth.

Such products are called "credence goods," explains consumer
advocacy group Public Citizen's Consumer Law and Policy Blog, and
Relacore's marketing didn't deserve any credence, according to the
lawsuits filed against it.  Distributor Carter Reed's claim that
Relacore attacked the "stress-to-belly-fat cycle" had no proof.

However, regardless of the strength of plaintiffs' claims that
Relacore's marketing was false, their most powerful weapon to stop
the false advertising was attaining class action status. A class
action suit means real money's at stake, and it's a powerful
motivator for a corporate defendant to agree to a settlement.
Indeed, given that each individual plaintiff lost only $40 a
bottle, it's unlikely that any single plaintiff would have seen a
suit through to the end, and unless a court rules, Carter Reed's
marketing can go on.

But to be a class, plaintiffs have to prove their claims share
enough features to make it appropriate to group them together.
One of the things plaintiffs have to prove is that law and fact
issues shared by the class members outweigh the individual issues.
Unfortunately for plaintiffs in the Relacore case, they lost the
class action fight at both the trial level and intermediate
appellate level because the courts found individual issues
predominated.  The appellate court specifically focused on the
fact that Relacore did so much marketing, and made many different
claims in different media: It decided that each plaintiff would
have to show which marketing they relied on in making the
purchase.

However, on appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court, public
interest groups helped plaintiff Melissa Lee persuade all the
justices that a class should be certified, because if, as claimed,
all the marketing claims were false, it didn't matter which
marketing any individual relied on.  Because Relacore is a
credence good, marketing was the only reason anyone purchased it:
Thus, if the all of its marketing claims were false, the burden of
proving the advertising was unlawful and caused all the individual
damages was met.

As a result, the case will go forward as a class action, at least
on its New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claim -- the court didn't
rule on class status for the other claims, finding an insufficient
record -- and Carter Reed is going to have back up its claims
about Relacore, or cease making the claims and pay out triple
damages and attorneys fees.  Or Carter Reed could settle, which
would surely also involve stopping its marketing of Relacore.


DELTA-T GROUP: Court Certifies Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practice
----------------------------------------------------------------
On September 30, 2010, the District Court for the Southern
District of California certified a class action lawsuit against
Delta-T Group: http://www.nka.com/Cases/Delta-
TGroup.aspx?CaseRef=118 on behalf of temporary workers who provide
staffing relief.  The certified class is comprised of
approximately 1,200 persons who worked for Delta-T Group in the
State of California at any time since March 10, 2005.

According to the Court, "[t]he entire class alleges an identical
injury, namely that they were wrongfully classified as independent
contractors: http://www.nka.com/by DTG and, as a result, denied a
panoply of work-related benefits that are afforded to employees
under California labor laws."  The Court then points out that the
company "has no real rebuttal to this," and goes on to reject
Delta-T Group's arguments against certification for the majority
of claims.

"We are very pleased with the ruling," explains Plaintiff's
attorney Rebekah Bailey.  "Delta-T Group has a companywide
practice of categorically misclassifying all of its temporary
staff as independent contractors.  This practice has long denied
workers important employment protections and unfairly undercut
competitor staffing agencies who properly classify their workers.
This ruling paves the way for us to challenge these practices on
behalf of all the company's California workers and we look forward
to doing so."

Plaintiffs are represented by Paul Lukas, Michele Fisher, and
Rebekah Bailey of Nichols Kaster, PLLP, which has offices in
Minneapolis, Minnesota and San Francisco, California, and by Jason
S. Hartley of Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, which has offices in San
Diego, California, and Kansas City, Missouri.  The newly certified
class is entitled Norris-Wilson v. Delta-T Group, Inc., Case No.
09CV0916-LAB (RBB) (S.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2009).  Nichols Kaster also
represents a putative national class of temporary workers under
federal wage and hour laws in the case entitled Bamgbose v. Delta-
T Group, Inc., Case No. 09CV00667-MAM (E.D. Pa. filed Feb. 17,
2009).

Additional information about the cases is located at
http://www.nka.com/


EMPLOYERS MUTUAL: Appeals Judge's Decision Certifying Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison/St. Clair Record, reports
Employers Mutual Insurance wants Fifth District appeals judges to
stop a class action Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack
certified.

Fifth District clerk John Flood received a petition from Employers
Mutual on Sept. 20, seeking leave to appeal an order Judge Stack
signed on Aug. 16.

Judge Stack certified chiropractor Frank Bemis to represent all
health care providers whose reimbursements for workers
compensation claims were reduced by Employers Mutual pursuant to a
preferred provider organization discount since 2004.

Mr. Bemis sued the insurer as an individual and a corporation,
though he didn't perform the treatment that led to the suit and
the corporation didn't exist until after he sued.

Judge Stack appointed LakinChapman of Wood River as lead class
counsel.

"The attorneys from LakinChapman LLC have regularly engaged in
major complex litigation of the size, scope, and complexity
similar to this case and have successfully prosecuted and settled
many and varied class actions and other complex litigation," Judge
Stack wrote.

Mr. Bemis sued Employers in 2005, just before the effective date
of a reform law that steered most new class actions to federal
courts.

Employers offered Mr. Bemis $48 to settle his claim, and he turned
it down.

Andrew Kuhlmann of LakinChapman wrote, "In addition to
reimbursement of all PPO reductions, plaintiff requests an award
of attorney's fees under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act."

"Moreover, discovery may establish that there are additional First
health PPO reductions that Employers took from plaintiff
improperly," he wrote.

Ted Harvey of Belleville represents Employers.


EUROPEAN AIRLINES: Face Airfreight Cartel Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trade magazine AirCargo Asia-Pacific reports more than 300
claimants from 11 EU countries are believed to be involved in the
largest-ever European class action claim for damages resulting
from airfreight cartel behavior.

A group of companies led by Philips of the Netherlands and Swedish
telecoms group Ericsson will allege they suffered more than EUR500
million in damages as a result of price-fixing by airlines KLM,
Martinair and Air France.

Another 20 airlines are expected to be named later.

International competition watchdogs have been probing a worldwide
cartel, based around air freight traffic rates, for the past four
years.

In countries including Australia, South Korea, Canada, Japan and
the US, almost two dozen airlines have already admitted
involvement in illegal activities going back to 2000 and have paid
fines and seen staff jailed.

But until now the European Commission has held back -- and even
now, this new Dutch lawsuit will depend on a finding of illegal
airline activity by the EU authority in Brussels.

The claim is being organized by litigation funding company Claims
Funding International, which is paying the costs of the claim in
return for a fee if damages are recovered.

CFI says many of the claimants are from the pharmaceuticals and
electronics sectors plus food and automotive industries.


FEDEX GROUND: Sued in Vermont for Misclassifying Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that FedEx Ground Package System
misclassifies its drivers as independent contractors to duck labor
laws, a class action claims in Burlington, Vt., Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Stearns, et al. v. Fedex Ground Package
System, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00224 (D. Vt.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/29/FedEx.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James J. Dunn, Esq.
          MICKENBURG, DUNN, KOCHMAN, LACHS & SMITH
          29 Pine St.
          P.O. Box 406
          Burlington, VT 05402-0406
          Telephone: 802-658-6951

               - and -

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          100 Cambridge St., 20th Floor
          Boston, MA 021147
          Telephone: 617-994-5800


FISHER-PRICE: Recalls 7,150,000 Toddler Tricycles
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Fisher-Price Inc., of East Aurora, N.Y., announced a voluntary
recall of about 7 million Fisher Price Trikes and Tough Trikes
toddler tricycles in the United States and 150,000 in Canada.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

A child can strike, sit or fall on the protruding plastic ignition
key resulting in serious injury, including genital bleeding.

CPSC and Fisher-Price are aware of 10 reports of incidents
resulting in injury.  Six of the incidents required medical
attention after young girls, ages two to three years old, fell
against or on the protruding disc-shaped and D-shaped pretend key.

This recall involves the Fisher-Price Trikes and Tough Trikes
toddler tricycles with model numbers listed in the chart below and
that have either a disc-shaped or D-shaped pretend key.  The model
numbers are located under the seat in the storage compartment.
The trikes are intended for children 2 to 5 years of age.  The
pretend keys are located about 3 inches in front of the seat and
protrude at least 5/8 inches above the trike's body.  The trikes
manufactured after June 16, 2010 are not included in this recall.
These trikes have a modified key in a flattened D shape and a
manufacturer run number higher than 1670Q2.  The run number
indicates the trike was manufactured on the 167th day of 2010 or
on June 16, 2010.  The run number is found under the seat below
the model number.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10359.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold through
Mass merchandise stores nationwide from January 1997 through
September 2010 for about $25.

For additional information, contact Fisher-Price at (800) 432-5437
between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.service.mattel.com/


FISHER-PRICE: Recalls 120,000 Stand 'n Play Rampway
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Fisher-Price of East Aurora, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of
about 100,000 Fisher-Price Little People Wheelies Stand 'n Play
Rampway in the United States and 20,000 in Canada.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The wheels on the purple and the green cars can come off, posing a
choking hazard to young children.

Fisher-Price has received two reports of a wheel detaching from a
vehicle.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Little People Wheelies Stand 'n Play Rampway
with model numbers T4261 and V6378.  They were sold with small
cars that a child can push down winding ramps.  Only the purple
and the green cars that are marked "Mexico" and do not have a
yellow dot on the bottom are included in the recall.  The toy is
intended for children 1 1/2 to 5 years of age.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10360.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold through
mass merchandise stores nationwide from April 2010 through
September 2010 for about $45.

Consumers should immediately take the affected purple and the
green cars away from children and contact Fisher-Price for free
replacement cars.  For additional information, contact Fisher-
Price at (800) 432-5437 between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.service.mattel.com/


FISHER-PRICE: Recalls 1,075,000 High Chairs
-------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Fisher-Price, of East Aurora, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall
of about 950,000 Healthy Care, Easy Clean and Close to Me High
Chairs in the United States and 125,000 in Canada.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

Children can fall on or against the pegs on the rear legs of the
high chair resulting in injuries or lacerations.  The pegs are
used for high chair tray storage.

CPSC and Fisher-Price are aware of 14 reports of incidents,
including seven reports of children requiring stitches and one
tooth injury.  One of these incidents was reported in Canada.

This recall involves the Healthy Care, Easy Clean and Close to Me
High Chairs with pegs on the back legs intended for tray storage.
The high chairs have a folding frame for storage and a three-
position reclining seat.  The model number and date code of the
high chair is on the back of the seat.  All Easy Clean and Close
To Me High Chairs are included in this recall.  Only Healthy Care
High Chairs manufactured before December 2006 are included in the
recall. If the fourth digit in the date code is 6 or less, the
Healthy Care High Chair is included in the recall.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10361.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and Mexico and
sold through mass merchandise retail stores nationwide from
September 2001 through September 2010 for between about $70 and
$115.

Consumers should stop using the High Chair immediately and contact
Fisher-Price for instructions and a free repair kit.  For
additional information, contact Fisher-Price at (800) 432-5437
between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.service.mattel.com/


FISHER-PRICE: Recalls 2,925,000 Infant Toys
-------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Fisher-Price, of East Aurora, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall
of about 2.8 million Baby Playzone(TM) Crawl & Cruise
Playground(TM), Baby Playzone(TM) Crawl & Slide Arcade(TM), Baby
Gymtastics(TM) Play Wall, Ocean Wonders(TM) Kick & Crawl(TM)
Aquarium (C3068 and H8094), 1-2-3 Tetherball(TM), Bat & Score
Goal(TM) in the United States and 125,000 in Canada.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The valve of the inflatable ball on these toys can come off and
pose a choking hazard to young children.

CPSC and Fisher-Price are aware of 46 reports of incidents where
the valve came off in the US and eight reports in Canada.  These
include 14 reports of the valve found in a child's mouth and three
reports of a child beginning to choke.  No injuries have been
reported.

This recall involves

         Product               Approximate Retail    Product
                               Price and Dates       Description
                               Sold

73408   Baby Playzone(TM)
        Crawl & Cruise
        Playground(TM)          $50                 6 months & up
                                                    July 2001 to
                                                    October 2003
                                                    Playzone has
                                                    three play
                                                    modes for
                                                    crawling, to
                                                    pulling up and
                                                    cruising, to
                                                    walking in and
                                                    out

B2408   Baby Playzone(TM)
        Crawl & Slide
         Arcade(TM)             $48                 9 months & up
                               April 2003 to        Baby arcade
                               January 2004         convert to
                                                    baby's first
                                                    slide.

C3068   Ocean Wonders(TM)
        Kick & Crawl(TM)
        Aquarium               $28                 Birth & Up
                              October 2003 to      A soft gym with
                              September 2005       two toy bars
                                                   The gym
                                                   converts to a
                                                   crawl-through
                                                   play space.

H5704   Baby Gymtastics(TM)
        Play Wall               $68               6 to 36 months
                                April 2005 to     Play wall with
                                January 2007      activities

H8094    Ocean Wonders(TM)
         Kick & Crawl(TM)
         Aquarium               $36              Birth & Up
                                June 2005 to     A soft gym that
                                March 2008       features two
                                                 toy bars.  The
                                                 gym converts to
                                                 a crawl-through
                                                 play space.

J0327    1-2-3 Tetherball(TM)   $20              6 months & Up
                                September 2005   Big inflatable
                                to March 2008    ball
                                                 (Approximately
                                                 12 inches in
                                                 diameter) with
                                                 light up base.

K0476   Bat & Score Goal(TM)   $20               6 months & Up
                               May 2006 to       Baby soccer goal
                               July 2008         with detachable
                                                 ball

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10362.html

The recalled products, Baby Playzone(TM) Crawl & Cruise
Playground(TM), Baby Playzone(TM) Crawl & Slide Arcade(TM) and
Baby Gymtastics(TM) Play Wall were made in Mexico.  The Ocean
Wonders(TM) Kick & Crawl(TM) Aquarium, 1-2-3 Tetherball(TM) and
Bat & Score Goal(TM) were made in China.

Consumers should immediately remove the inflatable ball from the
product and keep away from children.  Do not discard the
inflatable ball.  Contact Fisher-Price for a free replacement kit.
For additional information, contact Fisher-Price at (800) 432-5437
between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.service.mattel.com/


FLUOR ENTERPRISES: Accused in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Fluor Enterprises stiffs
workers for overtime, according to a class action in San Francisco
Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Ward, et al. v. Flour Enterprises,
Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04361 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/29/EmployFluor.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter Rukin, Esq.
          RUKIN HYLAND DORIA & TINDALL LLP
          100 Pine St., Suite 725
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-421-1800
          E-mail: peterrukin@rhdtalw.com

               - and -

          Todd S. Heyman, Esq.
          Robert E. Ditzion, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          53 State St., 13th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: 617-439-3939
          E-mail: theyman@shulaw.com
                  rditzion@shulaw.com


FORCE PROTECTION: Settles Shareholder Class Actions for $24-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Force Protection Inc. disclosed Friday that it has reached an
agreement to settle the consolidated shareholder securities class
action entitled In re Force Protection, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-845-CWH, pending
in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
against the Company and a number of the Company's former directors
and officers.  The settlement amount is $24 million, a majority of
which will be covered by insurance.  The settlement is subject to
court approval and certain other conditions.

In addition, an agreement has been reached to settle a related
shareholder derivative action entitled In re Force Protection,
Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No. 2:08-1907-CWH, which
is pending in the same federal court.  This settlement provides
that the Company will adopt certain corporate governance
practices, receive a payment of $2.25 million from insurance, and
pay plaintiffs' attorney's fees and expenses in an amount not to
exceed $2.3 million.  The settlement is subject to court approval
and certain other conditions.

Neither the Company nor any of its present and former directors
and officers has admitted any wrongdoing or liability in
connection with these settlements.  Additionally, the settlements
provide that the parties have reached mutually agreeable
resolution of these cases to avoid protracted and expensive
litigation, including the outcome and risks associated with
proceeding.

The Company is a party to related shareholder derivative actions
pending in state courts in Nevada and South Carolina. The Company
believes that if the federal derivative settlement is approved,
that settlement will extinguish these related state court
derivative actions.

To reflect the net impact of the settlements, the Company
currently expects to record in its 2010 third quarter earnings
results a cash related charge of approximately $8.5 million.

                     About Force Protection

Force Protection, Inc. is a designer, developer and manufacturer
of survivability solutions, including blast- and ballistic-
protected wheeled vehicles currently deployed by the U.S. military
and its allies to support armed forces and security personnel in
conflict zones.  The Company's specialty vehicles, including the
Buffalo, Cougar and related variants, are designed specifically
for reconnaissance and urban operations and to protect their
occupants from landmines, hostile fire, and improvised explosive
devices ("IEDs", commonly referred to as roadside bombs).
Complementing these efforts, the Company is designing, developing
and marketing new vehicle platforms (including the Ocelot and
JAMMA) that provide increased modularity, speed, mobility and
concealment with enhanced levels of blast- and ballistic-
protection.  The Company also develops, manufactures, tests,
delivers and supports products and services aimed at further
enhancing the survivability of users against additional threats.
In addition, the Company provides long-term life cycle support
services of its vehicles that involve development of technical
data packages, supply of spares, field and depot maintenance
activities, assignment of highly-skilled field service
representatives, and advanced on and off-road driver and
maintenance training programs.  For more information on Force
Protection and its products and services, visit
http://www.forceprotection.net/


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Suit in Canada Over 15-Passenger Vans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Steffenhagen, writing for The Vancouver Sun, reports Nanaimo
mother Stella Gurr, whose son was killed while riding in a 15-
passenger van in 2008, is the plaintiff in a national class action
lawsuit against Ford Motor Co. filed by the Merchant Law Group of
Saskatchewan. (As a class-action lawsuit, it must be certified by
a court before it can proceed.)

In a news release, lawyer Tony Merchant says the vehicles (which
some have called death traps) should never have been used as
passenger vans.  "The resulting accidents and deaths in Canada
were tragic and avoidable," he says in the release.

"The tragic death of Ms. Gurr's son could have been avoided if
these vehicles had been recalled or banned from being used as
passenger vans by the federal government.  The dangers associated
with Ford 15 passenger vans were clear long before 2008," he says.
Read a Postmedia story here.

Ms. Gurr and Isabelle Hains, whose son was one of the students
killed in a highway accident in Bathhurst while travelling in a
15-passenger van, were lobbying federal and provincial transport
ministers last week to ban the vehicles.

Only Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec have done so.  Many
B.C. schools still use these vehicles.

Richard Foot, writing Postmedia News, also reports Merchant said
Thursday that the Ford lawsuit, filed earlier this month in
Manitoba, would eventually be filed in all 10 provinces.

The statement of claim has not been proven in court, and as a
class action it must first be certified by a judge before it can
proceed.

Kerri Stoakley, a spokeswoman for Ford, said in an e-mail that the
automaker has yet to see the lawsuit.

Ms. Stoakley wrote that "Ford vehicles meet or exceed all
applicable Canadian motor vehicle safety standards.  As with all
our vehicles, Ford thoroughly tests extended passenger vans to
ensure they provide a high level of safety."

The claim seeks repayment of purchase costs to all Canadian owners
of Ford, 15-passenger vans.  It also seeks compensation for
Canadian families whose relatives have been killed or injured in
Ford 15-passenger van accidents.

A Postmedia News investigation last year showed that almost 20 per
cent of Canada's school districts still use 15-seat vans to
transport students, mostly to off-site sports and other
extracurricular events.

There is currently a private member's bill before Parliament
seeking a national ban on putting children in 15-seat vans.  The
Transport Department, which has taken little concrete action on
15-seat van safety in the past, is currently undertaking an
internal review of the matter.

Fifteen-passenger vans have been labeled "death traps on wheels"
by the Safety Forum, a U.S. consumer watchdog agency. Originally
designed as cargo vans, they were converted for passenger use
decades ago, but have not been fitted with the standard safety
features and emergency-handling characteristics of cars, minivans
and school buses.

Ford Canada has not yet filed a statement of defense to the class
action.


FORTINET INC: Defends Suit by Former Stockholder in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fortinet Inc. defends a class action lawsuit pending in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles.

In April 2010, an individual, a former stockholder of Fortinet,
filed a class action lawsuit against the company alleging
violation of various California Corporations' Code sections and
related tort claims alleging misrepresentation and breach of
fiduciary duty regarding the 2009 repurchase by Fortinet of shares
of its stock while the company was a privately-held company.

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

Fortinet Inc. -- http://www.fortinet.com/-- is a worldwide
provider of network security appliances and a market leader in
unified threat management.  The company's products and
subscription services provide broad, integrated and high-
performance protection against dynamic security threats while
simplifying the IT security infrastructure.  The company's
customers include enterprises, service providers and government
entities worldwide, including the majority of the 2009 Fortune
Global 100.  Fortinet's flagship FortiGate(R) product delivers
ASIC-accelerated performance and integrates multiple layers of
security designed to help protect against application and network
threats.  Fortinet's broad product line goes beyond UTM to help
secure the extended enterprise -- from endpoints, to the perimeter
and the core, including databases and applications.  Fortinet is
headquartered in Sunnyvale, Calif., with offices around the world.


GLOBAL CASH: Court Gives Final Nod to $5.85 Million Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada gave its final
approval to the settlement agreement resolving a suit against
Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc., for $5.85 million.

On April 11, 2008, a class action was filed by a stockholder in
the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York against the
company, certain of the company's former directors, its former
chief executive officer, M&C International, Summit Partners, L.P.,
and certain underwriters to two prior stock offerings to the
public.

On June 10, 2008, an additional class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, naming essentially
the same defendants and stating similar claims.

On June 26, 2008, the foregoing actions were consolidated, and the
Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  In August
2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint named as additional defendants
the company's former chief financial officer, certain current and
former directors and additional underwriters and defendants and
purports to alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933.

Following motions by the defendants, the action was transferred to
the District of Nevada in October 2008.

On Feb. 17, 2010, the parties to the consolidated action executed
a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement pursuant to which the
parties agreed to settle all claims in consideration of the
establishment of a common settlement fund of $5.85 million.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the company's insurance
carrier will contribute all of the contributions to the settlement
funds that are required from the company, its current and former
officers and directors, and those other defendants with whom it
has agreements to indemnify.

On June 26, 2010, the court held a fairness hearing on the
settlement and thereafter the final judgment and settlement was
entered, 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.

All costs, expenses, fees and reimbursement for participating
class members and lead counsel will be paid from the settlement
fund.  The company maintains insurance that provides for
reimbursement of substantially all of the legal fees and expenses
associated with this action other than legal fees and expenses
incurred by the company's underwriters who are defendants in this
matter and which the Company is obligated to indemnify.  The
company discloses it does not anticipate that the amount of any
such unpaid or future legal costs and expenses to be materially in
excess of the reserve established by the company for such legal
costs and expenses.

Las Vegas-based Global Cash Access, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.gcainc.com/-- is a leading provider of cash access
products and related services to over 1,100 casinos and other
gaming properties in the United States, Europe, Canada, the
Caribbean, Central America and Asia.  GCA's products and services
provide gaming patrons access to cash through a variety of
methods, including ATM cash withdrawals, point-of-sale debit card
transactions, credit card cash advances, check verification and
warranty services, and Western Union money transfers.  GCA also
provides products and services that improve credit decision-
making, automate cashier operations and enhance patron marketing
activities for gaming establishments.  With its proprietary
database of gaming patron credit history and transaction data on
millions of gaming patrons worldwide, GCA is recognized for
successfully developing and deploying technological innovations
that increase client profitability, operational efficiency and
customer loyalty.


GLOBALSTAR INC: Agreement in "Ladmen Partners" Suit Now Final
-------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement agreement in the Ladmen Partners, Inc. v.
Globalstar, Inc., et al., is now final after the time to appeal
the approval of the agreement lapsed.

On Feb. 9, 2007, the first of three purported class action
lawsuits was filed against the company, its then-current CEO and
CFO in the Southern District of New York alleging that the
company's registration statement related to its initial public
offering in November 2006 contained material misstatements and
omissions.  The Court consolidated the three cases as Ladmen
Partners, Inc. v. Globalstar, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-CV-0976,
and appointed Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff.

The parties and the company's insurer have agreed to a settlement
of the litigation for $1.5 million to be paid by the insurer,
which received the presiding judge's preliminary approval on Sept.
18, 2009.  On Feb. 22, 2010, the judge entered an Order and Final
Judgment approving the settlement.  Because no appeal from that
Order was filed within the 30-days allowed for an appeal, the
settlement became final March 23, 2010, according to the company's
Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Globalstar, Inc. -- htp://www.globalstar.com/ -- provides mobile
satellite voice and data services.  Globalstar offers these
services to commercial and recreational users in more than 120
countries around the world.  The company's products include mobile
and fixed satellite telephones, simplex and duplex satellite data
modems and flexible service packages.  Many land based and
maritime industries benefit from Globalstar with increased
productivity from remote areas beyond cellular and landline
service.  Global customer segments include: oil and gas,
government, mining, forestry, commercial fishing, utilities,
military, transportation, heavy construction, emergency
preparedness, and business continuity as well as individual
recreational users. Globalstar data solutions are ideal for
various asset and personal tracking, data monitoring and SCADA
applications.


GLOBALSTAR INC: Settlement in "Walsh and Kesler" Gets Okay
----------------------------------------------------------
The settlement agreement in the matter Walsh and Kesler v.
Globalstar, Inc. (formerly Stickrath v. Globalstar, Inc.), has
received preliminary approval from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Case No. 07-cv-01941.

On April 7, 2007, Kenneth Stickrath and Sharan Stickrath filed a
purported class action complaint against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No.
07-cv-01941.

The complaint is based on alleged violations of California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and California Civil
Code Section 1750, et seq., the Consumers' Legal Remedies Act.

In July 2008, the company filed a motion to deny class
certification and a motion for summary judgment.  The court
deferred action on the class certification issue but granted the
motion for summary judgment on Dec. 22, 2008.

The court did not, however, dismiss the case with prejudice but
rather allowed counsel for plaintiffs to amend the complaint and
substitute one or more new class representatives.  On Jan. 16,
2009, counsel for the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Class
Action Complaint substituting Messrs. Walsh and Kesler as the
named plaintiffs.

A joint notice of settlement was filed with the court on
March 9, 2010.

The court heard the motion for settlement on March 29, 2010 and
the parties subsequently submitted a first amendment to the
stipulated class settlement agreement on April 2, 2010.  The court
granted preliminary approval, and the company has proceeded to
implement the settlement, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Globalstar, Inc. -- htp://www.globalstar.com/ -- provides mobile
satellite voice and data services.  Globalstar offers these
services to commercial and recreational users in more than 120
countries around the world.  The company's products include mobile
and fixed satellite telephones, simplex and duplex satellite data
modems and flexible service packages.  Many land based and
maritime industries benefit from Globalstar with increased
productivity from remote areas beyond cellular and landline
service.  Global customer segments include: oil and gas,
government, mining, forestry, commercial fishing, utilities,
military, transportation, heavy construction, emergency
preparedness, and business continuity as well as individual
recreational users. Globalstar data solutions are ideal for
various asset and personal tracking, data monitoring and SCADA
applications.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Dec. 15 Fairness Hearing on $29-Mil. Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Richard J. Sullivan will convene a hearing in
Manhattan at 4:30 p.m. on Dec. 15, 2010, to consider the fairness
of a $29 million settlement in Lapin v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., et
al., Case No. 04-cv-02236 (S.D.N.Y.), for the benefit of all
persons or entities who purchased or acquired common stock in The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., between July 1, 1999, and May 7, 2002.

This action arises from investigations, announced in April 2002,
by government entities into the independence of the firm's
research analysts.  The Plaintiff alleges that, during the Class
Period, GS Group's stock price was artificially inflated as a
result of untrue or materially misleading statements concerning
the research activities of Goldman, Sachs & Co., including
statements about the objectivity and independence of the firm's
investment research.  The Plaintiff further contends that
Defendants made these statements knowing them to be false or
misleading, or recklessly disregarding their false or misleading
natures, and that investors suffered injury as a result of the
alleged inflation.  The case has been litigated since July 2003,
for almost 7 years.  Dispositive pre-trial summary judgment and
other motions were to be filed on June 15, 2010.  The Lead
Plaintiff and Lead Counsel believe that the Settlement provides
the Class with a benefit now instead of years of further uncertain
litigation, including disposition of the summary judgment motions,
a contested trial and likely appeals, with the possibility of no
recovery at all.  The Defendants have denied and continue to deny
each and all of the claims and contentions alleged in the Second
Amended Class Action Complaint and believe that they have
meritorious defenses to those claims and contentions.  The
Settlement shall in no event be construed as, or deemed to be
evidence of, an admission or concession by any of Defendants with
respect to any claim of any fault or liability or wrongdoing or
damage to the Class Members in this Action.  Nevertheless, the
Defendants have concluded that further defense of the Action would
be protracted and expensive, and also have taken into account the
uncertainty, risks and distractions inherent in any litigation.

Claim forms are available from:

         Goldman Sachs Securities Litigation Claims Administrator
         c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
         P.O. Box 9652
         Dublin, OH 43017-4952
         Telephone: (866) 682-1768
         http://www.gardencitygroup.com/

and must be filed by Jan. 14, 2011.

Lead Counsel to the Plaintiff Class is:

         Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
         GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
         1801 Avenue of the Stars #311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 201-9150
         E-mail: settlements@glancylaw.com

Lead Counsel will ask the Court for attorneys' fees of up to one-
third of the Settlement Fund and for expenses up to $1,050,000,
which were advanced in connection with the Action.  The Lead
Plaintiff will also request reimbursement of his actual costs and
expenses (including lost wages) directly related to his
representation of the Class, not to exceed $12,400.

Goldman Sachs is represented by:

         Stephanie G. Wheeler, Esq.
         SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
         125 Broad Street
         New York, New York 10004
         Telephone: (212) 558-4000


GREEN MOUNTAIN: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and Former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr. Thursday disclosed that the firm has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit against Green Mountain
Coffee Roasters, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
District of Vermont, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of the Company between July 28, 2010 and September 28, 2010,
inclusive.  No class has yet been certified in this action.

What You May Do

If you are a Green Mountain shareholder and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, e-mail or call KSF Director of Client
Relations, Neil Rothstein, Esq. (neil.rothstein@ksfcounsel.com),
toll free at 877-694-9510, or via cell phone any time at 330-860-
4092, or KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), toll free 1-866-467-1400, ext. 200,
or via cell phone any time at 504-301-7900.  If you wish to serve
as a lead plaintiff in this class action by overseeing lead
counsel with the goal of obtaining a fair and just resolution, you
must request this position by application to the Court by November
29, 2010.  Any member of the putative class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  KSF
encourages both institutional and individual purchasers of Green
Mountain to contact the firm.  The ultimate resolution of any
securities class action is strengthened through the involvement of
aggrieved shareholders and lead plaintiffs who have large
financial interests.

                         About the Lawsuit

Green Mountain and certain of its Officers are charged with making
a series of materially false and misleading statements related to
the Company's business and operations in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. T he Complaint alleges that Green
Mountain artificially inflated the Company's stock price during
the Class Period by issuing inaccurate and unreliable financial
statements, which were not prepared in accordance with GAAP and
SEC rules.  The Complaint further alleges that on August 28, 2010,
Green Mountain completed a sale of 8,566,649 shares of its common
stock to Luigi Lavazza, for an aggregate purchase price of $250
million, despite the fact that the Company knew its reported
financial statements were untrue and that it lacked adequate
systems of internal operational and financial controls.

On September 28, 2010, following the close of trading,
shareholders first learned that Green Mountain was the subject of
an SEC investigation into its revenue recognition, that it had
been notified by the SEC of this investigation as early as
September 20, 2010, and that the Company was also expected to take
a restatement charge in the near term -- rendering the Company's
prior reported financial statements and reports unreliable, false,
and materially misleading.  Following this announcement, shares of
the Company immediately declined in after-market trading, falling
over 15% -- from a close of above $37.00 per share, to a low of
$31.25 per share.

                      About Kahn Swick & Foti

KSF, whose partners include the Former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities  class
action litigation with offices in New York and Louisiana. KSF's
lawyers have significant experience litigating complex securities
class actions nationwide on behalf of both institutional and
individual shareholders.  To learn more about KSF, you may visit
http://www.ksfcounsel.com/

Contact:

     Lewis Kahn, Esq.
     Managing Partner
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     206 Covington St.
     Madisonville, LA 70447
     Telephone: 866-467-1400, ext. 200
     Mobile: 504-301-7900
     E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com


HANSEN MEDICAL: Defends Second Amended Complaint in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Medical, Inc., defends a second amended complaint in
connection with the restatement of certain of its financial
statements.

Following the company's Oct. 19, 2009 announcement that it would
restate certain of its financial statements, a securities class
action lawsuit was filed on Oct. 23, 2009 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, naming the company
and certain of its officers.  The suit is Curry v. Hansen Medical,
Inc. et al., Case No. 09-05094.

The complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of Hansen stock between May 1, 2008
and October 18, 2009, inclusive, and alleges, inter alia, that
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to make disclosures regarding the company's financial results and
compliance with GAAP while improperly recognizing revenue; that
these misstatements and/or nondisclosures resulted in
overstatement of company revenue and financial results and/or
artificially inflated the company's stock price; and that
following the company's Oct. 19, 2009 announcement, the price of
the company's stock declined.

On Nov. 4, 2009 and Nov. 13, 2009, substantively identical
complaints were filed in the Northern District of California by
other purported Hansen stockholders asserting the same claims on
behalf of the same putative class of Hansen stockholders.  The
suits are Livingstone v. Hansen Medical, Inc. et al., Case No.
09-05212 and Prenter v. Hansen Medical, Inc., et al., Case No.
09-05367.

All three complaints seek certification as a class action and
unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys fees.

On Dec. 22, 2009, two purported Hansen stockholders, Mina and
Nader Farr, filed a joint application for appointment as lead
plaintiffs and for consolidation of the three actions.

On Feb. 25, 2010, the Court issued an order granting Mina and
Nader Farr's application for appointment as lead plaintiffs and
consolidating the three securities class actions.

On July 15, 2010, the Court entered an order granting lead
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

Lead plaintiffs' second amended complaint, in addition to alleging
that shareholders suffered damages as a result of the decline in
the company's stock price following the Oct. 19, 2009
announcement, also alleges that shareholders suffered additional
damages as the result of share price declines on July 28, 2009,
July 31, 2009, Jan. 8, 2009, July 6, 2009, and Aug. 4, 2009, all
of which lead plaintiffs allege were caused by the disclosure of
what they claim was previously misrepresented information.  The
defendants' deadline for responding to the second amended
complaint was Sept. 17, 2010, according to the company's Aug. 6,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Hansen Medical, Inc. -- http://www.hansenmedical.com/-- based in
Mountain View, California, develops products and technology using
robotics for the accurate positioning, manipulation and control of
catheters and catheter-based technologies.  The company's robotic
navigation system enables clinicians to place mapping catheters in
hard-to-reach anatomical locations within the heart easily,
accurately and with stability during complex cardiac arrhythmia
procedures.  Hansen Medical's Sensei(R) system and its Sensei X
Robotic Catheter System are compatible with fluoroscopy,
ultrasound, 3D surface map and patient electrocardiogram data.
The remote navigation platform was cleared by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration for manipulation and control of certain
mapping catheters in Electrophysiology (EP) procedures.  The
safety and effectiveness of the Sensei and Sensei X systems for
use with cardiac ablation catheters in the treatment of cardiac
arrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation (AF), have not been
established.  In the European Union, the Sensei and the Sensei X
systems are cleared for use during EP procedures, such as guiding
catheters in the treatment of AF.


INTERNATIONAL COAL: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Coal Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended
complaint filed by Saratoga Advantage Trust remains pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

On Jan. 7, 2008, Saratoga Advantage Trust filed a class action
lawsuit against the company and certain of its officers and
directors seeking unspecified damages.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, based on alleged false and misleading statements in
the registration statements filed in connection with the company's
November 2005 reorganization and December 2005 public offering of
common stock.

In addition, the complaint challenges other of the company's
public statements regarding its operating condition and safety
record.  On July 6, 2009, Saratoga filed an amended complaint
asserting essentially the same claims but seeking to add an
individual co-plaintiff.

The company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

International Coal Group, Inc. produces coal in Northern and
Central Appalachia and the Illinois Basin.  The Company has 13
active mining complexes, of which 12 are located in Northern and
Central Appalachia and one in Central Illinois.  ICG's mining
operations and reserves are strategically located to serve
utility, metallurgical and industrial customers domestically and
internationally.


JCG INDUSTRIES: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Rochell Mitchell and Audrey N. Veasley, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. JCG Industries and KOCH Foods,
Case No. 2010-CH-41893 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. September 27,
2010), accuses the defendants, who operate poultry processing
plants in the State of Illinois, of failing to compensate class
members for all hours worked, failing to pay overtime wages, and
failing to keep true and accurate time records, in violation of
Illinois wage and hour laws.

Plaintiffs worked as poultry processors at defendants JCG and
KOCH's plants located in the State of Illinois.  The Complaint
says that Joseph C. Grendys is the president of both companies and
is thus responsible for the pay practices of the defendants.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephan Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550

               - and -

          Jac A. Cotiguala, Esq.
          JAC A. COTIGUALA & ASSOCIATES
          431 South Dearborn Street, Suite 606
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 939-2100


JEFFREY ALLEN: Sued for Non-Payment of Interest on Rental Deposit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
September Wilson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Jeffrey Allen Management, L.L.C., et al., Case No.
2010-CH-42193 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. September 28, 2010),
brings claims against the defendants for failing to pay interest
on her security deposit as mandated by Section 5-12-080(c) of the
Chicago Residential Landlord and Ordinance, and for failing to
attach (to her initial written rental agreement and subsequent
renewals of the same), a summary of the RLTO chapter  describing
the respective rights, obligations and remedies of  landlords and
tenants with respect to security deposits, including the new
interest rate as well the rate for each of the prior two years, as
mandated by Chicago Municipal Code Section 5-12-170.

Ms. Wilson says that Jeffrey Allen Management managed the rental
property commonly known as 6920-6930 S. Oglesby, in Chicago, which
are owned by co-defendants Paxton Property Partners, L.L.C., and
Drexel Properties Oglesby, L.L.C.  Ms. Wilson relates that on
September 25, 2007, she entered into a written lease agreement for
rental on Apartment #3012 located at the S. Oglesby rental
property, for a term beginning on September 29, 2007, and ending
on September 30, 2008.  The initial lease provided for a security
deposit in the amount of $905, which she paid.  Plaintiff relates
that the initial lease was first extended on July 30, 2008, and
then on July 21, 2009.

Ms. Wilson narrates that the premises leased by her is a
residential property situated in a building located in the City of
Chicago consisting of more than six (6) residential dwelling units
and, therefore, her tenancy was governed and subject to the
Chicago RLTO, Chicago Municipal Code Sections 5-12-010 et seq.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel M. Starr, Esq.
          STARR & ROWELLS
          35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 1870
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 346-9420


L-1 IDENTITY: Being Sold for Too Little, Conn. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that L-1 Identity Solutions is
selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Safran and
Laser Acquisition Sub, for $12 a share or $1.6 billion,
shareholders claim in Stamford, Conn., Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Palma v. Lapenta, et al., Case No.
_____ (Conn. Super. Ct., Stamford Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/29/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Patrick A. Klingman, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          65 Main St.
          Chester, CT 06412-1311
          Telephone: 860-426-1100

               - and -

          Shane Rowley, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Ave., 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-983-9330

               - and -

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER LLP
          275 Madison Ave., Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-682-1818


MATRIX SERVICE: Subsidiary Settles Two Suits for $4 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matrix Service Inc. agreed to settle two suits pending in the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, for $4 million,
according to Matrix Service Co.'s Sept. 28, 2010, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2010.

California Pay Practice Class Action Lawsuits

On Dec. 8, 2008 a class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County alleging that the
company's subsidiary, Matrix Service Inc., and any subsidiary or
affiliated company within the State of California had a consistent
policy of failing to pay overtime wages in violation of California
state wage and hour laws.  Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that
the company was requiring employees to work more than 8 hours per
day and failing to compensate at a rate of time and one-half,
failing to pay double time for all hours worked in excess of
twelve in one day, and not paying all wages due at termination.
The class seeks all unpaid overtime compensation, waiting time
penalties, injunctive and equitable relief and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.  The class included approximately 1,500
current and former employees.

On Sept. 1, 2009 a second class action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of California, Alameda County also alleging that
MSI, and Matrix Service Company failed to comply with California
state wage and hour laws.  The September 2009 Action included
similar allegations to the December 2008 Action but also alleged
that the company did not provide second meal periods for employees
who worked more than 10 hours in a day, third rest periods for
those who worked more than 10 hours in a day, complete and
accurate itemized wage statements, compensation for all
compensable travel time, and did not take bonus payments into
account when calculating the regular rate, leading to incorrect
overtime rates.  The class is seeking all allowable compensation,
penalties for rest and meal periods not provided, restitution and
restoration of sums owed, statutory penalties, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.  The plaintiffs
then amended the September 2009 Action to assert damages under the
Private Attorney General's Act.  The September 2009 Action
increased the class to approximately 2,300 current and former
employees.

The cases have been coordinated in Alameda County.

At the plaintiff's request, mediation was held on Sept. 7, 2010.
In mediation, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding
awarding the plaintiffs $4.0 million.  The award is in addition to
amounts previously paid to the class members of $1.9 million.

The September Settlement is subject to court approval and resolves
all class member claims included in the December 2008 Action and
the September 2009 Action.  The award will be used to pay the
class member claims, the enhancement award, the cost of
administration, and the class members' attorneys' fees and costs.

As a result of these actions and the related settlement, the
company recorded a cumulative charge of $6.1 million, of which
$5.1 million was recorded in fiscal 2010 and the remaining $1.0
million was recorded in fiscal 2009.  The fiscal 2010 charge
includes an estimate of the cost that will be incurred by the
company for payroll taxes that will be paid in conjunction with
the September Settlement.

Matrix Service Company -- http://www.matrixservice.com/--
provides engineering, construction and repair and maintenance
services principally to the petroleum, petrochemical, power, bulk
storage terminal, pipeline and industrial gas industries.  The
company is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, with regional
operating facilities located in California, Delaware, Illinois,
Michigan, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and
Washington in the U.S. and in Canada.


NUFARM: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Profit Forecast
--------------------------------------------------------
The New Lawyer reports class action law firm Maurice Blackburn has
confirmed its "well advanced" investigations support clients'
claims that Nufarm underestimated financial woes for some time,
and that a shareholder class action should succeed.

Nufarm's full-year profit results, released last week, "make grim
reading for investors and confirm our opinion that a shareholder
class action should succeed", said Ben Slade, NSW principal of
Maurice Blackburn.

"Our investigations are well advanced and the results provide
further evidence to support our clients' claims that the company
had no reasonable basis for forecasts made earlier this year and
that it contravened its continuous disclosure obligations by
failing to tell the market about the disastrous state of the
glyphosate market."

The class action claim will center on Nufarm's profit forecast for
2010 and Nufarm's actual or constructive knowledge of the trends
in the international glyphosate market.

Nufarm is an Australian-based business that produces and supplies
agricultural chemicals throughout the world.

Nufarm's March 2, 2010 profit forecast was reaffirmed in late
March and again in documents for its capital raising on 20 April
2010, Maurice Blackburn said in a statement.

Mr. Slade said last week: "On 2 March 2010 and on each day until
14 July 2010 Nufarm knew or ought to have known that it could not
achieve its profit forecast.  Not only did Nufarm get it wrong on
2 March, it repeated the misleading profit forecast in support of
a $250m capital raising on 20 April 2010.

"It was well-publicized that the glyphosate market was changing
rapidly and in particular Chinese generic product competition was
impacting on Nufarm's market share.  Nufarm appears to have
disregarded these signals in maintaining its ambitious forecast
results up until 14 July 2010.

"There is a good claim for compensation against Nufarm for those
shareholders who purchased and held Nufarm shares between 2 March
2010 and 13 July 2010," Mr. Slade said.

"Investors are only able to make informed decisions regarding
their share purchases when listed companies adhere to their
disclosure obligations," he said.

International Litigation Partners proposes to fund the claim on
behalf of shareholders against Nufarm.


OLYMPUS CORP: Accused in Calif. Suit of Deceptive Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Olympus markets its Stylus
1030 SW and Olympus Stylus 850 SW cameras as waterproof and
shockproof, but they are not, according to a class action in
Sacramento Federal Court.


OPTEUM INC: Dec. 9 Securities Litigation Settlement Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC issued a statement regarding the Opteum,
Inc. Securities Litigation.

All persons who purchased the common stock of Opteum, Inc. on the
open market between September 29, 2005, and August 10, 2007,
inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the "Class") are notified
that the Opteum, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 07-cv-14278,
(S.D. Fla.)) has been certified as a class action and that a
settlement for $2,350,000 has been proposed.  A hearing will be
held before the Honorable Donald L. Graham in the United States
District Court, 400 North Miami Avenue, Room 13-4, Miami, Florida,
33128, at 4:00 p.m., on December 9, 2010, to determine whether the
proposed settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and to consider the application of Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses.

If you are a member of the class, your rights will be affected and
you may be entitled to share in the settlement fund.  If you have
not yet received the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class
Action, Hearing on Proposed Settlement and Attorneys' Fee
Petition, and Right to Share in Settlement Fund and a Proof of
Claim Form and Release, you may obtain copies of these documents
by contacting:

          In re Opteum, Inc. Securities Litigation
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          PO Box 9349
          Dublin, OH 43017-4249
          1-800-231-1815

Inquiries, other than requests for the forms of Notice and Proof
of Claim, may be made to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel:

          David A.P. Brower, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN
          488 Madison Ave., 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 501-9000

               - and -

          Lewis Kahn, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          206 Covington St.
          Madisonville, LA 70447
          Telephone:(504) 455-1400

To participate in the Settlement, you must submit a Proof of Claim
no later than December 23, 2010.  If you are a Class Member and do
not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the
Order and Final Judgment of the Court.  To exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion postmarked no
later than November 11, 2010.  If you are a Class Member and do
not submit a proper Proof of Claim, you will not share in the
Settlement but you nevertheless will be bound by the Order and
Final Judgment of the Court.

Further information may be obtained by directing your inquiry in
writing to the Claims Administrator.


PALL CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Pall
Corp. is ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

Initially, four putative class actions were filed against the
company and certain members of its management team alleging
violations of the federal securities laws relating to the
company's understatement of certain of its U.S. income tax
payments and of its provision for income taxes in certain prior
periods.

These lawsuits were filed between Aug. 14, 2007, and Oct. 11,
2007, with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.

The plaintiffs principally alleged that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading public statements about the company's financial
results, financial statements, income tax liability, effective tax
rate and internal controls.  They seek unspecified compensatory
damages, costs and expenses.

On Oct. 15, 2007, various plaintiffs and groups of plaintiffs
filed motions seeking to consolidate the cases and to be appointed
lead plaintiff.

By Order dated May 28, 2008, the Court consolidated the cases
under the caption "In re Pall Corp. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 07-CV-3359 (E.D.N.Y.) (JS) (ARL)," appointed a lead plaintiff
and ordered that the lead plaintiff file a consolidated amended
complaint.

The lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on
Aug. 4, 2008.  The lead plaintiff seeks to act as representative
for a class consisting of purchasers of the company's stock
between April 20, 2007, and Aug. 2, 2007, inclusive.

The consolidated amended complaint names the company, Eric
Krasnoff and Lisa McDermott as defendants and alleges violations
of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

It alleges that the defendants violated these provisions of the
federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
public statements about the company's financial results and
financial statements, including the company's income tax
liability, effective tax rate, internal controls and accounting
practices.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages,
costs and expenses.

The company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on
Sept. 19, 2008.

The company filed its reply brief to the lead plaintiff's
opposition to its motion to dismiss on Dec. 2, 2008.

By Memorandum and Order dated September 21, 2009, the Court denied
the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
and granted the lead plaintiff leave to amend the consolidated
amended complaint by filing a second amended complaint.

On Oct. 9, 2009, the company moved for certification for
interlocutory appeal, and the Court denied the motion by
Memorandum and Order entered Nov. 25, 2009.

No further updates were reported in the company's Sept. 28, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2010.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

Representing the defendants are:

          Lewis J. Liman, Esq.
          CLEARY, GOTTLIEB, STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 225-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 255-3949
          E-mail: maofiling@cgsh.com


PCS EDVENTURES!.COM: Faces Two Shareholder Suits
------------------------------------------------
PCS Edventures!.com, Inc. faces two class action suits having
similar allegations as the civil action filed by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission against the company.

The two class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of
shareholders who purchased shares of the company's common stock
during the period between March 28, 2007, and Aug. 15, 2007.  The
company, according to its Sept. 28, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the
SEC, has not yet been served with either complaint.

                         SEC Civil Action

The company had previously disclosed that on Aug. 27, 2010, it
obtained a copy of a complaint filed by the SEC commencing a civil
lawsuit against PCS, its Chief Executive Officer Anthony A. Maher,
and its former Chief Financial Officer Shannon Stith.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Idaho, pertains to a March 28, 2007 press release and related SEC
Report announcing that PCS had entered into a license agreement
with its Middle East distributor, Global Techniques, involving the
sale of PCS educational products and services in Saudi Arabia as
part of the King Abdullah Project for the Development of Public
Education.  The SEC alleges that the announcement, as well as
subsequent reports filed with the SEC, were false and misleading
because Global Techniques did not have the ability to pay the
$7.15 million license fee without first obtaining a contract and
receiving funds from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and that PCS
officers knew that Global Techniques did not have a contract with
Saudi Arabia.

According to the SEC, the announcement caused the price and
trading volume of PCS stock to be artificially inflated.  The SEC
seeks a court order enjoining PCS, Maher and Stith from committing
future violations of federal securities laws, barring Maher and
Stith from serving as public company officers or directors, and
imposing civil penalties on PCS and the individuals.

The allegations in the SEC complaint present a one-sided version
of the facts.  The objective evidence available to PCS at the time
of the March 2007 press release and related SEC report supported
the good faith belief of PCS and its management that the Saudi
education initiative had been approved and was moving forward with
PCS as a part of the program, and that PCS had a material contract
that needed to be disclosed:

     -- PCS had spent years developing business relationships in
        Saudi Arabia through Global Techniques and had conducted
        several successful pilot programs in Saudi Arabia.

     -- In December 2006, a senior official in the Saudi
        Ministry of Education endorsed the use of PCS products
        and recommended that the contract for PCS products move
        forward.

     -- In February 2007, King Abdullah and his Counsel of
        Ministers announced that the $3 billion educational
        initiative had been approved and would start right away.

     -- During March 2007, Global Techniques' Dr. Refai assured
        PCS that Global Techniques had the contract, advising
        PCS that deliveries of PCS products to Saudi Arabia
        would need to begin immediately and that funds would be
        received within a matter of weeks.

The company says that the SEC's charges are unfounded in fact or
law.  PCS and Mr. Maher intend to vigorously defend the SEC
action.  The company, in spite of this claim, will continue to
focus its efforts on domestic and international business
opportunities and key strategic objectives.

PCS Edventures!.com, Inc. -- http://www.edventures.com/-- designs
and delivers educational products and services to the K-16 market
that develop contemporary skills for the 21st Century,  including
critical thinking, problem solving, innovation, creativity, and
communications.  PCS programs emphasize hands-on experiences in
Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) and have been
deployed at over 6,000 sites in all 50 United States and 17
foreign countries.


SAVIENT PHARMA: New York Court Dismisses Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc., disclosed Friday that the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York has
dismissed the Class Action originally filed on November 25, 2008,
and captioned Richard Sagall vs. Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., against the Company and two of its former officers.  The suit
alleged that the Company made false and misleading statements
relating to the GOUT1 and GOUT2 phase 3 clinical trials and that
the Company failed to disclose in a timely manner serious adverse
events which occurred in five patients in these trials.  The
Company and the other named defendants had filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint in June 2009.

The Court's decision dismissing the Class Action is based on the
plaintiff's failure to set forth particularized facts, through
direct or circumstantial evidence, which give rise to a strong
inference that the defendants acted with intent to defraud,
recklessness or a conscious disregard of the truth.  The Court
also concluded that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that there
was any evidence that the defendants engaged in conscious
misbehavior or recklessness in the manner it disclosed the
relevant clinical trials data, and that the plaintiff failed to
show that the defendants had made false and misleading statements
or material omissions in its statements to the detriment of the
investing public.  The Court's ruling, while dismissing all
claims, does not preclude the plaintiff from seeking to file an
amended complaint, and is also subject to appeal.

                   About Savient Pharmaceuticals

Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a specialty biopharmaceutical
company focused on developing KRYSTEXXA(TM) (pegloticase) for the
treatment of chronic gout in adult patients refractory to
conventional therapy.  Savient also manufactures and supplies
Oxandrin(R) (oxandrolone tablets, USP) CIII in the U.S.


SPIRIT AERO: Court Says Case Can't Proceed as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in Wichita, Kansas, granted Spirit
AeroSystems Holdings, Inc.'s dispositive motions, finding that the
case against the company should not be allowed to proceed as a
class action.

In 2005, a lawsuit was filed against Spirit, Onex Corporation of
Toronto, Canada, and The Boeing Co., alleging age discrimination
in the hiring of employees by Spirit when Boeing sold its Wichita
commercial division to Onex.

The complaint seeks class-action status, an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and more than $1.5 billion in punitive
damages.

The Asset Purchase Agreement requires Spirit to indemnify Boeing
for damages resulting from the employment decisions that were made
by the company with respect to former employees of the commercial
aerostructures manufacturing operations at Boeing which relate or
allegedly relate to the involvement of, or consultation with,
employees of Boeing in such employment decisions.

On June 30, 2010, the U.S. District Court granted defendants'
dispositive motions, finding that the case should not be allowed
to proceed as a class action, according to the company's Aug. 6,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2010.

Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.spiritaero.com/--
provides manufacturing and design expertise in a wide range of
products and services for aircraft original equipment
manufacturers and operators through its subsidiary, Spirit
AeroSystems, Inc.


SPIRIT AERO: Continues to Defend "Harkness" Suit in Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., continues to defend the matter
Harkness et al. v. The Boeing Company et al., pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas.

The suit was filed on Feb. 16, 2007

The defendants were served in early July 2007.  The defendants
include Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., Spirit AeroSystems,
Inc., the Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc. Retirement Plan for the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Wichita
Engineering Unit (SPEEA WEU) and Wichita Technical and
Professional Unit (SPEEA WTPU) Employees, and the Spirit
AeroSystems Retirement Plan for International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Employees, along with The
Boeing Company and Boeing retirement and health plan entities.

The named plaintiffs are 12 former Boeing employees, eight of whom
were or are employees of Spirit.

The plaintiffs assert several claims under the Employee Retirement
Income and Securities Act and general contract law and brought the
case as a class action on behalf of similarly situated
individuals.  The putative class consists of approximately 2,500
current or former employees of Spirit. The parties agreed to class
certification and are currently in the discovery process.  The
sub-class members who have asserted claims against the Spirit
entities are those individuals who, as of June 2005, were employed
by Boeing in Wichita, Kansas, were participants in the Boeing
pension plan, had at least 10 years of vesting service in the
Boeing plan, were in jobs represented by a union, were between the
ages of 49 and 55, and who went to work for Spirit on or about
June 17, 2005.

Although there are many claims in the suit, the plaintiffs' claims
against the Spirit entities, asserted under various theories, are
(1) that the Spirit plans wrongfully failed to determine that
certain plaintiffs are entitled to early retirement "bridging
rights" to pension and retiree medical benefits that were
allegedly triggered by their separation from employment by Boeing
and (2) that the plaintiffs' pension benefits were unlawfully
transferred from Boeing to Spirit in that their claimed early
retirement "bridging rights" are not being afforded these
individuals as a result of their separation from Boeing, thereby
decreasing their benefits.

The plaintiffs seek a declaration that they are entitled to the
early retirement pension benefits and retiree medical benefits, an
injunction ordering that the defendants provide the benefits,
damages pursuant to breach of contract claims and attorney fees.
Boeing has notified Spirit that it believes it is entitled to
indemnification from Spirit for any "indemnifiable damages" it may
incur in the Harkness litigation, under the terms of the Asset
Purchase Agreement between Boeing and Spirit. Spirit disputes
Boeing's position on indemnity, according to the company's Aug. 6,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2010.

Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.spiritaero.com/--
provides manufacturing and design expertise in a wide range of
products and services for aircraft original equipment
manufacturers and operators through its subsidiary, Spirit
AeroSystems, Inc.


UAL CORP: Preliminary Injunction Motion Denied in Merger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a merger
between Continental and United Airlines does not substantially
harm airline passengers, a federal judge ruled in denying a class'
bid to block the deal.

The decision came after a two-day hearing earlier this month,
where U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg heard testimony from
Continental CEO Jeffrey Smisek and United CEO Glenn Tilton.

Forty-nine consumers sued in June, claiming the merger creating
the largest airline in the world would crush competition and
result in higher fares and reduced routes.  Under questioning from
class attorney Joseph Alioto, Mr. Smisek argued that without the
merger, Continental would no longer be able to compete in the
airline industry.

Judge Seeborg found it unnecessary to address this argument,
writing, "suffice it to say that defendants presented evidence
that delaying the merger would result, among other things, in the
loss of significant revenue synergies and cost savings . . . in
threatened job security for tens of thousands of employees who
will benefit from a more stable employer, and in the continued
deferral of capital and technology investments."

The merger also would not significantly affect the passengers'
lives, Judge Seeborg concluded, since "None of the plaintiffs
testified to having flown regularly and only one stated that when
she does fly she is likely to use United or Continental," the
judge wrote.

"While each plaintiff provided an affidavit stating an unformed
hope of future air travel, this speculative injury is insufficient
to establish irreparable harm or tip the scale in plaintiffs'
favor.  Although plaintiffs allege, in their briefing, that this
merger will adversely effect consumer choice and purchasing power
by resulting in increased airfares, decreased capacity, poorer
service and a constraint on the ability of other network carriers
to compete, they still must establish that these alleged effects
will be personal to them. They have not done so."

Mr. Alioto was not available for an interview but said in a voice
message that he was disappointed in Judge Seeborg's ruling, which
he said went against U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

"The court decided not to follow the Supreme Court decisions in
the 1960s and 70s against these mergers, and that is very
disappointing," he said.  "I think that if the Supreme Court is
going to change its views and overrule its prior decisions, I
think the only court to do that is the Supreme Court itself.
"Those decisions were very tough against mergers and in this case
where you have the largest airline in the world there is no doubt
that under those prior decisions that merger would never be
allowed."

A copy of the Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction in
Malaney, et al. v. UAL Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-02858
(N.D. Calif.), is available at http://is.gd/fBt7N


WEBSTER BANK: Settles Suit Over Overdraft Fees for $2.8 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Silvestrini, writing for Republican-American, reports Webster
Bank said Wednesday it has agreed to pay $2.8 million to settle a
class action lawsuit arising from its assessment and collection of
overdraft fees form its checking account customers.

The suit was filed in Waterbury Superior Court on April 29 by Mark
P. Kindall, an attorney with the West Hartford law firm Izard
Nobel, on behalf of Kelly Methena, a Middlebury resident and
Webster customer.  Izard Nobel specializes in class action
litigation.

The suit charged the bank with manipulating its customers'
checking account debits in a way that maximizes the number of
overdraft fees the bank can charge.

Specifically, the suit said the bank posts checks and ATM
withdrawals not in the order in which they are written or received
by the bank, but by posting the largest withdrawals first against
the account balance, a process that drains the account faster and
maximizes overdraft fees.

In a written statement, Webster said Wednesday it "continues to
believe its practices were both proper and lawful."

The bank said it opted to pay the $2.8 million settlement "fully
and finally to resolve the litigation and avoid any further
expense and distraction occasioned" by the lawsuit.

The settlement, which is subject to approval by the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, would also "fully and
finally resolve" a nearly identical class action suit pending
against the bank in New York state, Webster said.

Mr. Kindall on Wednesday confirmed the $2.8 million settlement,
but said he had no further comment.  He also could not disclose
how many Webster customers were involved in the class action suit
he filed.

The suit filed by Kindall sought repayment of the overdraft fees
Webster had charged both Methena and the other customers involved
in the suit. It also asked for triple damages.

Webster spokesman Edward P. Steadham said Wednesday the bank had
included its written statement in a filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission and would have no further
comment beyond the statement.


* U.S. Plaintiff Firms Supporting Canadian Class Action Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Underwriter.ca reports aggressive U.S. plaintiff firms
are slowly creeping their way into Canadian securities class
action suits, warned Jay A.R. Cassidy, a senior vice president at
Marsh in Toronto.

Mr. Cassidy addressed delegates at the 2010 RIMS Canada conference
in Edmonton on Sept. 28 about recent trends in D&O liability.

The 2009 securities class action suit Timminco presented the first
instance in which two firms competed to be the party to advance
the action.  The court granted carriage to Kim Orr Barristers
P.C., a Canadian firm that was the smaller of two firms vying for
the business.

"Ultimately, the less experienced and smaller firm won the day,"
said Mr. Cassidy.  "What is really interesting to some and perhaps
disconcerting to a lot of us is that firm was funded monetarily
and from an expertise perspective by the U.S. law firm Milberg
LP."

Milberg is an aggressive plaintiff firm, noted Mr. Cassidy.
"For the first time ever in Canada, we're seeing those [U.S.]
firms creep into the Canadian environment by use of resources and
by use of funds," he said.  "It will be interesting to see the
kind of impact that has."

                             *********

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  * * *