CAR_Public/101007.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, October 7, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 198

                             Headlines

ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: Faces "Eliason" Suit Over Siding Products
BRIDGEPORT FIRE: Superior Ct. Vacates Incentive Fees Order
CHARLES SCHWAB: Ct. Directs Class Counsel to Contact Late Opt-Outs
CHINESE DAILY NEWS: 9th Cir. Affirms Reporters' FLSA Claims
CKE RESTAURANTS: Files Stipulation to Settle Delaware Suit

CKE RESTAURANTS: California Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Suit
COMMUNITY NATIONAL: Fla. Ct. Dismisses Ex-Employees' ERISA Suit
DIAMOND MANAGEMENT: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims
FORCE PROTECTION: Reaches Agreement to Settle Securities Suit
GSI GROUP: Approval of Settlement Agreement Remains Pending

GT SOLAR: Continues to Defend "Hamel" Securities Suit
GT SOLAR: Continues to Defend "Braun" Suit in New Hampshire
INERGY LP: Hearing on Plaintiff's Injunction Motion on Oct. 22
LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Approval of Class Suit Settlement Pending
MF GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Motion to Replead

MONSANTO CO: Missouri Ct. Denies Bid to Consolidate Lawsuits
MTV NETWORKS: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
NEIMAN MARCUS: Defends Complaint in San Francisco County
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Remains Party to Suits Over Occupancy Taxes
PHILIP MORRIS: Asks Ill. Cir. Ct. to Subpoena Golin Harris

SPRINT SOLUTIONS: Sued in Calif. for Deceptive Billing Practices
THOR INDUSTRIES: Plaintiff Agrees to Voluntarily Dismiss Case
WEBSTER FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Overdraft Fees

                             *********

ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: Faces "Eliason" Suit Over Siding Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Materials, LLC, faces a suit captioned Eliason v.
Gentek Building Prods., Inc., relating to manufactured steel and
aluminum siding products, according to the company's Sept. 29,
2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission

On Sept. 20, 2010, the company and Gentek Building Products, Inc.
were named as defendants in an action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

The complaint was filed by three individual plaintiffs on behalf
of themselves and a putative nationwide class of owners of steel
and aluminum siding products manufactured by Associated Materials
and Gentek or their predecessors.  The plaintiffs assert a breach
of express and implied warranty, along with related causes of
action, claiming that an unspecified defect in the siding causes
paint to peel off the metal and that Associated Materials and
Gentek have failed adequately to honor their warranty obligations
to repair, replace or refinish the defective siding.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages,
restitution of monies paid to the defendants and an injunction
against the claimed unlawful practices, together with attorneys'
fees, costs and interest.  As this action was only very recently
filed, no proceedings have yet occurred in this case.

Associated Materials, LLC -- http://www.associatedmaterials.com/
-- is a vertically integrated manufacturer and distributor of
exterior residential building products in the United States and
Canada.  The company's core products include vinyl windows, vinyl
siding, aluminum and steel siding, and accessories.   The
company's products are marketed on a wholesale basis to more than
50,000 independent contractors through a network of 119 company-
operated supply centers and approximately 250 independent
distributors across the U.S. and Canada.  The company's brand
names include Alside(R), Revere(R) and Gentek(R).


BRIDGEPORT FIRE: Superior Ct. Vacates Incentive Fees Order
----------------------------------------------------------
In In Re: Bridgeport Fire Litigation, 2010 PA. Super 181, the
Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the order entered in the
Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County on September 4, 2009,
denying motions by Professional Flooring Company, Inc., Limerick
Carpet & Flooring, Inc., Rose Line, Inc. and Renu Electronics,
Inc., for incentive fees, and the order entered on September 10,
2009, authorizing compensation for the court-appointed Claims
Administrator.

Judges Cheryl Lynn Allen and Anne E. Lazarus and Retired Senior
Judge Robert A. Freedberg conclude that Professional Flooring, et
al., lacked standing to file their own motion for incentive
payments and that the trial court erred in addressing the merits
thereof, while simultaneously and without explanation ignoring the
motion properly filed by class counsel.  The court in a class
action appoints class representatives and class counsel for a
reason, i.e., so that the action may proceed in an orderly manner
without hundreds, or even thousands, of individual plaintiffs
inundating the court with pleadings.  "In contrast to the scenario
presented with regard to the recusal motion, we can ascertain no
pressing reason to create an exception to the general practice of
limiting the filing of pleadings to class representatives, by and
through class counsel. The proper course of action would have been
for the trial court to strike [Professional Flooring et al.'s]
motion and rule on the merits of class counsel's motion (after, of
course, ruling on the recusal motion)," Judge Lazarus wrote.

The Superior Court remands the case for further proceedings.

This matter forms a small part of the class action litigation that
arose from the destruction by fire on May 15, 2001 of a large,
multi-unit industrial complex known as the Continental Business
Center in Bridgeport, Pennsylvania.  Professional Flooring et al.
are businesses that suffered losses in the fire and are the
original plaintiffs, having filed a putative class action suit
against the owners and managers of the CBC nine days after the
fire occurred.  On April 14, 2003, Judge Steven T. O'Neill
certified the class and appointed Professional Flooring et al. as
representative plaintiffs of the class.  He also appointed the law
firms of Kline & Specter, P.C. and High Swartz LLP as class
counsel.

A partial settlement was reached on February 19, 2008, for
$30,000,000.  The remaining two defendants subsequently agreed to
settlements totaling $5,000,000.  Thereafter, class counsel
distributed a Notice of Settlement and Judge O'Neill held a
Fairness Hearing on June 23, 2008.  Finally, on July 8, 2008, the
court approved the settlement, totaling $35,000,000, and appointed
Gary S. Silow, Esq., as Claims Administrator.  The Claims
Administrator was tasked with scrutinizing the claims of each
claimant to determine what amount, if any, each would receive from
the gross settlement proceeds.  On August 7, 2009, Mr. Silow
submitted his report to Judge O'Neill.  On September 1, 2009,
class counsel filed a motion for approval of compensation for Mr.
Silow, which the court approved by order docketed on September 10,
2009 and is one of the two orders on appeal.

The other order was filed on September 4, 2009 and denied a motion
for incentive payments filed by Attorney Haviland on behalf of
Professional Flooring et al.  Judge O'Neill denied that motion
based upon his belief that Attorney Haviland lacked standing to
file such a motion on behalf of the class representatives, as he
is not court-appointed class counsel.

Attorney Haviland, on behalf of Professional Flooring et al.,
filed a motion for recusal alleging bias on the part of Judge
O'Neill against Professional Flooring et al.  The motion was filed
on May 14, 2009 and has yet to be disposed of.

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

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inpaco20100928529


CHARLES SCHWAB: Ct. Directs Class Counsel to Contact Late Opt-Outs
------------------------------------------------------------------
In In Re: Charles Schwab Corporation Securities Litigation, case
no. C 08-01510 (N.D. Calif., September 27, 2010), the Hon. William
Alsup issued an ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
CLASS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS AND LETTERS FROM CLASS MEMBERS.

On September 22, 2010, the Court held a fairness hearing on the
federal securities and California class settlements reached
between defendants The Charles Schwab Corporation, Charles Schwab
& Co., Inc., Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc., Schwab
Investments, and certain individual defendants, and lead
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, in this certified class action alleging that defendants'
management of, disclosures concerning, accounting for, and
marketing and sales of the YieldPlus Fund violated state and
federal law.

On the eve of the hearing, defendants submitted a short brief
concerning a statement in plaintiffs' reply in support of final
approval of the class settlement agreements, to the effect that
plaintiffs plan to appeal the scope of certification of the
California class.  Defendants stated that this is barred by the
terms of the releases and proposed judgments agreed to in the
class settlements. Plaintiffs responded on the day of (prior to)
the hearing.  They countered that they specifically carved out of
the release language claims brought under California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. These issues were addressed
by the parties at the hearing, but it was evident that many issues
remained to be resolved. Further briefing was ordered on the
subject.

It is also evident that a final approval order could not have been
entered as to the 1172 class members who did not receive notice of
the class action or settlement until now, and for whom there will
be a fairness hearing in December.

Letters from 34 class members were received by the Court
concerning the motions for final approval of the federal
securities and California settlements as a result of the original
notice served on class members (not the 1172 class members).  The
majority of them will be considered in the context of the
disposition of those motions.

But three of them seemingly attempt to request late opt-out from
the classes.  The letters are from: Gary Benson (received
August 2), James Curry (August 18), and David Hawke (September 2).
All of the requests were filed after the deadline of May 14, 2010,
for late opt-out requests due to excusable neglect.  They were not
submitted as formal motions to opt out.  As the requests are
embedded in letters concerning objection to approval of the
settlements, it is unclear if these individuals are stating that
they do not want to be a part of the class -- or alternatively
part of a settlement to which they object.  (The latter would be
dependent upon the terms of the class settlement agreement itself,
rather than a court order.)  Class counsel are directed to contact
these three individuals to inform them that if they are in fact
seeking exclusion from the class (rather than objecting to the
settlements) at this late date, they must file a formal motion
demonstrating excusable neglect. At such time, counsel will be
given an opportunity to respond.

Letters from two class members assert requests pertaining to
application of the settlement to their individual losses, but not
objections to the class settlement agreements themselves.  These
were received from Gary and Mary Kauffman (FL) and Jeff Elwell
(CO).  Counsel were copied.  Class counsel are directed to contact
these individuals in response to their letters, if they have not
already done so, to resolve the amount of expected distribution of
settlement funds to them.


CHINESE DAILY NEWS: 9th Cir. Affirms Reporters' FLSA Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
a district court ruling certifying a lawsuit against Chinese Daily
News, Inc., a Chinese-language newspaper, as a class action.  The
district court action was brought by some of the newspaper's
California-based employees under the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act and under California law.

The district court certified the FLSA claim as a collective
action.  It certified the state-law claims as a class action under
Rule 23(b)(2) and, alternatively, under Rule 23(b)(3).  In the
state-law class action, it provided for notice and opt out, but
subsequently invalidated the opt outs.  It granted partial summary
judgment to plaintiffs; held jury and bench trials; entered
judgment for plaintiffs; awarded attorney's fees to plaintiffs;
and conducted a new opt-out process.  CDN appealed, challenging
aspects of each of these rulings, as well as the jury's verdict.

A three-man panel consisting of Circuit Judges Stephen S. Trott
and William A. Fletcher, and District Judge Charles R. Breyer for
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, sitting by designation, agree with the district
court's determination on summary judgment that CDN's reporters
were non-exempt employees who were entitled to the protections of
the FLSA and California law.

"In sum, we conclude that the district court did an admirable job
in this multifaceted case.  We affirm in all respects," Judge
Fletcher, who wrote the opinion, said.

The cases are (1) Lynne Wang; Yu Fang Ines Kai; Hui Jung Pao, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Lien Yi
Jung; Yu Fang Kai; Chang Chingfang; Jeffrey Sun; Shieh-Sheng Wei;
Yun Min Pao; Hui Jung Lee; Chengyang Yan; Shiang Huang; Chih-Ming
Sheu; Minh Vi-Huynh; Jenny Liu Hung, v. Chinese Daily News, Inc.;
and (2) Lynne Wang; Yu Fang Ines Kai; Hui Jung Pao, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, and Lien Yi Jung; Yu
Fang Kai; Chingfang Chang; Shieh-Sheng Wei; Yun Min Pao; Hui Jung
Lee; Chenyang Yan; Shiang L. Huang; Chih-Ming Sheu; Minh Vi-Huynh;
Jenny Liu Hung; Jeffrey Sun, v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., case
nos. 08-55483 and 08-56740 (9th Cir.)

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

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100927095

The reporters are represented by:

          Della Bahan, Esq.,
          125 University Ave., Ste. 102
          Berkeley, CA

               - and -

          Christy Virginia Keeny, Esq.
          Cordelia Dai, Esq.
          Randy Renick, Esq.
          HADSELL STORMER KEENY RICHARDSON & RENICK LLP
          128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: 626-585-9600
          E-mail: vkeeny@hskrr.com
                  cdai@hskrr.com
                  rrr@hskrr.com

CDN is represented by:

          Michael M. Berger, Esq.
          Benjamin G. Shatz, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS
          11355 W. Olympic Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: 310-312-4185
                     310-312-4000
          Facsimile: 310-312-4224
          E-mail: mmberger@manatt.com
                  bshatz@manatt.com


CKE RESTAURANTS: Files Stipulation to Settle Delaware Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
CKE Restaurants, Inc., and the plaintiffs in a suit filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery have filed a Stipulation and Agreement
of Compromise, Settlement and Release, to resolve the matter,
according to the company's Sept. 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Aug. 9, 2010.

Between March 1, 2010 and March 26, 2010, seven putative
stockholder class actions were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery and the Superior Court of California for the County of
Santa Barbara against the company, each of its directors, Thomas
H. Lee Partners, LP and its affiliates alleging the directors
breached their fiduciary duties regarding a prior merger agreement
with an affiliate of THL and that THL and its affiliates aided and
abetted those breaches.

On March 29, 2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the
three cases filed in that court as In re CKE Restaurants, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 5290-VCP.

On April 1, 2010, plaintiffs in the Delaware Action filed a
consolidated complaint.  On April 12, 2010, the Delaware Court of
Chancery granted the Delaware Action plaintiffs' motion for
expedited proceedings and request for a hearing to consider
preliminarily enjoining the Prior Merger.

On May 12, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action filed an
amended consolidated complaint against the company, its directors,
Apollo and its affiliates, Parent and Merger Sub, that drops the
challenge to the Prior Merger Agreement and instead alleges the
directors breached their fiduciary duties regarding the merger
with Apollo, including that the directors had breached their duty
of disclosure in the preliminary proxy statement, and that Apollo
and its affiliates aided and abetted those breaches.  On May 12,
2010, the plaintiffs also filed a motion for expedited discovery
and the scheduling of a hearing to preliminarily enjoin the
Merger.

On or about May 25, 2010, the company entered into an agreement in
principle with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action regarding the
settlement of the Delaware Action.  On or about June 7, 2010, the
parties to Delaware Action informed that Court that they had
reached a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of the
Delaware Action.

Pursuant to the MOU, plaintiffs in the Delaware Action conducted
discovery to confirm the fairness and adequacy of the proposed
settlement of the Delaware Action.  On or about Aug.1, 2010,
counsel for plaintiffs in the Delaware Action confirmed that such
discovery had been satisfactory and that plaintiffs were agreeable
to proceed with the settlement as outlined in the MOU.

On Sept. 13, 2010, the parties to the Delaware Action filed with
the Delaware Court of Chancery a Stipulation and Agreement of
Compromise, Settlement and Release regarding settlement of the
Delaware Action.

The Delaware Court of Chancery has scheduled a hearing for
Nov. 18, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. at which point the Court will consider
the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.

If the settlement is finally approved by the Court, it will
resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could
have been brought challenging any aspect of the Merger, the Merger
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (but
excluding claims for appraisal under Section 262 of the Delaware
General Corporation Law), pursuant to terms that will be disclosed
to stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement.

Furthermore, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a motion in the
Delaware Court of Chancery for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to be paid by us, which the defendants may oppose.

The company will pay or cause to be paid those attorneys' fees and
expenses awarded by the Delaware Court of Chancery.

CKE Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.ckr.com/-- owns, operates,
franchises or licenses 3,116 quick-service restaurants, which are
referred to in the company's industry as QSRs, primarily under the
brand names Carl's Jr. and Hardee's. Carl's Jr. restaurants are
primarily located in the Western United States.  The Hardee's
restaurants are located in the Southeastern and Midwestern United
States.


CKE RESTAURANTS: California Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a suit against CKE Restaurants, Inc., filed in
the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Barbara,
have agreed to dismiss their claims once the suit pending against
the company in Delaware is settled.

Between March 1, 2010 and March 26, 2010, seven putative
stockholder class actions were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery and the Superior Court of California for the County of
Santa Barbara against the company, each of its directors, Thomas
H. Lee Partners, LP and its affiliates alleging the directors
breached their fiduciary duties regarding a prior merger agreement
with an affiliate of THL and that THL and its affiliates aided and
abetted those breaches.

On March 26, 2010, the Superior Court of California for the County
of Santa Barbara consolidated the four cases filed in that court
as In re CKE Restaurants, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case
No. 1342245.

On April 8, 2010, plaintiffs in the California Action filed a
consolidated complaint.  On April 16, 2010, the Superior Court of
California for the County of Santa Barbara granted the defendants'
motion for a stay of the California Action pending resolution of
the Delaware Action.

On or about June 8, 2010, the parties to the California Action
reached an agreement in principle regarding settlement of the
California Action.  The plaintiffs in the California Action have
agreed to voluntarily dismiss their claims following final
approval of the settlement of the Delaware Action, according to
the company's Sept. 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 9,
2010.

CKE Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.ckr.com/-- owns, operates,
franchises or licenses 3,116 quick-service restaurants, which are
referred to in the company's industry as QSRs, primarily under the
brand names Carl's Jr. and Hardee's. Carl's Jr. restaurants are
primarily located in the Western United States.  The Hardee's
restaurants are located in the Southeastern and Midwestern United
States.


COMMUNITY NATIONAL: Fla. Ct. Dismisses Ex-Employees' ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In Frank Guididas, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, et al., v. Community National Bank
Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-1410 (M.D. Florida), former
employees of subsidiaries of Community National Bank Corporation
seek to hold CNBC and some of its former officers and directors
liable for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Security Act.  The putative class are
participants of the Community National Bank Corporation Employee
Stock Ownership Plan.  Plaintiffs' claims arise from the alleged
failure of Defendants, who are or were fiduciaries of the Plan, to
act solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries
of the Plan, and to exercise the required skill, care, prudence,
and diligence in administering the Plan and the Plans' assets
during the period of time from January 1, 2005, to the present.
Plaintiffs also contend in their complaint that during the
relevant period of time, Defendants imprudently permitted the Plan
to hold and acquire thousands of dollars in CNBC stock.
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants knew or should have known that
CNBC or its wholly owned subsidiaries, were engaging in activities
such as self-interested lending and practices designed to render
its banking operations unsound and unsafe as determined by federal
bank regulators.  As a result, CNBC stock was no longer a prudent
and appropriate investment for Plaintiffs' retirement savings and
Defendants' actions caused the Plan to incur enormous losses.

Defendants seek dismissal of the Complaint, arguing that the issue
of administrative exhaustion of remedies cannot be re-litigated
because it is barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion, based on
the Court's ruling in Swetic v. Community National Bank
Corporation et al., No. 09-cv-2636.  Defendants also argue, in the
alternative, that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust the administrative
remedies under the Plan.

The Hon. James S. Moody Jr. of the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida concludes that, even assuming
arguendo, that the complaint is not barred by the doctrine of
issue preclusion, Plaintiffs failed to exhaust the administrative
remedies under the Plan.  Accordingly, the Court dismisses the
Complaint, without prejudice to Plaintiffs to exhaust their
administrative remedies.

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

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100924a57


DIAMOND MANAGEMENT: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Diamond Management &
Technology Consultants is selling itself too cheaply to
PricewaterhouseCoopers and its wholly owned subsidiary, Carbon
Merger Subsidiary, for $12.50 a share or $378 million,
shareholders say in Delaware Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Fallender v. Diamond Management &
Technology Consultants, Inc., et al., Case No. 5862 (Del. Ch.
Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/01/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 North Market St., Suite 1401
          Citizens Bank Center
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433


FORCE PROTECTION: Reaches Agreement to Settle Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Force Protection Inc. 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/or officers.  The settlement
amount is $24 million, a majority of which will be covered by
insurance, according to the company's Oct. 1, 2010, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission..  The
settlement is subject to court approval and certain other
conditions.

Neither the company nor any of its present and former directors
and/or 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.

On March 10, 2008, the first of ten related class action lawsuits
was filed against the company and certain of its former and
current directors or officers, on behalf of a proposed class of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock
during the period between Aug. 14, 2006, and Feb. 29, 2008.

The complaints seek class certification, and the allegations
include, but are not limited to, allegations that the defendants
violated the Exchange Act and made false or misleading public
statements and/or omissions concerning our business, internal
controls, and financial results.

The individual class action lawsuits were consolidated on June 10,
2008.

On Sept. 29, 2009, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated complaint, and the parties
are engaging in discovery.

Force Protection, Inc. -- http://www.forceprotection.net/-- is a
leading 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.


GSI GROUP: Approval of Settlement Agreement Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The approval of a settlement agreement resolving a suit against
GSI Group, Inc., remains pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.

On Dec. 12, 2008, in connection with the delayed filing of its
results for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008, and the announcement
of a review of revenue transactions, a putative shareholder class
action alleging federal securities violations was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the
company, a former officer and a then-current officer and director.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company and the
individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks recovery of damages in an unspecified
amount.  The action was brought on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased the company's stock between April 30,
2008 and Dec. 3, 2008.

A lead plaintiff, Mason Tenders District Council Trust Funds, was
appointed on May 8, 2009.

On July 1, 2009, the Court ordered lead plaintiff to file a
consolidated or amended complaint within 30 days of the company's
filing of restatements for certain of its historical financial
results with the SEC.  In May 2010, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the litigation.

The settlement covers purchasers of the common stock of the
company between Feb. 27, 2007 and June 30, 2009.

On July 30, 2010, a Motion for Certification of a Settlement Class
and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement was filed
with the court.

The settlement is subject to preliminary and final approval by the
U.S. District Court, according to the company's Oct. 1, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Although the settlement agreement has not yet been approved by the
U.S. District Court, the total settlement amount is within the
company's insurance policy limits; the company's contribution to
the settlement amount would be limited to the balance of the
company's self-insured retention, of which approximately $403,000
is included in accrued expenses as of Dec. 31, 2009.

GSI Group, Inc. -- http://www.gsig.com/-- develops and delivers
the enabling technology solutions that bring our customers'
advanced manufacturing applications to life.  The company's
leading brands include precision motion products, lasers, and
laser systems, and are used to boost efficiency and productivity
in the global medical, semiconductor, electronics, and industrial
markets.


GT SOLAR: Continues to Defend "Hamel" Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
GT Solar International, Inc., continues to defend a putative
securities class-action suit captioned, Hamel v. GT Solar
International, Inc., et al., pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Hampshire.

On Sept. 18, 2008, a putative securities class action was filed in
New Hampshire state court in the Superior Court for Hillsborough
County, Southern District against the company, certain of its
officers and directors and certain underwriters of the company's
July 24, 2008, initial public offering.

The state class action plaintiff asserts claims under various
sections of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  The state
class action complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made false and materially misleading statements and
failed to disclose material information in certain SEC filings,
including the registration statement for the company's July 24,
2008 initial public offering, and other public statements,
regarding the status of the company's business relationship with
LDK Solar.  Among other relief, the state class action complaint
seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages,
rescission, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief
as the State Court should deem just and proper.

The company removed the state class action to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Hampshire on Oct. 22, 2008.  The
state class action was consolidated with the federal class action
on Nov. 25, 2008.

On Feb. 2, 2009, the federal court granted the plaintiff's motion
to remand the state class action to New Hampshire State Court.  On
May 4, 2009, the parties agreed to a stay of the state class
action, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the
consolidated federal case.

At a case structuring conference on June 3, 2009, the state court
endorsed the proposed joint case management order filed by the
parties which requires coordination of any discovery to be taken
in the state class action with that taken in the federal class
action.  With the denial of the motion to dismiss the federal
action, the parties submitted a proposed joint case management
order to the State Court on Nov. 6, 2009.

On Jan. 12, 2010, the State Court granted a joint motion of the
parties to transfer the state class action to the State Court's
Business and Commercial Dispute Docket.

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 July 3, 2010.

GT Solar International, Inc. -- http://www.gtsolar.com/--
provides manufacturing equipment and turnkey manufacturing
solutions to the photovoltaic (PV) industry.  The company's
products and solutions are used for production of solar grade
polysilicon, manufacturing of multicrystalline silicon wafers,
production of solar cells and assembly of complete modules.  GT
Solar International, Inc. provides facility and process design and
integration know-how with its equipment.  The company offers its
products and services to PV product manufacturers on a worldwide
basis, and a substantial percentage of its sales are to customers
outside the United States.


GT SOLAR: Continues to Defend "Braun" Suit in New Hampshire
-----------------------------------------------------------
GT Solar International, Inc., continues to defend an amended
consolidated complaint in the matter Braun et al. v. GT Solar
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-cv-00312, pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

Beginning on Aug. 1, 2008, seven putative securities class action
lawsuits were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire, against the company, certain of its
officers and directors, certain underwriters of the company's July
24, 2008 initial public offering and others, including certain
investors in the company.

On Oct. 3, 2008, the Court entered an order consolidating the
actions.  The Court selected the lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel in the federal class action on Oct. 29, 2008.

The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on
Dec. 22, 2008.  The lead plaintiff asserts claims under various
sections of the Securities Act.  The amended consolidated
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose
material information in certain SEC filings, including the
registration statement and Prospectus for the company's July 24,
2008, initial public offering, and other public statements,
regarding the status of its business relationship with LDK Solar,
Ltd.  Among other relief, the amended consolidated complaint seeks
class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the
Court should deem just and proper.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint
on Feb. 5, 2009.  On Sept. 22, 2009, the Court denied the
defendants' motion.  Following the Court's denial of the motion,
the parties submitted a proposed joint case management order,
which the Court approved on Nov. 16, 2009.  The case management
order provides for discovery to close on May 25, 2011.

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 July 3, 2010.

The suit is Braun et al. v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 08-cv-00312 (New Hampshire) (Laplante, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christopher Cole, Esq.
          SHEEHAN PHINNEY BASS & GREEN
          1000 Elm St., P.O. Box 3701
          Manchester, NH 03105-3701
          Tel: (603) 668-0300
          E-mail: ccole@sheehan.com

               - and -

          Michelle H. Blauner, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY
          53 State St, 13th Flr.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Tel: (617) 439-3939
          E-mail: mblauner@shulaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          W. Daniel Deane, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          900 Elm St., 14th Flr
          Manchester, NH 03101-2031
          Tel: (603) 628-4047
          E-mail: ddeane@nixonpeabody.com

               - and -

          William H. Paine, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
          60 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Tel: (617) 526-6000
          E-mail: william.paine@wilmerhale.com


INERGY LP: Hearing on Plaintiff's Injunction Motion on Oct. 22
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has set an
Oct. 22, 2010, hearing for the plaintiff's motion for preliminary
injunction on a merger agreement involving Inergy, L.P., according
to the company's Oct. 1, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Inergy, L.P., Inergy GP, LLC, Inergy Holdings, L.P., Inergy
Holdings GP, LLC, NRGP Limited Partner, LLC and NRGP MS, LLC
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger on Aug. 7, 2010,
which was amended and restated on Sept. 3, 2010, as part of a plan
to simplify the capital structures of Inergy and Holdings.

Following the announcement of the Merger Agreement, a unitholder
class action lawsuit, G-2 Trading LLC v. Inergy GP, LLC et al.,
No. 5816, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware by common unitholders of Inergy against Inergy, Holdings,
Inergy GP, John J. Sherman, Phillip L. Elbert, Warren H. Gfeller,
Arthur B. Krause, Robert D. Taylor, R. Brooks Sherman, Jr., Andrew
L. Atterbury, William C. Gautreaux and Carl A. Hughes.

On Sept. 29, 2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery scheduled a
hearing in response to the plaintiff's motion seeking expedited
treatment of the Inergy Unitholder Lawsuit.  The hearing on the
plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, which asks the
court to enjoin the consummation of the proposed merger, has been
set for Oct. 22, 2010.

Headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri, Inergy, L.P.'s operations
include the retail marketing, sale, and distribution of propane to
residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural customers.
Inergy serves approximately 800,000 retail customers from over 300
customer service centers throughout the United States.  The
company also operates a natural gas storage business; a supply
logistics, transportation, and wholesale marketing business that
serves independent dealers and multi-state marketers in the United
States and Canada; and a solution-mining and salt production
company.

Inergy Holdings, L.P.'s assets consist of its ownership interest
in Inergy, L.P., including limited partnership interests,
ownership of the general partners, and the incentive distribution
rights.


LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Approval of Class Suit Settlement Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The approval of a settlement agreement resolving a consolidated
suit against Limelight Networks, Inc., remains pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona.

In August 2007, the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the firms that served as the lead underwriters in
our initial public offering were named as defendants in several
purported class action lawsuits.  These lawsuits have been
consolidated into a single lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona.

The consolidated complaint asserts causes of action under Sections
11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf
of a professed class consisting of all those who were allegedly
damaged as a result of acquiring the company's common stock in its
initial public offering between June 8, 2007 and Aug. 8, 2007.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages and plaintiffs' costs and
expenses in the litigation.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the company omitted and/or misstated certain
facts concerning the seasonality of its business and that the loss
of revenue with respect to certain customers.  On March 17, 2008,
the company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss all of
the plaintiffs' claims, and a hearing was held on this motion on
June 16, 2008.

On Aug. 8, 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss,
dismissing plaintiffs' claims under Section 12 with prejudice and
granting leave to amend the claims under Sections 11 and 15.
Plaintiffs chose not to amend the claims under Sections 11 and
15, and on Aug. 29, 2008, the court entered judgment in favor of
the company.

On Sept. 5, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and
appellate briefs were filed by the parties in January and
February 2009.

In November 2009 the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle this lawsuit for an amount well within the
coverage limits of the primary carrier of the company's directors
and officers liability insurance, and the company is seeking court
approval to finalize 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.

Limelight Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ: LLNW) --
http://www.limelightnetworks.com/-- is a content delivery network
service provider is based in Tempe, Arizona.


MF GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Motion to Replead
--------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs are appealing the denial of their motion to replead
by filing an amended complaint against MF Global Holdings Ltd.

One of the company's brokers, Evan Dooley, trading for his own
account out of a Memphis, Tennessee branch office through one of
the company's front end order entry systems, Order Express, put on
a significant wheat futures position during the late evening of
Feb. 26, 2008 and early morning of Feb. 27, 2008.

The positions were liquidated at a loss of $141.0 million on Feb.
27, 2008.  The trades were unauthorized and because the broker had
no apparent means of paying for the trades, the company, as a
clearing member of the exchange, was required to pay the $141.0
million shortfall.  The exchange and regulators were immediately
notified, the broker was promptly terminated, and a public
announcement of the loss was made by the company the next day.

As a result of the Dooley Trading Incident, the company, Man
Group, certain of its current and former officers and directors,
and certain underwriters for the initial public offering have been
named as defendants in five actions filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

These actions, which purport to be brought as class actions on
behalf of purchasers of MF Global stock between the date of the
IPO and Feb. 28, 2008, seek to hold defendants liable under
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for alleged
misrepresentations and omissions related to the company's risk
management and monitoring practices and procedures.
The five purported shareholder class actions have been
consolidated for all purposes into a single action.

The company made a motion to dismiss which has been granted, with
plaintiff having a right to replead and/or appeal the dismissal.

Plaintiffs made a motion to replead by filing an amended
complaint, which was denied.  Plaintiffs have appealed, 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.

MF Global Holdings Ltd. -- http://www.mfglobal.com/-- is a
leading broker-dealer in cash and derivatives, providing seamless
execution, clearing, and settlement services in exchange-traded
and over-the-counter markets.  A leader by volume on multiple
exchanges, the firm delivers insight and access across a broad
range of products.  MF Global helps its diverse client base meet
their unique trading and hedging needs through customized
solutions, market expertise, and value-added research.


MONSANTO CO: Missouri Ct. Denies Bid to Consolidate Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
In Rochester Laborers Pension Fund, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. Monsanto Company, et al., Case
No. 10-CV-1380 (E.D. Missouri, September 28, 2010), the Hon.
Catherine D. Perry denied defendants' motion to consolidate the
securities class action lawsuit with a shareholder derivative
action pending before the Honorable Henry E. Autrey.  Plaintiff
opposes consolidation.

Judge Perry says defendants have failed to demonstrate that
consolidation is appropriate.  The two cases have different
procedural and substantive requirements, so consolidation would
likely delay proceedings and lead to confusion and inefficiency.
The cases also name different defendants.  Consolidation might
result in inconvenience or even unfair prejudice to some parties.

The lawsuit brings class-wide securities claims against Monsanto
and several of its senior managers on behalf of persons who
purchased or acquired the common stock of Monsanto Company between
January 7, 2009 and May 27, 2010.  Plaintiff alleges violations of
Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5.  About one month after this case was filed, a
shareholder derivative action was filed in this Court and randomly
assigned to Judge Autrey.  As a derivative action, the case is
brought on behalf of Monsanto and asserts state law claims for
breach of fiduciary duty against Monsanto officers and directors.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100928a87


MTV NETWORKS: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Delania Lindahl, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. MTV Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-04448 (N.D.
Calif. October 1, 2010, accuses the division of media conglomerate
Viacom of failing to pay overtime wages, failing to provide meal
and rest periods, failing to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, converting the plaintiff class' rightfully earned
wages for their own use and benefit, failing to reimburse
employees for required and necessary expenditures incurred in the
discharge of their duties, and unfair business practices in
violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Calif. Bus. and Prof.
Code Section 17200, et seq.

Ms. Lindahl performed primarily clerical work for defendants,
including coordinating domestic and international travel for
defendants, assisting defendants with logistics for set visits,
promotional shoots, appearances, and commercials, coordinating the
contractual needs of talent employed by defendants so that their
needs were met, answering phones, and making reservations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Schonbrun, Esq.
          Michael D. Seplow, Esq.
          Courtney Abrams, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW
          HARRIS HOFFMAN & HARRISON, LLP
          723 Ocean Front Walk
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: (310) 396-0731
          E-mail: schonbrun.ben@gmail.com
                  mseplow@gmail.com
                  cabrams@gmail.com


NEIMAN MARCUS: Defends Complaint in San Francisco County
--------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus, Inc., is defending against a complaint in the
Superior Court of California for San Francisco County, according
to the company's Oct. 1, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
July 31, 2010.

On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California filed by Sheila Monjazeb, individually and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, against the company, Newton Holding, LLC, TPG Capital,
L.P. and Warburg Pincus, LLC.

On July 12, 2010, all defendants except for the company were
dismissed without prejudice, and on Aug. 20, 2010, this case was
refiled in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco
County.

The complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit
originally filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, alleges that the
company has engaged in various violations of the California Labor
Code and Business and Professions Code, including without
limitation (1) asking employees to work "off the clock," (2)
failing to provide meal and rest breaks to its employees, (3)
improperly calculating deductions on paychecks delivered to its
employees, and (4) failing to provide a chair or allow employees
to sit during shifts.

The plaintiffs seek certification of their case as a class action,
reimbursement for past wages and temporary, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief preventing defendant from allegedly
continuing to violate the laws cited in their complaints.

Neiman Marcus, Inc.'s operations include the Specialty Retail
Stores segment and the Direct Marketing segment.  The Specialty
Retail Stores segment consists primarily of Neiman Marcus and
Bergdorf Goodman stores. The Direct Marketing segment conducts
both online and print catalog operations under the Neiman Marcus,
Horchow and Bergdorf Goodman brand names.  On the Net:
http://www.neimanmarcusgroup.com/


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Remains Party to Suits Over Occupancy Taxes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., remains a party to various cases brought
by consumers and municipalities and other U.S. governmental
entities involving hotel occupancy taxes and the company's
merchant hotel business model.

Some of the cases are purported class actions, and most of the
cases were brought simultaneously against other online travel
companies, including Expedia, Travelocity and Priceline.

The cases allege, among other things, that we violated the
jurisdictions' hotel occupancy tax ordinance.  While not identical
in their allegations, the cases generally assert similar claims,
including violations of local or state occupancy tax ordinances,
violations of consumer protection ordinances, conversion, unjust
enrichment, imposition of a constructive trust, demand for a legal
or equitable accounting, injunctive relief, declaratory judgment,
and in some cases, civil conspiracy.

The plaintiffs seek relief in a variety of forms, including:
declaratory judgment, full accounting of monies owed, imposition
of a constructive trust, compensatory and punitive damages,
disgorgement, restitution, interest, penalties and costs,
attorneys' fees, and where a class action has been claimed, an
order certifying the action as a class action.  An adverse ruling
in one or more of these cases, according to the company, could
require it to pay tax retroactively and prospectively and possibly
pay penalties, interest and fines.  The proliferation of
additional cases could result in substantial additional defense
costs.

No updates or further details 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.

Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. -- http://corp.orbitz.com/-- is a global
online travel company that uses innovative technology to enable
leisure and business travelers to research, plan and book a broad
range of travel products.  Orbitz Worldwide owns a portfolio of
consumer brands that includes orbitz.com, cheaptickets.com,
ebookers.com, hotelclub.com, ratestogo.com, the Away Network, and
corporate travel brand Orbitz for Business.


PHILIP MORRIS: Asks Ill. Cir. Ct. to Subpoena Golin Harris
----------------------------------------------------------
Dayna Craft (withdrawn), et al., individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., Case
No. 002-00406-02 (Mo. Cir. Ct.. St. Louis Cty.), was filed on
February 14, 2000.  The pending case involves consumer fraud and
unjust enrichment claims.

Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 204, on September 30,
2010, Philip Morris USA Inc. petitioned the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to
Golin Harris to require the deposition and production of documents
and information material to the class action case now pending in
Missouri State Court.  Golin Harris is located in Cook County,
Illinois.  The Clerk assigned Case No. 2010-L-011130 to the
proceeding.

Golin Harris is a global public relations firm owned by
Interpublic Group of Companies.

Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 204(b):

     Any officer or person authorized by the laws of another
     State, territory, or county to take any deposition in
     this State, with or without a commission, in any action
     pending in a court of that State, territory, or county
     may petition that circuit court in the county in which
     the deponent resides or is employed or transacts
     business in person or is found for a subpoena to compel
     the appearance of the deponent or for an order to
     compel the giving of testimony by the deponent.  The
     court may hear and act upon the petition with or without
     notice as the court directs.

The petitioner is represented by:

          George C. Lombardi, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Wagner, Esq.
          Erik W. Snapp, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600

               - and -

          Beth A. Wilkinson, Esq.
          Craig A. Benson, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          2001 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-1047
          Telephone: (202) 223-7300

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark I. Bronson, Esq.
          NEWMAN, BRONSON & WALLIS
          2300 Westport Plaza Drive
          St. Louis, MO 63146

               - and -

          Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
          Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Maximilian C. Gibbons, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY
          505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101

               - and -

          Stephen A. Sheller, Esq.
          SHELLER LUDWIG & BADEY
          1528 Walnut Street, 3rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102

               - and -

          Gerson H. Smoger, Esq.
          SMOGER & ASSOCIATES, PC
          3175 Monterey Boulevard, Suite 3
          Oakland, CA 94602

               - and -

          Stephen Swedlow, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1940
          Chicago, IL 60601

               - and -

          Andrea L. Hertzfeld, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017


SPRINT SOLUTIONS: Sued in Calif. for Deceptive Billing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sprint "rolled out" its 4G
wireless phones this summer under the slogan "Sprint: First and
Only Wireless 4G from a National Carrier," but can't provide that
service nationwide, and in California, only can provide it in
Merced, Modesto, Stockton and Visalia, according to a class action
in San Diego Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Salvatierra v. Sprint Solutions, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-02044 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/01/SprintCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
          3636 4th Ave. # 202
          San Diego, CA 92103-4237
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006


THOR INDUSTRIES: Plaintiff Agrees to Voluntarily Dismiss Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Teamsters Allied Benefit Funds has agreed to voluntarily dismiss
its lawsuit against Thor Industries, Inc., in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, according to the
company's Sept. 29, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
July 31, 2010.

On June 25, 2010, the company and certain of its officers and
directors were sued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio -- Dayton Division by Teamsters Allied Benefit
Funds, individually and purportedly on behalf of a class of all
those who purchased or acquired the company's common stock between
Nov. 30, 2009 to June 10, 2010.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the company's
SEC filings and press releases were false and misleading due to,
among other things, the company's June 10, 2010 announcement that
its financial statements might need to be restated.

The company has since announced that a restatement is not
necessary.  The plaintiff agreed to voluntarily dismiss the
lawsuit without prejudice on Sept. 7, 2010.

Thor Industries, Inc. manufactures recreation vehicles and builds
commercial buses & ambulances.


WEBSTER FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Webster Bank, N.A., has agreed to settle the lawsuit filed in
connection to the Bank's alleged inadequate disclosure of its
procedures for assessment and collection of overdraft fees on its
checking account customers, according to Webster Financial Corp.'s
Sept. 29, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Webster Bank has been named as a defendant in two separate actions
arising from its assessment and collection of overdraft fees on
its checking account customers.

The first complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
Connecticut, Judicial District of Waterbury on April 29, 2010 and
alleges that various Webster Bank practices, including the alleged
posting of electronic debit card transactions from highest to
lowest dollar amount, are unfairly used by Webster for the sole
purpose of generating revenue by maximizing the number of
overdrafts a customer is assessed.

The Connecticut Complaint seeks the certification of a class of
checking account holders residing in Connecticut and that have
incurred at least one overdraft fee, injunctive relief,
compensatory, punitive and treble damages and attorney's fees.
Webster Bank, on Sept. 29, 2010, confirmed that it has entered
into an agreement to settle the class action lawsuit.

While Webster Bank, N.A. continues to believe its practices were
both proper and lawful, Webster Bank agreed to pay $2.8 million
fully and finally to resolve the litigation, and avoid any further
expense and distraction occasioned by the litigation.  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 currently pending
in New York.

Webster Financial Corporation -- http://www.websterbank.com/-- is
the holding company for Webster Bank, National Association.  With
$17.7 billion in assets, Webster provides business and consumer
banking, mortgage, financial planning, trust and investment
services through 181 banking offices, 500 ATMs, telephone banking
and the Internet.  Webster Bank owns the asset-based lending firm
Webster Business Credit Corporation, and the equipment finance
firm, Webster Capital Finance, and provides health savings account
trustee and administrative services through HSA Bank, a division
of Webster Bank.  Member FDIC and equal housing lender.

                             *********

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  * * *