CAR_Public/101011.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, October 11, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 200

                             Headlines

AMERICAN INT'L: PwC Agrees to $97.5 Million Settlement Pact
APPLE INC: Class Suit Over Backdated Stock Options Settled
CITIGROUP INC: Accused of Selling Unregistered Credit Insurance
CLEAR CHANNEL: No Hearing Date Yet in Motion for Reconsideration
COMVERSE TECHNOLGY: Four Suits in Israel Remain Stayed

FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Accused in N.Y. of Misleading Investors
FILA ACADEMY: Accused in Maryland Suit of Deceptive Trade
GREAT-WEST LIFE: Merchant Lauds Class Action Settlement
HELIO LLC: Settles Suit Over Flat-Rate Early Termination Fees
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued for Falsely Advertising Listerine

LENDER PROCESSING: Faces Fee-Splitting Charge in Mississippi
MAXIM INTEGRATED: Settlement Agreement Gets Court's Final Nod
MONSANTO: April 2011 Trial Set for Nitro Class Action Suit
OIL COMPANIES: Court Authorizes Settlement in Price-Fixing Suit
PANERA BREAD: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Missouri

PANERA BREAD: Labor Violations Suit Still Pending in California
PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY: Trial Court Ordered to Compel Arbitration
SONOCO PRODUCTS: Court Certifies Securities Suit as Class Action
SOUTH CAROLINA: Class Suit Over Stucco Work May Move Forward
SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss LFG-Related Suit Still Pending

SUNTRUST BANKS: Defends Remaining Claim in ATM Fee Suit
SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal in "Buffington" Pending in 11th Circuit
SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend "Bailey" Suit in Louisiana
SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: "Krinsk" Suit Stayed Pending Appeal

SUNTRUST BANKS: STRH Remains a Defendant in Lehman Related Suit
SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss Suit Over TruPs Still Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss Waterford's Suit Still Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: STRH Still a Defendant in Suit Against Colonial
TELENAV INC: Investigation Into Securities Violations Ongoing

WRIGHT COUNTY: Conditions at Egg Farm "Deplorable," Lawyers Say

                             *********

AMERICAN INT'L: PwC Agrees to $97.5 Million Settlement Pact
-----------------------------------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP has agreed to create a $97.5 million
cash settlement account to resolve claims of individuals who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities issued
by American International Group, Inc., from Oct. 28, 1999, through
Apr. 1, 2005, inclusive, asserted in In re American International
Group, Inc., Securities Litigation, Master File No. 04-cv-08141
(S.D.N.Y.).  The Honorable Deborah A. Batts will hold a hearing at
3:00 a.m. on Nov. 30, 2010, in Manhattan to determine whether the
settlement is fair and reasonable and should be approved.

Investors should have filed claims on or before Jan. 28, 2009.
Documents relevant to the settlement with PwC are available at
http://www.AIGSecuritiesLitigationPwCSettlement.com/


APPLE INC: Class Suit Over Backdated Stock Options Settled
----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Freifeld, writing for Bloomberg News, reports Apple Inc. has
agreed to pay $16.5 million to settle a class action suit by the
New York City Employees' Retirement System that the company
improperly backdated stock options between 2001 and 2006, the city
said in a statement.

Apple will return $14 million to shareholders and contribute a
total of $2.5 million to corporate governance programs at various
U.S. universities, including Harvard, Yale and Columbia, the city
Comptroller's office and Law Department said in a statement.

Administrative and attorneys' fees of $4 million will be paid
separately by Apple, the statement said, bringing the total value
of the settlement over $20 million.

"This settlement is an excellent example of shareholder advocacy
and compensates shareholders for systemic options backdating at
the company," Corporation Counsel Michael A. Cardozo, the city's
chief legal officer and counsel to the city's pension funds, said
in the statement.  "We are happy to have reached an accord with
Apple after four years of litigation."

Steve Dowling, a spokesman for Apple, said in a telephone
interview that Apple and the city's pension system "agreed to
resolve their dispute in order to avoid lengthy and costly
litigation."  He said the company was "glad to put this matter
behind us."

The city will seek preliminary approval of the settlement in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California tomorrow,
the statement said.

Those eligible for distributions from the settlement fund
purchased Apple common stock at a price in excess of $65.71
between Aug. 24, 2001, and June 29, 2006, the statement said.

The New York City Employees' Retirement System, the court-
appointed lead plaintiff in the class action, is the largest
municipal public employee retirement system in the country with
more than 300,000 active members and retirees.


CITIGROUP INC: Accused of Selling Unregistered Credit Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Citigroup bilks customers by
selling them unregistered credit insurance, a class action claims
in Milwaukee Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Kobleski v. Citigroup Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-00868 (E.D. Wis.) (Gorence, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/05/Citigroup.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Guri Ademi, Esq.
          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          David J. Syrios, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY LLP
          3620 East Layton Ave.
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com
                  sademi@ademilaw.com
                 dsyrios@ademilaw.com

               - and -

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 South LaSalle St., Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400

               - and -

          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1515 Market St., Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177


CLEAR CHANNEL: No Hearing Date Yet in Motion for Reconsideration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Channel Communications, Inc.'s request for a hearing date on
the argument of its motion for reconsideration of a class
certification order, remains pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, according to the company's
Oct. 1, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The company and a subsidiary are co-defendants with Live Nation --
which was spun off as an independent company in December 2005 --
in 22 putative class actions filed beginning in May 2006 by
different named plaintiffs in various district courts throughout
the country.  These actions generally allege that the defendants
monopolized or attempted to monopolize the market for "live rock
concerts" in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

Plaintiffs claim that they paid higher ticket prices for
defendants' "rock concerts" as a result of defendants' conduct.
They seek damages in an undetermined amount.

On April 17, 2006, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation
centralized these class action proceedings in the Central District
of California.  On March 2, 2007, plaintiffs filed motions for
class certification in five "template" cases involving five
regional markets: Los Angeles, Boston, New York, Chicago and
Denver.  Defendants opposed that motion and, on Oct. 22, 2007, the
district court issued its decision certifying the class for each
regional market.

On Feb. 20, 2008, defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the Class Certification Order, which is still pending.  Plaintiffs
filed a Motion for Approval of the Class Notice Plan on Sept. 25,
2009, but the Court denied the Motion as premature and ordered the
entire case stayed until the 9th Circuit issues its en banc
opinion in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, 509 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2007), a
case that may change the standard for granting class certification
in the 9th Circuit.

On April 26, 2010, the 9th Circuit issued its opinion adopting a
new class certification standard which will require district
courts to resolve Rule 23 factual disputes that overlap with the
merits of the case.  In response, the defendants asked the court
to set a hearing date for argument on the Company's Motion for
Reconsideration of the Class Certification Order.

In the Master Separation and Distribution Agreement between the
company and Live Nation that was entered into in connection with
the spin-off of Live Nation in December 2005, Live Nation agreed,
among other things, to assume responsibility for legal actions
existing at the time of, or initiated after, the spin-off in which
the Company is a defendant if such actions relate in any material
respect to the business of Live Nation.  Pursuant to the
Agreement, Live Nation also agreed to indemnify the company with
respect to all liabilities assumed by Live Nation, including those
pertaining to the claims.

Clear Channel Communications, Inc. -- http://www.clearchannel.com/
-- is a diversified media company with three primary business
segments: radio broadcasting, outdoor advertising and live
entertainment.  Clear Channel Communications is the operating
subsidiary of San Antonio, Texas-based CC Media Holdings, Inc.


COMVERSE TECHNOLGY: Four Suits in Israel Remain Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
Four potential class action litigations against Comverse
Technology, Inc., in the State of Israel remains stayed, according
to the company's Oct. 4, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Jan. 31, 2009.

The company and certain of its subsidiaries were named as
defendants in four potential class action litigations in the State
of Israel involving claims to recover damages incurred as a result
of purported negligence or breach of contract that allegedly
prevented certain current or former employees from exercising
certain stock options.

Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against the
company on March 26, 2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former
Comverse Ltd. employee) and Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd.
employee).

The Katriel case (Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case
Number 1335/09) both seek to approve class actions to recover
damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of the
company's negligence in reporting and filing its financial
statements, which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain
stock options by certain employees and former employees.

By stipulation of the parties, on Sept. 30, 2009, the court
ordered that these cases, including all claims against the company
in Israel and the motion to approve the class action, be stayed
until resolution of the actions pending in the United States
regarding stock option accounting, without prejudice to the
parties' ability to investigate and assert the unique facts,
claims and defenses in these cases.

Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court by
plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both seek to approve class
actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred
as a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedly
prevented the exercise of certain company stock options by certain
employees and former employees.  The Katriel litigation (Case
Number 3444/09) was filed on March 16, 2009, against Comverse
Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation (Case Number 4186/09) was filed
on March 26, 2009, against Verint Systems Ltd.  The Tel Aviv Labor
Court has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction, and both cases have
been transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court.  The Katriel case
has been consolidated with the Katriel case filed in the Tel Aviv
District Court (Case Number 1334/09) and is subject to the stay.

On Dec. 16, 2009, the company entered into a settlement to
resolve the matter In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
No. 06-CV- 1825.  The U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York approved the settlement on June 23, 2010.

Comverse Technology, Inc. -- http://www.cmvt.com/-- through its
subsidiary, Comverse, Inc., is a provider of software and systems
enabling network-based multimedia enhanced communication and
billing services.


FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Accused in N.Y. of Misleading Investors
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Dyer & Berens LLP on Wednesday disclosed that it
has filed a class action in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
FalconStor Software, Inc. common stock during the period between
February 5, 2009 and September 29, 2010.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must seek such an
appointment with the court no later than November 30, 2010.  A
"lead plaintiff" directs the litigation and participates in
important decisions including whether to accept a settlement offer
and how much of a settlement to accept for the class in the
action.  The lead plaintiff here will be selected from among
applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in the
Company during the Class Period.  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.

If you wish to discuss this action, the lead plaintiff process, or
have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests in the litigation, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq., at (888) 300-3362 x302, (303) 861-1764,
or via email at jeff@dyerberens.com

On September 29, 2010, FalconStor disclosed that its President,
CEO and Chairman of the Board, ReiJane Huai, resigned from all of
his positions with the Company, effective immediately.  According
to the Company's statement, "Mr. Huai tendered his resignation
following his disclosure that certain improper payments were
allegedly made in connection with the Company's contract with one
customer."  On this troubling news, FalconStor's stock price
plummeted more than 20 percent.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and its prospects.  Specifically, defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse
facts: (i) that the Company was experiencing weak demand for its
products and services; (ii) that the Company was making improper
payments to secure a contract with at least one of the Company's
customers; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, defendants
lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the
Company and its prospects.

The law firm of Dyer & Berens LLP focuses on complex class action
litigation on behalf of injured investors throughout the nation.
The firm's extensive experience in securities litigation has
contributed to the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars for
aggrieved investors.  For more information about the firm, please
go to http://www.DyerBerens.com/

Contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          DYER & BERENS LLP
          303 E. 17th Ave., Ste. 300
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (888) 300-3362 x302


FILA ACADEMY: Accused in Maryland Suit of Deceptive Trade
---------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that students claim
in a class action that the Fila Academy promised they "would make
as much in salary as doctors and lawyers" if they graduated from
the beauty school, but made them clean toilets and work as sales
reps selling Fila products.  Eight named plaintiffs say that Larry
Fila Jr. charged them as much as $9,995 to go to the school, which
Fila falsely claimed to be "connected with Paul Mitchell," the
beauty products manufacturer, which is not a party to the case.

The class seeks punitive damages for fraud, deceptive trade,
breach of contract and battery, in Anne Arundel Circuit Court.

The students say they were lured into Fila's $6,975 "career
training in basic barbering, nail technology and skin care
therapy," by Fila's promises that he "operates an education
program in a state-of-the art facility, and that it provides a
quality education designed to develop students into licensed
professionals."

However, the class claims, "The defendants failed to inform
plaintiffs that they have to purchase their own tools, bring their
own customers, and that they must meet a quota for the sales of
defendants' products in order to succeed in the program."

The students say the academy also lied about having a job
placement program.  They say the placement program was nothing
more than "a board with post-it notes."

They also claim that Fila also did not provide enough instructors,
and that "students are unable to fully perform tasks beyond the
core component of the program."

The class claims that Larry Fila "is notorious amongst the
students for being an unprofessional bully who is incapable of
respecting the students, and whose intentional and outrageous
actions have caused severe emotional distress to plaintiffs."

One student says the academy wouldn't let her graduate until she
met her sales quota, and told her "she would be charged extra per
hour for continuing her education" until she met her quota.

Five students say one skin care instructor was so incompetent that
she caused one student's forehead to be scarred because "she did
not appear to know anything about skin allergies to different
chemicals."
The class wants the academy and its owner to pay it $18 million in
compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages six
counts.

A copy of the Complaint in Schweitzer, et al. v. The Fila Academy,
Inc., et al., Case No. C-10-155542 (Md. Cir. Ct., Arundel Cty.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/05/Fila.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Allan W. Steinhorn, Esq.
          CLARK & STEINHORN, LLC
          11720 Beltsville Dr., Suite 1001
          Betsville, MD 20705
          Telephone: (301) 572-5000

               - and -

          George Hermina, Esq.
          John Hermina, Esq.
          HERMINA LAW GROUP
          Laurel Lakes Executive Park
          8327 Cherry Lane
          Laure, MD 20707
          Telephone: (301) 206-3166


GREAT-WEST LIFE: Merchant Lauds Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
MAARS News reports high profile Canadian lawyer E.F. Anthony
Merchant, Q.C, also known as Tony Merchant has lauded the
US$455.7 million Great-West class action settlement.

The settlement money is set to be distributed among 1.8 million
Canadians after a judge in London, Ontario, on Oct. 1 ruled that
Great-West breached sections of the Insurance Companies Act when
it transferred money from the accounts of subsidiaries London Life
and Great-West Life Assurance Co. to finance the 1997 takeover of
London Insurance Group.

Great West Life has said it will appeal the decision and that
several aspects of the decision are "in error."

After 12 years of fighting Great West Lifeco Inc., Bill Rudd, who
led the class action, told Winnipeg Free Press that he feels
vindicated that an Ontario court awarded the payouts.

"I'm 80 now, I started this when I was in my 60s," said Mr. Rudd,
a small shareholder and participating policyholder in London Life
Insurance Co. and the lead plaintiff in a class-action case
against Great West Lifeco and its subsidiaries for violating the
Insurance Companies Act.

"I was very pleased that it worked out the way it did.  We got the
major part of the award that we wanted to get," he said in a phone
interview on Oct. 4.

Tony Merchant, who was not involved in the case, told CBC.ca that
it's rare to see a US$456 million judgment like the one the
Ontario court handed down.

He added that the ruling is a positive step and shows the courts
are accepting responsibility for monitoring the way business
functions.

Rudd and all other Canadians who held a participating life
insurance policy of London Life Insurance Co. or The Great-West
Life Assurance Co. between 1997 and the judgment issued Oct. 1
will be eligible for the one-time dividend if the ruling holds up
on appeal.

Depending on the type of policy and how much was invested, the
amount each policyholder receives could vary from as little as
US$50 to as much as US$6,000, but the average will be about
US$300 each, said a source familiar with the case.


HELIO LLC: Settles Suit Over Flat-Rate Early Termination Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Helio LLC has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit involving
claims that Helio improperly charged its customers flat-rate early
termination fees when the customers terminated their wireless
telephone contracts prior to the contracts' expiration dates.

The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
preliminarily approved the settlement on September 20, 2010.
Under the agreement, Helio has established a fund of $950,000 for
the payment of refunds to settlement class members, as well as
administrative expenses, attorneys' fees, and an incentive award
to the class representative.

Settlement class members include all current and former Helio
customers in the United States and its territories who, at any
time prior to October 4, 2010, were parties to a contract with
Helio for wireless telephone service that contained an ETF
provision.  Such customers are class members whether or not they
paid any portion of the ETF to Helio or to any third party
collection agency or any other party to which Helio assigned its
rights.  Former employees, officers, or agents of Helio may not
participate in the settlement.

Settlement class members are eligible to receive either:  (1) a
cash award of $10.00, or (2) a refund equal to the difference
between the flat-rate ETF they paid and what they would have paid
had the ETF been pro-rated.  In addition to the fund, Helio has
agreed to refrain from charging flat-rate ETFs.  The Settlement
also makes possible the disbursement of significant monies to
charities to be approved by the Court.

Helio denies any wrongful conduct, and the settlement is in no way
a judgment or ruling by the Court that any party engaged in any
wrongful or unlawful conduct.

Steven L. Lezell and Sean Reis of Edelson McGuire, LLC were
appointed by the Court to serve as the attorneys for the Class.
Full details can be found at the settlement website,
http://terminationfeessettlement.com. Class members may also call
the claims administrator at (888) 701-8252 or class counsel at
(866) 354-3015.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven L. Lezell, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          Telephone: (312)-589-6370
          E-mail: slezell@edelson.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued for Falsely Advertising Listerine
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims that
Johnson & Johnson pushes its Listerine Total Care mouthwash with
false claims that it fights dental plaque above the gum line, in
San Francisco Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Britton v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-04450 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/05/Listerine.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
          Hannah R. Salassi, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          E-mail: scole@scalaw.com
                  mbainer@scalaw.com
                  hsalassi@scalaw.com


LENDER PROCESSING: Faces Fee-Splitting Charge in Mississippi
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Basch, writing for jacksonville.com, reports that after being
sued in a Mississippi bankruptcy court for allegedly engaging in
an illegal fee-splitting scheme, officials of Lender Processing
Services Inc. said Wednesday that it already successfully defended
itself against similar allegations in a Texas court in 2008.

The class action lawsuit filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Mississippi charged that Jacksonville-based LPS has an illegal
fee-splitting arrangement with law firms in exchange for referrals
from LPS in bankruptcy and foreclosure cases.  LPS provides
processing services to lenders for mortgages and foreclosures and
in a weak housing market, foreclosures have become a big part of
the company's business.

In a conference call with analysts Wednesday, LPS Chief Executive
Officer Jeff Carbiener said the company has not been served with
that lawsuit.  But he said from what officials know about it, the
allegations "inaccurately describe the business of LPS."  He also
said the case appears similar to a 2008 case filed in Houston.

"In that case, it was clearly demonstrated that the allegations of
fee splitting were meritless and the action was dismissed
voluntarily by the plaintiff," he said.  "LPS believes it will
achieve similar results in the recent filings by again clearly
demonstrating the legitimacy of its business model."

Mr. Carbiener said LPS provides services to financial institutions
in foreclosure cases, and law firms selected by those institutions
may then use LPS's technology.

The default services business accounted for nearly half of LPS'
$1.2 billion in revenue in the first six months of this year.  Mr.
Carbiener said less than 10 percent of the default services
revenue comes from law firms, with most of it coming from services
provided to mortgage lenders.

The Houston case was dismissed with prejudice by U.S. District
Judge Lynn Hughes in December 2008, meaning that the plaintiffs
are not allowed to try and re-file the allegations.  Mortgage
industry magazine HousingWire reported in 2008 that "the case had
been seen by industry insiders as a litmus test for the firm's
core business model."

LPS held the conference call early Wednesday after its stock fell
as much as $7.73 over three trading days to an 18-month low of
$25.50 on Tuesday.  The stock drop was prompted by concerns about
LPS's role in the mortgage foreclosure process nationwide, amid
reports that lenders seeking to foreclose don't have the proper
documentation to proceed and are producing false documents.

An LPS subsidiary in Georgia, Docx LLC, has been accused of
falsifying documents used in foreclosure proceedings.  LPS
officials Wednesday reiterated the company's contention that when
it found out about possible wrongdoing at Docx, it took the
necessary steps to fix it.  And the company does not think it will
face any material legal liability because of errors at Docx

"When we discovered an error in that process, we corrected it and
we stand behind those processes and procedures," said LPS General
Counsel Todd Johnson.

In addition to the Mississippi lawsuit, LPS is also one of several
defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in federal court in
Kentucky alleging wrongdoing by lenders and related parties in the
foreclosure process.  Mr. Carbiener described the lawsuits as
"fishing expeditions."

"LPS stands by its technology and related services, and believes
the lawsuits are nothing more than an attempt by plaintiff's
counsel to exploit the recent negative press surrounding
residential foreclosures," he said.

"I'm confident that once the courts in these cases have been
presented with all the facts, the default management services
provided by LPS will be found once again to be legal, ethical and
responsible in all respects," he said.


MAXIM INTEGRATED: Settlement Agreement Gets Court's Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued a Final Order and Judgment approving
the settlement in the matter In Re Maxim Integrated Products,
Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. C-08-00832-JW, according to
the company's Oct. 4, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Feb. 6, 2008, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the company, its former chief executive officer, now
deceased, and its former chief financial officer in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint, brought on behalf of a putative class of Maxim
stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired their shares
between April 29, 2003 and Jan. 17, 2008, asserted claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions
concerning the company's stock option accounting practices.
On May 15, 2008, the Court appointed the Cobb County Government
Employees Pension Plan, the DeKalb County Pension Plan and the
Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System as co-lead
plaintiffs and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP and
Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP as co-lead counsel.

On May 3, 2010, Lead Plaintiffs and the company entered into a
memorandum of understanding reflecting an agreement in principle
to settle all claims asserted against all defendants in the
action, which provided for the payment of $173 million in cash by
the company.

In connection with this memorandum of understanding, the company
recorded a charge for the three and nine months ended March 27,
2010, to accrue the $173 million settlement amount, which has been
recorded in Other operating expenses, net in the Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations and in Accrual for
litigation settlement in the Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets.

On June 18, 2010, Lead Plaintiffs and the company entered into,
and Lead Plaintiffs filed with the Court, a formal stipulation of
settlement memorializing the agreement to settle all claims
against all defendants in the action.

On July 14, 2010, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement, which remains subject to notice to the
putative class and final approval by the Court.

On July 23, 2010, the company paid the $173 million settlement
amount into an escrow fund in accordance with the terms of the
settlement.

Pending further Court order, litigation activity in the action has
been stayed, and all hearings, deadlines and other proceedings in
the action, other than the final approval hearing, which is
scheduled for Sept. 27, 2010, have been taken off the calendar.

The Sept. 27, 2010, hearing was held before Judge James Ware for
final approval of the previously disclosed settlement between
Maxim and Lead Plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action.  A Final
Order and Judgment approving the Securities Class Action
settlement was issued by Judge Ware on Sept. 29, 2010.

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

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100929e33

Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. -- http://www.maxim-ic.com/-- is
a publicly traded company that designs, manufactures, and sells
high-performance semiconductor products.  The company was founded
over 25 years ago with the mission to deliver innovative analog
and mixed-signal engineering solutions that add value to its
customers' products.  To date, it has developed over 6,300
products serving the industrial, communications, consumer, and
computing markets.  Maxim reported revenue in excess of $1.6
billion for fiscal 2009.


MONSANTO: April 2011 Trial Set for Nitro Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicky Walters, writing for WOWKTV.com, reports as many as 80,000
people who have lived, worked, attended school or who currently
own property in Nitro have started receiving letters about a class
action lawsuit.

Charleston lawyer Stuart Calwell along with Bibb Medical
Monitoring Class in Minneapolis filed the suit alleging that
Monsanto manufactured an herbicide and allowed dioxin to escape
the plant and contaminate the surrounding communities.

The class action suit dates back several years but Mr. Calwell
says he was just released by the courts to send out those notices
as of Sept. 30.

The letters give those affected by the suit an opportunity to opt
out if they do not want to participate.

13 News contacted Monsanto for comment.

They say the case lacks merit and they plan to defend themselves
vigorously.

Monsanto Director of Corporate Affairs, Tom Helscher says there
are many sources of dioxin in the environment and the levels in
the town of Nitro do not appear to be unusual.

The trial is set to begin in April 2011 in Putnam County Circuit
Court before Judge O.C. Spaulding.

Monsanto has not operated in the Kanawha Valley since the 1970s.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stuart Calwell, Esq.
          THE CALWELL PRACTICE
          Law & Arts Center West
          500 Randolph St.
          Charleston, WV 25302
          Telephone: 304-343-4323


OIL COMPANIES: Court Authorizes Settlement in Price-Fixing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marianne White, writing for Postmedia News, reports a Quebec
Superior Court judge has authorized a settlement with two
defendants who pleaded guilty to fixing gas prices in exchange for
their co-operation in a class-action lawsuit.

The class action was filed by drivers against what they're
alleging was a cartel in the retail gas markets in Quebec.

Under the deal for their pleas, the defendants, from Sherbrooke,
Que., will be released from the class action and will work with
the Automobile Protection Association, which is spearheading the
legal challenge on behalf of some 12,000 Quebec drivers.

Association president George Iny said Justice Dominique Belanger's
decision is a milestone.

"It's a very important development in the case," Mr. Iny said.

The class action was authorized in December 2009 against 12 oil
companies and 19 individuals.  The targeted companies include:
Ultramar, Esso, Imperial, Shell, Couche-Tard, Provigo, Irving,
Olco and la Coop federee, which operates Sonic stations.

The plaintiffs are seeking between $7 and $15 million in damages
-- $1,500 for each motorist and $250,000 for the association to be
spent on protecting drivers' rights.

The class action was filed a day after a Competition Bureau of
Canada investigation alleged, in June 2008, that gas station
owners in four Quebec cities called one another to set the pump
price.  A total of 13 Quebecers and 11 companies were charged with
gas price-fixing.

In her decision, the judge has agreed to set up a process to allow
the plaintiffs to have access to some of the evidence held by the
Crown.

"The tribunal maintains that the results of the Competition
Bureau's investigation are not the property of the Crown, but
belong to the public who can use it to seek justice," she wrote.

Mr. Iny said this is an unusual process and it will be modeled
after that of Ontario in the case of D.P. v. Wagg in which a
committee was set up to determine which prosecution records would
be released publicly.

The class action process is in the midst of a timeline that is
expected to last about 10 years.  Mr. Iny said parties will be
back in court shortly to hear a challenge from Couche-Tard.

The company, a big player in the alleged cartel according to the
Automobile Protection Association, wants to suspend the case or to
keep all evidence confidential because of an ongoing criminal
investigation.

According to the Competition Bureau investigation, price-fixing is
alleged to have been going on between 2002 and 2006 in Sherbrooke,
Magog, Victoriaville and Thetford Mines, Que.


PANERA BREAD: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company continues to defend a consolidated suit
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri.

On Jan. 25, 2008 and Feb. 26, 2008, purported class action
lawsuits were filed against the company and three of the company's
current or former executive officers by the Western Washington
Laborers-Employers Pension Trust and Sue Trachet, respectively, on
behalf of investors who purchased the company's common stock
during the period between Nov. 1, 2005 and July 26, 2006.

Both lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, St. Louis Division.  Each complaint
alleges that the company and the other defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in connection
with the company's disclosure of system-wide sales and earnings
guidance during the period from Nov. 1, 2005 through July 26,
2006.

Each complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including
attorneys' and experts' fees, and such other relief as the Court
might find just and proper.  On June 23, 2008, the lawsuits were
consolidated and the Western Washington Laborers-Employers Pension
Trust was appointed lead plaintiff.

On Aug. 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
extended the class period to Nov. 1, 2005 through July 26, 2007.

On Oct. 6, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss all of the
claims in this lawsuit.  Following filings by both parties on the
company's motion to dismiss, on June 25, 2009, the Court converted
the company's motion to one for summary judgment and denied it
without prejudice.

The Court simultaneously gave the company until July 20, 2009 to
file a new motion for summary judgment, which deadline the Court
subsequently extended until Aug. 10, 2009.  On Aug. 10, 2009, the
company filed a motion for summary judgment.  On Sept. 9, 2009,
the plaintiff filed a request to deny or continue the company's
motion for summary judgment to allow the plaintiff to conduct
discovery.  Following a hearing and subsequent filings by both
parties on the plaintiff's request for discovery, on Nov. 6, 2009,
the Court denied the plaintiff's request.

The plaintiff filed an opposition to the company's motion for
summary judgment on Dec. 12, 2009, and the company filed its reply
in support of its motion on Dec. 21, 2009.

On March 16, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the company's motion for summary judgment.

On April 5, 2010, the Court granted a joint motion by the parties
staying the case through July 6, 2010, which stay was subsequently
extended by the Court until July 30, 2010, pending an attempt by
the parties to resolve through mediation.

The company was required to answer the complaint by Aug. 30, 2010
if mediation has not been successful.  On July 1, 2010, the Court
extended the stay until July 30, 2010 and set Aug. 30, 2010 as the
deadline for the company's answer to the complaint.

The company discloses, in its Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 29, 2010, that an adverse resolution of the lawsuit could
have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
position and results of operations in the period in which the
lawsuit is resolved.

Panera Bread Company -- http://www.panerabread.com/-- owns and
franchises 1,399 bakery-cafes as of June 29, 2010 under the Panera
Bread(R), Saint Louis Bread Co.(R), and Paradise Bakery & Cafe(R)
names.


PANERA BREAD: Labor Violations Suit Still Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company continues to defend a purported class action
filed in the California Superior Court, County of Contra Costa.

On Dec. 9, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and one of its subsidiaries by Nick Sotoudeh,
a former employee of the company.

The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
meal and rest periods and termination compensation and violations
of California's Unfair Competition Law.  The complaint seeks,
among other relief, collective and class certification of the
lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court might find
just and proper.

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 29, 2010.

Panera Bread Company -- http://www.panerabread.com/-- owns and
franchises 1,399 bakery-cafes as of June 29, 2010 under the Panera
Bread(R), Saint Louis Bread Co.(R), and Paradise Bakery & Cafe(R)
names.


PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY: Trial Court Ordered to Compel Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant, Professional Community Management, Inc., appeals from
an order denying its petition to compel arbitration of a putative
class action filed by plaintiff, Ray A. Maiorano. Based solely on
the parties' agreement, the Court of Appeals of California, Second
District, concludes it cannot be compelled to arbitrate on a class
basis. However, the California Court of Appeals reversed the order
and directed the trial court to compel arbitration of plaintiff's
individual claims.

A copy of the California Court of Appeals' decision is available
at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100930057

The California Court of Appeals pointed out that it is undisputed
that the present case is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act.
"The question remains whether plaintiff can be compelled to
arbitrate his individual claims or whether the arbitration
agreement is unenforceable as a whole. We apply principles of
state contract law and conclude the arbitration agreement is
enforceable. Therefore, plaintiff must arbitrate his individual
claims," the California appellate court stated.

The defendant is represented by:

     E. Sean McLoughlin, Esq.
     HILL, FARRER & BURRILL LLP
     One California Plaza, 37th Floor
     300 So. Grand Ave.
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-3147
     Telephone: (213) 620-0460
     Facsimile: (213) 624-4840
     E-mail: smcloughlin@hillfarrer.com

Representing the plaintiff and respondent are:

     George R. Kingsley, Esq.
     Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
     Steve L. Hernandez, Esq.
     KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY
     16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
     Encino, CA  91436
     Telephone: 818-990-8300
     Facsimile: 818-990-2903


SONOCO PRODUCTS: Court Certifies Securities Suit as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Terry L. Wooten of the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina certified the case, City of Ann Arbor
Employees' Retirement System, on Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated, v. Sonoco Products Co., Harris E. DeLoach,
Jr., and Charles J. Hupfer, Civil Action No. 4:08-cv-2348-TLW-TER,
as a class action.

The class consists of all purchasers of common stock of Sonoco
Products Co. between February 7, 2007 and September 18, 2007,
inclusive and who were damaged thereby.

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

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100930f86

The City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System originally
filed the action on June 26, 2008.  An amended class action
complaint was filed on October 14, 2008.

The defendants opposed the motion for class certification.

Sonoco is a global supplier of industrial and consumer packaging
and packaging services, headquartered in Hartsville, South
Carolina. With over 16,500 employees and sales of approximately
$3.6 billion in 2009, it is also among the largest companies in
its industry. The plaintiff asserts that while Sonoco had met or
exceeded earnings estimates for fourteen periods, in late 2006, it
had to provide certain customers price concessions. Additionally,
the plaintiff asserts that the company lost certain accounts
around the same time. The plaintiff argues that even though the
defendants knew that these issues would adversely impact financial
results, the defendants failed to report this information.
Moreover, the plaintiff purports that this failure to disclose
artificially inflated the company's stock price, and the CEO sold
155,000 shares of stock during this time period.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 5, 2008, but
the Court denied it as well as the subsequent motion for
reconsideration.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Class Suit Over Stucco Work May Move Forward
------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Stice at islandpacket.com reports a state Supreme Court
decision may allow Sun City Hilton Head homeowners to pursue a
class-action lawsuit for alleged defective stucco work.

The opinion released Oct. 4 reverses a Circuit Court ruling that
struck down class-action status for a suit alleging improper
stucco application, which caused water damage and rot.  A court
must first certify the class before such a lawsuit can be filed.
A Circuit Court hearing on that issue has not been scheduled.

The suit against South Carolina State Plastering LLC was filed
three years ago by Anthony and Barbara Grazia of Sun City and
alleges negligent construction on more than 2,500 homes in the
gated community that "would require . . . stripping the homes of
the existing stucco and recladding with a properly installed
stucco system," the Supreme Court's opinion reads.  State
Plastering filed a third-party complaint against developer Del
Webb Communities Inc., builder Pulte Homes Inc. and Kephart
Architects Inc.

A statement from Del Webb says a third-party engineering firm
surveyed the homes and repairs already have been made "in isolated
incidents where a stucco issue was present."

Representatives for Pulte did not respond Wednesday to requests
for comment.

W. Jefferson Leath Jr. of Charleston-based law firm Leath, Bouch
& Seekings said the four attorneys in the Grazia case
collectively represent more than 140 Sun City homeowners claiming
stucco defects.

"If Pulte follows their standard course, they will take some
action to prolong (the lawsuit), whether it be a petition to the
Supreme Court to reconsider or some other action," Mr. Leath said.

Everett Kendall of the Columbia-based firm Sweeny Wingate &
Barrow, one of four lawyers representing the defendants, said they
may petition for a rehearing.  They may also seek clarification
from the legislature on its original intent in creating the law
that he lower court used to deny class-action status.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Jefferson Leath Jr., Esq.
          LEATH, BOUCH, CRAWFORD & VON KELLER, L.L.P.
          92 Broad St., P.O. Box 59
          Charleston, SC 29402-0059
          Telephone: 843-937-8811

South Carolina State Plastering LLC is represented by:

          Everett Kendall, Esq.
          SWEENY WINGATE & BARROW, P.A.
          1515 Lady Street, P.O. Box 12129
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: 803-256-2233


SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss LFG-Related Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the matter In re
LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc. et al., remains pending.

Two putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the
company by former customers of LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Services,
Inc, a subsidiary of LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc.

The first of these actions, Arthur et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc.
et al., was filed on Jan. 14, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California.  The second of these cases,
Terry et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., was filed on Feb. 2,
2009 in the Court of Common Pleas, Tenth Judicial Circuit, County
of Anderson, South Carolina, and subsequently removed to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina.

On June 12, 2009, the Multi-District Litigation Panel issued a
transfer order designating the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Anderson Division, as MDL Court for
IRS Section 1031 Tax Deferred Exchange Litigation (MDL 2054).

Plaintiffs' allegations in these cases are that LES and certain of
its officers caused them to suffer damages in connection with
potential 1031 exchange transactions that were pending at the time
that LES filed for bankruptcy.  Essentially, Plaintiffs' core
allegation is that their damages are the result of breaches of
fiduciary and other duties owed to them by LES and others, and
fraud and other improper acts committed by LES and certain of its
officers, and that the company is partially or entirely
responsible for such damages because it knew or should have known
about the alleged wrongdoing and failed to take appropriate steps
to stop the same.  The company believes that the allegations and
claims made against it in these actions are both factually and
legally unsupported, and has filed a motion to dismiss all claims,
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 addition, the company has been made aware that the bankruptcy
trustee representing the estates of LFG and LES currently is
investigating whether to bring claims against SunTrust Robinson
Humphrey, Inc., and other entities related to the purchase of
auction rate securities by LES through STRH.  The total par amount
of auction rate securities bought through STRH and held by LES at
the time of the collapse of the auction rate market in February
2008 was approximately $152 million.  At this time, no legal
action has been filed by the trustee.  The underlying bankruptcy
proceeding is pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in
Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total
assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion.
The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network
throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a
full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels.  The
company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its
primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment
services.  Through various subsidiaries the Company provides
mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management,
equipment leasing and investment banking services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Defends Remaining Claim in ATM Fee Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc., continues to defend the remaining claim in
the matter In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation.

The company is a defendant in a number of antitrust actions that
have been consolidated in federal court in San Francisco,
California under the name In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Master File No. C04-2676 CR13.

In these actions, Plaintiffs, on behalf of a class, assert that
Concord EFS and a number of financial institutions have unlawfully
fixed the interchange fee for participants in the Star ATM
Network.  Plaintiffs claim that Defendants' conduct is illegal
under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Plaintiffs initially asserted the Defendants' conduct was illegal
per se.  In August 2007 Concord and the bank defendants filed
motions for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' per se claim.

In March 2008, the Court granted the motion on the ground that
Defendants' conduct in setting an interchange fee must be analyzed
under the rule of reason.  The Court certified this question for
interlocutory appeal, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit rejected Plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal on
Aug. 13, 2008.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint in which
they asserted a rule of reason claim.  This complaint was
dismissed by the Court as well, but Plaintiffs were given leave to
file another amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed yet another complaint and Defendants moved to
dismiss the same.  The Court granted this motion in part --
dismissing one of Plaintiffs two claims -- but denied the motion
as to one claim.  The Court has ordered the parties to submit
briefs in July and August 2010 regarding the Plaintiffs' standing
(or lack thereof) to assert the sole remaining claim, 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.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in
Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total
assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion.
The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network
throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a
full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels.  The
company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its
primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment
services.  Through various subsidiaries the Company provides
mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management,
equipment leasing and investment banking services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal in "Buffington" Pending in 11th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s appeal on the denial of its Motion to
Compel Arbitration in the matter Buffington et al. v. SunTrust
Banks, Inc., remains pending in the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals.

The company has been named as a defendant in several putative
class actions relating to the manner in which it charges overdraft
fees to customers.

One case is captioned Buffington et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et
al. filed in Fulton County Superior Court on May 6, 2009.  This
action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division on June 10, 2009, and was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida for inclusion in Multi-District Litigation Case No.
2036 on Dec. 1, 2009.

Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, conversion,
unconscionability, and unjust enrichment for alleged injuries they
suffered as a result of the company's assessment of overdraft
charges to their joint checking account, and purport to bring
their action on behalf of a putative class of "all SunTrust Bank
account holders who incurred an overdraft charge despite their
account having a sufficient balance of actual funds to cover all
debits that have been submitted to the bank for payment," as well
as "all SunTrust account holders who incurred one or more
overdraft charges based on SunTrust Bank's reordering of charges."
Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, expenses of litigation,
attorneys' fees, and other relief deemed equitable by the Court.

The company filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Compel
Arbitration and both motions were denied.  The denial of the
Motion to Compel Arbitration currently is on appeal to the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, 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.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in
Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total
assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion.
The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network
throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a
full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels.  The
company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its
primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment
services.  Through various subsidiaries the Company provides
mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management,
equipment leasing and investment banking services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend "Bailey" Suit in Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc., continues to defend the matter Bailey v.
SunTrust Bank et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.

The company has been named as a defendant in several putative
class actions relating to the manner in which it charges overdraft
fees to customers.

One case captioned Bailey v. SunTrust Bank et al. was filed in the
Orleans Parish Civil Court, State of Louisiana, and was removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on
Dec. 22, 2009.

Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the Louisiana Unfair
Trade Practices Act, breach of contract, conversion, abuse of
right, unjust enrichment, fraud, redhibitory vice, product
liability, breach of obligation, and violation of the Expedited
Funds Availability Act and its implementing regulations for
alleged injuries he suffered as a result of the company's
assessment of overdraft charges to his deposit account. Plaintiff
purports to bring the class action on behalf of "all SunTrust Bank
checking account holders whose indebtedness was accelerated by the
collection of unwarranted penalty fees, and for transactions
despite their account having a sufficient balance of actual funds
to cover the transaction, and for transactions negotiated without
proper endorsement."

Plaintiff seeks restitution, damages, expenses of litigation,
attorneys' fees, and other relief deemed equitable by the Court.
On Jan. 20, 2010, the matter was conditionally transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for
inclusion in Multi-District Litigation Case No. 2036, but on Feb.
26, 2010, that transfer order was vacated by the MDL Panel.

On Feb. 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Third
Amended Individual Complaint and Second Amended Class Complaint,
which motion was granted on Feb. 22, 2010.

Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint alleges claims against the
Company for violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act,
violation of the Expedited Funds Availability Act and its
implementing regulations, and "fault."  Plaintiff alleges that his
injuries arise from illegal conduct associated with his purchase
and electronic payment for an Apple computer and the assessment of
certain overdraft charges to his deposit account.  Plaintiff's
Third Amended Complaint adds Apple, Inc. and the Federal Reserve
Bank of Atlanta as Defendants.  The Third Amended Complaint
purports to bring the class action on behalf of two separate
classes: (1) all Apple customers who made a purchase through an
Apple Symbol at an Apple Retail Store, and were subjected without
warning or notification by Apple to an Apple pre-authorization
requirement; and (2) all SunTrust customers who were charged an
overdraft fee when their SunTrust checking accounts were not
overdrawn.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement of
ill-gotten gains, actual damages, punitive and exemplary damages,
pre-judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief
deemed equitable by the Court.  The Court granted the company's
motion to compel arbitration on Feb. 24, 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.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in
Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total
assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion.
The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network
throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a
full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels.  The
company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its
primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment
services.  Through various subsidiaries the Company provides
mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management,
equipment leasing and investment banking services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the matter In Re SunTrust
Banks, Inc. ERISA Litigation, remains pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.

This is a consolidated putative class action case filed by
participants in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan concerning
the performance of certain investment options available under the
Plan.  In particular, the consolidated complaint alleges that the
company's publicly traded stock was an imprudent investment option
that should not have been offered by the Plan because of the
company's alleged exposure to losses related to subprime
mortgages.

The complaint names the company, members of the company's Board of
Directors, the company's Benefits Plan Committee, and other
members of the company's management as defendants, and contends
that these defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income security Act of 1974, as amended by
offering the company's common stock as an investment option in the
Plan.  The complaint does not quantify the alleged damages that
the plaintiffs seek, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.  On Dec. 10, 2009, the company
and the other defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in
Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total
assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion.
The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network
throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a
full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels.  The
company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its
primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment
services.  Through various subsidiaries the Company provides
mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management,
equipment leasing and investment banking services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: "Krinsk" Suit Stayed Pending Appeal
---------------------------------------------------
The matter Krinsk v. SunTrust Bank remains stayed pending SunTrust
Banks, Inc.'s appeal on the denial of its Motion to Comple
Arbitration.

This is a lender liability action in which the borrower claims
that the company has taken actions in violation of her home equity
line of credit agreement and in violation of the Truth in Lending
Act.

Plaintiff filed this action in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida as a putative class action, and is
currently attempting to have the class certified.  The Court
dismissed Plaintiff's first complaint, and she subsequently filed
an Amended Complaint asserting breach of contract, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of
TILA.

Plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification.  The company
filed its Answer to the Complaint, has opposed class
certification, and has filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration.  The
Court denied the Motion to Compel Arbitration and this decision is
on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  The case has
been stayed pending the resolution of this appeal, 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.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in
Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total
assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion.
The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network
throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a
full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels.  The
company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its
primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment
services.  Through various subsidiaries the Company provides
mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management,
equipment leasing and investment banking services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: STRH Remains a Defendant in Lehman Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., remains a defendant in the
matter In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation.
STRH is a broker-dealer affiliate of SunTrust Banks, Inc.

Beginning in October 2008, STRH, along with other underwriters and
individuals, were named as defendants in several putative class
action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and state and federal courts in
Arkansas, California, Texas and Washington.

Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933 for allegedly false and misleading
disclosures in connection with various debt and preferred stock
offerings of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. and seek unspecified
damages.  All cases have now been transferred for coordination to
the multi-district litigation captioned In re Lehman Brothers
Equity/Debt Securities Litigation pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the
company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in
Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total
assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion.
The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network
throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a
full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels.  The
company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its
primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment
services.  Through various subsidiaries the Company provides
mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management,
equipment leasing and investment banking services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss Suit Over TruPs Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated amended
complaint relating to the offer and sale of Trust Preferred
Securities, remains pending.

Beginning in May 2009, the company, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey,
Inc., SunTrust Capital IX and officers and directors of the
company and others were named in three putative class actions
arising out of the offer and sale of approximately $690 million of
SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities (TRUPs) of
SunTrust Banks, Inc.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the relevant
registration statement and accompanying prospectus misrepresented
or omitted material facts regarding the company's allowance for
loan and lease loss reserves, the company's capital position and
its internal risk controls.

Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged losses in connection with their
investment in the TRUPs or to rescind their purchases of the
TRUPs.

These cases were consolidated under the caption Belmont Holdings
Corp., et al., v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.  On Nov. 30, 2009, a consolidated
amended complaint was filed.  On Jan. 29, 2010, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in
Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total
assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion.
The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network
throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a
full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels.  The
company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its
primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment
services.  Through various subsidiaries the Company provides
mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management,
equipment leasing and investment banking services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss Waterford's Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the matter Waterford
Township General Employees Retirement System v. SunTrust Banks,
Inc. et al., remains pending.

The company and several of its executive officers are named as
defendants in putative class action securities litigation pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division.

These cases were consolidated under the caption Waterford Township
General Employees Retirement System v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al.
As lead plaintiff, the Waterford Township General Employees
Retirement System filed the Lead Plaintiff's First Amended Class
Action Complaint on Dec. 23, 2009.

The plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of a class of persons and
entities that purchased or acquired the company's stock during the
period July 22, 2008 through Jan. 21, 2009, and allege that the
defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to understate the
company's allowance for loan and lease loss (ALLL) reserves, its
provision for loan losses, and the amount of charge-offs related
to its loans.  They further allege that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding, among other
things, the ALLL, its provision for loan losses, and the amount of
charge-offs related to its loans.

Waterford seeks certification of the class and an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.  Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint was filed in February 2010 and remains pending,
according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in
Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total
assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion.
The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network
throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a
full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels.  The
company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its
primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment
services.  Through various subsidiaries the Company provides
mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management,
equipment leasing and investment banking services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: STRH Still a Defendant in Suit Against Colonial
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., remains a defendant in the
matter In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Securities Litigation.  STRH
is a broker-dealer affiliate of SunTrust Banks, Inc.

Beginning in July 2009, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., certain
other underwriters, The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. and certain
officers and directors of Colonial BancGroup were named as
defendants in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern District
entitled In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The complaint was brought by purchasers of certain debt and equity
securities of Colonial BancGroup and seeks unspecified damages.
Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading
disclosures in the relevant registration statement and prospectus
relating to Colonial's goodwill impairment, mortgage underwriting
standards and credit quality.

On August 28, 2009, The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. filed for
bankruptcy.  The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was denied in May
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.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in
Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total
assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion.
The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network
throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a
full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels.  The
company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its
primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment
services.  Through various subsidiaries the Company provides
mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management,
equipment leasing and investment banking services.


TELENAV INC: Investigation Into Securities Violations Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. Tuesday disclosed that it
is continuing its investigation of reports that TeleNav, Inc.
filed a false and misleading Registration Statement in connection
with the company's May 13, 2010 initial public offering.

Sunnyvale, California-based TeleNav, a provider of wireless
location-based services, filed a Form S-1/A Registration Statement
on May 13, 2010 for the purpose of selling 7 million shares of its
common stock at $8 per share to the public market.  The
Registration Statement stated that 55 percent of TeleNav's
business came from wireless carrier Sprint Nextel Corp. and that
the contract with Sprint was not due to expire until December 31,
2011.

Following the IPO, TeleNav's stock traded as high as $9 per share
until July 29, when the company dropped the "Sprint Bombshell."
Less than three months after its IPO, TeleNav revealed that it was
already in "active negotiations" with Sprint to amend material
terms of its contract with the wireless carrier.  On July 30,
TeleNav's stock price plunged, eventually closing at $5.44 per
share, a one-day decline of 39 percent.  Over the next several
weeks, the share price continued to decline as stock analysts from
JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank Securities downgraded the stock due to
the potential revenue loss associated with the evolving contract
with Sprint.

A class-action lawsuit has already been filed.  The complaint
charges TeleNav and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 . Any investor with
significant losses from purchases of TeleNav stock before July 30,
2010 who wishes to serve as lead plaintiff must file with the
court by November 2, 2010.

If you purchased TeleNav stock prior to July 30, 2010, or wish to
discuss this matter further, you are encouraged to contact the
following SRKW attorneys via telephone or e-mail:

          Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
          David Felderman, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          Toll Free: (888) 844-5862

                           About SRKW

SRKW has been representing individual and institutional investors
for nearly three decades, serving as lead counsel in numerous
securities class actions in U.S. federal and state courts. Please
visit the firm's Web site -- http://www.srkw-law.com/-- for more
information about the firm.


WRIGHT COUNTY: Conditions at Egg Farm "Deplorable," Lawyers Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
KETV Omaha reports attorneys in a class action lawsuit on Oct. 5
said that they saw first-hand the problems at an Iowa egg plant
that lead to a nationwide egg recall.

The group toured Wright County Egg plant and said they found piles
of manure, rats and insects inside the plant.  The attorneys
represent many of the 1,500 people sickened by eggs that were part
of the recall.  They said the conditions were just as disturbing
as what FDA inspectors discovered in August.

Attorneys said the conditions inside the barns are deplorable,
very similar to the reports by FDA inspectors that detailed
leaking manure, rodents and other problems.

"You saw rats, rodents, insects; all kinds of things that
shouldn't be in a food plant," said attorney Ron Simon.

"The piles of manure reach up to where the hen layers are.  here
are rodents everywhere," said attorney Ken Moll.

Mr. Moll said a court order prevented Wright County Egg from
cleaning up and fixing some of the problems until attorneys had a
chance to document the evidence, but he said that in his opinion
there's been little effort by the company to fix what they could.

"We haven't seen any signs that they have cleaned up anything that
would prevent the contamination of salmonella, still to this day,
to its eggs," said Mr. Moll.

The attorneys will also have a chance to go through a feed mill
for Wright County Egg.

"I just don't see that they can change it enough in the near
future to prevent the contamination of people in the future," said
Mr. Moll.

The attorneys touring the facilities said that, based on the
evidence they're collecting, they are troubled that Wright County
Egg is still in production.

"These are people who are eating a ubiquitous product, eggs.  They
eat it every day, it's part of their routine, it's part of their
daily diet and they certainly didn't expect that when they opened
that egg to be biting into a poison pill of salmonella," said
Mr. Simon.

The attorneys also went through Hillandale Farms and said they saw
many of the same poor conditions.

A spokesperson for Wright County Egg said they sympathize with
those who were sickened by the eggs, but they are not in a
position to comment on the pending lawsuit that brought the
attorneys to Iowa to tour the farms.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ken Moll, Esq.
          THE LAW GROUP, LTD.
          3 First National Plaza, 50th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (888) 882-3453

               - and -

          Ron Simon, Esq.
          SIMON & LUKE, L.L.P.
          2929 Allen Parkway, 42nd Floor
          Houston, TX 77019
          Telephone: (713) 335-4900
          E-mail: ron@simonluke.com

                             *********

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  * * *