CAR_Public/101012.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 12, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 201

                             Headlines

ADVANTA CORP: Sued for Breaching Agreement Not to Charge Interest
ARENA PHARMA: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Lorcaserin
BAYSIDE FURNISHINGS: Recalls 2,000 Twin Trundle Beds
BIO-ENGINEERED SUPPLEMENTS: Accused of Selling Bogus Product
BMW: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Turbo Chargers

CHRYSLER: N.Y. Suit Complains About Defective Brakes
DIAMOND FOODS: Ruling Striking Class Allegations Affirmed
DRESS BARN: Tween Awaits Approval of Pact in Wage & Hour Suit
DRESS BARN: Final Approval of Credit Card Suit Accord Pending
DRESS BARN: Tween Makes $575,000 Fee Award Payment in July

EMCORE CORP: IBEW Local No. 58 Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
EXCEL STORAGE: Klehr Harrison Files WARN Act Class Action Suit
EXPEDITORS INT'L: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Pending
HARMAN INT'L: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Columbia
HARMAN INT'L: Motion to Dismiss "Russell" Suit Pending

HEALTHWAYS INC: Final Okay of Pact in Securities Suit Pending
HEALTHWAYS INC: Settles ERISA-Violations Suit for $1.25 Million
JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
LASALLE BANK: Faces Class Action Suit in Ill. Over "Sweep" Fees
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Payment of Damages in Race Bias Suit Stayed

MARSH & MCLENNAN: Approval of Settlement Agreement Still Pending
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Sued in Kentucky Over Illegal Foreclosures
NATIONAL PENN: Defends RICO-Violations Suit in Pennsylvania
ONTARIO: Faces Class Action Suit Over Abuse at Institution
PACIFIC GAS: Faces Class Suit Over Sept. 9 Pipeline Explosion

PROMMIS SOLUTIONS: Two Class Action Suits Allege Fee-Splitting
RESTAURANT TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Shareholder Class Action Suit
SMITH INTERNATIONAL: Defends Suits Over Schlumberger Merger
SOUTH FINANCIAL: Approval of Settlement Agreement Still Pending
TIKE TECH: Recalls 800 Single City X3 & X3 Sport Jogging Strollers

TOYOTA MOTOR: Accused of Hiding Acceleration Defects
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Scott+Scott LLP Corrects Class Action Notice
TRUBION PHARMA: Being Sold for Too Little, Wash. Suit Claims
UNIQUE BABY: Recalls 12,000 Single & Twin Jogging Strollers
VERITAS SOFTWARE: 3rd Circuit Affirms Award of 30% for Legal Fees

ZENITH INSURANCE: Dec. 9 Status Conference for PPO Class Suit
ZYMOGENETICS: Settles Class Action Suit Over Bristol Acquisition

* Class Action.org Reviews Claims Over Deceased Relatives Debts


                             *********

ADVANTA CORP: Sued for Breaching Agreement Not to Charge Interest
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chung Choi, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Advanta Corp., et al., Case No. 10-cv-04504 (N.D. Calif.
October 5, 2010), asserts claims for breach of contract,
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Section 17200, and unjust enrichment.  Mr. Choi says
that Advanta breached its May 2009 agreement with him not to
charge any interest on cash advances made against his new credit
card until October 1, 2010, when in October 2009, it charged him
interest of $38.43 on his cash advance balance.  This was followed
by another improper charge of $55.06 on November 18, 2000.  Mr.
Choi avers that when he requested Advanta to refund all interest
payments made by him, Advanta replied that the 0% interest rate
had expired on October 1, 2009, and that he would be charged an
interest of 7.99% for any balance on his credit card advance after
that date.

The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury and is represented by:

          Thomas Marc Litton, Esq.
          SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 392-6900
          E-mail: tlitton@swhlegal.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Wittels, Esq.
          Jeremy Heisler, Esq.
          SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP
          1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 723-2947
          E-mail: swittels@swhlegal.com
                  jheisler@swhlegal.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Karl Olson, Esq.
          RAM & OLSON LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-4949
          E-mail: mram@ramolson.com
                  kolson@ramolson.com

A copy of the Complaint in Choi v. Advanta Corp., et al., Case No.
10-cv-04504 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/06/Advanta.pdf

Advanta Corp. -- http://www.advanta.com/-- has had a 59-year
history of being a leading innovator in the financial services
industry and of providing great value to its stakeholders,
including its senior retail note holders and shareholders, prior
to the recent reversals.  It has also been a major civic and
charitable force in the communities in which it is based,
particularly in the Greater Philadelphia area.


ARENA PHARMA: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Lorcaserin
---------------------------------------------------------
Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. Tuesday disclosed that
class action lawsuits have been brought on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. between December 8,
2008 and September 16, 2010, inclusive.

If you purchased Arena securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than
November 19, 2010.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party who
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
Your share of any subsequent recovery in this action will not be
affected by your decision whether to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff.

The actions, pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, were brought against Arena and
certain of its officers for violations of federal securities laws.
Arena, headquartered in San Diego, California, is a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering, developing, and
commercializing oral drugs that target G protein-coupled
receptors.  Arena's principal drug under development is
Lorcaserin, an experimental weight loss drug.

The complaints allege that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false statements regarding Lorcaserin.
Specifically, defendants allegedly touted Lorcaserin's purported
efficacy, safety, and tolerability but failed to disclose certain
health risks associated with the drug.  On September 14, 2010, the
Food and Drug Administration issued a briefing document in advance
of its advisory panel meeting that questioned the safety and
efficacy of Lorcaserin and revealed, among other things, that the
drug was associated with malignant tumors in rats.  On this news,
the price of Arena common stock fell $2.72 per share, or nearly 40
percent, to close at $4.13 per share on September 14, 2010.  On
September 16, 2010, the FDA advisory panel reportedly rejected
Lorcaserin due to concerns with the drug's efficacy and potential
safety problems.  The following day, September 17, 2010, Arena's
stock fell another $1.75 per share, or approximately 47 percent,
to close at $1.99 per share.

If you want to consider serving as a lead plaintiff and you bought
Arena securities between December 8, 2008 and September 16, 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, Esquire
          David Felderman, Esquire
          Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C.
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          Toll Free: (888) 844-5862
          E-mail: classaction@srkw-law.com

                            About SRKW

SRKW -- http://www.srkw-law.com/-- 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.


BAYSIDE FURNISHINGS: Recalls 2,000 Twin Trundle Beds
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Tabletops Unlimited, Inc., of Carson, Calif, announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,500 Castalon frying pans.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The enamel coating of the pan can crackle and break off after a
few uses, posing a burn hazard to consumers.

There was one reported incident of a piece of enamel popping off
of the pan, and causing a minor burn to a consumer.

This recall involves a cast iron cast-lite frying pan with an
enamel coating inside and out.  The pan was sold in a variety of
colors and has model numbers: TTU9203, P9204, P9207, P9208, P9242,
P9243, P9244, P9248, P9250, P9261, P9266, P9274, P9275, P9276 on
the color sleeve packaging of the product.  The models are
correlated to pan colors.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11004.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Bed, Bath & Beyond and Wegmans nationwide from May 2010 through
September 2010 for about $30.

Consumers should immediately stop using this product and contact
Tabletops Unlimited for instructions on how to return the product
and receive a full refund.  For additional information, contact
Tabletops Unlimited toll-free at (888) 239-2021 between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.ttucorp.com/or email at
http://www.ttucorp.com/


BIO-ENGINEERED SUPPLEMENTS: Accused of Selling Bogus Product
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Bio-Engineered Supplements
and Nutrition sells a bogus product, "Cheaters Relief," a putative
"carbohydrate and fat regulator," that allows dieters to eat
carbohydrates and fats "without sabotaging your diet," a class
action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.


BMW: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Turbo Chargers
----------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento, California based class action law firm Kershaw, Cutter
& Ratinoff, LLP, recently filed a class action lawsuit on behalf
of thousands of individuals who own various BMW vehicles released
between the years of 2007-2010.  The lawsuit, No. CV10-2257 SI
filed in the Northern District of California, seeks to compel BMW
to initiate a recall in order to replace all of the high pressure
fuel pumps in the affected vehicles.

According to the complaint, in 2006, BMW announced with much
fanfare the development of its new N54 twin turbo engine.  BMW
touted the new engine as incorporating state of the art technology
that included dual turbo chargers and a newly developed fuel
injection system.  BMW represented to the public that this new
technology would eliminate 'turbo lag,' a common problem in
turbocharged vehicles, and that its new state of the art fuel
injection system greatly increased the performance and fuel
efficiency of its vehicles.

Plaintiffs allege that the new engines that were so highly touted
by BMW in fact contain serious design flaws that render the
vehicles unsafe to drive.  There are essentially two design flaws
at the center of the case.  First, the plaintiff asserts that
BMW's new fuel injection system that supposedly incorporates a new
'state of the art' fuel pump actually malfunctions at an alarming
high rate.  As a result, many BMW owners have had to repeatedly
replace their fuel pumps, sometimes within 1,000 miles of vehicle
ownership.

Lead attorney on the case, Stuart Talley of Kershaw, Cutter &
Ratinoff, noted, "When these fuel pumps fail, the car comes to a
complete stop or loses substantial power.  If this happens while
someone is driving on a highway at high speeds, this can create a
very serious safety hazard.  We believe the defect is so
significant that it makes these cars unsafe to drive."

The second problem relates to the BMW turbo chargers.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that owners of the affected
vehicles were told that BMW's new engine had eliminated 'turbo
lag.'  'Turbo lag' is the delay between the time that driver of a
vehicle presses the accelerator and the time that turbo chargers
on the engine essentially 'kick in' to provide added power to the
engine.  However, shortly after the vehicles were released, BMW
began to receive complaints from owners that they were hearing
strange noises from the engine along with a delay in throttle
response.  BMW eventually discovered that these problems were the
result of a design defect in the turbo chargers.

Plaintiffs allege, however, that rather than repair the defective
turbo chargers, BMW implemented a secret 'software fix' to hide
the problems from consumers.  Any time a consumer brought their
BMW in for repair or routine maintenance, BMW would 'upgrade' the
vehicle's software.  This software tweak kept the turbo chargers
from operating at full capacity, ensuring that their defects would
go undetected.

Apparently owners aren't happy. A number of user generated forums,
petitions and blogs have cropped up criticizing BMW for their
handling of the issue.  On the BMW Blog, several consumers
reported their BMW's going into 'limp mode.'  They also complained
of excessive power loss and 'turbo lag,' the very condition BMW
said it had eliminated with its 'state of the art engine.'  The
plaintiff's complaint seeks to force BMW to repair the defective
turbo charges and/or reimburse consumers for the diminution in
value to the vehicles.

Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff have demonstrated their dedication to
protecting the legal rights of consumers, as well as their ability
to devote substantial resources through trials involving large
corporations.  Their product liability lawyers have represented
thousands of victims of defective vehicles and dangerous products
in cases throughout the United States, generating hundreds of
millions of dollars in lawsuit recoveries for their clients and
the classes they have represented.

If you would like more information on this topic, or to schedule
an interview with William Kershaw, please call Taryn Smith at
916.448.9800 or 888.285.3333.


CHRYSLER: N.Y. Suit Complains About Defective Brakes
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the brakes of Chrysler
2008-09 Caravan, Grand Caravan and Town and Country cars wear out
prematurely at 12,000 to 20,000 miles, and the company doesn't
stand behind its warranty, a class action claims in Manhattan
Federal Court.


DIAMOND FOODS: Ruling Striking Class Allegations Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals has affirmed the ruling of the San Joaquin
County Superior Court striking all class allegations in the
complaint against Diamond Foods Inc., according to the company's
Oct. 5, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2010.

In March 2008, a former grower and an organization named Walnut
Producers of California filed suit against the company in San
Joaquin County Superior Court claiming, among other things, breach
of contract relating to alleged underpayment for walnut deliveries
for the 2005 and 2006 crop years.  The plaintiffs purport to
represent a class of walnut growers who entered into contracts
with the company.

In May 2008, the company argued a motion in front of the judge in
the case requesting, among other things, that all class action
allegations be struck from the plaintiffs' complaint.  In August
2008, the court granted the company's motion.

The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling, and in August 2010,
the Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiffs and affirmed the
trial court's decision to strike the class allegation from the
complaint.

Diamond Foods Inc. -- http://www.Diamondfoods.com/-- is a high-
growth innovative packaged food company focused on building,
acquiring and energizing brands including Kettle chips, Emerald(R)
snacks, Pop Secret(R) popcorn, and Diamond of California(R)
culinary and snack nuts.  The company's products are distributed
in a wide range of stores where snacks and culinary nuts are sold.


DRESS BARN: Tween Awaits Approval of Pact in Wage & Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tween Brands, Inc., is awaiting court approval of a settlement
resolving a wage and hour lawsuit, according to The Dress Barn,
Inc.'s Oct. 5, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

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

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

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

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


DRESS BARN: Final Approval of Credit Card Suit Accord Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval of the settlement agreement entered into by
Tween Brands, Inc., and plaintiffs in a consolidated suit in
California, is pending, according to The Dress Barn, Inc.'s
Oct. 5, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Tween Brands is a subsidiary of Dress Barn.

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

All three cases were consolidated in California state court.

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

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

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


DRESS BARN: Tween Makes $575,000 Fee Award Payment in July
----------------------------------------------------------
Tween Brands, Inc., in July 2010, made the $575,000 fee award
payment to the plaintiffs' counsel as part of the settlement
agreement in a consolidated suit, according to The Dress Barn,
Inc.'s Oct. 5, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The company, the members of the company's board of directors and,
in certain of the lawsuits, Dress Barn, Dress Barn's chief
executive officer and/or Merger Sub, were named as defendants in
several purported class actions lawsuits that were filed by Tween
Brands stockholders in either the Common Pleas Court of Franklin
County, Ohio or the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Plaintiff Clair Rand filed the first suit in Ohio on June 29,
2009, naming as defendants Tween Brands, its six directors, Dress
Barn, and its chief executive officer.  Plaintiff Sarah Elliott
filed a similar suit in Ohio on July 8, 2009, naming as defendants
only Tween Brands and its directors.  Plaintiff Cheryl Dutiel
filed a similar suit in Delaware on July 17, 2009, naming as
defendants Tween Brands, it six directors, Dress Barn, and Merger
Sub.  Plaintiff Edward Hirsch filed a similar suit in Ohio on
Aug. 4, 2009, naming the same defendants as plaintiff Dutiel.

Following the defendants' motions to stay the Ohio suits in favor
of the Delaware litigation, the three Ohio plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed their suits and together filed a similar suit in the
Delaware Court of Chancery on Aug. 28, 2009, but did not include
Dress Barn or its chief executive officer as defendants.

Amended complaints were filed in each of the two Delaware actions.
The amended complaints alleged, among other things, that Tween
Brands and its directors breached their fiduciary duties by
allegedly failing to obtain adequate consideration in the proposed
Merger, agreeing to certain provisions in the merger agreement,
and issuing allegedly inadequate disclosure documents; and (in the
Dutiel complaint) that Dress Barn, by obtaining non-public
information about Tween Brands, aided and abetted the Tween Brands
directors' alleged breach in failing to obtain adequate
consideration for the Merger.  The suits seek, among other things,
to enjoin the consummation of the Merger.

The parties engaged in initial discovery proceedings.

By letter decision dated Oct. 2, 2009, the Delaware Chancellor
consolidated the two Delaware actions and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel for plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs and defendants entered into a settlement agreement
pursuant to which Tween Brands put additional disclosure language
in its merger proxy statement and agreed to pay legal fees to
plaintiffs' law firms.  The settlement agreement was approved by
the Delaware Chancery Court on June 15, 2010, and in accordance
with the parties stipulation and the Order and Final Judgment
entered by the Court, Tween Brands made the $575,000 fee award
payment to the plaintiffs' counsel in July 2010.

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


EMCORE CORP: IBEW Local No. 58 Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------
IBEW Local Union No. 58 has been appointed by the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico as the lead plaintiff in a
consolidated suit against EMCORE Corporation, according to the
company's Oct. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2010.

On Dec. 23, 2008, Plaintiffs Maurice Prissert and Claude Prissert
filed a purported stockholder class action pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23 allegedly on behalf of a class of
company shareholders against the company and certain of its
present and former directors and officers in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico captioned, Maurice Prissert
and Claude Prissert v. EMCORE Corporation, Adam Gushard, Hong Q.
Hou, Reuben F. Richards, Jr., David Danzilio and Thomas Werthan,
Case No. 1:08cv1190 (D.N.M.).  The Complaint alleges that company
and the Individual Defendants violated certain provisions of the
federal securities laws, including Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the Company's disclosure
regarding its customer Green and Gold Energy and the associated
backlog of GGE orders with the company's Photovoltaics business
segment.  The Complaint in the Class Action seeks, among other
things, an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other
costs and expenses associated with the maintenance of the Action.

On or about February 12, 2009, a second purported stockholder
class action (Mueller v. EMCORE Corporation et al., Case No.
1:09cv 133 (D.N.M.)) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico against the same defendants named in the
Prissert Class Action, based on substantially the same facts and
circumstances, containing substantially the same allegations and
seeking substantially the same relief.

Plaintiffs in both class actions have moved to consolidate the
matters into a single action.  On Sept. 25, 2009, the court issued
an order consolidating both the Prissert and Mueller actions into
one consolidated proceeding, but denied plaintiffs motions for
appointment of a lead plaintiff or lead plaintiff's counsel.

On July 15, 2010, the court appointed IBEW Local Union No. 58
Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiff, but denied, without
prejudice, IBEW's motion to appoint lead counsel.  IBEW has not
yet renewed its motion to appoint lead counsel.

EMCORE Corporation -- http://www.emcore.com/-- provides compound
semiconductor-based components, subsystems and systems for the
fiber optics and solar power markets.  EMCORE's Photonic Systems
segment is the leading developer and manufacturer of fiber-optic
systems and components for a wide range of commercial and military
applications including microwave fiber-optic signal transmission
and processing, satellite earth-stations, fiber-optic gyroscopes,
and terahertz sensing.  EMCORE's Fiber Optics segment offers
optical components, subsystems and systems that enable the
transmission of video, voice and data over high-capacity fiber
optic cables for high-speed data and telecommunications, cable
television (CATV) and fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) networks.
EMCORE's Solar Power segment provides solar products for satellite
and terrestrial applications.  For satellite applications, EMCORE
offers high-efficiency compound semiconductor-based gallium
arsenide (GaAs) solar cells, covered interconnect cells and fully
integrated solar panels.  For terrestrial applications, EMCORE
offers concentrating photovoltaic (CPV) systems for utility scale
solar applications as well as offering its high-efficiency GaAs
solar cells and CPV components for use in solar power concentrator
systems.


EXCEL STORAGE: Klehr Harrison Files WARN Act Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles A. Ercole, a partner with the firm Klehr Harrison Harvey
Branzburg, LLP, was retained by the WASTE MATERIAL, RECYCLING, and
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL UNION, LOCAL 108, L.I.U. OF N.A., AFL-CIO (on
behalf of its members) and numerous non-union employees as well to
pursue a class action on behalf of all employees laid off by Excel
Storage Products when it shut down suddenly on September 17, 2010
without providing any advance notice.

Failure to give 60 days notice violates the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act").  As a result of the
shutdown, approximately 150 employees were laid off at the East
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania facility.  Employees were also laid off
at other plants operated by Excel in Cadiz, Ohio,  Lodi,
California, and Brookings, South Dakota.   The Company never gave
any notice prior to the September 17 shutdown and failed to even
notify state or local officials until several days after the
shutdown.  The lawsuit seeks sixty days wages and benefits for the
violation of the WARN Act.

The case is being pursued in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania where last Monday
(September 27, 2010),  Mr. Ercole filed a petition with the
Bankruptcy Court seeking to force Excel into an involuntary
bankruptcy proceeding.  On Friday, October 1, 2010, Excel filed
its own voluntary petition seeking protection under Chapter 7.

"We plan to exhaust all avenues to recover the money owed to these
employees.  The company clearly knew long before September 17,
2010 that it was going to have to close its doors and there is no
reason WARN Act notices shouldn't have been given," said Mr.
Ercole.

Mr. Ercole and Klehr Harrison have recently achieved settlements
of $1.65 million for 500 former employees of Fleetwood Travel
Trailers and $1.58 million for 256 former employees of Arrow
Trucking in similar WARN Act cases.

If you have any questions, please contact Charles A. Ercole or
Gianna M. Karapelou.


EXPEDITORS INT'L: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
an amended complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court of
the Eastern District of New York.

On Oct. 10, 2007, the U. S. Department of Justice issued a
subpoena ordering the company to produce certain information and
records relating to an investigation of alleged anti-competitive
behavior amongst air cargo freight forwarders.  The company has
retained the services of a law firm to assist in complying with
the DOJ's subpoena.  As part of this process, the company has met
with and continues to co-operate with the DOJ.  The company
expects to incur additional costs during the course of this
ongoing investigation, which could include fines and/or penalties
if the DOJ concludes that the company has engaged in anti-
competitive behavior and such fines and/or penalties could have a
material impact on the Company's financial position, results of
operations and operating cash flows.

On Jan. 3, 2008, the company was named as a defendant, with seven
other European and North American-based global logistics
providers, in a Federal antitrust class action lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of New York,
Precision Associates, Inc. et al v. Panalpina World Transport, No.
08-CV0042.  On July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint adding a number of new third party defendants and
various claims which they assert to violate the Sherman Act.  The
plaintiffs' amended complaint, which purports to be brought on
behalf of a class of customers (and has not yet been certified),
asserts claims that the defendants engaged in price fixing
regarding eight discrete surcharges in violation of the Sherman
Act.

The allegations concerning the company relate to two of these
surcharges. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages and
injunctive relief.  On Aug. 13, 2009, the company filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the company's motion on Jan.
30, 2010, to which the company filed a reply.  The motion is
currently pending before the Court, according to the company's
Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., is a global
logistics company headquartered in Seattle, Washington.  The
company employs trained professionals in 183 full-service offices,
65 satellite locations and 2 international service centers located
on six continents linked into a seamless worldwide network through
an integrated information management system.  Services include air
and ocean freight forwarding, vendor consolidation, customs
clearance, marine insurance, distribution and other value added
international logistics services.


HARMAN INT'L: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Columbia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Inc., continues to defend a
consolidated securites suit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.

On Oct. 1, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
Cheolan Kim against Harman and certain of our officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia seeking compensatory
damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased the
company's common stock between April 26, 2007 and Sept. 24, 2007.
The original complaint alleged claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and
business prospects.  The complaint contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg
Kravis Roberts & Co. and GS Capital Partners VI Fund, L.P. and its
related funds was entered into, there would not have been a merger
agreement, or it would have been at a much lower price, and the
price of the company's common stock therefore would not have been
artificially inflated during the Class Period.  The Kim Plaintiff
alleged that, following the reports that the proposed merger was
not going to be completed, the price of the company's common stock
declined, causing the plaintiff class significant losses.

On Nov. 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension Plan
filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and certain
of its officers in the Court seeking compensatory damages and
costs on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common
stock between April 26, 2007 and Sept. 24, 2007.  The allegations
in the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical to the
allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the original
Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On Jan. 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period through
Jan. 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the violations
alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose 'significant
problems' relating to PND sales forecasts, production, pricing,
and inventory" prior to Jan. 14, 2008.  The amended complaint
claimed that when "Defendants revealed for the first time on
January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would adversely impact
earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share in fiscal 2008,"
that led to a further decline in our share value and additional
losses to the plaintiff class.

On Feb. 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the Kim
action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing of
the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the
consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR).  That
same day, the Court appointed Arkansas Public Retirement System as
lead plaintiff and approved the law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld
and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead counsel.

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint.  The Consolidated Complaint, which extends the Class
Period through Feb. 5, 2008, contends that Harman and certain of
the company's officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing false and misleading disclosures regarding our financial
condition in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008.

In particular, the Consolidated Complaint alleges that defendants
knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose material adverse facts
about MyGIG radios, personal navigation devices and the company's
capital expenditures.  The Consolidated Complaint alleges that
when Harman's true financial condition became known to the market,
the price of its common stock declined significantly, causing
losses to the plaintiff class.

On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety.  Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on Sept. 2, 2008, and defendants filed a reply
in further support of their motion to dismiss on Oct. 2, 2008. The
motion is now fully briefed, according to the company's Aug. 6,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.

Harman International Industries, Inc. -- http://www.harman.com/--
designs, manufactures and markets a wide range of audio and
infotainment solutions for the automotive, consumer and
professional markets -- supported by 15 leading brands including
AKG(R), Harman Kardon(R), Infinity(R), JBL(R), Lexicon(R) and Mark
Levinson(R).  The company is admired by audiophiles across
multiple generations and supports leading professional
entertainers and the venues where they perform.  More than 20
million automobiles on the road today are equipped with HARMAN
audio and infotainment systems.  HARMAN has a workforce of about
11,000 people across the Americas, Europe and Asia, and reported
sales of $3.4 billion for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.


HARMAN INT'L: Motion to Dismiss "Russell" Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
matter Patrick Russell v. Harman International Industries,
Incorporated, et al., is still pending.

Patrick Russell filed a complaint on Dec. 7, 2007 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia and an amended
purported putative class action complaint on June 2, 2008 against
Harman and certain of its officers and directors alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
and seeking, on behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of
the Harman International Industries, Incorporated Retirement
Savings Plan, compensatory damages for losses to the Plan as well
as injunctive relief, imposition of a constructive trust,
restitution, and other monetary relief.

The amended complaint alleges that from April 26, 2007 to the
present, defendants failed to prudently and loyally manage the
Plan's assets, thereby breaching their fiduciary duties in
violation of ERISA by causing the Plan to invest in our common
stock notwithstanding that the stock allegedly was "no longer a
prudent investment for the Participants' retirement savings."
The amended complaint further claims that, during the Class
Period, defendants failed to monitor the Plan fiduciaries, failed
to provide the Plan fiduciaries with, and to disclose to Plan
participants, adverse facts regarding Harman and our businesses
and prospects.  The Russell Plaintiff also contends that
defendants breached their duties to avoid conflicts of interest
and to serve the interests of participants in and beneficiaries of
the Plan with undivided loyalty.  As a result of these alleged
fiduciary breaches, the amended complaint asserts that the Plan
has "suffered substantial losses, resulting in the depletion of
millions of dollars of the retirement savings and anticipated
retirement income of the Plan's Participants."

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on
Aug. 5, 2008.  The Russell Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on Sept. 19, 2008, and defendants filed a reply
in further support of their motion to dismiss on Oct. 20, 2008.
The motion is now fully briefed, according to the company's
Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.

Harman International Industries, Inc. -- http://www.harman.com/--
designs, manufactures and markets a wide range of audio and
infotainment solutions for the automotive, consumer and
professional markets -- supported by 15 leading brands including
AKG(R), Harman Kardon(R), Infinity(R), JBL(R), Lexicon(R) and Mark
Levinson(R).  The company is admired by audiophiles across
multiple generations and supports leading professional
entertainers and the venues where they perform.  More than 20
million automobiles on the road today are equipped with HARMAN
audio and infotainment systems.  HARMAN has a workforce of about
11,000 people across the Americas, Europe and Asia, and reported
sales of $3.4 billion for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.


HEALTHWAYS INC: Final Okay of Pact in Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval of a settlement agreement resolving a
securities suit against Healthways, Inc., is pending.

Beginning on June 5, 2008, Healthways and certain of its present
and former officers and/or directors were named as defendants in
two putative securities class actions filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division.
On Aug. 8, 2008, the court ordered the consolidation of the two
related cases, appointed lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel, and granted lead plaintiff leave to file a consolidated
amended complaint.

The amended complaint, filed on Sept. 22, 2008, alleged that the
company and the individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the individual
defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control persons"
of Healthways.  The amended complaint further alleges that certain
of the individual defendants also violated Section 20A of the Act
based on their stock sales.  The plaintiff purports to bring these
claims for unspecified monetary damages on behalf of a class of
investors who purchased Healthways stock between July 5, 2007 and
August 25, 2008.

In support of these claims, the lead plaintiff alleges generally
that, during the proposed class period, the company made
misleading statements and omitted material information regarding
(1) the purported loss or restructuring of certain contracts with
customers, (2) the company's participation in the Medicare Health
Support pilot program for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, and (3) the company's guidance for fiscal year 2008.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
Nov. 13, 2008.  On March 9, 2009, the Court denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss.

On April 27, 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle this matter for $23.6 million.  The District Court must
approve this settlement after notice to the class before it may be
considered final.  The Court has preliminarily approved the
settlement and scheduled a hearing for final approval of the
settlement on Sept. 24, 2010.  In July 2010, all parties to the
litigation effected a settlement and stipulation agreement
pursuant to which the company's insurers made all required
payments to a qualified settlement fund, 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.  As a
result of the company's insurance coverage, this settlement is not
expected to result in any charge to the company.

Healthways, Inc. -- http://www.healthways.com/-- provides
specialized, comprehensive solutions to help millions of people
maintain or improve their health and well-being and, as a result,
reduce overall costs.  Healthways' solutions are designed to help
healthy individuals stay healthy, mitigate or eliminate lifestyle
risk factors that can lead to disease and optimize care for those
with chronic illness.  The company's proven, evidence-based
programs provide highly specific and personalized interventions
for each individual in a population, irrespective of age or health
status, and are delivered to consumers by phone, mail, internet
and face-to-face interactions, both domestically and
internationally.  Healthways also provides a national, fully
accredited complementary and alternative Health Provider Network
and a national Fitness Center Network, offering convenient access
to individuals who seek health services outside of, and in
conjunction with, the traditional healthcare system.


HEALTHWAYS INC: Settles ERISA-Violations Suit for $1.25 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Healthways, Inc., awaits the preliminary approval of an agreement
settling a suit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act for $1.25 million.

On July 31, 2008, a purported class action alleging violations of
the ERISA was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Nashville Division against Healthways, Inc.
and certain of its directors and officers alleging breaches of
fiduciary duties to participants in the Company's 401(k) plan.
The central allegation is that Company stock was an imprudent
investment option for the 401(k) plan.

An amended complaint was filed on Sept. 29, 2008, naming as
defendants the company, the Board of Directors, certain officers,
and members of the Investment Committee charged with administering
the 401(k) plan.  The amended complaint alleged that the
defendants violated ERISA by failing to remove the Company stock
fund from the 401(k) plan when it allegedly became an imprudent
investment, by failing to disclose adequately the risks and
results of the MHS pilot program to 401(k) plan participants, and
by failing to seek independent advice as to whether to continue to
permit the plan to hold company stock.

It further alleged that the company and its directors should have
been more closely monitoring the Investment Committee and other
plan fiduciaries.  The amended complaint sought damages in an
undisclosed amount and other equitable relief.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Oct. 29, 2008.  On
Jan. 28, 2009, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
the plaintiff's claims for breach of the duty to disclose with
regard to any non-public information and information beyond the
specific disclosure requirements of ERISA and denied Defendants'
motion to dismiss as to the remainder of the plaintiff's claims.
A period of discovery ensued.

On May 12, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  After the plaintiff failed, without explanation,
to appear for his scheduled deposition, the Court issued an Order
on July 10, 2009 warning the plaintiff that his failure to
participate in the lawsuit could result in sanctions, including
but not limited to dismissal.

After the plaintiff's failure to participate continued, on July
23, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to
prosecute the action.  On Aug. 6, 2009, the parties filed a
stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to the named plaintiff
but otherwise without prejudice, and the Court entered an Order to
that effect on the same date.

On Feb. 1, 2010, a new named plaintiff filed another putative
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, alleging ERISA
violations in the administration of the company's 401(k) plan.
The new complaint is identical to the original complaint,
including the allegations and the requests for relief.
Defendants' answer to this complaint was filed on March 22, 2010.
A scheduling order was entered on April 1, 2010, and discovery
commenced thereafter.

On April 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.

On June 23, 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle this matter for $1,250,000, with such settlement being
funded by the company's fiduciary liability insurance carrier,
according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.  The District Court must approve this settlement after
notice to the class before it may be considered final.  The class
settlement will be reduced to writing and presented to the Court
for preliminary approval in the coming weeks.

Healthways, Inc. -- http://www.healthways.com/-- provides
specialized, comprehensive solutions to help millions of people
maintain or improve their health and well-being and, as a result,
reduce overall costs.  Healthways' solutions are designed to help
healthy individuals stay healthy, mitigate or eliminate lifestyle
risk factors that can lead to disease and optimize care for those
with chronic illness.  The company's proven, evidence-based
programs provide highly specific and personalized interventions
for each individual in a population, irrespective of age or health
status, and are delivered to consumers by phone, mail, internet
and face-to-face interactions, both domestically and
internationally.  Healthways also provides a national, fully
accredited complementary and alternative Health Provider Network
and a national Fitness Center Network, offering convenient access
to individuals who seek health services outside of, and in
conjunction with, the traditional healthcare system.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ann Adlao and Marian Williams, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al., Case
No. 10-cv-04508 (N.D. Calif. October 5, 2010), accuse JPMorgan
Chase of failing to pay appropriate overtime compensation as
required by federal and state law, failing to provide meal and
rest periods, failing to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and non-reimbursement of necessary expenditures
related to the completion of their job duties.

Plaintiffs worked as appraisers for JPMorgan Chase.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan Schwartz, Esq.
          Hillary Jo Baker, Esq.
          BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1550
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 444-9300
          E-mail: Bryan@BryanSchwartzLaw.com
                  Hillary@BryanSchwartzLaw.com


LASALLE BANK: Faces Class Action Suit in Ill. Over "Sweep" Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that LaSalle Bank
deducted fees from custodian investment accounts for more than two
decades without telling accountholders, who found out about the
secret charges when LaSalle merged with Bank of America and the
fees stopped, according to a class action in Cook County Chancery
Court.

Named plaintiff Stephen Richek says he opened a custodian account
with LaSalle in 1985, authorizing the bank to invest his cash
balances in money markets and mutual funds.

The bank did not tell him that such transactions triggered a
"sweep fee" or "daily cash re-investment fee."

"Unbeknownst to plaintiffs, defendants were receiving reinvestment
(sweep) fees directly from the investment vehicles," according to
the complaint.  "The re-investment or 'sweep' fees were as much as
35 or 45 basis points and were based on the average daily invested
balance that had been 'swept' from the custodian accounts into the
reinvestment vehicle and the unique fee basis of a particular
investment vehicle.  This fee was not agreed to and was not
disclosed on the custodian account statements sent to plaintiff."

LaSalle merged with Bank of America in 2007.  When Mr. Richeck's
account was converted to Bank of America in 2009, he got a letter
saying that the sweep fees had been canceled.

"This was the first time plaintiff became aware" of the fees, the
complaint states.

Bank of America said it didn't know how much money had been taken
from his account over the decades, saying there were "no recorded
fee schedules for 'sweep' fees" and that it "could not accurately
portray how sweep fees were assessed from inception to current,"
according to the complaint.

Mr. Richek sued LaSalle Bank Corp., Bank of America, US Trust,
Bank of America Corp., and Bana Holding Corp. for breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of contract.

He seeks an "accounting and full refund" for the class.

A copy of the Complaint in Richek, et al. v. U.S. Trust, et al.,
Case No. 2010-CH-41342 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/06/SweepFees.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terry Rose Saunders, Esq.
          Thomas A. Doyle, Esq.
          Jason R. Krol, Esq.
          SAUNDERS & DOYLE
          20 South St., Suite 1720
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 551-0051

               - and -

          J. Stephen Walker, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF J. STEPHEN WALKER, P.C.
          20 North Clark St., Suite 2450
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 578-9191


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Payment of Damages in Race Bias Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The payment of damages as final judgment in a class action
complaint alleging race discrimination against Lufkin Industries,
Inc., remains stayed pending a decision on appeals filed.

On March 7, 1997, a class action complaint was filed against
Lufkin Industries, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas by an employee and a former employee of
the Company who alleged race discrimination in employment.
Certification hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas in
February 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas in August 1998. In April 1999,
the District Court issued a decision that certified a class for
this case, which included all black employees employed by the
company from March 6, 1994, to the present. The case was
administratively closed from 2001 to 2003 while the parties
unsuccessfully attempted mediation. Trial for this case began in
December 2003, and after the close of plaintiff's evidence, the
court adjourned and did not complete the trial until October 2004.
Although plaintiff's class certification encompassed a wide
variety of employment practices, plaintiffs presented only
disparate impact claims relating to discrimination in initial
assignments and promotions at trial.

On January 13, 2005, the District Court entered its decision
finding that the Company discriminated against African-American
employees in initial assignments and promotions. The District
Court also concluded that the discrimination resulted in a
shortfall in income for those employees and ordered that the
Company pay those employees back pay to remedy such shortfall,
together with pre-judgment interest in the amount of 5%.  On
August 29, 2005, the District Court determined that the back pay
award for the class of affected employees was $3.4 million
(including interest to January 1, 2005) and provided a formula
for attorney fees that the company estimates will result in a
total not to exceed $2.5 million.  In addition to back pay with
interest, the District Court (i) enjoined and ordered the company
to cease and desist all racially biased assignment and promotion
practices and (ii) ordered the Company to pay court costs and
expenses.

The company reviewed this decision with its outside counsel and on
Sept. 19, 2005, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On April 3, 2007, the company
appeared before the appellate court in New Orleans for oral
argument in this case.  The appellate court subsequently issued a
decision on Friday, February 29, 2008 that reversed and vacated
the plaintiff's claim regarding the initial assignment of black
employees into the Foundry Division.  The court also denied
plaintiff's appeal for class certification of a class disparate
treatment claim.  Plaintiff's claim on the issue of the Company's
promotional practices was affirmed but the back pay award was
vacated and remanded for recomputation in accordance with the
opinion.  The District Court's injunction was vacated and remanded
with instructions to enter appropriate and specific injunctive
relief.  Finally, the issue of plaintiff's attorney's fees was
remanded to the District Court for further consideration in
accordance with prevailing authority.

On Dec. 5, 2008, the U.S. District Court Judge Clark held a
hearing in Beaumont, Texas during which he reviewed the 5th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals class action decision and informed the
parties that he intended to implement the decision in order to
conclude this litigation. At the conclusion of the hearing Judge
Clark ordered the parties to submit positions regarding the issues
of attorney fees, a damage award and injunctive relief.
Subsequently, the company reviewed the plaintiff's submissions
which described the formula and underlying assumptions that
supported their positions on attorney fees and damages. After
careful review of the plaintiff's submission to the court the
company continued to have significant differences regarding legal
issues that materially impacted the plaintiff's requests.  As a
result of these different results, the court requested further
evidence from the parties regarding their positions in order to
render a final decision.

The judge reviewed both parties arguments regarding legal fees,
and awarded the plaintiffs an interim fee, but at a reduced level
from the plaintiffs original request. The company and the
plaintiffs reconciled the majority of the differences and the
damage calculations which also lowered the originally requested
amounts of the plaintiffs on those matters.  Due to the resolution
of certain legal proceedings on damages during first half of 2009
and the District Court awarding the plaintiffs an interim award of
attorney fees and cost totaling $5.8 million, the company recorded
an additional provision of $5.0 million in the first half of 2009
above the $6.0 million recorded in fourth quarter of 2008. The
plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District Court's interim award
of attorney fees with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Fifth Circuit subsequently dismissed these appeals on Aug. 28,
2009 on the basis that an appealable final judgment in this case
had not been issued.  The court commented that this issue can be
reviewed with an appeal of final judgment.

On Jan. 15, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas notified the company that it had entered a
final judgment related to the Company's ongoing class-action
lawsuit. The Court ordered the company to pay the plaintiffs $3.3
million in damages, $2.2 million in pre-judgment interest and
0.41% interest for any post-judgment interest.  The company
hadpreviously estimated the total liability for damages and
interest to be approximately $5.2 million.  The Court also ordered
the plaintiffs to submit a request for legal fees and expenses
from January 1, 2009 through the date of the final judgment. On
January 29, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for a
supplemental award of $0.7 million for attorney's fees, costs and
expenses incurred between January 1, 2009 and
January 15, 2010, as allowed in the final judgment issued by the
Court on January 15, 2010, related to the Company's ongoing
class-action lawsuit. The Company recorded provisions for these
judgments in 2009.

On January 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of the District Court's
final judgment.  On Jan. 21, 2010, The company filed a notice of
cross-appeal with the same court.  In addition, the company filed
a motion with the District Court to stay the payment of damages
referenced in the District Court's final judgment pending the
outcome of the Fifth Circuit's decision on both parties' appeals.

The District Court granted this motion to stay.  No updates were
reported in the company's company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

Lufkin Industries, Inc. sells and services oil field pumping
units, power transmission products, foundry castings and highway
trailers throughout the world.  The company has vertically
integrated all vital technologies required to design, manufacture
and market its products.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Approval of Settlement Agreement Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval of a settlement agreement resolving a suit
against Putnam Investments Trust, remains pending.

Under the terms of a stock purchase agreement with Great-West
Lifeco Inc. related to GWL's purchase of Putnam Investments Trust
from Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., in August 2007, MMC agreed
to indemnify GWL with respect to certain Putnam-related litigation
and regulatory matters.

Two putative class actions by investors in certain Putnam Funds
pending against Putnam in the District of Maryland are based on
similar allegations as those at issue in Putnam's 2003 and 2004
settlements with the SEC and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
regarding excessive short-term trading by certain former Putnam
employees in shares of the Putnam mutual funds, and directly
involve MMC and/or may be subject to MMC's indemnification
obligations.

The first action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Section 36(b) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940.  The second action purports to
assert derivative claims under Section 36(b) of the Investment
Company Act.

Both suits seek to recover unspecified damages allegedly suffered
by the Putnam Funds and their investors as a result of purported
market-timing and late trading activity in certain Putnam Funds.

In the first action, the parties have entered into a settlement
agreement.  That agreement is subject to final approval by the
district court, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.  In the derivative action, the court
denied Putnam's motion for summary judgment.

Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital.  It is the
parent company of a number of the world's leading risk experts and
specialty consultants, including Marsh, the insurance broker and
risk advisor; Guy Carpenter, the risk and reinsurance specialist;
Mercer, the provider of HR and related financial advice and
services; and Oliver Wyman, the management consultancy.  With over
50,000 employees worldwide and annual revenue of $10 billion, MMC
provides analysis, advice and transactional capabilities to
clients in more than 100 countries.


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Sued in Kentucky Over Illegal Foreclosures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a RICO class action claims
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, GMAC Mortgage and others
fraudulently file foreclosures on mortgages with forged
signatures, before they acquire a legal interest in the
properties, falsely claiming to have an interest in notes they do
not hold.

Here are the defendants in the foreclosure RICO class action:
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; Merscorp; GMAC
Mortgage LLC; Residential Accredit Loans Inc.; Residential Funding
Company LLC; Deutsche Bank National Trust Company; Nationstar
Mortgage; Aurora Loan Services; BAC Loan Services; Citimortgage;
US Bank; LSR Processing; DOCX; Lender Processing Services; Lerner
Sampson & Rothfuss; Manley Deas Kochalski PLLC; Dinsmore & Shohl
LLP; Reisenfeld & Associates LPA; Middleton & Reutlinger.

A copy of the Complaint in Foster, et al. v. Mortgage Electroic
Registration Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00611 (W.D.
Ky.) is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/06/Foreclose.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Heather Boone McKeever, Esq.
          MCKEEVER LAW OFFICES PLLC
          3250 Delong Rd.
          Lexington, KY 40515
          Telephone: 859-552-7388


NATIONAL PENN: Defends RICO-Violations Suit in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
National Penn Bancshares, Inc., defends the matter Reyes v. Zions
First National Bank, et al., alleging violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On Jan. 26, 2010, Plaintiff Reynaldo Reyes filed a putative class
action lawsuit pursuant to the RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961,
et seq., against multiple defendants, including National Penn Bank
(Case No. 2:10-cv-00345).

The complaint essentially alleges that the defendants were part of
a fraudulent telemarketing scheme whereby funds were unlawfully
withdrawn from Plaintiff's bank account by telemarketers,
deposited into the telemarketers' accounts with the bank
defendants (including National Penn Bank) via payment processors,
and then transferred to offshore accounts.  Plaintiff seeks to
recover an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of himself and
a purported nationwide class, according to the company's Aug. 6,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

National Penn Bancshares, Inc. --
http://www.nationalpennbancshares.com/-- with $9.2 billion in
assets, is the fourth largest bank holding company based in
Pennsylvania.  Headquartered in Boyertown, National Penn operates
127 offices.  It has 124 community banking offices in Pennsylvania
and one office in Maryland through National Penn Bank and its
HomeTowne Heritage Bank, KNBT and Nittany Bank divisions.
National Penn also currently has two offices in Delaware through
its wholly-owned subsidiary Christiana Bank & Trust Company.
National Penn's financial services affiliates consist of National
Penn Wealth Management, N.A., including its National Penn
Investors Trust Company division; National Penn Capital Advisors,
Inc.;  Institutional Advisors LLC; National Penn Insurance
Services Group, Inc., including its Higgins Insurance division;
and Caruso Benefits Group, Inc.


ONTARIO: Faces Class Action Suit Over Abuse at Institution
----------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a man has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of himself and other developmentally disabled
people alleging decades of abuse at an Ontario institution he
claims was a "prison-like environment."

David McKillop of Gananoque, Ontario, was admitted to the Rideau
Regional Centre in Smiths Falls, Ontario, in 1955 when he was
five, and stayed a ward of the institution until 1972.

He is suing the province of Ontario claiming "punitive damages."

Mr. McKillop alleges he was forced to clean floors and toilets
with a toothbrush, wear embarrassing nightgowns all day, and says
he was violently kicked in the groin by a staff member, which left
him unable to have children.

The allegations contained in the statement of claim have not been
proven in court.

The Rideau operated from 1951 to March 2009.

In July, an Ontario Superior Court officially certified a $1-
billion class action suit launched by former residents of another
facility for the developmentally disabled, the Huronia Regional
Centre in Orillia, Ontario.


PACIFIC GAS: Faces Class Suit Over Sept. 9 Pipeline Explosion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bay City News reports a San Bruno man filed a class action lawsuit
in San Mateo County Superior Court last week alleging that Pacific
Gas and Electric Co. was negligent and at fault for the Sept. 9
pipeline explosion that tore through the city's Crestmoor Canyon
neighborhood.

Attorney Vahn Alexander filed the class action lawsuit on
Wednesday for resident Daniele DiTripani.  The suit claims he was
home when the gas pipeline exploded and was injured and "suffered
damages."

The suit is on behalf of "all San Bruno residents who have been
impacted by the explosion," which destroyed at least 37 homes and
killed eight people.

It alleges that PG&E was negligent in its management of the
pipeline, which was "a direct and legal cause of the PG&E
explosion," causing  residents to suffer economic harm, injury and
future economic loss.

The plaintiff is asking for "an award of appropriate damages" as
well as third-party supervision of a $100 million "Rebuild San
Bruno Fund" that PG&E has established to provide relief to
residents and the community.

PG&E spokeswoman Katie Romans said the company received a copy of
the suit on Tuesday and is reviewing it.

This is the second lawsuit filed against PG&E in San Mateo County
seeking damages for the explosion.  Attorneys for San Bruno
resident Steve Dare filed suit on Sept. 17, also seeking
compensation for damage caused by  the explosion.


PROMMIS SOLUTIONS: Two Class Action Suits Allege Fee-Splitting
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Curry, writing for HousingWire magazine, reports two
lawsuits allege illegal fee-splitting involving two large
outsourcers in the mortgage industry, reviving a long-running
debate about fee arrangements between outsourcers and the
attorneys who work with them.

In a case filed Sept. 30, a couple involved in a Chapter 13
bankruptcy in Mississippi has filed a class-action complaint
against Prommis Solutions Holding Corp., its majority owner,
venture capital firm Great Hill Partners; and the law firm of
Johnson & Freedman. The suit also names as defendants Lender
Processing Services (LPS: 27.31 0.00%), which provides a variety
of third-party mortgage services, and its wholly owned subsidiary,
LPS Default Services.

The suit seeks class-action status for people who filed for
bankruptcy protection in the Northern District of Mississippi in
which the defendants were involved in various legal motions.

The lawsuit alleges that the mortgage outsourcers have secret
contracts with attorney firms with fee-splitting arrangements
"disguised as administrative fees, document review 'views,'
document download fees, document execution fees, technology
facilitation fees, etc.," according to the lawsuit, filed on
behalf of Johnathan R. and Darlene S. Thorne, who are in Chapter
13 bankruptcy proceedings.

The suit contends the allegedly secret agreements constitute fee-
splitting with non-lawyers, which is illegal, as well as the
unauthorized practice of law.

Ultimately, the borrower allegedly gets saddled with inflated
fees, which gets charged back to their loans, according to the
lawsuit.

The model used by firms such as Prommis and LPS, in which the
outsourcer uses a network of attorneys who are paid a flat fee but
who in turn receive fees from attorneys working foreclosure cases,
has enabled such companies to generate "billions of dollars in
fees since this system was implemented," the complaint alleges.

Kentucky lawsuit

The second case involves a borrower in the Bourbon Circuit Court
in Kentucky.

In that case, William Stacy countersued Wells Fargo (WFC: 26.2525
0.00%) in a foreclosure action, claiming that the bank did not own
his mortgage note due to improper assignment.  Mr. Stacy also
names as defendants the law firm of Manley, Deas, Kochalski LLC,
LPS and LPS Default Solutions.

The case alleges that the mortgage assignment allowing Wells to
foreclose was "a sham, a fabrication, a forgery and a fraud upon
the court."  But buried in the lawsuit is the same allegations of
illegal splitting of fees as in the Mississippi case, this time
between Manley Deas, LPS and LPS Default.

Its allegations are similar, as well, claiming that fees are
disguised as other things and are ultimately charged back to the
borrowers.

The Wooten Law Firm in Auburn, Ala., is listed as "of counsel" to
the plaintiffs in both cases, with a post office box listed as a
mailing address on both legal filings.  Nick Wooten owns the firm,
which has operated since 1998, according to Wooten's LinkedIn
page.  The firm focuses on wrongful foreclosure and predatory
lending cases, and sources suggest to HousingWire that Wooten has
been extremely active in filing motions to contest foreclosure
actions within Alabama during the past year.

A message with Wooten regarding his firm's involvement in both
cases was not immediately returned.

According to lawyers and other legal experts that spoke with
HousingWire on condition of anonymity, both legal cases take a so-
called 'shotgun approach' to a lawsuit.  "In both cases, an entire
book of claims has been thrown up against a wall, in an effort to
see if any of it sticks," said one attorney experienced in class
action lawsuits, who reviewed the cases and asked not to be
identified.

"Typically, this is done out of the hope that something survives
past summary judgment, because if so, the borrower and their
counsel will just have hit paydirt."

A summary judgment is a pretrial dismissal of claims.

LPS declined comment on both lawsuits, saying that it has been
served with neither and that, as a general rule, the company does
not comment on pending litigation.

Dick Volentine, corporate counsel for Prommis, was reached by e-
mail late Tuesday. Volentine said he was familiar with the lawsuit
in Mississippi, but said Prommis has yet to be served.

"I can't comment on this litigation other than to say that we will
vigorously defend ourselves against these claims," he said.

A voice message was also left with Ted Manley, a partner in the
Manley Deas law firm.

Old issue, new wrinkles

The issue of fee-splitting isn't new.  It has arisen before,
including in a 2008 Houston bankruptcy case involving Ernest and
Mattie Harris.  The couple said its loan servicer, Saxon Mortgage
Services, never told the court it had hired Fidelity National
Information Services as its agent. (LPS was spun off from Fidelity
in 2008.) The borrowers claimed that Fidelity's involvement
resulted in higher legal fees.

Fidelity steadfastly denied wrongdoing in that case, arguing that
its business model created efficiencies that lowered costs for
all.  HousingWire magazine wrote about the case in its inaugural
issue, in September 2008.

While Fidelity/LPS prevailed in that case, an attorney familiar
with the two new lawsuits said outsourcers may have a harder time
defending themselves against such suits going forward.

Part of the reason is a shift in courts' view of the mortgage
industry, as high-profile cases of abuse continue to hit the
airwaves and newspapers. Courts are currently turning a more
friendly ear toward consumers' complaints about the way the
industry operates, the attorney said.

The Harris case, however, was dismissed by a Texas federal court
in December 2008.  Judge Lynn N. Hughes also barred the Harris'
from refiling similar claims against LPS at a later date.

At the time, that case had been seen by industry insiders as a
litmus test for the firm's core business model.


RESTAURANT TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Shareholder Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Black, writing for Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal,
reports that Restaurant Technologies Inc. has reached a $5.5
million settlement in a class-action suit brought against the
company alleging executives and directors manipulated the company
to devalue earlier investments.

The suit, filed in July by former directors Michael Tate of
Plymouth and Joseph Shuster of New Prague and investors Jack Ayers
and Lyle Evanson, claimed that CEO Jeffrey Kiesel, Chief Financial
Officer Robert Weil and three Restaurant Technologies directors
conspired to devalue the holdings of about 150 common stockholders
by as much as $39 million.

In March, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Michael Davis denied the
company's request to have the suit tossed out, and allowed the
case to proceed.

The recent settlement, if approved by the court, would create a
minimum fund of $5.5 million with the potential for additional
amounts if RTI is sold prior to June 1, 2013 for an amount in
excess of $170 million, according to a notice filed Sept. 30 in
U.S. District Court in Minnesota.

The court didn't rule on the merits of any of RTI's defenses,
including the company's claim that a recapitalization in 2009 was
done in the best interest of the company and that it may not have
survived if it had not received financial support from investor
Parthenon Capital.

CEO Kiesel told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that the company
decided to settle the suit rather than go through an expensive,
time-consuming trial.

RTI helps restaurants such as McDonald's and Burger King collect
and recycle cooking oil.

The case was resolved through a mediator.  Attorneys for both
parties exchanged and reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of
documents, consulted with experts and participated in over 30
depositions.

A hearing will be held Nov. 29 at 9 a.m. to allow members of the
class action suit to weigh in on the merits of the settlement
proposal.


SMITH INTERNATIONAL: Defends Suits Over Schlumberger Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Smith International, Inc., defends suits in connection with its
merger with Schlumberger Limited.

On Feb. 21, 2010, the company, Schlumberger Limited and Turnberry
Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Schlumberger,
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which
Turnberry Merger Sub, Inc. will merge with and into the company,
with the company surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Schlumberger, and each share of Company common stock will be
converted into the right to receive 0.6966 shares of Schlumberger
common stock.

Subsequent to the announcement of the Merger, five putative class
action lawsuits were commenced on behalf of stockholders of the
company against the company and its directors, and in certain
cases against Schlumberger and one of its affiliates, challenging
the Merger.

Four of the lawsuits were filed in the District Court of Harris
County, Texas, and have been consolidated into a single action in
the 164th District Court of Harris County, Texas, and one lawsuit
is pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

The parties in the Actions have agreed to an expedited discovery
schedule and to the coordination of pleadings and discovery in
advance of any preliminary injunction hearing, which will be heard
only in the Texas Action.

On April 19, 2010, the court in the Delaware Action approved the
parties' agreement concerning the coordination of the Actions and
agreed to otherwise stay the Delaware proceedings through any
preliminary injunction hearing in Texas.

Plaintiffs in the Actions have served a consolidated amended
petition for breach of fiduciary duty and a verified amended class
action complaint, respectively.  The amended pleadings are
substantively similar and allege that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, causing
the company to enter into the Merger Agreement at an allegedly
inadequate and unfair price, agreeing to transaction terms that
improperly inhibit alternative transactions and failing to provide
material information to the company's stockholders in the
preliminary proxy statement filed in connection with the Merger.

Specifically, the pleadings allege that the preliminary proxy
statement omits material information relating to, among other
things: the analyses performed by, and the information relied upon
by, UBS; any strategic alternatives to the Merger considered by
UBS; UBS's involvement in the negotiations between the Company and
Schlumberger; the fee to be paid to UBS in connection with the
Merger; and any negotiations or plans concerning the employment of
Smith management after consummation of the Merger.

The pleadings also allege that the company and Schlumberger aided
and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duties.  The
pleadings seek, among other things, an injunction barring
defendants from consummating the proposed transaction, declaratory
relief and attorneys' fees, 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 an Aug. 24, 2010, the company disclosed that its stockholders
voted in favor of the company's merger agreement with Schlumberger
Limited. Over 99% percent of the shares voted at the meeting were
voted in favor of the merger.

Smith International, Inc. is a leading supplier of premium
products and services to the oil and gas exploration and
production industry.  The company employs over 23,000 full-time
personnel and operates in over 80 countries around the world.


SOUTH FINANCIAL: Approval of Settlement Agreement Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The approval of a settlement agreement resolving the matter In re
The South Financial Group, Inc., is pending.

On May 16, 2010, The South Financial Group, Inc., The Toronto-
Dominion Bank, and a wholly owned subsidiary of TD entered into
the Merger Agreement (providing for the Merger of TSFG with a TD
subsidiary) and a share purchase agreement, pursuant to which TD
agreed to purchase 100 newly issued shares of TSFG's Series M
Preferred Stock, which will vote together with TSFG common stock
as a single class and represent 39.9% of the total voting power of
holders of TSFG capital stock entitled to vote, for consideration
of 1,000 TD common shares.

Subsequent to the entry into the Merger Agreement, two purported
class action lawsuits were filed in the South Carolina Court of
Common Pleas relating to the transactions contemplated by the
Merger Agreement and the Share Purchase Agreement, each on behalf
of a putative class of TSFG stockholders and each naming TSFG, the
TSFG directors, and TD as defendants.

Those actions were consolidated on June 28, 2010, under the
caption In re The South Financial Group, Inc., CA No.
2010-CP-23-2001.

The plaintiffs in the Action generally challenge the proposed
Merger and Issuance.  On July 22, 2010, the defendants entered
into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding
the settlement of the Action.

In connection with the settlement contemplated by the MOU, TD
agreed not to engage in any additional purchases of TSFG common
stock from July 22, 2010 through the record date for the special
meeting of TSFG shareholders to vote on the Merger.  In addition,
TSFG and TD agreed to make certain additional disclosures relating
to the Merger in the registration statement on Form F-4 to be
filed with the Securities Exchange Commission by TD that includes
a preliminary proxy statement for the purposing of soliciting the
vote of TSFG shareholders, according to the company's Aug. 6,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The MOU contemplates that the parties will enter into a
stipulation of settlement.

The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including Court approval following notice to TSFG's
shareholders. 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 proposed
merger, the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated
thereby, and any disclosure made or shareholder vote held in
connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to
shareholders prior to final approval of the settlement.  Upon
Court approval, plaintiffs' attorneys are expected to apply for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

The South Financial Group Inc. -- http://www.thesouthgroup.com/--
is a bank holding company focused on serving small businesses,
middle market companies, and retail customers in the Carolinas and
Florida.  At June 30, 2010, it had approximately $11.6 billion in
total assets and 176 branch offices.  TSFG operates Carolina First
Bank, which conducts banking operations in North Carolina and
South Carolina (as Carolina First Bank), and in Florida (as
Mercantile Bank).  At June 30, 2010, approximately 44% of TSFG's
total customer deposits were in South Carolina, 45% were in
Florida, and 11% were in North Carolina.  The TD Bank Financial
Group, in an Oct. 1, 2010, press release disclosed that it had
completed its acquisition of The South Financial Group, Inc.


TIKE TECH: Recalls 800 Single City X3 & X3 Sport Jogging Strollers
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Tike Tech Ltd., of Toronto, Ontario, announced a voluntary recall
of about 800 Tike Tech Single City X3 and X3 Sport Jogging
Strollers.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The opening between the grab bar and seat bottom of the stroller
can allow an infant's body to pass through and become entrapped at
the neck by the grab bar, posing a strangulation hazard to young
children when a child is not harnessed.  When using a stroller,
parents and caregivers are encouraged to always secure children by
using the safety harness and never to leave them unattended.  To
learn more about the importance of stroller safety, download
CPSC's safety alert: http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/5096.pdf/

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves the grab bar on Tike Tech Single City X3 and
X3 Sport strollers.  "Tike Tech" is printed on the footrest and on
the back of the stroller on the left and right sides.  The ID
codes are located on the interior left side frame.  The following
ID codes are included in this recall:

   ID-Codes
   --------

   TT-18-01
   TT-18-02
   TT-18-03
   TT-18-04
   TT-18-05
   TT-18-06
   TT-18-07

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11002.html

The grab bar is optional and can be removed from the stroller.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Juvenile product stores nationwide and Web sites including
http://www.amazon.com/from October 2009 through February 2010 for
about $300.

Consumers should immediately remove the grab bar from the stroller
and contact Tike Tech to receive a free replacement grab bar.  For
additional information, contact Tike Tech at (800) 296-4602
between 9:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday or email the firm at recall@tiketech.com or visit firm's
Web site at http://www.tiketech.com/


TOYOTA MOTOR: Accused of Hiding Acceleration Defects
----------------------------------------------------
Edvard Pettersson, writing for Bloomberg News, reports Toyota
Motor Corp. was accused by U.S. investors of violating securities
law by failing to disclose acceleration-related defects that it
knew about, according to a consolidated complaint in a class-
action lawsuit.

The shareholders, led by the Maryland State Retirement and Pension
System, said in the Oct. 4 filing in federal court in Los Angeles
that internal documents show Toyota deliberately concealed
unintended sudden acceleration problems in the U.S.  They said the
company knew about the defects as early as 2000 and "stonewalled"
regulators to avoid recalls.

"As government regulators and the media began to focus on this
serious safety problem in the Toyota vehicles, defendants
initially denied that any unintended acceleration problem existed,
despite a plethora of internal evidence to the contrary, and
instead blamed driver error and media-induced publicity," the
investors said.

Toyota's recalls related to sudden acceleration defects have
erased $30 billion in market capitalization, the investors said.
The Maryland pension fund seeks to represent investors who bought
Toyota's American depositary receipts from May 10, 2005, to
Feb. 2, 2010.

The fund also wants to represent investors who bought the
carmaker's common stock in domestic transactions during that
period as well as, through claims made under Japanese law, all
investors who bought the common stock during that time, according
to the complaint.

U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer, who is overseeing the case, said
in July that a U.S. Supreme Court decision may exclude securities-
law claims by investors in Toyota's common stock.

Gerald Silk, a lawyer for the Maryland fund, said in August that
the decision as to which claims will be allowed to proceed will be
made through a motion to seek class certification or a motion to
dismiss the complaint.

"Toyota believes that the claims contained in the recently filed
shareholder securities consolidated complaint are unfounded,"
Celeste Migliore, a spokeswoman for Toyota Motor Sales USA in
Torrance, California, said yesterday in an e-mailed statement.
"We look forward to presenting our position to the court."

The case is In re Toyota Motor Corp. Securities Litigation,
10-00922 (C.D. Calif.).


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Scott+Scott LLP Corrects Class Action Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
The Early Notice, under 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3)(A) issued by
Scott+Scott LLP on October 4, 2010 announcing the filing of a
class action lawsuit against Transocean Ltd. and others on behalf
of investors is corrected as follows: the deadline for seeking
lead plaintiff appointment identified in the second paragraph of
the Notice should have read "December 3, 2010," not "November 30,
2010."  The full text of the corrected Notice is as follows:

On September 30, 2010, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action
against Transocean Ltd., the former CEO of Transocean, and the
former CEO of GlobalSantaFe Corporation.  As alleged in the
Complaint, the action for violation of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 is brought on behalf of all GlobalSantaFe shareholders and
their successors-in-interest who suffered harm during the period
beginning October 2, 2007 through April 20, 2010, inclusive (the
"Class Period") as a result of the Company's false October 7, 2007
proxy.

If you are a member of this Class and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court no later than
December 3, 2010.  Any member of the investor Class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or
may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If
you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this
notice or your rights, please contact Scott+Scott (scottlaw@scott-
scott.com; (800) 404-7770; (860) 537-5537 or visit the Scott+Scott
Web site, http://www.scott-scott.com)for more information.  There
is no cost or fee to you.

The complaint in this action alleges that, on October 2, 2007, in
advance of a planned shareholder vote regarding the proposed
merger of Transocean and GlobalSantaFe, Defendants disseminated a
proxy statement to the Class that contained untrue statements of
material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary to
make the statements that were made not misleading in violation of
§14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder.  Specifically, Transocean is alleged to have
misrepresented the quality of its drilling fleet and its safety
practices.  In fact, as was first revealed by the Deepwater
Horizon disaster and its aftermath, Transocean was dramatically
underinvesting in safety and exposing itself to a high risk of a
catastrophic event.  The false proxy induced the Class to approve
the merger with Transocean for inadequate consideration, thereby
harming the Class.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals and other entities worldwide.

CONTACT: Scott+Scott, LLP
         Telephone: (800) 404-7770
                    (860) 537-5537
         scottlaw@scott-scott.com
         http://www.scott-scott.com


TRUBION PHARMA: Being Sold for Too Little, Wash. Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Trubion
Pharmaceuticals are selling the company too cheaply, through an
unfair process, to Emergent BioSolutions, for the equivalent of
$4.55 a share, or $97 million, shareholders say in Seattle Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complain in Sloboda v. Gillis, et al., Case No.
10-cv-01591 (W.D. Wash.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/06/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Hathaway, Esq.
          JOHN W. HATHAWAY, PLLC
          701 Fifth Ave., Suite 4600
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 624-7100

               - and -

          Joseph Levi, Esq.
          William Scott Holleman, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad St., 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500

               - and -

          Abe Shainberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ABE SHAINBERG
          132 East 43rd St., Suite 512
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 425-7286

                    Levi & Korsinsky Files Suit

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Tuesday disclosed that on October 4, 2010,
they filed a class action complaint on behalf of all current
stockholders of Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in connection with
Trubion's attempt to merge with Emergent BioSolutions Inc.  The
complaint charges Trubion and Trubion's board of directors with,
among other things, violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 14a-9.  In particular, the complaint alleges that
the defendants have issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the proposed transaction wherein Trubion
intends to merge with Emergent.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from Tuesday, October 5.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiffs' counsel,
Eduard Korsinsky, at Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, (212) 363-7500 or, or
via e-mail at ek@zlk.com.  If you are a member of this class, you
can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class
action online at http://www.zlk.com/ 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.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. AT THIS TIME YOU MAY DO NOTHING AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS
MEMBER. YOU MAY ALSO RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP is a national law firm that represents the
rights of shareholders and victims of corporate abuse.  It is
headquartered in New York City and have offices in Los Angeles,
California and New Jersey.  With over 50 years of combined
litigation experience, the members of L|K have been involved in
hundreds of class action lawsuits and have obtained multi-million
dollar recoveries.  L|K has been appointed lead counsel or has
played a major role on behalf of shareholders in a majority of the
merger-related lawsuits that have been filed on behalf of
shareholders throughout the country.  The firm has therefore
developed a specialization of knowledge in shareholder rights and
fiduciary duty law.


UNIQUE BABY: Recalls 12,000 Single & Twin Jogging Strollers
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Unique Baby Products USA LLC, of Brooklyn, N.Y, announced a
voluntary recall of about 12,000 Valco Baby Tri Mode Single and
Twin Jogging Strollers.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The opening between the grab bar and seat bottom of the stroller
can allow an infant's body to pass through and become entrapped at
the neck by the grab bar, posing a strangulation hazard to young
children when a child is not harnessed.  When using a stroller,
parents and caregivers are encouraged always to secure children by
using the safety harness and never to leave them unattended.  To
learn more about the importance of stroller safety, download
CPSC's safety alert: http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/5096.pdf/

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves the grab bar on Tri Mode Single and Twin
strollers.  "Valco Baby" is printed on the head rest and the
padding on the footboard.  The grab bar is optional and can be
removed from the stroller.  The stroller's model numbers are
located on a white sticker on the left hand side of brake bar.
The recalled strollers with the affected grab bars are listed in
the chart below.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11003.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Juvenile product stores and Web sites including
http://www.amazon.com/between November 2007 and March 2010 for
between $480 to $700.

Consumers should immediately remove the grab bar from the stroller
and contact Valco Baby to receive a free replacement grab bar.
For additional information, contact Valco Baby at (800) 610-7850
between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.valcobaby.com/or email at
recall@valcobaby.com


VERITAS SOFTWARE: 3rd Circuit Affirms Award of 30% for Legal Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed
a district court order awarding 30% of a settlement fund as
attorneys' fees to the attorneys representing a class in the case
In Re Veritas Software Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 08-3627.

The appellants Peter A. Spitalieri and 771 Freedom Street LP
purport to be members of a class which settled a securities fraud
class action lawsuit with the defendant Veritas Software Corp. The
appellants sought reversal of the District Court's approval of an
award of 30% of the settlement fund as attorneys' fees to the
attorneys representing the class.

On July 7, 2004, the plaintiffs commenced a class action
securities lawsuit against Veritas arising out of a press release
that allegedly contained misleading information regarding the
company's revenue and earnings for the second quarter of that
year.  On March 3, 2005, the District Court appointed the lead
plaintiffs, Tay Siew Choon and Mark Leonov, for the class and
approved their selection of class counsel.

In August 2006, the case was referred to mediation. After almost
two more years of mediation and negotiation, on April 8, 2008,
class counsel reached a settlement agreement in the amount of
$21.5 million with Veritas.

Pursuant to the instructions of the District Court, on July 24,
2008, class counsel formally filed a fee application seeking 30%
of the settlement fund.

On July 29, 2008, more than four weeks after the deadline for
filing any objection to the fee application, the appellants filed
their Objection.  Two days later, on July 31, the District Court
approved the settlement agreement and fee application.

With regard to the appellants' objection, the District Court
denied it as untimely, noting that the objection was filed well
after the deadline for filing such an objection, and that the
objection failed to address the substance or detail of the fee
application itself.  The District Court entered a final judgment
approving the settlement and fee on August 6, 2008. The appellants
filed a timely Notice of Appeal on August 22, 2008.

A copy of the Third Circuit's opinion is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20101004084


ZENITH INSURANCE: Dec. 9 Status Conference for PPO Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
the setting of a status conference is the first action since last
year in a St. Clair County class action suit against Zenith
Insurance Co. brought by plaintiff chiropractor Kathleen Roche.

In December Zenith filed a motion to dismiss the case involving
allegations that the insurer allegedly gave improper Preferred
Provider Organization (PPO) discounts.

The suit has been stalled since the settlement of a nearly
identical case in Madison County against defendant First Health
Insurance Co. Roche unsuccessfully tried to stop that settlement.

She is now appealing the First Health case at the appellate court
in Mount Vernon.

The status conference in the Zenith case is set for Dec. 9 before
St. Clair County Circuit Judge Patrick Young.

Both the Madison County and St. Clair County class actions center
on claims that the insurers operated "silent PPO" networks and
that they took improper discounts from claims submitted by Roche
and other healthcare providers.

The Madison County case was filed in 2004 by the former teams of
the Freed & Weiss Law Firm and Lakin Law Firm, now Lakin Chapman
LLC.

Its settlement was announced last year and eventually netted
$10,000 for lead plaintiff chiropractors Richard Coy and Lawrence
Shipley.

Their attorneys from LakinChapman, led by Robert Schmieder III,
netted more than $650,000 in fees.

The remainder of the settlement was to be paid for continuing
medical education to various non profits.

Roche, represented by Mr. Schmieder's former firm mate, Richard
Burke, filed an objection in April 2009 claiming the Madison
County settlement was unfair.

She claimed it would shelve a competing class action against First
Health that she had filed in St. Clair County.

Roche then filed the Zenith class action in St. Clair County last
year as well.

Mr. Schmieder and defense attorney Eric Brandfonbrener of Perkins
Coie pointed to the filing of the Zenith suit as proof that
Roche's attorneys did not believe in the merit of their previously
filed class actions and their arguments against the fairness of
the First Health settlement in Edwardsville.

Mr. Burke claimed that Mr. Brandfonbrener had colluded with Mr.
Schmieder and that the defense attorney had engaged in bad-faith
settlement negotiations with Burke in Belleville.

Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel approved the $1.25 million
over Roche's objection.

Zenith moved to dismiss the August 2009 class action against it,
claiming that it is the fourth time Roche has tried to sue it on
behalf of a class.

It claims it honored its agreements with Roche and that her claims
must be overseen by a regulatory body such as the Illinois
Industrial Commission.

The motion to dismiss remains pending.

The Zenith case is St. Clair case number 09-L-452.

The Madison County First Health class action is Madison case
number 04-L-1055.

The competing Roche First Health class action in St. Clair is case
number 07-L-224.


ZYMOGENETICS: Settles Class Action Suit Over Bristol Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seattle Times reports ZymoGenetics said it has settled purported
class-action lawsuits filed in King County Superior Court over its
agreement to be acquired by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

In a regulatory filing, the Seattle biotechnology company said it
had agreed to provide additional disclosures about the process of
reaching a deal with Bristol-Myers.  The companies also will pay
$625,000 in legal fees and expenses for the litigation.

The settlement must be approved by the court and is contingent on
the acquisition being completed.


* Class Action.org Reviews Claims Over Deceased Relatives Debts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consumer fraud lawyers working with Class Action.org are
available to review claims from surviving family members who have
been coerced into paying a deceased family member's debt.
Surviving relatives usually have no legal obligation to pay a
deceased relative's debt; however, a new trend has developed in
the debt collection industry in which creditors coerce or guilt
surviving family members into paying debts for which they are not
responsible. If you have been subjected to this practice by a debt
collector, visit http://www.classaction.org/debts-of-deceased-
relatives.html to receive a free evaluation of your case.

In general, when a person dies, their estate is responsible for
paying any debts.  If the money from the estate cannot fulfill the
outstanding debts, they would typically remain unpaid.  Most
surviving family members have no legal obligation to pay a
deceased relatives' debts, though there are certain exceptions
regarding outstanding spousal debts.  Still, even a spouse's
obligation to pay may be limited under state laws.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a federal law enforced by
the nation's consumer protection agency, prohibits debt collectors
from using deceptive practices and provides a certain amount of
protection to surviving relatives.  If a debt collector has
coerced you into paying a deceased relative's debt, he or she may
have violated federal debt collection law and you may be entitled
to financial damages as a result.  To find out if you can file a
lawsuit stemming from an illegal debt collection practice, visit
http://www.classaction.org/debts-of-deceased-relatives.htmland
complete the free case review form. The consumer fraud attorneys
working with Class Action.org are providing this initial
consultation at no cost and remain dedicated to protecting the
rights of consumers who have been subjected to illegal debt
collection practices.

                      About Class Action.org

Class Action.org -- http://www.classaction.org/-- is dedicated to
protecting consumers and investors in class actions and complex
litigation throughout the United States.  Class Action.org keeps
consumers informed about product alerts, recalls, and emerging
litigation and helps them take action against the manufacturers of
defective products, drugs, and medical devices.  Information about
consumer fraud issues and environmental hazards is also available
on the site.

                             *********

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  * * *