---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 13, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 202

                             Headlines

ALMOST HEAVEN: Accused of Fraud in Timberline Suit
ASPENBIO PHARMA: Faces Class Action Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ASPENBIO PHARMA: Faces "Wolfe" Suit in California
BECTON DICKINSON: Court Denies Approval of Settlement Agreement
BRAVO SPORTS: Recalls 160,000 Bravo Sports Trampolines

BURGER KING: Not Entitled to Indemnification, Franchisees Say
CALAMP CORP: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Pact
CAPITAL GOLD: D&Os Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
COGENT INC: Accused of Violating Securities Exchange Act
COUNTRYWIDE FIN'L: Oct. 18 Opt-Out Deadline Set for Class Suit

DEAN MORRIS: Plaintiffs in Fraud Suit to Press Claims
ENSIGN GROUP: Accused of Violating Health & Safety Code
FIRST AMERICAN: Faces Class Suit Over Loan Modification Fees
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Class in Wellbutrin Suit Denied Certification
GREEN MOUNTAIN: Recalls 200,000 Roman Shades

GREEN MOUNTAIN: Accused of Violating Federal Securities Law
JARDINE: Recalls 11,400 Alexander Designs Drop-Side Cribs
MEDIA WORLD: Class Suit Over Adams Platform Technology Settled
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Sued Over Defective Balance Shift Gears
NEW YORK: Housing Dept. Faces Class Suit Over Policing Tactics

OCCAM NETWORKS: Accused in Del. of Breaching Fiduciary Duties
POTASH CORP: Accused of Violating Securities Exchange Act
RAYTHEON COMPANY: Accused in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
SERVICE CORPORATION: Faces Class Suits Over Labor Violations
SEARS ROEBUCK: Sued in California Over Unpaid Rebates

SKILLED HEATHCARE: Dec. 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Court Denies Discovery Request in "Vagle" Suit
SODEXO INC: Accused in Florida Suit of Racial Discrimination
STAR GAS: Plaintiff Firms Hit with Sanctions in Junked Suit
TICKETMASTER: Web Site Launched to Attract Class Suit Plaintiffs

US: Tried to Twist Medicare Law to Get Monsanto Class Suit Share
YAHOO! INC: Accused of Violating Computer Privacy Law
ZURICH FINANCIAL: Settles Class Action Suit Over Management Fees

                             *********

ALMOST HEAVEN: Accused of Fraud in Timberline Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports a
Charleston attorney is suing two individuals and a real estate
corporation after he claims they engaged in fraud.

Charleston lawyer James Barber alleges $930 he paid for three
nights in Canaan Valley vanished, and he proposes a class action
for all who share his fate.

Pat J. Herlan; WV Real Estate Broker Inc., a corporation doing
business as Almost Heaven WV Realty; its vice president and
treasurer, Murray G. Dearborn; and the Estate of Pat J. Herlan,
who was the incorporator, president and secretary of the
corporation, were named as defendants in the suit.

In January, Mr. Barber says he entered into an agreement with
Almost Heaven WV Realty for the rental use of a property located
at Timberline Resort in Tucker County for Jan. 27 to Jan. 30,
2011, according to a complaint filed Sept. 23 in Tucker Circuit
Court.

"Defendants have stolen or otherwise misappropriated the
plaintiff's deposit," Mr. Barber wrote.

Mr. Barber claims the defendants were acting as
brokers/realtors/property managers for the owners of the rental
properties throughout the Canaan Valley area.  He claims he
secured his rental reservation with a deposit in the amount of
$930, paid by his credit card.

In July, Mr. Barber was contacted by the owner of the rental
property and advised that Ms. Herlan's broker's license had been
revoked, that Almost Heaven Realty had closed and that he should
request a refund of the deposit, according to the suit.

Mr. Barber claims he requested a refund of the entire deposit, but
did not get a reply to his request.  He claims the defendants have
breached their agreement and have stolen his deposit money.

The defendants engaged in a plan to commit fraud upon potential
renters and convert or otherwise misappropriate rental deposits
for their own use, according to the suit.

Mr. Barber claims the defendants' actions "were done intentionally
and maliciously and with fraudulent intent."

Mr. Barber is seeking compensatory and punitive damages in the
amount of $250,000.  He is bringing his action as a class action
against the defendants on behalf of all others who paid rental
deposits to Almost Heaven WV Realty.  He is representing himself.

Mr. Barber proposed to certify a class of all persons who paid
deposits to Almost Heaven on rental properties in the Timberline
or Canaan Valley areas.

"Upon information and belief, there are dozens of members of the
class whose identities can be ascertained from the records and
files of the defendants and from other sources," he wrote.  "The
certification of a class would allow litigation of claims that, in
view of the expense of the litigation, may be insufficient to
support separate claims."

The class period would commence on Dec. 1, 2009, he wrote.

The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Phil Jordan.

Tucker Circuit Court case number: 10-C-51


ASPENBIO PHARMA: Faces Class Action Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Denver, Colorado law firm of Dyer & Berens LLP Wednesday
disclosed that a class action securities fraud lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of purchasers of AspenBio Pharma, Inc. common
stock during the period between February 22, 2007 and July 19,
2010 (the "Class Period").  AspenBio Pharma, Inc. is a small
Colorado bio-pharmaceutical company focusing on the discovery,
development, manufacture, and marketing of products.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must seek such an
appointment with the court no later than November 30, 2010.  A
"lead plaintiff" directs the litigation and participates in
important decisions including whether to accept a settlement offer
and how much of a settlement to accept for the class in the
action.  The lead plaintiff here will be selected from among
applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in the
company during the Class Period.  Any member of the putative class
may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.

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

Dyer & Berens LLP has significant expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions.  The firm's extensive experience in
securities litigation, particularly in cases brought under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, has contributed to the
recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
investors.  For more information about the firm, please go to
http://www.DyerBerens.com/

Contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens
          DYER & BERENS LLP
          303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (888) 300-3362 x302 or
                     (303) 861-1764
          Email: Email Contact
          http://www.DyerBerens.com/


ASPENBIO PHARMA: Faces "Wolfe" Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------
AspenBio Pharma, Inc., on Oct. 1, 2010, received a complaint,
captioned John Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AspenBio Pharma, Inc. et al., Case No.
10-cv-7365, according to the company's Oct. 6, 2010, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The federal securities class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court in the Central District of California on behalf of all
persons, other than the defendants, who purchased common stock of
AspenBio Pharma, Inc. during the period between Feb. 22, 2007 and
July 19, 2010, inclusive.

The defendants purport to include certain officers and directors
of the Company during such period.  The complaint includes
allegations of violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against all
defendants, and of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants related to the Company's blood based
appendicitis test in development known as AppyScore.  The company
and the individual defendants are evaluating the complaint.

AspenBio Pharma, Inc. -- http://www.aspenbiopharma.com/-- is
developing AppyScore, a novel, blood-based diagnostic test to
assist in the difficult challenge of diagnosing appendicitis.


BECTON DICKINSON: Court Denies Approval of Settlement Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has issued
an order denying a motion to approve the settlement agreement in
the matter In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation,
according to Becton, Dickinson and Co.'s Oct. 6, 2010, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The company is named as a defendant in these purported class
action suits brought on behalf of direct purchasers of the
company's products, such as distributors, alleging that the
company violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging
of higher prices for the company's products to the plaintiff and
other purported class members.

The suits are:

     (1) Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc., et al. vs.
         Becton Dickinson and Company (filed in the U.S.
         District Court, Newark, New Jersey, on March 25, 2005);

     (2) SAJ Distributors, Inc. et al. vs. Becton Dickinson &
         Co. (filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District
         of Pennsylvania on Sept. 6, 2005);

     (3) Dik Drug Company, et al. vs. Becton, Dickinson and
         Company (filed in the U.S. District Court, Newark, New
         Jersey, Sept. 12, 2005);

     (4) American Sales Company, Inc. et al. vs. Becton,
         Dickinson & Co. (filed in the U.S. District Court,
         Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 3, 2005); and

     (5) Park Surgical Co. Inc. et al. vs. Becton, Dickinson
         and Company (filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern
         District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 26, 2005).

The actions have been consolidated under the caption In re
Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation.

On April 27, 2009, the company entered into a settlement agreement
with the direct purchaser plaintiffs in these actions.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, which is subject to
preliminary and final approval by the court following notice to
potential class members, the company will pay $45,000,000 into a
settlement fund in exchange for a release by all potential class
members of the direct purchaser claims related to the products and
acts enumerated in the Complaint, as well as a dismissal of the
case with prejudice.  The release would not cover potential class
members that affirmatively opt out of the settlement.

On May 7, 2009, certain indirect purchaser plaintiffs in the
litigation, who are not parties to the settlement, filed a motion
with the court seeking to enjoin the consummation of the
settlement agreement on the grounds that, among other things, the
court had not yet ruled on the issue of which plaintiffs have
direct purchaser standing.

On Sept. 30, 2010, the court issued an order denying a motion to
approve the settlement agreement, ruling that the hospital
plaintiffs, and not the distributor plaintiffs, are the direct
purchasers entitled to pursue damages under the federal antitrust
laws for certain sales of the company's products.

The settlement agreement currently remains in effect, subject to
certain termination provisions, and the court's order may be
subject to appellate review.  Accordingly, the company is not
adjusting the provision it recognized for the settlement agreement
in the second quarter of fiscal year 2009.

Becton, Dickinson and Company -- http://www.bd.com/-- is a
medical technology company engaged in the manufacture and sale of
a range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment and
diagnostic products used by healthcare institutions, life science
researchers, clinical laboratories, industry and the general
public.  The segments in which the company operates include BD
Medical, BD Diagnostics and BD Biosciences.


BRAVO SPORTS: Recalls 160,000 Bravo Sports Trampolines
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bravo Sports, of Santa Fe Springs, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 160,000 Bravo Sports Trampolines.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

Incorrectly assembled trampolines can allow the top rails and legs
to bend or break during normal use, resulting in partial collapse
of the trampoline. This poses a fall hazard to consumers.

Bravo has received 247 reports of top rails bending or breaking
during normal use.  Four injuries have been reported due to the
bending and breaking of trampolines.

This recall involves AirZone and Variflex trampolines with model
numbers 137083 (with wheels), 137536, 137683, 138088, 138467,
138472, 138489, 139275, 139283, 139284, 139300 and 139706.  The
model number is found on the safety label sewn to the pad cover.
The units are 12', 13' and 14' and come in blue, yellow and red.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11006.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
sporting goods and mass market retail stores nationwide and on the
Internet from January 2007 through September 2010 for between $200
and $400.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled trampolines.
Consumers should contact Bravo Sports for instructions on how to
inspect the trampoline for top rail damage and to request revised
assembly instructions.  Top rails and legs damaged due to assembly
errors will be replaced at no charge by Bravo Sports.  For
additional information, contact Bravo Sports at toll-free (877)-
500-2459 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.airzonevariflex-recall.com/


BURGER KING: Not Entitled to Indemnification, Franchisees Say
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that more than 50
Burger King franchisees say corporate headquarters can't force
them to pay the $5 million the company agreed to pay a class of
disabled customers who claimed 10 Burger King restaurants in
California were not wheelchair or scooter-accessible.  The
franchisees say they had no part in the alleged wrongdoing, and
the corporate demand for roughly $35,000 per outlet violates their
franchise agreements.

After the class settlement was reached, Burger King sent a letter
to each franchisee, demanding "that plaintiffs 'acknowledge their
responsibility' for their restaurants," and repay Burger King
"approximately $34,000 to $36,000 for each restaurant," according
to the complaint.  Burger King also demanded reimbursement of $2.5
million in attorneys' fees.

The franchisees say Burger King can't have it its way, and cannot
demand that "franchisees whose restaurants were never visited by
class plaintiffs" pay the corporation's $7.5 million bill for
class damages and attorneys fees.

"Despite BKC's repeated demands and mischaracterization of the
parties' obligations, plaintiffs have never acceded to BKC's
interpretation of the parties' agreement.  Plaintiffs deny and
dispute that BKC is entitled to indemnification for any costs
incurred in connection with the Castaneda [class action] suit
pursuant to the franchise agreements."

Citing paragraph 13.C of the franchise agreement, the franchisees
say, "Based on this provision, franchisees are not required to
indemnify BKC in the event of BKC's negligence, which was the
essence of the claims in the Castaneda suit."

The franchisees ask the court to find that the corporation was
responsible for the claims in the class action, and the
corporation is not entitled to indemnification from its
franchisees.  They also want the corporation enjoined from
retaliating.

A copy of the Complaint for Declaratory Relief in Newport, et al.
v. Burger King Corporation, Case No. 10-cv-04511 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/07/BurgerKing.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard J. Stratton, Esq.
          Kurt A. Franklin, Esq.
          Megan Oliver Thompson, Esq.
          HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
          425 Market St., 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-3200
          E-mail: rstratton@hansonbridgett.com
                  kfranklin@hansonbridgett.com
                  moliverthompson@hansonbridgett.com


CALAMP CORP: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Pact
----------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court gave its final approval to
the settlement agreement resolving a class action against CalAmp
Corp., according to the company's Oct. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Aug. 28, 2010.

In November 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court against CalAmp, the former owner of
CalAmp's Aercept business and one of Aercept's distributors.

The lawsuit alleged that Aercept made misrepresentations when the
plaintiffs purchased analog vehicle tracking devices in 2005,
which was prior to CalAmp's acquisition of Aercept in an asset
purchase.

In April 2010, the parties entered into a settlement agreement on
terms and conditions that did not have a material impact on
CalAmp's financial condition or results of operations.  The
settlement agreement received the preliminary approval of the
Court on April 19, 2010, and is subject to final Court approval.

On August 4, 2010, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement.

CalAmp Corp. -- http://www.calamp.com/-- provides wireless
communications solutions that enable anytime/anywhere access.  The
company has two segments: Wireless DataCom Division and Satellite
Division.  CalAmp's Wireless DataCom Division services the public
safety, industrial monitoring and controls, and mobile resource
management market segments with wireless solutions built on
communications technology platforms that include licensed
narrowband, unlicensed broadband and cellular networks.  CalAmp's
Satellite Division supplies outdoor customer premise equipment to
the United States Direct Broadcast Satellite market.


CAPITAL GOLD: D&Os Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------
W. Jeffrey Kramer, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Capital Gold Corporation, et al., Case No. 651678/2010
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. October 6, 2010), charges certain of
the directors and officers of the gold production and exploration
company with self dealing and breach of their fiduciary duties
owed to the Company's public shareholders in connection with their
agreement to sell the Company to Gammon Gold Inc., a Canadian
mid-tier gold and silver producer that operates in Mexico, via an
unfair process and for unfair consideration.  Under the terms of
the proposed acquisition, each Capital Gold shareholder will
receive 0.5209 common shares of Gammon Gold and $0.79 in cash for
each share of Capital Gold they own.  The consideration, the
Complaint alleges, has an implied value of just $4.44 based on
Gammon Gold's stock price on September 30, 2010, the day before
the proposed acquisition was announced.  The proposed
consideration, the Complaint says, is too low given the inherent
value of the Company, the fact that the Company has shown a profit
in each reported fiscal year since it began producing revenue from
its mines, the roughly 40% increase in the Company's stock price
for year 2010 to date, and analysts' high valuations for the
Company.

In contrast, Gammon Gold has over the past four fiscal years,
reported an annual profit only once, has lost over $110 million in
total, and from 2010 to date, its stock price has plummeted by
over 37%, notwithstanding the price of gold reaching an all time
high.  The terms of the proposed acquisition calls for over 80% of
the consideration to be paid in Gammon Gold stock.

The transaction is expected to close in late 2010.  Following the
completion of the transaction, it is anticipated that current
Capital Gold shareholders will own roughly 20% of Gammon Gold on a
fully diluted basis.

The Board, the Complaint states, failed to conduct an auction for
the Company, even though it had known that other parties were
interested to acquire the Company.  At least one other offer has
been made for the Company.  On September 27, 2010, Timmins Gold
Corp. announced that it made an offer to acquire Capital Gold in a
stock for stock transaction.  Under the proposal, shareholders of
Capital Gold would exchange each Company share for Timmins Gold
stock worth C$4.50, under which Capital Gold shareholders would
own about 47% of the combined company.  Gammon Gold's offer for
the Company for stock and cash worth roughly $4.44 per share as of
said date is only $0.02 more per share than Timmins Gold's offer,
the Complaint further states.

The Complaint also brings charges against Capital Gold and Gammon
Gold for aiding and abetting the individual defendants' breaches
of their fiduciary duties, adding that Capital Gold and Gammon
Gold were active and knowing participants in the individual
defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties.

The individual defendants and their respective positions in the
Company are:

     1) Colin P. Sutherland, President and director
     2) Scott Hazlitt, COO and director
     3) Christopher M. Chipman, CFO and Board Secretary
     4) Stephen M. Cooper, Board Chairman and director
     5) John W. Cutler, director
     6) Gary C. Huber, director

Mr. Sutherland was a director of Gammon Gold from 2004 to 2007,
and only recently obtained his position as president of the
Company, following the Company's August 2, 2010 closing of the
acquisition of Nayarit Gold Inc., of which he was the CEO as of
the closing of the Nayarit Gold acquisition.

Mr. Kramer's Complaint alleges that the individual defendants,
instead of maximizing value for all Capital Gold shareholders,
have agreed to sell the Company for too low a consideration, in
exchange for valuable change-in-control agreements or prestigious
positions with Gammon Gold post-closing, personal benefits which
are not equally shared by plaintiff and the other class members.
Mr. Sutherland, the Complaint says, will receive over $900,000 in
change-in-control payouts and defendants Hazlitt and Chipman will
each receive change-in-control payouts in excess of $1 million.

In addition, in order to ensure that the proposed acquisition
pushes through, the Complaint alleges that individual defendants
have agreed to preclusive provisions intended to lock up the
proposed acquisition in favor of Gammon Gold, at the expense of
the Company's public shareholders, including:

     1) a no-shop provision preventing them from soliciting
        other superior proposals from other parties.

     2) granting Gammon Gold the right to match any superior
        proposal that the Company may receive;

     3) an unreasonably high termination fee of $10.3 million
        if the Company accepted a superior proposal, equivalent
        to over 3.6% of the proposed acquisition's value.

Plaintiff asks the Court for an order preventing consummation of
the proposed acquisition and to the extent already implemented,
rescinding the merger agreement or any of its unfair and
preclusive terms.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas G. Amon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS G. AMON
          250 West 57th Street, Suite 1316
          New York, NY 10107
          Telephone: (212) 810-2430

               - and -

          Marc M. Umeda, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Alejandro E. Moreno, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B. Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990


COGENT INC: Accused of Violating Securities Exchange Act
--------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein Thompson LLP Thursday disclosed that a class action
has been commenced on behalf of a shareholder in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
current holders of Cogent, Inc. common stock.

The complaint charges Cogent and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Delaware common law arising out of their attempt to sell the
Company to 3M (the "Proposed Transaction").  Cogent is a provider
of automated fingerprint identification systems (AFIS) and other
fingerprint biometrics solutions to governments, law enforcement
agencies and other organizations worldwide.

The complaint alleges the following: (i) under the terms of the
Proposed Transaction, Cogent shareholders will receive the
inadequate consideration of $10.50 per share; (ii) Proposed
Transaction is an opportunity for Cogent's President, CEO and
Chairman Ming Hsieh to cash in on his significant holdings in the
Company at the expense of the common shareholders; (iii) the
process undertaken by the Cogent Board of Directors was woefully
insufficient in the months immediately preceding the announcement
of the Proposed Transaction; (iv) the Proposed Transaction
includes preclusive deal protection provisions that serve no
purpose other than to insulate the deal from potential competing
bids; and (v) Defendants have failed to disclose numerous material
facts concerning the Proposed Transaction in the recommendation
statement on Schedule 14D-9 (the "14D-9") with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 10, 2010.  As a result of this
conduct, Cogent's shareholders will be permanently and irreparably
harmed if the Proposed Transaction is consummated.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages on behalf of all
current holders of Cogent common stock.  The plaintiff is
represented by FT which has expertise in prosecuting investor
class actions and extensive experience in merger litigation.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from Thursday, Oct. 7.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact please contact Finkelstein Thompson's
Washington, DC offices at (877) 337-1050 or by e-mail at
contact@finkelsteinthompson.com

Finkelstein Thompson LLP has spent over three decades delivering
outstanding representation to institutional and individual clients
in financial litigation, and has been appointed as lead or co-lead
counsel in dozens of shareholder class actions.  Indeed, the firm
has served in leadership roles in cases that have recovered over
$1 billion for investors and consumers.

To learn more about Finkelstein Thompson LLP, please visit our web
site at http://www.finkelsteinthompson.com/ Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

SOURCE: Finkelstein Thompson LLP
        Donald J. Enright, Esq.
        202-337-8000


COUNTRYWIDE FIN'L: Oct. 18 Opt-Out Deadline Set for Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA makes an
announcement to all Countrywide Financial Investors who are
prospective class members of class action lawsuit, Case No.
07-CV-05295, filed on November 28, 2007 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, which resulted in a court
order to consolidate all class action claims against the named
parties.  The named Defendants include Countrywide Financial
executives and board members, KPMG and major Wall Street
Underwriters.  The Underwriter Defendants of the securities issued
who were named parties include; Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.,
Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., UBS Securities, LLC, Goldman Sachs &
Co., Banc of America Securities, LLC and J.P. Morgan Securities
Inc.  The class period for Countrywide Financial securities
covered under the settlement agreement is from March 14, 2004
through March 7, 2008.  The securities covered by the settlement
agreement include Countrywide Financial common stock, Countrywide
Capital V 7% Capital Securities, 6.25% Subordinated Notes due
5/14/16, exchange traded call and put options, and certain Medium-
Term Notes.  The Countrywide Financial settlement agreement
provides for the establishment of a $624 million settlement fund
to be distributed to class members to be paid in exchange for
settlement and dismissal of the claims against the Defendant
parties.  According to the Court Notice, "If you do not exclude
yourself, you will not be entitled to receive any recovery in any
other action against any of the Released Parties based on or
arising out of the Settled Claims."  Prospective class members
should consider whether they should "opt-out" of the Countrywide
Financial class action lawsuit and file an individual securities
arbitration claim with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
as a more effective method to recover a greater percentage of
their investment losses.

Many investors were advised by their financial advisors that an
investment in Countrywide Financial was suitable for their
investment objectives.  In many instances, investment
recommendations to buy or hold were based on broker research
analyst reports.  Brokerage firms are obligated to give, and
investors are entitled to rely upon, brokerage firms for
competent, suitable investment advice in accordance with FINRA
Sales Practice Rules and Regulations.  FINRA is a self regulating
organization with sales practice rules and regulations that govern
the securities industry's conduct and safeguard the investing
public.  Recommendations of unsuitable investments and/or
maintaining unprotected concentrated stock positions are both
causes of action that may be available to investors against their
full-service brokerage firm in an individual securities
arbitration claim filed with FINRA.  In this settlement, investors
must "opt-out" as a class member in order to pursue a securities
arbitration claim, otherwise this legal option is not available.

The Securities Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA is a
nationally recognized, Martindale Hubbell "AV" rated securities
law firm.  To request a confidential consultation from a TGN
attorney to determine whether you have a viable individual
securities arbitration claim for investment losses that exceed
$250,000 from a full service brokerage account, contact us on our
Web site.  To speak directly with an attorney, call (800) 578-0137
and ask for Ben Fernandez, Esquire.


DEAN MORRIS: Plaintiffs in Fraud Suit to Press Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports borrowers
who pursued a class action against Dean Morris law firm, banks,
and mortgage service companies under state fraud and conversion
laws for five years now propose to press their claims under
federal law.

On Sept. 9, Jennifer Willis of New Orleans asked U.S. District
Judge Stanwood Duval for leave to assert claims under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

In the meantime, Bank One, Chase Home Finance, and Dean Morris,
await rulings on summary judgment motions that would put to rest
all claims under state law.

"Plaintiffs were aware of any federal claims back in 2005, but
disclaimed these claims," Shannon Holtzman of New Orleans wrote
for the banks on Sept. 21.

"They should not now, at this late stage in the litigation, be
allowed to proceed on different theories," she wrote.

Edward Trapolin of New Orleans wrote for Dean Morris that
"plaintiffs should not now be allowed to derail this litigation to
assert additional meritless claims."

"Plaintiffs have not alleged a single fact that would support
their alleged Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim against a
single defendant," he wrote.

Pending motions for summary judgment argue that plaintiffs either
don't have evidence for their claims or the claims are barred, he
wrote.

"The addition of alternative legal theories or claims will not
create evidence that does not exist or breathe life into
nonexistent or barred claims," he wrote.

Plaintiffs started the suit in Orleans Parish, claiming Dean
Morris, banks and service companies cheated borrowers in
foreclosures and reinstatements.

Defendants removed it to federal court after the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation placed defendant Washington Mutual Bank in
receivership.

FDIC departed from the case, but that didn't bounce it back to
Orleans Parish.

This summer, Dean Morris, Chase Home Finance and Bank One
submitted to Duval separate summary judgment motions against each
plaintiff.

Defendants denied that any borrower suffered damages, and claimed
that one reaped a windfall through reinstatement.

Judge Duval set hearings on the motions for Oct. 13 and Oct. 27.

Ms. Willis then moved to amend the complaint, and set the motion
for Oct. 13.

She claimed Dean Morris violated federal law by making false,
misleading or deceptive misrepresentations in connection with
collection of a debt.

She claimed the firm collected amounts not authorized by agreement
or statute.

She held the lenders vicariously liable for the firm's violations.

Ms. Holtzman answered for the banks that federal law contains no
provision imposing vicarious liability on third parties for
actions of debt collectors.

Mr. Trapolin answered for Dean Morris that, "The entire case,
pending for over five years, could be resolved in short order."

"Now, plaintiffs want to start the process over," he wrote.  "This
is unfair, prejudicial, and unwarranted."

On Oct. 1, Ms. Willis replied that "plaintiffs stated a cause of
action against the lenders for agency for the actions of Dean
Morris."

"The attorney-client relationship and the tight rein under which
Dean Morris operated strongly support that the lender defendants
are vicariously liable for Dean Morris's actions on their behalf,"
Willis wrote.

For the moment, defendants Banker's Trust of California,
Countrywide Home Loans, Sun Finance, Flagstar Bank, Deutsch
Financial Services, Continental Casualty, Mortgage Electronic
Registration Services, and Ocwen Loan Servicing watch from the
sidelines.


ENSIGN GROUP: Accused of Violating Health & Safety Code
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ensign Group violates laws
and regulations at 27 "skilled nursing facilities" in California,
a class action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Montreuil v. Ensign Group, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-07457 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/07/NursingHomes

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
          Devon M. Lyon, Esq.
          Caleb LH Marker, Esq.
          RIDOUT & LYON, LLP
          555 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 500
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 216-7380
          E-mail: c.ridout@ridoutlyonlaw.com
                  d.lyon@ridoutlyonlaw.com
                  c.market@ridoutlyonlaw.com

               - and -

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348-6400


FIRST AMERICAN: Faces Class Suit Over Loan Modification Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Krause, Kalfayan, Benink & Slavens, LLP filed a class action
lawsuit on September 29, 2010 in San Diego Superior Court on
behalf of a nationwide class of consumers against First American
Law Center, Inc. ("FALC") of Oceanside, California and San Diego
attorney Dean G. Chandler.

The lawsuit, brought by couples from Glen Ridge, N.J. and
Bakersfield, CA, alleges that FALC and its founder, Chandler,
charge consumers upfront fees in connection with loan modification
services before the loan modification services are completed.  The
lawsuit states that the practice violates a year-old law,
California Civil Code Section 2944.7.

The California legislature enacted Section 2944.7, effective
October 11, 2009, in response to increasing consumer complaints
about loan modification scams.  Section 2944.7 prohibits persons
offering to perform a mortgage loan modification from charging any
compensation until after the person has fully performed each and
every service to which the person agreed.

FALC did not obtain a modification of either couple's loan and
neither couple received a refund from FALC despite their requests.

The lawsuit seeks to recover at least $2 million in loan
modification fees for the class.

About Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, LLP.:  KKBS is a boutique
law firm located in San Diego, CA representing consumers,
shareholders, and businesses in individual and class action
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning the lawsuit or rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact attorneys for plaintiff,  Eric J.
Benink at Krause, Kalfayan, Benink & Slavens, LLP, 625 Broadway,
Suite 635, San Diego, CA 92101, Tel: (619) 232-0331, email:
eric@kkbs-law.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Class in Wellbutrin Suit Denied Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon P. Duffy, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports in
a significant win for big pharmaceutical firms, a federal judge
has refused to certify a consumer and indirect purchaser antitrust
class action against GlaxoSmithKline on the grounds that the
plaintiffs cannot prove each class member was affected by the
alleged scheme to maintain higher prices.

The plaintiffs allege that GSK set out to delay the market date
for a generic version of Wellbutrin SR, the sustained-release form
of its popular antidepressant, by using "sham" patent litigation
to tie up the generic manufacturers in court and proceedings
before the patent board.

A class of direct purchasers -- mostly drug wholesalers -- was
previously certified to pursue identical claims against GSK.

But U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel has now refused to
certify a class of indirect purchasers consisting of potentially
hundreds of thousands of individual consumers and more than 20,000
third-party payors such as HMOs, health benefit plans and health
insurers.

The plaintiffs, Judge Stengel found, had failed to show that each
class member suffered "antitrust injury" and, even if they could,
had failed to show that "common proof" could be used to establish
their damages.

"The plaintiffs must demonstrate they can use common proof to show
that prices were supra-competitive for each end-payor purchaser of
branded Wellbutrin SR.  They have not done this," Judge Stengel
wrote in his 74-page opinion in Sheet Metal Workers Local 441
Health & Welfare Plan v. GlaxoSmithKline.

Lead plaintiffs attorney Joseph H. Meltzer of Barroway Topaz
Kessler Meltzer & Check in Radnor, Pa., could not be reached for
comment.

For GSK, the ruling could prove to be immediately valuable because
it is currently defending against two other proposed classes of
indirect purchasers -- one brought by buyers of the asthma drug
Flonase, and another by buyers of Wellbutrin XL.

Judge Stengel's ruling is sure to be cited by other big pharma
firms, too, because his analysis points to difficulties that would
exist in any consumer class action that hinges on the price of
prescription drugs, and, specifically, the theory that consumers
suffer when generic drugs are delayed in coming to market.

Notably, Judge Stengel found that the plaintiffs failed to address
issues such as "brand loyalty," a phenomenon in which some
consumers continue to buy a brand-name product despite generic
alternatives.

At the certification stage, Judge Stengel said, one of the court's
tasks is to determine whether the proof for the plaintiffs' claims
would require evidence individual to class members.

"I cannot fathom, and the plaintiffs have not put forth, a method
for identifying which individual purchasers would remain brand
loyal through analysis of common information," Judge Stengel
wrote.

Judge Stengel said he was inclined to agree with GSK's expert
witness, economist John Bigelow of the Princeton Economics Group,
who testified that "identifying the brand loyal subset would
require an inquiry into individual circumstances and even
attitudes toward generic versus branded drug purchases."

The plaintiffs' case suffered from more fatal flaws that stemmed
from an inability to show damages to each class member, Judge
Stengel found, either because of insurance practices or the
possibility that any price increase may have been "absorbed" by
the drug wholesalers.

"The impact of variable insurance plans affects whether many of
the consumer plaintiffs suffered an injury," Judge Stengel wrote.

"There are presumably significant numbers of third-party payors
and consumer plaintiffs, who, as a result of their applicable co-
payment and co-insurance structures, did not suffer any out-of-
pocket losses," Judge Stengel wrote.

"If some direct purchasers absorbed any GSK price increase, there
would be no pass through injury to certain indirect purchasers.
If only some end-payors paid increased prices, this would suggest
the plaintiffs will have to prove economic impact customer-by-
customer," Judge Stengel said.

Judge Stengel was sharply critical of the plaintiffs' expert,
Harvard University economics professor Meredith Rosenthal.

After conducting a "rigorous analysis" of Ms. Rosenthal's reports
and testimony, Judge Stengel said it "reveals it does not show
that all class members paid supra-competitive prices for generic
or branded sustained release bupropion, or that this determination
can be made with common proof."

Instead, Judge Stengel said, the defense expert, Mr. Bigelow,
"discredits the plaintiffs by providing evidence there are at
least three subsets of uninjured end-payors included in their
class definition."

In his report, Mr. Bigelow identified three subsets of consumers
in the proposed class who, he argued, would not be injured because
of the nature of their respective insurance plans: consumers who
first purchased bupropion SR in generic form and who do not pay
any co-insurance; generic switchers who pay the same co-payment
and no co-insurance for both generic and branded drugs; and brand
loyalists who pay the same co-payment and no co-insurance whether
or not a generic version is available.

Judge Stengel found that the existence of those groups made it
impossible to certify the class.

"Not only do I believe these uninjured groups would be substantial
in size, but the plaintiffs did not show they can address this
inquiry with common proof," Judge Stengel wrote.

GSK is represented by a defense team led by Arthur Makadon of
Ballard Spahr in Philadelphia and Amy R. Mudge of Arnold & Porter
in Washington, D.C. Makadon declined to be interviewed about the
ruling.


GREEN MOUNTAIN: Recalls 200,000 Roman Shades
--------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Green Mountain Vista, Inc. of Williston, Vt., announced a
voluntary recall of about 200,000 Roman shades.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

Strangulations can occur when a child places his/her neck between
the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the backside of the shade
or when a child pulls the cord out and wraps it around his/her
neck.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves all Green Mountain Vista Roman shades. These
shades have a small sewn-on label on the back side of the shade
with RN#107875.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11007.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Specialty home textile retail shops and mail order companies
nationwide from September 2004 through August 2010 for between $40
and $120.

Consumers should immediately stop using the Roman shades and
contact the Window Covering Safety Council (WCSC) for a free
repair kit at (800) 506-4636 anytime or visit
http://www.windowcoverings.org. For additional information,
contact Green Mountain Vista at (800) 639-1728 between 9:00 a.m.
and 3:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.gmvista.com/


GREEN MOUNTAIN: Accused of Violating Federal Securities Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of Vermont on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased the securities of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc.
between July 28, 2010 and September 28, 2010, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or
Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our Web site at
http://www.glancylaw.com/

The Complaint charges Green Mountain and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Green Mountain operates in the specialty coffee industry in the
United States and internationally.  The Company sells whole bean
and ground coffee selections, cocoa, teas and coffees in K-Cup
portion packs, and also manufactures and markets gourmet single-
cup brewing systems under the Keurig brand name.  The Complaint
alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning the
Company's business, operations and prospects were materially false
and misleading.  Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Green
Mountain was improperly recognizing revenue; (2) that the Company
was using an incorrect gross margin percentage to eliminate the
inter-company markup for certain products at its Keurig business,
which was decreasing cost of sales; (3) that, as a result, Green
Mountain's financial results were overstated; (4) that the
Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (5) that Green
Mountain lacked adequate internal and financial controls; (6)
that, as a result of the above, Green Mountain's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times; and (7), as a result of the foregoing, that the defendants
lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the
Company, its business, operations and prospects.

On September 28, 2010, Green Mountain disclosed that the U. S.
Securities and Exchange Commission was conducting an inquiry
related to certain of the Company's revenue recognition practices
and that the Company had been using an incorrect gross margin
percentage to eliminate the inter-company markup in its K-Cup
inventory balance residing at its Keurig business unit, which had
resulted in a lower margin applied to the Keurig ending inventory
balance effectively overstating consolidated inventory and
understating cost of sales.

As a result of this news, in after-hours trading on September 28,
2010, Green Mountain's stock price declined $5.09 per share, or
13.75%, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with
significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than November 29, 2010, to serve as lead
plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements.  If
you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll
Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our Web site at http://www.glancylaw.com/

SOURCE: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP

          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Los Angeles, CA
          Lionel Z. Glancy
          Michael Goldberg
          Telephone: 310-201-9150 or
                     888-773-9224
          E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com


JARDINE: Recalls 11,400 Alexander Designs Drop-Side Cribs
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Jardine Enterprises Ltd., of Taipei, Taiwan, announced a voluntary
recall of about 11,400 Alexander Designs Ltd. brand drop-side
cribs.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.

The drop-side rail hardware on the cribs can break or fail,
allowing the drop side to detach from the crib.  When the drop
side detaches, a hazardous gap is created between the drop-side
rail and the crib mattress in which infants and toddlers can
become wedged or entrapped, posing risks of suffocation and
strangulation.  In addition, children can fall out of the crib
when the drop-side rail falls unexpectedly or detaches from the
crib.  Drop-side rail failures also can occur due to incorrect
assembly or with age-related wear and tear. Other models of
Jardine drop-side cribs were recalled for repair on June 24, 2010.

CPSC has received two reports of incidents involving drop-side
malfunctions on Alexander Designs drop-side cribs.  In one
incident, which involved a crib that had been misassembled, the
plastic hardware broke and the drop-side rail fell unexpectedly.
In a second incident, a hardware failure caused the drop-side rail
to detach from the crib.  No injuries were reported.

This recall involves full-size cribs sold under the Alexander
Designs brand name.  "Alexander Designs Ltd." and the JCPenney
catalog/item number are printed on a label on the crib's
headboard.  These models are included:

   Model Name              JCPenney Item Number(s)    Color
   ---------               ----------------------     ------
   Alexander 3-in-1 Crib         343-8359            honey pine

                                 343-8359              white

   Alexander Classic Crib        343-8180              cherry

                                 343-8180            honey pine

                                 343-8180               white

   Alexander Sleigh Crib         343-8802               cherry

                                 343-8802                white
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11005.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
JCPenney printed catalogs and online at JCPenney.com from March
2003 through April 2007 for about $200.

Consumers should immediately stop using the cribs and obtain a
free repair kit that will immobilize the drop-side rail.  In the
meantime, parents are urged to find an alternate, safe sleeping
environment for the child, such as a bassinet, play yard or
toddler bed depending on the child's age.  For additional
information, contact Jardine at (800) 295-1980 anytime or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.jdservice.biz/jcp-safety-notice


MEDIA WORLD: Class Suit Over Adams Platform Technology Settled
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leonie Wood, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports in the
tech-boom days of 10 years ago, when big-world promises about
digital technology captured the imagination of an easily
captivated sharemarket, Adam Clark was somewhat of a wunderkind.

As he and his backers pitched the story back then, Mr. Clark had
invented a data compression technology to challenge the best nerds
of Silicon Valley, a system that could stream full-screen video
via a simple phone line and do so at much faster rates than other
technologies.

Investors soaked up the spiel, and in 2004 the exclusive license
to the Adams Platform Technology was bought by Media World
Communications, which envisioned a fantastic future as a listed
technology giant.

Pity it was all hocus-pocus.  Not only was the technology not
superior to others and not fast, but it was found to be a melange
of existing software programs that were already on the market.
Media World immediately sank into administration.

Mr. Clark probably said it all in December 2004, when he
introduced himself at a creditors' meeting: "My name's Adam Clark
and I guess some of you probably want to kill me."  Investors
opted not for the garrotte but the slow burn of the courts.

In early 2005, shareholders who sank $35 million into Media World
launched a class action, led by lawyers at Maurice Blackburn.
Five years down the track and with interest accruing, the claim
would be worth $45 million.

But the class action settled in the Victorian Supreme Court on
Thursday for just 1 per cent of that sum.

An amount of $330,000 will come from MWC's former financial
adviser, Terrain Capital, and its managing director, Michael
Ramsden, who was chairman of MWC.  A further $100,000 will come
from a Florida IT consultant, Kevin Tolly, and his company The
Tolly Group Inc.

And that is it.  The class action claimants will get nothing and,
as Maurice Blackburn's chairman, Bernard Murphy, noted, the
settlement sum does not even cover the law firm's expenses for
counsel.

Internally, Maurice Blackburn has racked up $6 million of its
lawyers' time pursuing the case.  But Mr. Murphy rejected any
suggestion that the class action was misconceived, saying it
remained a very strong case in terms of liability.

"This has been a very hard-fought case," he told the Herald.  "We
and the investors are disappointed.  We have fought this case for
five years, at our expense, conducted it on a no-win, no-fee
basis, and one by one the defendants have gone bankrupt or have
been unable to pay."

He said the class action litigants "reluctantly" concluded there
was not much more that could be clawed back from the defendants.

"The case remains as it always was -- a case of serious corporate
misconduct -- and we, to this day, do not know why the regulators
did not pursue it.''

Media World acquired Mr. Clark's technology for about $17 million
-- $11 million to be paid in cash and the rest as shares in Media
World.  But the entrepreneur was bankrupted in 2007.

The class action plaintiffs bankrupted his father, Graeme, last
October.


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Sued Over Defective Balance Shift Gears
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Mercedes M272 and M273
engines have defective balance shaft gears that "wear out
prematurely, excessively and without warning, causing the vehicle
to malfunction, the 'check engine light' to remain illuminated and
the vehicle to misfire and/or stop driving," a class action claims
in Newark Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Suddreth, et al. v. Mercedes-Benz USA,
LLC, Case No. 10-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 9629 in Case No. 33-
av-00001 on Oct. 5, 2010 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/07/Mercedes.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          210 Summit Ave.
          Montvale, NJ 07645
          Telephone: (201) 391-7000

               - and -

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM
          1101 30th St., NW Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 625-4342


NEW YORK: Housing Dept. Faces Class Suit Over Policing Tactics
--------------------------------------------------------------
Al Baker, writing for The New York Times, reports policing tactics
in New York City Housing Authority developments are under a
microscope.

A class action lawsuit, filed in January against the Police
Department and the housing authority, is winding its way through
federal court.  It claims that public housing tenants and their
visitors are subjected to police aggression and unwarranted
arrests for trespassing.  And the City Council is planning to hold
a hearing on the broad topic of safety in the city's public
housing complexes.

Against this backdrop, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, in a
letter last month to housing authority officials, said he had
revised the department's rules for how officers patrol up and down
inside the public-housing high-rises -- something known in police
language as vertical patrols.  Also, he said, a new training
curriculum had been developed focusing on the legal standards for
taking police action.

Specifically, the training stresses "the need to conduct all
interactions with the courtesy, professionalism and respect that
all people are entitled to, particularly in their own homes,"
Mr. Kelly wrote in the letter, on Sept. 26, to John B. Rhea,
chairman of the housing authority.  "The importance and benefits
of positive interactions with residents and visitors are
discussed, with concrete tips for improving communication skills
provided."

As for the new vertical patrol policy -- outlined in the
department's patrol guide, its policy manual -- Mr. Kelly said
that it was overhauled with input from residents and that it
spelled out how officers should interact with people believed to
be violating the rules in the buildings.  It says that officers
cannot temporarily detain someone suspected of trespassing, unless
the officer reasonably believes the person should not be there.
He wrote:

Officers are directed to approach such individuals and ask if they
live in the building, if they are visiting someone in the
building, or if they have business in the building.  If a person's
authority to be in the building is in question, officers are
directed to take reasonable measures to verify the person's
authority, such as asking for identification or for a key to the
building's entrance doors.  If a person refuses or is unable to
explain his or her presence, the officer may instruct the person
to leave or be subject to arrest for trespassing.  If the person
does not then promptly establish a right to be there and does not
leave, the officer may arrest may arrest the person for trespass.

Separately, the City Council has taken testimony on the police use
of its "stop, question and frisk" policy in public housing, a
tactic the department has used in increasing numbers in recent
years as part of its core crime-fighting efforts.  The housing
authority, which oversees 334 developments, has focused on the
issue.

In June 2007, the housing authority sought to increase security at
its complexes by installing a trespass program that denied access
to anyone arrested for a felony drug offense on housing authority
property, or immediately adjacent to it.

Juan Cartagena of the Community Service Society and M. Chris
Fabricant, the director of the Criminal Justice Clinic at Pace Law
School, have studied the ways residents of public housing
complexes have been affected by police practices, such as stop-
and-frisk and trespassing arrests.  In written testimony to the
City Council, they wrote:

N.Y.P.D. has the discretion to issue desk appearance tickets to
people it arrests for trespass.  Yet it routinely chooses not to,
instead taking people into custody and "putting them through the
system," with the result that they spend up to 24 hours, and
sometimes more, in police detention.  Considering the fact that
many individuals are arrested unnecessarily because they live in
the building or environs where they have allegedly, "trespassed,"
this is an outrage.

In their testimony, Mr. Cartagena and Mr. Fabricant said that the
housing authority paid about $73 million worth of its "federal
operating funds" to the Police Department for something called
"special police services."

The men questioned that financing:

Every resident of the city is entitled to adequate, responsive,
courteous and respectful police protection, whether they live in
public housing or not.  Nycha should not have to pay for a special
police presence, period.


OCCAM NETWORKS: Accused in Del. of Breaching Fiduciary Duties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Thursday disclosed that on October 6, 2010,
it filed a class action complaint on behalf of the public
stockholders of Occam Networks, Inc. in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against Occam's Board of Directors for breaches of
fiduciary duty, seeking to enjoin the acquisition of Occam by
Calix, Inc.  The lawsuit is brought by Michael H. Steinhardt,
Herbert Chen, Derek Sheeler, Steinhardt Overseas Management, L.P.
and Ilex Partners, L.L.C., who together beneficially own more than
four million shares, or approximately 19%, of Occam's common
stock.

The complaint charges that Occam's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Occam's shareholders by failing to shop the
company or conduct a market check, while nevertheless agreeing to
sell the company to Calix for the inadequate price of $3.83 in
cash and 0.2925 shares of Calix common stock for each share of
Occam common stock.  Following the acquisition, announced on
September 16, 2010, former Occam stockholders are to own only
14.1% to 15.9% of the outstanding shares of the surviving entity
(Calix), which is alleged to be significantly less than Occam's
expected contribution to the revenue and earnings of the combined
company.

Occam's Board is charged with failing to maximize value for
Occam's shareholders.  As noted in the Schedule 13D letter that
Plaintiffs sent to Occam and filed with the SEC on September 27,
2010, Occam's CEO Bob Howard-Anderson and CFO Jeanne Seeley
admitted to Plaintiffs in a September 17, 2010, conference call
that "Calix was given a period of exclusivity and that no attempt
was made to shop the company or even check the market."  Further,
the merger agreement does not provide for any post-signing "go-
shop" period, and contains deal protection devices that limit the
Board's ability to act with respect to superior proposals and
strategic alternatives to the Calix deal.

The consideration to be received by Occam's shareholders is
alleged to be inadequate by failing to take into account the
significant revenues and substantial growth that Occam is
anticipated to achieve in the very near future.  In particular,
the complaint alleges that "Occam is expected to realize at least
$125-200 million of additional revenues through 2013 as a result
of the Obama administration's allocation of nearly $10 billion in
stimulus grants and loans for the development and improvement of
the nation's rural broadband infrastructure."  The complaint
further alleges that "the deal price does not factor in the
expected benefits to Occam of these stimulus awards -- including
at least $770 million in stimulus awards recently won by known
Occam customers, who already have or likely will award their
stimulus contracts to Occam."

As one securities analyst concluded, the Acquisition "dramatically
under-values" Occam. As another analyst stated, the Acquisition is
"a great value for Calix."

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP is a national law firm that represents the
rights of shareholders and victims of corporate abuse.  The firm
is headquartered in New York City and has 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.

SOURCE: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
        Eduard Korsinsky, Esq., 212-363-7500
        ek@zlk.com

        or

        Michael H. Rosner, Esq., 212-363-7500
        mrosner@zlk.com


POTASH CORP: Accused of Violating Securities Exchange Act
---------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, Thursday disclosed that
a class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all
persons who held shares of the common stock of Potash Corporation
of Saskatchewan Inc. on August 17, 2010, against Potash and its
Board of Directors for violations of Sections 14(d)(4) and 14(e)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Canada Business
Corporations Act in connection with the tender offer by BHP
Billiton Development 2 (Canada) Limited, a wholly-owned indirect
subsidiary of BHP Billiton Plc (collectively, "BHP"), for Potash
(the "Tender Offer").

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  Members of
the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.  If you wish to choose counsel to
represent you and the Class, you must apply to be appointed lead
plaintiff no later than December 6, 2010 and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement and how much of a settlement to accept for the Class in
the action.  The lead plaintiff will be selected from among
applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in the
Company during the Class Period.  You are not required to have
sold your shares to seek damages or to serve as a Lead Plaintiff.

The complaint, which seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
holders of Potash common stock on August 17, 2010, alleges that in
early August 2010, BHP attempted to engage the Potash Board in
discussions concerning a potential acquisition of Potash by BHP
and that on or about August 13, 2010, BHP made a written proposal
to purchase Potash for US$130 per share in cash . The complaint
also alleges that after the Board refused to consider BHP's non-
coercive, premium offer in good faith, the Board adopted a
shareholders rights plan known as a poison pill (the "Poison
Pill"), that would act to dilute Potash's equity, to entrench
incumbent directors and management of Potash and prevent BHP from
acquiring the Company without the consent of the Board.  The
complaint asserts that the Poison Pill prevents Potash
shareholders from freely considering BHP's or any other takeover
offer and that the Tender Offer to purchase all of the outstanding
common shares of Potash for US$130 per share commenced by BHP on
August 20, 2010 is conditioned on the inapplicability and
redemption of the Poison Pill.

According to the complaint, in an attempt to defeat shareholder
support for the Tender Offer, the defendants, on August 23, 2010,
issued a materially false and misleading Solicitation/
Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9.  The 14D-9, which
recommends that Potash shareholders reject the Tender Offer and
not tender their shares, omits and/or misrepresents material
information about, among other things, the Poison Pill and its
purpose, analysis of the BHP offer price, analysis of Potash and
strategic alternatives, the financial analysis by Potash's
financial advisors and the standards used to conclude that the
Tender Offer was "inadequate, from a financial point of view," and
the Board's self-interested reasons for rebuffing BHP.

If you held shares of the common stock of Potash Corporation of
Saskatchewan Inc. on August 17, 2010, you may obtain additional
information about this lawsuit and your ability to become a lead
plaintiff by contacting Brower Piven at
http://www.browerpiven.com/, by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com,
by calling 410/415-6616, or at Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, 1925 Old Valley Road, Stevenson, Maryland 21153.
Attorneys at Brower Piven have combined experience litigating
securities and class action cases of over 50 years.  If you choose
to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member of
the class.

CONTACT:

         Charles J. Piven
         Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
         Stevenson, Maryland
         410/415-6616


RAYTHEON COMPANY: Accused in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Raytheon cheated nonunion
hourly workers of overtime and straight time, a class action
claims in San Diego Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Bethley v. Raytheon Company, Case No.
10-cv-02080 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/07/Raytheon.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223


SERVICE CORPORATION: Faces Class Suits Over Labor Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Service Corporation
International, a chain of funeral homes, faces a string of class
actions accusing it of labor violations, including one in Pima
County Court, Tucson.

A copy of the Complaint in Acuna, et al. v. Service Corporation
International, et al., Case No. C20107854 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Pima
Cty.) (Borek, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/07/Funeral.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Merle Joy Turchik, Esq.
          Mary Judge Ryan, Esq.
          RYAN TURCHIK P.C.
          300 North Main Ave., Suite 106
          Tucson, AZ 85701
          Telephone: (520) 882-7070
          E-mail: merle@ryanturchik.com
                  mary@ryanturchik.com

               - and -

          J. Nelson Thomas, Esq.
          Annette Gifford, Esq.
          Sarah Cressman, Esq.
          THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP
          693 East Ave.
          Rochester, NY 14607
          Telephone: (585) 272-0540
          E-mail: nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com
                  agifford@theemploymentattorneys.com
                  scressman@theemploymentattorneys.com


SEARS ROEBUCK: Sued in California Over Unpaid Rebates
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sears Roebuck offered a
refund or rebate on its $79.99 delivery charge for major
appliances, but doesn't pay it, a class action claims in Los
Angeles Superior Court.


SKILLED HEATHCARE: Dec. 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
announced the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action,
Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Settlement Fairness Hearing
Involving Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN RE SKILLED HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

No. CV 09-5416-DOC (RZx)

CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE

Hon. David O. Carter

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED THE SKILLED
HEALTHCARE GROUP COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MAY 14, 2007 AND JUNE 9,
2009, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, that a
hearing will be held on December 6, 2010, at 8:30 a.m., before The
Honorable David O. Carter, at the Southern Division, Santa Ana
Courthouse, 411 West Fourth Street, Room 1053, Courtroom 9D, Santa
Ana, California, for the purpose of determining (1) whether the
proposed Settlement of the claims in the Litigation for the sum of
$3 million in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable and adequate to Members of the Class; (2) whether,
thereafter, this Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice
pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation
of Settlement dated as of August 30, 2010; (3) whether the
proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds (the "Plan of
Allocation") is fair, reasonable and adequate and therefore should
be approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for
the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection
with this Litigation and reimbursement of Lead Plaintiffs'
reasonable costs and expenses directly related to their
representation of the Class should be approved.

If you purchased or acquired Skilled Healthcare Group common stock
between May 14, 2007 and June 9, 2009, inclusive, your rights may
be affected by this Settlement.  If you have not received a
detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Settlement Fairness Hearing ("Notice") and a
copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by
writing to In re Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Strategic Claims Services,
600 North Jackson Street, Suite 3, Media, PA 19063, or you can
download a copy at http://www.strategicclaims.net/ If you are a
Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release
postmarked no later than February 8, 2011, establishing that you
are entitled to recovery.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed below:

  Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
  Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
  845 Third Avenue
  New York, NY 10022
  settlements@glancylaw.com
  1-888-773-9224

or go to the following Web site: http://www.strategicclaims.net/


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Court Denies Discovery Request in "Vagle" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado denied without prejudice a
motion for discovery filed by plaintiffs in Vagle v. Spectranetics
Corporation, Civil Action No. 10-cv-01249-MSK-MEH.

Plaintiffs Marshall W. Vagle, Forrester Financial, LLC, and Ted
Karkus filed a complaint against The Spectranetics Corporation,
John G. Schulte, Craig M. Walker, M.D., Jonathan W. Mcguire, Guy
A. Childs, Emile Geisenheimer, Stephen D. Okland, Jr., Roger
Wertheimer, Obinna Adighije also known as Larry Adighije, and
Trung Pham.  Plaintiffs are investors who allege they
"collectively lost nearly $1.5 million when Defendants failed to
disclose and made false and misleading statements about the
business prospects of the Spectranetics Corporation."  Plaintiffs
inform the Court that they are "opting-out of the securities fraud
class action (Case No. 08-cv-02048-REB-KLM) which has resulted in
an $8.5 million settlement that, if approved, will be distributed
on a pro rata basis to hundreds, if not thousands, of
Spectranetics investors."

Judge Hegarty stayed discovery in the case until further order of
the Court.  Judge Hegarty ordered the parties to file a status
report, indicating the parties' intentions regarding the
progression of the matter.

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

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20101006c19


SODEXO INC: Accused in Florida Suit of Racial Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that nine former employees accuse
Sodexo and Saint Leo University of racial discrimination and
retaliation, in a class action in Tampa Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Wigfall, et al. v. Sodexo, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-02232 (M.D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/07/EmploymentSodexo.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sonia C. Lawson, Esq.
          SONIA C. LAWSON, P.A.
          100 North Tampa St., Suite 2435
          Tampa, FL 33679-2901
          Telephone: (813) 221-8383
          E-mail: soniaclawson@aol.com


STAR GAS: Plaintiff Firms Hit with Sanctions in Junked Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for The American Lawyer, reports on
Friday, New Haven, Conn., federal district court Judge Janet Bond
Arterton granted a motion for Rule 11 sanctions (pdf) against
Labaton Sucharow and Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, lead
plaintiffs counsel in a failed securities class action against
Star Gas.  Judge Arterton agreed with Star's counsel from Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom that the class' claims were almost
entirely without merit, and that Labaton and Barroway knew as much
early in the litigation. She ordered the plaintiffs firms to pay
all of Star's attorney fees and costs.

"The Rule 11 violations were not de minimis.  The [consolidated
amended complaint] did not suffer from a minor procedural flaw.
Nor were the Rule 11 violations limited to one of many claims for
relief," Judge Arterton wrote.  "Thus, plaintiffs' lead counsel's
violations were substantial, creating a presumption for awarding
all fees and costs for the entire litigation as sanctions."

The class alleged, among other things, that Star misled investors
about the success of its revamped customer service call center.
But as Judge Arterton noted in her Rule 11 order, Star's alleged
misstatements to investors were contained in offering materials
that predated the changes that supposedly caused problems in its
call center.  "Because of these timing impossibilities,
plaintiffs' factual allegations that defendants knowingly
misrepresented the health and stability of the call center . . .
were utterly lacking in support, and their fraud claims based on
[Star's statements about customer service] had 'no chance of
success,'" she wrote.

Jonathan Lerner of Skadden told us he can't remember ever before
moving for Rule 11 sanctions in a securities case.  "They're a
rara avis, a rare bird," he said, adding that securities class
action lawyers usually walk away from weak cases when the defense
wins a motion to dismiss.  He said he told plaintiffs lawyers in
the Star case that he wouldn't move for sanctions if they dropped
a motion for leave to amend their complaint after Judge Arterton
dismissed the class action in 2007, but they rejected his offer.
(Judge Arterton refused to permit the amended complaint; the 2nd
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld her dismissal of the class
action in 2009.)

"Not every dismissed securities class action is frivolous,"
Mr. Lerner said.  "But this is one where Rule 11 sanctions were
merited."

We left messages at Labaton Sucharow and Barroway Topaz but didn't
hear back.  In their 28-page brief opposing sanctions, the
plaintiffs firms argued that Skadden's motion was made in bad
faith, and that all of their allegations were adequately
supported.

Star's accounting of its fees and costs is due later this month.


TICKETMASTER: Web Site Launched to Attract Class Suit Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alfred Branch Jr., writing for TicketNews, reports the legal team
behind the class action lawsuit against Ticketmaster's fees has
launched a new Web site to attract more plaintiffs in the case.

Called Ticket Fee Litigation, the site details the case, which was
originally filed in 2003, and states that U.S. residents who
bought tickets Ticketmaster.com from October 21, 1999, through
May 31, 2010, may be eligible to participate.

"Plaintiffs filed this case on October 21, 2003. The case is
proceeding as a class action on behalf of United States residents.
The claims challenge Ticketmaster's Order Processing Fee and the
fee it charges customers who select the UPS Delivery option on
Ticketmaster's Web site, http://www.ticketmaster.com/(the "Web
site"), for ticket purchases made by United States residents over
the Web site between October 21, 1999 and May 31, 2010," the site
states.  "The purpose of the notice is to advise you about the
class action, including your rights in connection with the case.
This notice is not intended to be an expression of any opinion by
the Court as to the merit of the claims or defenses in this case."

The lawsuit claims that Ticketmaster, which is headquartered in
California, violated that state's False Advertising Law (FLA) and
Unfair Competition Law (UCL) by charging "unconscionable"
processing and delivery fees for tickets.  Two Ticketmaster
customers, Curt Schlesinger of Illinois and Peter LoRe of New
York, filed the original case in 2003 after they separately
ordered tickets to shows and were charged between $14 and $20 in
additional fees.  The two believed they were unfairly forced to
pay the fees, and had they known before they bought them that they
were going to be charged such high fees they would have either
chosen different delivery methods or not bought the tickets.

"Plaintiffs assert that Ticketmaster's Order Processing Fee is
deceptive and leads consumers to believe that it represents
Ticketmaster's costs to process their orders, and that the Order
Processing Fee is just a profit component for Ticketmaster,
unrelated to the costs of processing the orders," the litigation
Web site states.  "Ticketmaster disputes these allegations and
disputes that the Order Processing Fee is deceptive."

As for the UPS delivery fee, "This claim is brought only on behalf
of the Class members who selected and paid for the UPS Delivery
option.  Plaintiffs allege that Ticketmaster's UPS Delivery option
is deceptive because it leads consumers to believe the price they
are paying Ticketmaster is a pass-through of the fees that UPS
charges to Ticketmaster and that Ticketmaster substantially marks-
up the amount it actually pays to UPS.  Ticketmaster disputes
these allegations and disputes that its UPS Delivery option is
deceptive."

As mentioned, Ticketmaster denies the allegations put forth in the
lawsuit, but nonetheless the company recently has moved to
increase transparency on its Web site as it relates to fees.
Ticketmaster is now merged with Live Nation, but consumers have
long criticized Ticketmaster for the fees.

In August, Ticketmaster began revealing the fees it charges for a
ticket, before a customer enters checkout.  While viewing tickets
on the Web site, a consumer can click on "Price Details" to see a
breakdown of the fees associated with the purchase.

"The problem is that historically we haven't told you how much you
have to pay for a given seat until very late in the buying
process," wrote Nathan Hubbard, CEO of the Ticketmaster division,
in a company blog.  "And our data tells us this angers many of you
to the point that you abandon your purchase once you see the total
cost, and that you don't come back.  The data also says (and this
is the important piece) that if we had told you up front what the
total cost was, you would have bought the ticket! So by
perpetuating this antiquated fee presentation, fans are getting
upset, while we and our clients are losing ticket sales."

The class action case is set to begin the non-jury trial before
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Kenneth R. Freeman in late
January, 2011.  Members of the class, many of whom have been
notified by email, do not have to do anything if they wish to
remain involved in the case.

Those who have not been notified, or wish to be excluded, should
visit the Web site for more information.  California attorneys
Robert J. Stein, III, and William M. Hensley, and Illinois
attorney Steven P. Blonder are the lead lawyers for the class
group.


US: Tried to Twist Medicare Law to Get Monsanto Class Suit Share
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for Legal Newsline, reports Department of
Justice lawyers tried to twist Medicare law in their bid to
recover a share of a $300 million class action settlement, U.S.
District Judge Karon Bowdre ruled on Sept. 30.

She wrote that statutes of limitations ran out on government
claims against plaintiff lawyers and Monsanto chemical company
lawyers who settled a contamination suit.

Judge Bowdre found that claims against the lawyers expired five
weeks before the government sued, while claims against Monsanto
probably died in 2006.

She dealt a blow to an Obama Administration initiative that would
replenish Medicare coffers with proceeds of personal injury
litigation.

For years Medicare possessed but did not exercise authority to
demand reimbursement when its beneficiaries received payments from
other sources.

Medicare officials announced last year that they would start
seeking reimbursement.

Department of Justice civil lawyers filed the Alabama suit on
Dec. 1, signaling their intent to recover from the past as well as
in the future.

They alleged that 907 Medicare beneficiaries received payments in
2003, on claims that Monsanto polluted Anniston, Ala., with
polychlorinated biphenyls.

Monsanto and successor companies Pharmacia and Solutia moved to
dismiss.

So did lawyer Donald Stewart of Anniston and colleagues James
Stricker and Daniel Benson of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres and
Friedman, in New York City.

So did lawyers Charles Fell and Charles Cunningham of Louisville,
Kentucky, and Don Barrett of Lexington, Mississippi.

So did insurers AIG and Travelers.

Lawyer Greg Cusimano of Gadsden, Ala., the firm of Johnston Druhan
in Mobile, and Cody Law Firm of Birmingham did not move to
dismiss.

Judge Bowdre held a hearing on Sept. 13, and cut loose those who
sought release.

She wrote that she didn't presume to know why the others didn't
move to dismiss, adding that she couldn't determine when claims
against them accrued.

"The government did not sue any of the alleged Medicare
beneficiaries as defendants to this recovery action or identify
them in pleadings," Judge Bowdre wrote.

"In general terms, Medicare will not pay for medical expenses
where a reasonable certainty exists that an insurance company, or
another liable third party, will cover the costs."

In cases of uncertainty, she wrote, or where an injured or ill
person is unlikely to receive prompt payment, Medicare may make
payment conditioned on later reimbursement.

A recipient of a conditional payment must reimburse Medicare in 60
days, she wrote.

If Medicare doesn't receive reimbursement, she wrote, the
government can sue.

The right to initiate recovery begins as soon as Medicare learns
that payment has been made or could be made, she wrote.

She wrote that the Federal Claims Collection Act sets a three year
limit on tort claims and a six year limit on contract claims.

She heaped sarcasm on the government's claim that an implied
contract existed between it and the companies.

The government didn't cite a single case applying a six year
limit, she wrote.

"This court declines the opportunity to be the first to do so
using the government's implied at law contract theory," she wrote.

"The government raises no alternative contract theory for why the
six year statute of limitations should apply and the court will
not invent any," she wrote.

Then she explained that three years or six didn't matter.

"Regardless of which statute of limitations applies, the
government's claims against the corporate defendants were filed
too late," she wrote.

Parties to the contamination suit announced a settlement on Aug.
20, 2003, she wrote.

Parties signed it on Sept. 9, 2003, she wrote.

Defendants transferred $200 million to the court on Sept. 17,
2003, she wrote.

The government urged Judge Bowdre to focus on Dec. 2, 2003, when
the parties certified that enough plaintiffs had signed releases
to close the deal, but she declined.

"This argument directly contradicts the plain reading of the
language in the Medicare secondary payer statute," she wrote.

The statute expressly contemplates conditional payments as
demonstrations of responsibility to pay, she wrote.

It doesn't reference unrestricted payment, fully distributed
payment, or final payment, she wrote.

"Despite the government's attempts to twist the reading of the
statute, its terms squarely contemplate that a payment conditioned
upon release triggers a responsibility to reimburse Medicare," she
wrote.

For the lawyer defendants, she concluded that the statute of
limitations started running no later than Oct. 29, 2003, when they
received payment of $275 million in escrow.

She called the conclusion generous, writing that the government
could have intervened at any time in the litigation and certainly
could have done so when the parties settled.


YAHOO! INC: Accused of Violating Computer Privacy Law
-----------------------------------------------------
Greg Land, writing for Fulton County Daily Report, reports a set
of potential class actions filed recently in Fulton County, Ga.,
Superior Court against three Internet powerhouses raises
interesting questions about how law enforcement agencies get
information about Internet users without their knowledge.

While the suits address the government's ability to see what
people do on the Web, their viability may turn on more process-
oriented questions: how Georgia subpoenas and warrants are served
and where they are valid.

The suits claim that Comcast, Yahoo and Windstream have violated
federal wiretap and computer privacy laws by providing information
in response to warrants or subpoenas issued by Georgia judges or
magistrates, which are then faxed or otherwise relayed to the
Internet companies' headquarters outside of Georgia.

"If these were federal warrants, there would be no cause of
action," said one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, Joshua A.
Millican.  "But these are state warrants, and they have no force
outside of the state of Georgia."

A lawyer with experience representing Internet companies who
reviewed one of the cases for the Fulton County Daily Report said
they may have a strong defense in their user agreements, many of
which say that companies will provide information to authorities
in order to uncover illegal activity.

But the lawyer, Paul F. "Pete" Wellborn III, added that the suits
could survive because federal laws giving rights to sue Internet
companies over these issues have become "ridiculously overbroad"
with litigation results that "are all over the place."

The three suits, filed on behalf of two class representatives,
charge "willful violations" of the U.S. Stored Communications Act
[SCA] and the Wiretap Act by each company.

Each defendant "routinely and unlawfully accepts as valid legal
process from law enforcement and other government entities" faxed
subpoenas from state grand juries or trial judges, often with
instructions not to notify the customer whose account will be
searched, the suit said.

"Search warrants signed by state magistrates and other state
judges have no force and effect outside of the state of issuance,"
the suits claim, "and when faxed or sent out of state, said search
warrants are not deemed issued by a court of competent
jurisdiction."

The information disclosed, according to the suits, includes names,
addresses, birthdates, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses,
the contents of e-mail messages and other data specific to the
accounts.

In addition to violations of the SCA and Wiretap Act, the four-
count complaints also accuse the companies of breach of contract
and breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.

The suits seek the statutory penalties of at least $1,000 for each
violation of the SCA and $10,000 for each violation of the Wiretap
Act, as well as punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

CHILD PORN, UNDERAGE SEX CASES

Mr. Millican said the cases began with his co-counsel, Woodstock
attorney Anthony J. Morgese, who was representing two criminal
defendants in Cherokee County, one accused of downloading child
pornography and the other of attempting to arrange a sexual
liaison with a minor.

"He had filed a motion to suppress some evidence obtained through
one of these warrants and began researching the statutes and
realized that they may not have been legit," said Mr. Millican.
Mr. Morgese called in Mr. Millican, who has filed numerous class
actions in state and federal courts, to assist with the
complaints.

The plaintiffs, said Mr. Millican, are related to the two criminal
defendants, who allegedly used the plaintiffs' Internet accounts
in committing the criminal acts.  The plaintiffs were not accused
of any criminal activity, he said.

According to the suits, California-based Yahoo in December 2008
disclosed plaintiff Fayelynn Sams' personal information to the
government without her permission and without complying with the
requirements of the SCA and Wiretap Act.

The same month, Windstream also disclosed Ms. Sams' information,
despite provisions in the company's privacy policy that "when
seeking account information or private subscriber information
Windstream must be served with a valid subpoena at its Subpoena
Administrator located in Charlotte, North Carolina."

Comcast handles such matters through its Legal Demands Center in
Moorestown, N.J., according to the suit filed on behalf of Sarah
Ann Losapio who, in May 2009, "had her private subscriber
information and data disclosed by Comcast to law enforcement
without proper compliance" with the federal statutes.

Mr. Millican said he has been unable to find any case law that
raises the issues his complaints do.

"Both the Wiretap Act and the SCA have a good faith clause --
there's a case out there that says an unsigned warrant was fine --
but again, that's for a federal warrant.  But that doesn't apply
to a Georgia subpoena being served in California."

Mr. Millican said that it would be easy for a local law
enforcement agency to comply with the law.

"In the Comcast case," he said, "all it would take is for the
Cherokee County sheriff to call a judge in New Jersey and say,
'I've got this person down here I'm investigating, I need a
warrant.' Then the marshal up there serves it."

"I suspect that happens a lot," he said, conceding that -- unless
and until discovery commences -- he won't know how many cases such
as the ones in his suits there are.

"There may only be five cases like this in Georgia," he said.  But
even if the number of violations is relatively low, he said, the
statutory penalties for each violation could make the cases
worthwhile.

Comcast's regional spokesman, Reg Griffin, said the company would
have no comment on the suit filed against it.  A spokeswoman for
Yahoo said she was looking into the matter but did not respond to
further inquiries.  Windstream did not respond to a request for
comment.

A 'POWERFUL WEAPON'

Mr. Wellborn, of Wellborn, Wallace & Woodard, has spent 15 years
representing Internet companies.  After reviewing the Yahoo
complaint, he said the suits may have "tiny" legs but noted that
companies like Yahoo have included in their privacy policies
language that may safeguard them from such actions.

"If you look at the policy, it says Yahoo will share information
if 'We believe it is necessary to share information in order to
investigate, prevent, or take action regarding illegal
activities.' The operative word there is 'believe,'" said Mr.
Wellborn.

"Regardless of whether the formalities were followed, that's a
very powerful weapon."

Mr. Wellborn also said that the Internet companies may be able to
use their presences in every state as a defense.

"The complaint seems to want to treat Yahoo as if were some sort
of foreign entity with no relation to Georgia," he said.  "That's
not the case."

Mr. Wellborn said he had seen a few cases involving state
subpoenas and warrants being used to seek information from
Internet companies, and that the results are "all over the place."

Nonetheless, said Mr. Wellborn, the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act of 1986, which includes the SCA, provides such broad
protection that the cases may well survive.

"From a civil perspective, the purpose of the ECPA was good and
noble," he said. "As enacted, it's ridiculously overbroad, and
gives some magical powers to communications because they were sent
electronically; if these were paper documents, there wouldn't be a
problem."

B. Michael Mears, an associate dean at John Marshall Law School
and a longtime criminal defense lawyer, also reviewed one of the
suits at the Daily Report's request.  He said the suits could be
viable, depending on the circumstances under which the subpoenas
and warrants were served.

"If the subpoenas had been served on local agents, etc., and then
those agents sent them by fax, that would they be OK, in my
opinion," said Mr.  Mears.  "[But] directly serving a state of
Georgia subpoena on an out-of-state entity by fax would not be
appropriate because the code section governing the serving of
subpoenas would not allow that, I believe.  In Georgia, subpoenas
can be served by certified or registered mail, but I don't believe
that would carry over to service to an out-of-state entity by
fax."

"The act of faxing a legitimately served subpoena to corporate
headquarters might well be a non-issue as long as the subpoena was
obtained based upon sufficient probable cause," he noted.

Search warrants, he said, raise a different set of issues.

"A search warrant would be more problematic because that requires
more formality in its execution," said Mr. Mears.  "If a search
warrant was properly served and adequately identified the property
to be searched, then jurisdiction of that search warrant would be
limited to that specific location.  The production of the objects
of the search warrant from someplace not directly identified in
the warrant itself is a problem and would not be allowed in a
state action."

Mr. Millican said that, to his knowledge, in none of the cases had
the companies registered agents in Georgia been served.

"If they had, we wouldn't have a case," he said.

Mr. Millican said that everything he can find indicates that the
companies were plainly in violation of the law when they provided
the information.

"I think I'm right," he said.  "I'm fairly certain these are going
to be fought pretty hard; there's a lot of money at stake.  These
will either lead to a bunch of other lawsuits being filed, or will
be shut down fairly quickly."

The cases are Losapio v. Comcast Corp., No. 2010CV191107; Sams v.
Yahoo! Inc., No. 2010CV191482; and Sams v. Windstream Corp., No.
2010CV191484.


ZURICH FINANCIAL: Settles Class Action Suit Over Management Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sven Egenter and Katie Reid, writing for Reuters, report
Swiss insurer Zurich Financial Services AG settled a class action
lawsuit in the United States over management fees, taking a $295
million hit in the third quarter.

Zurich said on Thursday it would pay up to $455 million to a total
of up to 13 million policyholders plus $90 million in attorneys'
fees.

Zurich said $295 million, net of tax and previous accruals, will
be charged to net income and recorded in the third quarter, adding
that the after tax charges would hit the shareholders' equity by
approximately 2.40 Swiss francs per share.

The settlement and related costs will be fully funded by internal
resources and will neither impact the strength of Zurich's balance
sheet nor its dividend policy, Zurich said.

The proposed settlement will resolve all claims, dating back to
1999, in a complaint originally filed in August 2003, it said.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiff challenged the management services
fees paid by the Farmers Exchanges (Exchanges) to Zurich's
subsidiary Farmers Group Inc. and certain of its affiliates.

                             *********

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  * * *