CAR_Public/101014.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, October 14, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 203

                             Headlines

ADOBE SYSTEMS: November 2010 Hearing Set for Motion to Dismiss
AMERICAN INT'L: Seeks to Block Competitors' Class Action
BENDIGO BANK: Faces Second Class Suit Over Investment Schemes
BEST BUY: Defends "Holloway" Lawsuit in California
BRAZILIAN BLOWOUT: Accused of Negligent Advertising in B.C. Suit

CANADA: Cattle Producers Call for BSE Class Action Settlement
CAPITAL GOLD: D&Os Face Second Suit Over Sale to Gammon Gold
CELLU TISSUE: Faces "Glembockie" Suit Over Clearwater Merger
CINTAS CORP: Court Approval of Settlement in Veliz Pending
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit

EKSPORTFINANS ASA: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Inks Pact to Settle Suit Over Merger
EUGENE MOORE: Sued for Violating Plaintiff's Civil Rights
FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
FIRST AMERICAN: Faces Class Suit Over Loan Modification Scam

GREEN MOUNTAIN: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in Vermont
GUAM: Scheduling Conference Set for Public Law 158 Class Suit
HYATT VACATION: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
HYPERCOM CORP: Suit Wants D&Os to Consider Verifone Offer
IMMUCOR INC: Wants Securities Suit in Georgia Dismissed

IMMUCOR INC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Price-Fixing" Suits
JAMES O'DEA: Sued for Abuse of Legal Process
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Goldfarb Investigating Derivative Lawsuit
KB HOME: California Court Approves Settlement in "Bagley" Suit
LAWSON SOFTWARE: Wants Court to De-Certify FLSA Action

MATTEL INC: May Face Class Action Over Fisher Price Recall
NATIONAL CITY: Nov. 30 Hearing Set for Settlement Agreement
NATIONAL WESTERN: Approval of Settlement Agreement Still Pending
NATIONAL WESTERN: RICO Violations Suit Still in Discovery Phase
PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Accused in Calif. of Not Paying Overtime

PNC BANK: Faces Class Action Suit Over Excessive Finance Charges
POINT BLANK: 2nd Circuit Says Settlement Violated Sarbanes-Oxley
RED HAT: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement Pact
RITE AID: 1,550 Assistant Store Managers Join "Indergit" Class
RITE AID: 1,100 Assistant Store Managers Join "Craig" Class

RITE AID: Remains a Defendant in California Wage & Hour Suits
SALLIE MAE: Settles Auto-Dialing Lawsuit for $19.5 Million
SERVICE CORPORATION: Sued for Unpaid Wages and Unpaid Overtime
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Jan. 21 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Inks MOU to Settle Suit Over Proginet Buy

TRUBION PHARMA: Inks Pact to Settle Suit Over Emergent Merger
UNITED KINGDOM: Pension Funds to Recoup GBP1.4BB in US Class Suits

* Class Suits "Ethically Wrong," Scheme Trustee Chairman Says
* EU to Relaunch Debate Next Month on Class Action Lawsuit Plan



                             *********


ADOBE SYSTEMS: November 2010 Hearing Set for Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on Adobe Systems Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
consolidated amended complaint relating to its proposed
acquisition of Omniture, Inc., has been scheduled for November
2010, according to the company's Oct. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 3, 2010.

On Sept. 23, 2009, Richard Miner, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated stockholders of Omniture, Inc., filed a class
action lawsuit captioned Miner v. Omniture, Inc., et al., Case No.
090403559 against Omniture, the members of Omniture's board of
directors and Adobe in the U.S. Fourth Judicial District Court for
Utah County, Provo Department, State of Utah seeking to enjoin the
proposed acquisition between Omniture and Adobe.

In the event the acquisition is consummated, the plaintiff seeks
to recover an unspecified amount of damages.  The plaintiff
alleges that the members of Omniture's board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Omniture's stockholders by failing to
seek the highest possible price for Omniture and that Adobe
induced or aided and abetted in the alleged breach of such
fiduciary duties.

Also on Sept. 23, 2009, Christopher R. Barrell filed a
substantially similar lawsuit to the Miner Lawsuit in the U.S.
Fourth Judicial District Court for Utah County, Provo Department,
State of Utah, captioned Barrell v. Omniture, Inc. et al., Case
No. 090403560.

The Barrell Lawsuit names the same defendants as the Miner
Lawsuit, and also names Snowbird Acquisition Corporation as an
additional defendant.  Subsequently, on Sept. 24, 2009, the
plaintiff in the Barrell Lawsuit filed an amended complaint, which
added allegations that the Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement filed by Omniture on Sept.
24, 2009 contained inadequate disclosures and was materially
misleading.

On Sept. 25, 2009, the Omniture Defendants filed a motion
requesting that the court consolidate the Barrell Lawsuit, Miner
Lawsuit and a substantially similar lawsuit captioned Lodhia v.
Omniture, Inc. et al., Case No. 090403499 in which the Omniture
Defendants, but not Adobe, were named.

Additionally, on Sept. 30, 2009, the plaintiff in the Lodhia
Lawsuit filed a response to defendants' motion to consolidate,
agreeing consolidation is appropriate, and also filed a motion
seeking appointment as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action.
Omniture moved for an order consolidating all three lawsuits.

The plaintiffs in the three lawsuits filed a joint motion seeking
preliminary injunction barring the consummation of the proposed
acquisition and requiring additional disclosures by Omniture in
its Schedule 14D-9.

At a hearing on Oct. 20, 2009, the court consolidated the Miner,
Barrell, and Lodhia cases into a single case under the Lodhia
caption and denied the plaintiffs' motion to preliminarily enjoin
the closing of the transaction.

On Dec. 30, 2009, the plaintiffs served the defendants with a
consolidated amended complaint for damages arising out of the
closing of the transaction.

In the consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that the
members of Omniture's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Omniture's stockholders by failing to seek the highest
possible price for Omniture and that both Adobe and Omniture
induced or aided and abetted in the alleged breach.

The plaintiffs also allege that the Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement filed by Omniture on Sept.
24, 2009 in connection with the transaction contained inadequate
disclosures and was materially misleading.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of the former public
stockholders of Omniture.

On March 8, 2010, Adobe and the other defendants moved to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim.

A hearing on this motion has been scheduled for November 2010.

As of Sept. 3, 2010, no amounts have been accrued as a loss is not
probable or estimable.

Adobe Systems Incorporated -- http://www.adobe.com/-- is a
diversified software companies.  The company offers a line of
creative, business and mobile software and services used by
creative professionals, knowledge workers, consumers, original
equipment manufacturer (OEM) partners, developers and enterprises
for creating, managing, delivering and engaging with content and
experiences across multiple operating systems, devices and media.
It distributes its products through a network of distributors,
value-added resellers (VARs), systems integrators, independent
software vendors (ISVs) and OEMs, direct to end users and through
its own Web site at www.adobe.com.  It also licenses its
technology to hardware manufacturers, software developers and
service providers, and offer integrated software solutions to
businesses of all sizes.  Adobe has operations in the Americas,
Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) and Asia.


AMERICAN INT'L: Seeks to Block Competitors' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Ceniceros, writing for Business Insurance, reports
American International Group Inc. filed a court brief Friday
asking a judge to deny competitors' request for class action
status in an ongoing legal battle involving alleged underreporting
of workers compensation premiums.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Gettleman has been presiding over
the legal fight that began in 2007 when the National Workers
Compensation Reinsurance Pool operated by Boca Raton, Fla.-based
NCCI Holdings Inc. first sued New York-based AIG.

The pool argued it was excluded from a 2006 settlement with then-
New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer in which AIG agreed to
pay states more than $343 million to settle allegations that it
underreported workers comp premiums over several decades to avoid
paying its full share of residual market assessments to the
states.

Since then, the Chicago federal judge dismissed the pool as
plaintiff, but several AIG competitors continue to press the legal
action while AIG also has sued competitors arguing that they also
underreported workers compensation premiums.

In its Friday filing, among other arguments, AIG said class action
status is designed for cases involving many plaintiffs, each
seeking small recoveries.  It is not meant for sophisticated
insurance companies that are seeking $1 billion in total, and each
has the means to bring an independent action, AIG argued.

AIG's 55-page filing also stated that competitors such as ACE INA
Holdings Inc., Liberty Mutual Group and Travelers Insurance Group
also underreported workers comp premiums.


BENDIGO BANK: Faces Second Class Suit Over Investment Schemes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elisabeth Sexton, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports a
second class action has been filed against Bendigo and Adelaide
Bank by investors in Great Southern Group's agricultural
investment schemes.

The suit, filed in the Federal Court in Sydney, seeks an order
setting aside loans taken out to invest in timber plantations from
1998 until January 2009.

The statement of claim says the investors took out loans with
Great Southern Finance that were later assigned to Bendigo Bank.

It says Great Southern made misleading statements about the
viability of its plantation schemes.

Great Southern went into voluntary administration in May last year
and is now in liquidation.

The Sydney action, which is being run by DC Legal, follows a case
filed in the Victorian Supreme Court by Macpherson+Kelley Lawyers
in May.

Neither case is supported by a litigation funder.

The bank said Friday there was "nothing new" in the Sydney
statement of claim and took issue with a DC Legal media release
saying it represented 2000 clients.

"In fact there are just 230 of its clients that have Great
Southern loans with our bank," said managing director Mike Hirst.

"The claim document itself is hopelessly inadequate, but to the
extent that we can make any sense of it at all, it covers the same
ground as a separate class action filed in the Victorian Supreme
Court by another law firm."

DC Legal's principal, Bruce Dennis, said about 300 of his clients
still had loans with the bank and the remainder were seeking
reimbursement of repaid loans.

The Victorian action is being heard concurrently with claims by
the bank against nine defaulting borrowers.

"We now look forward to demonstrating through the courts what we
have always argued -- specifically that these loans are legitimate
and are required to be repaid by these investors," Mr. Hirst said.

The lead applicant in the Sydney case is Cutforth Pty Ltd, a $2
[sic] Queensland company owned by John Heron, a founder of OzKleen
Asia Pacific Pty Ltd, which manufactures Shower Power cleaning
products.

The statement of claim says Cutforth invested $1.1 million in
plantation schemes in 2005 and 2006.

Bendigo Bank said in August its outstanding loans relating to
Great Southern were $460 million, against which it had raised a
provision of $25 million.


BEST BUY: Defends "Holloway" Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc., defends a purported class action lawsuit
captioned, Jasmen Holloway, et al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The action was filed in December 2005, and alleges that the
company discriminates against women and minority individuals on
the basis of gender, race, color and/or national origin in its
stores with respect to the company's employment policies and
practices.

The action seeks an end to discriminatory policies and practices,
an award of back and front pay, punitive damages and injunctive
relief, including rightful place relief for all class members.  A
class certification motion was heard in June 2009, but the Court's
decision has been delayed as the parties are under order to submit
further briefs.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 7, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Aug. 28, 2010.

With operations in the United States, Canada, Europe, China,
Mexico and Turkey, Best Buy Co., Inc. -- http://www.bby.com/-- is
a multinational retailer of technology and entertainment products
and services with a commitment to growth and innovation.  The Best
Buy family of brands and partnerships collectively generates more
than $49 billion in annual revenue and includes brands such as
Best Buy, Best Buy Mobile, Audiovisions, The Carphone Warehouse,
Five Star, Future Shop, Geek Squad, Magnolia Audio Video, Napster,
Pacific Sales and The Phone House.  Approximately 180,000
employees apply their talents to help bring the benefits of these
brands to life for customers through retail locations, multiple
call centers and Web sites, in-home solutions, product delivery
and activities in the communities.  Community partnership is
central to the way we do business at Best Buy.  In fiscal 2010,
the company donated a combined $25.2 million to improve the
vitality of the communities where its employees and customers live
and work.


BRAZILIAN BLOWOUT: Accused of Negligent Advertising in B.C. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darcy Wintonyk, writing for ctvbc.ca, reports Victoria, B.C.,
stylist Kimberley Ryley said she experienced burning eyes and raw
nostrils each time she applied a wildly popular hair straightening
treatment to her clients.

She thought the side effects were just from working in a hair
salon, until she learned the product, Brazilian Blowout, was found
by Health Canada to contain 12 per cent formaldehyde -- 60 times
the limit allowed by law for cosmetics.

"We were doing three or four a day.  We've been exposed to so much
of this chemical," Ms. Ryley told CTV News.

"On a long-term basis [it was] a heaviness in the chest,
difficulty breathing, sore throats, fatigue," she said.

A day after Health Canada's warned stylists not to use the
product; Ms. Ryley has launched a class action lawsuit against the
makers of the product, which promotes itself as "formaldehyde-
free."

Ms. Ryley estimates she and her partner used the product as many
as 225 times in the past year they've offered it at their Victoria
salon.  Hailed as a revolution for stylists, it is marketed as a
natural alternative to chemical straighteners that keeps hair flat
and shiny for many months.

Attorney Darren Williams told ctvbc.ca in a telephone interview he
expects hundreds of stylists in B.C. to join the lawsuit within a
week, upping the number to 1,000 across the country.

"If the Health Canada report is accurate and the American report
is accurate I'm very confident in this case," he said.

Health Canada has received reports of breathing problems and one
case of hair loss associated with using Brazilian Blowout.  It is
believed the reactions are triggered when the solution is heated
during ironing and blow-drying the hair.  The agency has asked
salons to stop using the solution immediately and advises anyone
with health effects to see a medical professional.

When inhaled over a long period of time, formaldehyde is known to
cause cancer.

Ms. Ryley is seeking general damages for health care problems, as
well as the loss of past and future earnings for herself and her
business reputation for using the product.

"She's looking for accountability.  She's been personally injured.
She wants this product yanked from the shelf," Williams said.

Merchant Law Group is also seeking punitive damages on the
stylist's behalf for what they believe is negligently advertising
and distributing the product with unsafe ingredients.

Ms. Ryley said she feels misled by the company and wants justice
served.

"We're not doing this for just us.  We're doing this for all the
stylists in Canada and across the world that could possibly have
health problems after this," she said.  "It's a responsibility we
have to ourselves and our clients."

The firm sent samples of the product for independent testing on
Oct. 8.

This isn't the first class action launched against Brazilian
Blowout.

A Seattle law firm announced Oct. 1 it is investigating the
formaldehyde content of the Brazilian Blowout product.


CANADA: Cattle Producers Call for BSE Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitoba Co-operator reports Cattle producers' calls for the
federal government to negotiate an out-of-court settlement to
class actions filed over the arrival of BSE in the Canadian herd
have made it to the House of Commons.

Identical petitions from groups of cattle producers were presented
October 6 in the Commons by NDP agriculture critic and B.C.  MP
Alex Atamanenko, and by southern Ontario MP and rancher Larry
Miller, who chairs both the Commons standing committee on
agriculture and the Conservatives' rural caucus.

Mr. Atamanenko presented petition papers signed by a "couple of
hundred people from Manitoba," while Mr. Miller presented on
behalf of 26 residents of his Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound constituency.

"The petition mentions that there was a class action on behalf of
cattle producers of Canada lodged in April 2005 claiming that
negligence on the part of Agriculture Canada allowed BSE from
imported British cattle to infect Canadian cattle," Mr. Atamanenko
said in the Commons.  "This class action has now been certified
and is proceeding to trial."

Messrs. Miller's and Atamanenko's presentations were among a list
of petitions presented October 6 during the "routine proceedings"
section of the day's business, and were not debated in the Commons
or otherwise discussed.

The petitions were coordinated by a group of Canadian ranchers
following meetings in recent months with Cameron Pallett, the
Toronto lawyer spearheading the class actions.

Specifically, they call on the government to name retired Supreme
Court of Canada justice Frank Iacobucci as a mediator to
facilitate settlement between the Government of Canada and the
cattle farmers.

"The government of Canada settled the hepatitis C class actions.
The government of Canada settled the residential schools class
actions," the petition papers note.  "The cattle farmers of Canada
need help now.  The BSE class action represents the interests of
135,000 hardworking Canadian farm families."

Petition organizers have also sent letters to all members of
Parliament urging support for a settlement.

"The BSE class action has been in progress since 2005, and has
passed all the legal criteria to be a true national class action
suit.  The next time it goes before a judge it is to be decided,"
the letters noted.

"We have heard that if it does go to court, that it could be 10
years before a final judgment is reached.  We do not have 10
years," the letters state.

"Our farm income programs have ceased to work for us.  Our equity
is a fraction of what it was, and many producers are just waiting
for those first good prices in order to salvage some equity and
get out.  When people get out of the cattle business, they do not
come back."

In a separate essay last month outlining the case for a mediated
settlement, petition organizers John Schwartzentruber of Brussels,
Ont. and Gail Kasprick of Neepawa, Man. said that "surely the
principles of good governance by a responsible government require
that these matters be looked into by an independent qualified
professional.

"Who better than a retired justice of the Supreme Court of Canada
who has been employed by the federal government in a similar
fashion on more than one occasion?"

In an interview last year, lawyer Mr. Pallett said he didn't see
the trial getting underway for another four years at best, owing
to the "procedural song-and-dance" that accompanies such cases.

Mr. Pallett represents Niagara Falls-area cattle producer Bill
Sauer, the representative plaintiff for a "class" that includes
all Canadian cattle producers outside Quebec.  In that province, a
related and certified class action suit by producer Donald
Berneche continues.

The two suits claim negligence within the government led directly
to the BSE-related closure of the U.S. border and other foreign
ports.  The lawsuits' allegations against the government and
individual federal bureaucrats have not yet been proven in court.

Mr. Sauer's suit, as originally filed in April 2005, had claimed
$100,000 for every member of the "class" in "general damages . . .
for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life" as well as
"aggravated damages" of $100,000 per class member plus "punitive
damages" of $100 million from the suit's "corporate defendants."

But if it's willing to settle, Mr. Pallett said, the government
would benefit from a better resolution, politically speaking, and
on "more favorable economic terms."  Cattle producers could then
get compensation without "years of litigation."

For all the discussion across the western world about tax-funded
economic stimulus, a settlement in this suit would offer real
economic impact, he said.


CAPITAL GOLD: D&Os Face Second Suit Over Sale to Gammon Gold
------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Leone, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. Capital Gold Corporation, et al., Case No. 651690/2010 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., New York Cty. October 7, 2010), sues Capital Gold, its
directors and Gammon Gold Inc., arising out of their agreement to
sell Capital Gold to Gammon for too low a consideration and via a
flawed process.

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement dated October 1, 2010,
Gammon will acquire all of Capital Gold's outstanding shares of
common stock for approximately $288 million, after which Capital
Gold will merge into a Gammon controlled entity.  Each Capital
Gold shareholder is to receive $0.79 per share in cash and 0.5209
shares of Gammon common stock, for each share of Capital Gold
common stock valued at $4.57 based on Capital Gold's closing price
on September 24, 2010.  The proposed transaction has been approved
by Capital Gold's Board of Directors.

According to the Complaint, the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to properly value the Company
and by failing to take steps to maximize the value of Capital Gold
to its public shareholders.

The Complaint relates that the consideration is too low given the
Company's improved finances and anticipated future growth.  In
addition, following the announcement of the proposed transaction,
Capital Gold's shares traded above the Offer Price at $5.43, which
is an indication that the market views the Offer Price as
inadequate.

Capital Gold, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the production
and exploration of gold while Gammon is a Canadian mid-tier gold
and silver producer and miner.

The Complaint further alleges that Gammon, by reason of its status
and as a party to the Merger Agreement, knowingly aided and
abetted the individual defendants' breaches of their fiduciary
duties.

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

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

Plaintiff asks the Court to enjoin the defendants from
consummating the proposed transaction, unless and until the
Company adopts and implements a procedure or process to obtain the
highest possible price for the Company's shareholders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Harwood, Esq.
          Daniella Quitt, Esq.
          HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 935-7400

               - and -

          Patricia C. Weiser, Esq.
          Henry J. Young, Esq.
          Loren R. Ungar, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          121 N. Wayne Avenue, Suite 100
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 225-2677


CELLU TISSUE: Faces "Glembockie" Suit Over Clearwater Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Cellu Tissue Holdings, Inc., faces a suit captioned Edward
Glembockie v. Cellu Tissue Holdings, Inc., et al., in connection
with its planned merger with Clearwater Paper Corporation,
according to the company's Oct. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Aug. 26, 2010.

On Sept. 16, 2010, the company announced that it has entered into
a definitive merger agreement with Clearwater pursuant to which
Clearwater would acquire all of the outstanding common stock of
the company in an all-cash transaction which values the company at
approximately $502 million, including approximately $255 million
of debt.

On or about Sept. 20, 2010, Edward Glembockie, on behalf of
himself and the public shareholders of the Company, filed a
putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton
County, State of Georgia.

The lawsuit names as defendants the company, Clearwater, and each
member of the company's Board of Directors.

The lawsuit alleges that the company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with Clearwater's planned
acquisition of the company.  In addition, the lawsuit alleges that
the company and Clearwater aided and abetted those alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties.  Based on these allegations, the
lawsuit seeks to enjoin the acquisition and to obtain other
related equitable relief.  It also seeks recovery of the costs of
the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.
The company says that it is possible that additional lawsuits
seeking similar relief may be filed.  The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint.

Cellu Tissue Holdings, Inc. -- htp://www.cellutissue.com/ -- is a
North American producer of tissue products, with a focus on
consumer-oriented private label products and a growing presence in
the value retail tissue market.


CINTAS CORP: Court Approval of Settlement in Veliz Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The approval of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, Oakland Division, on the proposed settlement of class
action claims in Paul Veliz, et al. v. Cintas Corp., et al.,
Case No. 03-cv-1180, remains pending, according to the company's
Oct. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2010.

Cintas is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed on
March 19, 2003, alleging that Cintas violated certain federal and
state wage and hour laws applicable to its service sales
representatives, whom Cintas considers exempt employees, and
asserting additional related ERISA claims.

On April 5, 2004 and Feb. 14, 2006, the Court stayed the claims of
all plaintiffs with valid arbitration agreements pending
arbitration of those claims.  Claims made in the Veliz action
therefore are pending before the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California and Judge Bruce Meyerson (Ret.), an
Arbitrator selected by the parties.

On Aug. 5, 2009, the parties in the Veliz action reached a
settlement in principle.

When the settlement is fully documented and approved by the Court,
the settlement will resolve all claims now pending or that could
have been brought relating to the subject matter of the case
before the Court and the Arbitrator.

Cintas expects that the approval process will take several months.

The principal terms of the settlement provide for an aggregate
cash payment of approximately $23,950,000 which is accrued in
current accrued liabilities at Aug. 31, 2010.  The pre-tax impact,
net of insurance proceeds, was $19,477,000.

Cintas Corp. -- http://www.cintas.com/-- provides specialized
products and services to businesses of all types primarily
throughout the United States and Canada.  The company is a
provider of corporate identity uniforms through rental and sales
programs, as well as a significant provider of related business
services, including entrance mats, restroom products and services,
first aid, safety and fire protection products and services,
document management services and branded promotional products.
Cintas classifies its businesses into four operating segments:
Rental Uniforms and Ancillary Products; Uniform Direct Sales;
First Aid, Safety and Fire Protection Services, and Document
Management Services.  The company provides its products and
services to approximately 800,000 businesses of all types, from
small service and manufacturing companies to corporations.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gilman and Pastor LLP filed a class action lawsuit on October 8,
2010, on behalf of all stock owners/investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares in the Education Management common stock
during the period between October 2, 2009 and August 16, 2010,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Education Management Corporation
("Education Management") and certain of Education Management's
officers (collectively "Defendants") violated federal securities
fraud laws by issuing a materially false and misleading
registration statement and proxy-prospectus in connection with an
October 2, 2009 Initial Public Offering in violation of the
Securities Act of 1933 and by making a series of materially false
and misleading statements related to Education Management's
business operations in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  These statements were false because:

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

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

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

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Education Management shares
during the Class Period, between October 2, 2009 and August 16,
2010, and either lost money on the transaction or still hold the
shares, you may contact Gilman and Pastor by no later than Monday,
October 11, 2010 to discuss your rights, including as to the
recovery of your losses, or to obtain additional information, at
www.investment-losses.com, by email at rpotkay@gilmanpastor.com or
by calling toll-free (877) 428-7374.

Gilman and Pastor LLP is also representing investors with similar
claims against other For-Profit Education companies, including but
not limited to the Apollo Group, Inc., Lincoln Educational
Services, Corp., American Public Education and Corinthian College.

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

CONTACTS:

          Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq.
          GILMAN AND PASTOR, LLP
          16 Fourteenth Avenue
          Wareham, MA 02571
          Telephone: (877) 428-7374
          Facsimile: (508) 291-3258
          E-mail: kgilman@gilmanpastor.com


EKSPORTFINANS ASA: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA, made an
announcement to all Eksportfinans ASA Reverse Exchangeable Note
Investors who are prospective class members of class action
lawsuit, Case No. 10-cv-05336, filed on July 13, 2010 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The class
period for Eksportfinans ASA investors covered under the class
action lawsuit is from November 17, 2006 through July 13, 2010.
According to the court documents, the named Defendants include
Eksportfinans ASA as the issuer of the securities and major Wall
Street Underwriters of the Offering.  The Underwriter Defendants
named in the class action lawsuit include: Citigroup Global
Markets, Inc., Merrill Lynch & Company, Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.,
UBS Financial Services, Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co., Banc of America
Securities, LLC and J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.

The class action lawsuit alleges that the Offering Materials were
materially false and misleading.  The lawsuit claims the
Defendants failed to disclose that the securities did not provide
downside protection below "knock-in" price, securities exposed
investors to unlimited downside risk and securities exposed
investors to the creditworthiness of the issuer.  The lawsuit
further alleges that the securities were "designed to appeal to
older persons and retirees seeking yields higher than those of CD
and/or treasuries in the current interest rate environment."
Prospective class members should consider whether they should file
an individual securities arbitration claim with the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) as a more effective method
to recover a greater percentage of their investment losses.  FINRA
is a self regulating organization with sales practice rules and
regulations that govern the securities industry's conduct and
safeguard the investing public

According to the lawsuit, many investors were advised by their
financial advisors that an investment in Reverse Exchangeable
Notes were suitable investments for conservative investors with
current income investment objectives.  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.  The
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, (FINRA) is a self
regulating organization with sales practice rules and regulations
that govern the securities industry's conduct and safeguard the
investing public.  FINRA rules state that recommendations of
unsuitable investments and the failure to conduct adequate due
diligence concerning recommended securities may result in causes
of action that may be available to investors against their full-
service brokerage firm in an individual securities arbitration
claim.

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
website.  To speak directly with an attorney, call (800) 578-0137
and ask for Ben Fernandez, Esquire.


EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Inks Pact to Settle Suit Over Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emergent BioSolutions, Inc., has reached an agreement in principle
to settle lawsuits arising out of the company's plan to merger
with Trubion Pharmaceuticals Inc., according to the company's
Oct. 8, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On Aug. 17, 2010, two class action lawsuits were filed in the
Superior Court of Washington, King County, against Trubion, its
board of directors, and Emergent BioSolutions.  The actions are:

     (1) Rajat Sharma v. Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
         Case Number: 10-2-29637-9-SEA, and

     (2) Shirley Harris v. Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
         Case Number: 10-2-29680-8 SEA.

The suits allege in summary that, in connection with the proposed
merger of Trubion with Emergent BioSolutions, the members of the
Trubion board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by
conducting an unfair sale process and agreeing to an unfair price.
Both complaints also claim that Trubion and Emergent BioSolutions
aided and abetted the Trubion board of directors in its breach of
fiduciary duties.

On Sept. 9, 2010, the actions were consolidated into the action
entitled In re Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Lead Case No. 10-2-29637-9.

On Oct. 1, 2010, the plaintiffs in the State Action served on the
Defendants a consolidated amended class action complaint.  The
Amended Complaint alleges, among other things and in addition to
the matters alleged in the initial complaints, that the Defendants
omitted material information from the Proxy Statement/Prospectus.
The Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive
relief, and plaintiffs have indicated their intent to file a
motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Trubion from
holding the stockholder vote on the Merger, which vote is
currently scheduled for Oct. 28, 2010.

On Oct. 4, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington against the
Defendants captioned Walter Sloboda v. Trubion Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al. (Case No. C 10-1591 MJP), which makes allegations
related to the Merger that are substantially similar to those
matters alleged in the Amended Complaint, includes additional
allegations regarding purported violations of the federal
securities laws and seeks substantially similar relief.

On Oct. 8, 2010, the Defendants reached agreement in principle
with the plaintiffs in the Actions regarding the settlement of the
Actions.  In connection with the settlement contemplated by that
agreement in principle, the Actions will be stayed pending
approval of the settlement of the State Action by the State Court.
Thereafter, the State Action and all claims asserted therein will
be dismissed with prejudice and counsel for the plaintiff in the
Federal Action will take all necessary steps to dismiss the
Federal Action and all claims asserted therein with prejudice.

The terms of the settlement contemplated by that agreement in
principle require that Trubion and Emergent BioSolutions make
certain additional disclosures related to the Merger.  The parties
also agreed that the plaintiffs in the Actions may seek attorneys'
fees and costs in an aggregate amount up to $475,000, with Trubion
to pay such fees and costs if such fees and costs are approved by
the State Court.  There will be no other payment by Trubion, any
of the members of the Trubion board of directors or Emergent
BioSolutions to the plaintiffs or their respective counsels in
connection with the settlement and dismissal of the Actions.

The agreement in principle further contemplates that the parties
will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject
to customary conditions, including State Court approval following
notice to Trubion's shareholders.  In the event that the parties
enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be
scheduled at which the State Court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement.

Emergent BioSolutions Inc. -- http://www.emergentbiosolutions.com/
-- is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development,
manufacture and commercialization of vaccines and antibody
therapies that assist the body's immune system to prevent or treat
disease.  Emergent's marketed product, BioThrax(R) (Anthrax
Vaccine Adsorbed), is the only vaccine approved by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration for the prevention of anthrax disease.
Emergent's product pipeline targets infectious diseases and
includes programs focused on anthrax, tuberculosis, typhoid, flu
and chlamydia.


EUGENE MOORE: Sued for Violating Plaintiff's Civil Rights
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Devereaux, Jr., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Eugene "Gene" Moore, both as the Recorder of
Deeds of Cook County and on behalf of all other Recorders of Deeds
in each and every County in the State of Illinois and Cook County,
Case No. 2010-L-011355 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. October 5, 2010),
brings claims against Mr. Moore, in his official capacity, for
unlawfully collecting a $10 surcharge in support of the "Rental
Housing Support Program", a $15 fee for the "Geographic
Information System," as well as a fee for $30 for "Document
Storage," in violation of the Plaintiff's civil rights.

On April 5, 2010, Mr. Devereaux Jr. recorded a deed with the Cook
County Recorder of Deeds and paid, under protest, all the fees
charged to him by the Cook County Recorder of Deeds.

55 ILCS Sec. 5/3-5018, promulgated by the General Assembly of the
State of Illinois, the class action says, permitted the imposition
of these fees, which is required to be paid before a deed can be
recorded.  The statues in question, Mr. Deveraux alleges,
constitute an unreasonable and arbitrary conversion of fees paid
for a service into a general tax to be used for the benefit of the
State of Illinois.  Because these fees were used to support a
purpose unrelated to recording the document, Plaintiff claims his
due process and equal protection rights as protected by the
Constitution of the United States of America and the Civil Rights
Act, as codified in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, were violated.

The fees, Mr. Deveraux explains, constitute an unlawful taking of
his property (money) which is offensive to the provisions of 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1983 as well as the Constitution of the United States
of America and must be declared invalid.

In view of this, Mr. Deveraux requests the Court to declare
55 ILCS Sec. 5/3-5018 as it provides for the surcharge in question
to be a violation of the United States Constitution as well as 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and to order the refund of all fees collected
pursuant to the statutes in question, along with payment of
exemplary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.  He is represented by:

          David A. Novoselsky, Esq.
          DAVID A. NOVOSELSKY & ASSOCIATES
          120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 346-8930


FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm Friday disclosed that it has filed a class
action on behalf of purchasers of FalconStor Software, Inc.,
common stock during the period beginning February 5, 2009 through
September 29, 2010, seeking remedies under the federal securities
laws.

To join the class action against FalconStor, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call Laurence Rosen, Esq., or
Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653.  You may also email
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.  The class action is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

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

The Complaint alleges that FalconStor and certain of its officers
and directors are liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the issuance of
materially false and misleading statements about the Company's
financial condition and prospects.  The Complaint asserts that
defendants failed to disclose that the FalconStor was making
improper payments to secure a contract with at least one of its
customers; the Company was experiencing weak demand for its
products and services; and consequently defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their statements about the Company's
prospects.  The Complaint asserts that when the truth of these
statements began to enter into the market on September 29, 2010
the price of FalconStor stock fell, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 30, 2010.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing and overseeing the litigation.  If you wish to join the
litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action, please contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim,
Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via
e-mail at lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com.  You may
also visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.

Contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
          350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, New York 10118
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Weekends/After-hours Tel: (917) 797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


FIRST AMERICAN: Faces Class Suit Over Loan Modification Scam
------------------------------------------------------------
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. 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


GREEN MOUNTAIN: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in Vermont
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
("Green Mountain" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:GMCR) 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/


GUAM: Scheduling Conference Set for Public Law 158 Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kerrigan, writing for Pacific News Center, reports the
legal-discovery process in the Class Action suit filed by Attorney
Curtis Van de Veld against the Tiyan Land Swap law has produced
what the Attorney thinks are damning documents that he believes
will help stop implementation of the law.  Assistant Attorney
General Bill Bischoff disagrees.

According to documents from the Ancestral Lands Commission,
released by the Guam Attorney General, the Ancestral Lands
Commission controls 1,608 acres of land [aside from a disputed
claim from the Torres family].

Under Public Law 158, the Tiyan Land Swap Law 971 acres, 60% of
the total, would be given to roughly 72 families who make up the
former Tiyan land owners.

Yet, according to the Ancestral Land Commission records, only 114
Tiyan lots were lost to post war condemnations, less than 2% of
the total property condemned and taken by the Federal Government
after the Second World War.

Public Law 158, approved by 14 of 15 Guam Lawmakers and signed by
the Acting Governor, gives 60% of Guam's Ancestral lands to
families whose loss makes up only 2% of the total land condemned
and taken.

Mr. Van de Veld also points to a declaration and a quite claim
deed signed and on June 16, which, he says, removed the entire
inventory of Ancestral Land land from the Land Bank Trust it had
been held and transferred it to the control of the Ancestral Lands
Commissioners.

However Assistant Attorney General Bill Bishoff, who advises the
Ancestral Lands Commission strongly disagreed with Mr. Van de
Veld's assessment telling pnc news that: "The quitclaim deed had
nothing to do with the Tiyan Land owners case and has no impact on
the Class Action suit."

The quitclaim deed was merely executed he said to give control of
the Ancestral Lands back to all of the Commissioners, rather than
the few who decided the disposition of the land before.

The Class Action suit filed by Van de Veld to stop implementation
of Public Law 158 is slated for a scheduling conference on
Thursday, October 14.  In the meantime, a restraining order
remains in effect preventing implementation of the law.


HYATT VACATION: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Jeanne Shultz, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Hyatt Vacation Marketing Corporation, et al., Case No.
10-cv-04568 (N.D. Calif. October 8, 2010), accuses the resort
operator of failure to: (1) pay the minimum wage for all hours
worked; (2) pay overtime compensation; (3) provide timely,
accurate itemized wage statements, (4) provide meal and rest
periods.  Ms Shultz also brings claims against Hyatt Vacation for
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, Calif. Bus. &
Prof. Code Sec. 17200.

Ms. worked as sales executive for the defendants.

The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.  She is represented by:

          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          Robert L. Schug, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 277-7235
          E-mail: Helland@nka.com
                  Rschug@nka.com


HYPERCOM CORP: Suit Wants D&Os to Consider Verifone Offer
---------------------------------------------------------
Joel Gerber, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Norman Stout, et al., Case No. 5868- (Del. Ch. Ct.
October 1, 2010), asks the Court to require the directors of
Hypercom Corporation, of which the plaintiff is a shareholder, to
fulfill their fiduciary duties to the Company and the Company's
public shareholders by fairly considering an offer by Verifone
Systems, Inc., to acquire the Company at a premium price,
including seeking increased consideration from Verifone.  Mr.
Gerber also seeks injunctive relief "against entrenching
transactions that will not maximize shareholder value, including
recent defensive measures implemented by the individual defendants
that are designed to derail Verifone's offer."

Hypercom, a provider of electronic payment and transaction
products and services through transaction terminations and other
devices used at the point of transaction, is named as a nominal
defendant.  Hypercom's common stock is traded on the New York
Stock Exchange under the symbol "HYC."

Verifone is Hypercom's largest competitor and holds a leading
market share among credit card terminal manufacturers.

The individual defendants are:

      1) Norman Stout, non-executive Chairman of the Board.

      2) Phillippe Tartavul, CEO/President, director.

      3) Daniel D. Diethelm, director (owns 10,00 shares of
         Hypercom stock and has 308,874 stock options).

      4) Johann Dreyer, director (owns 45,000 stock options and no
         common shares.

      5) Keither B. Geeslin, director (owns 30,000 stock options
         and no common shares.

      6) Tom Ludwig, director (Hypercom has not yet disclosed Mr.
         Mr. Ludwig's stockholdings in the Company, if any).

      7) Ian Marsh, director (owns 45,000 stock options and no
         common shares.

      8) Philip Riese, director (owns 20,000 shares of Hypercom
         common stock and has 122,500 stock options.

Mr. Geeslin is a partner at Franscisco Partners and was appointed
to the board as a designee of Franscisco Partners II, L.P., which
has a credit agreement that permits FP II to appoint two directors
to the board.  FP II does not own any shares, but has an option to
purchase approximately 10.5 million shares at $5.00 per share.

Mr. Ludwig is the Chief Operating Officer of Francisco Partners
and was appointed to the board by FP II only last September 30,
2010.

Mr. Gerber relates that on September 24, 2010, Verifone sent a
proposal to the individual defendants for a stock-for-stock merger
whereby Verifone would acquire Hypercom at a 0.21x exchange ratio,
representing just over $6.00 per Hypercom share and a 52% premium
over the closing price for Hypercom stock the day before the
proposal and a 69% premium over the average share price for the
prior thirty (30) trading days.  According to Mr. Gerber, the
individual defendants rejected the offer for a stock-for-stock
transaction and failed to engage in a "meaningful" discussion with
respect to the offer.  On September 27, 2010, Verifone sent a new
proposal to individual defendants for an all cash acquisition of
Hypercom at $5.25 cash per share, representing a 37% one-day
premium and a 52% 30-day premium.  Unable to persuade the
individual defendants to accept the offer, Mr. Gerber says
Verifone went public on September 29, 2010, and disclosed the
offer which the individual defendants failed to engage.  On
September 30, 2010, Hypercom issued a press release to announce
its rejection of Verifone's offer, and further disclosed that the
individual defendants also adopted a shareholder rights plan (a
"poison pill") and that Mr. Ludwig had been appointed to the board
effective immediately."

The Complaint says that despite having received a "unique
opportunity" to maximize the value of Hypercom common stock, which
had not traded above $5.25 per share since 2007, the individual
defendants have rejected Verifone's offer without any effort to
determine whether better or different terms could be obtained, in
breach of their fiduciary duties to the Company and its
shareholders.  Mr. Gerber wants to Court to preliminarily and
permanently enjoin the individual defendants from initiating any
defensive measures which may render the acquisition of the Company
unduly burdensome or expensive for a potential acquirer, and
ordering the individual defendants to rescind or redeem the poison
pill and declaring the poison pill invalid.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esq.
          P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 North Market Street, Suite 1401
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433

               - and -

          Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq.
          BRAGAR WEXLER EAGEL & SQUIRE, PC
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858

               - and -

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Kira German, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377


IMMUCOR INC: Wants Securities Suit in Georgia Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Immucor, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss the matter In re
Immucor, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-
2351-TWT, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, according to the company's Oct. 7, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2010.

A private securities litigation was filed in the U.S. District
Court of North Georgia against the company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers asserts federal
securities fraud claims on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the company's Common Stock between Oct. 19, 2005 and
June 25, 2009.

The case alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by
failing to disclose that Immucor had violated the antitrust laws,
and challenges the sufficiency of the company's disclosures about
the results of FDA inspections and the company's quality control
efforts.  There has been no discovery and no determination has
been made whether any of the plaintiffs' claims have merit or
should be allowed to proceed as a class action.

In June 2010, the company and those current and former officers
and directors named as defendants have moved the Court to dismiss
the case.  Plaintiff has filed a response, and Defendants plan to
submit a reply brief.  Discovery in the case is stayed until the
motion is resolved.

Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com/-- manufactures and sells
a complete line of reagents and systems used by hospitals,
reference laboratories and donor centers to detect and identify
certain properties of the cell and serum components of blood prior
to transfusion.  Immucor markets a complete family of automated
instrumentation for all of its market segments.


IMMUCOR INC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Price-Fixing" Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has denied Immucor, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated suit
alleging that the company, along with other defendants, conspired
to fix prices at which blood reagents are sold, according to the
company's Oct. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2010.

Beginning in May 2009, a series of class action lawsuits has been
filed against the company, Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and
Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc. alleging that the
defendants conspired to fix prices at which blood reagents are
sold, asserting claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages, costs,
and attorneys' fees.

All of these complaints make substantially the same allegations.
The cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  There has been no discovery
and no determination has been made whether any of the plaintiffs'
claims have merit or should be allowed to proceed as a class
action.

A list of the cases may be viewed for free at http://is.gd/dOvJ2

On Aug. 23, 2010, the Court denied Motions to Dismiss for failure
to state a cause of action filed by the company and by co-
Defendant Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and denied a Motion to
Stay Discovery filed jointly by the Defendants.  The company has
filed a Motion for Reconsideration or for Certification for
Interlocutory Appeal with respect to the Court's Order, and this
Motion is pending.

Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com/-- manufactures and sells
a complete line of reagents and systems used by hospitals,
reference laboratories and donor centers to detect and identify
certain properties of the cell and serum components of blood prior
to transfusion.  Immucor markets a complete family of automated
instrumentation for all of its market segments.


JAMES O'DEA: Sued for Abuse of Legal Process
--------------------------------------------
Frank Selby, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. James M. O'Dea (doing business as James M.
O'Dea and Associates) and State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance
Company, Case No. 2010-CH-43684 (Ill. Circ. Ct., Cook Cty.
October 6, 2010), brings five counts against the defendants:
1) abuse of legal process, 2) civil conspiracy, 3) fraud, 4)
injunctive relief, and 5) unjust enrichment.  These acts, the
action states, are so numerous and widespread that they create a
pattern and practice which is improper and impermissible in the
course of litigation in the Circuit Court of Cook County, and
under the laws of the State of Illinois.  These actions, the
Complaint adds, were committed by O'Dea & Associates for the
purpose of deceiving Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County
into granting default judgments on behalf of State Farm Auto,
despite service of summons never having made in accordance with
applicable law.

James O'Dea is an attorney licensed in the State of Illinois,
doing business in Cook County as James M. O'Dea Associates, and,
by contractual arrangement, currently acts as legal counsel of
State Farm Auto in filing and litigating lawsuits (for personal
injury or property damage to persons insured by State Farm Auto)
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

The Complaint further alleges that the Office of the Illinois
Secretary of State was likewise deceived into taking actions
against parties against whom these improper judgments were
entered, by falsely notifying the Secretary of State that these
judgments had been entered and existing for more than 30 days,
were final judgments, and that such judgments remained
unsatisfied.  These actions against the defendants in these
lawsuits caused defendants to lose their driver's licenses, the
possession and use of their vehicles, and forced them to pay fees
to remove the impoundments, have the suspensions lifted and their
driving privileges restored, and regain possession and use of
their vehicles.

Plaintiff Selby says that on February 9, 2009, O'Dea & Associates
filed a case against him in the Municipal Department of the
Circuit Court of Cook County, on behalf of State Farm Auto as a
result of an occurrence involving his automobile.  The case sought
damages of less than $50,000.  Mr. Shelby states that the original
summons was never placed with the Sheriff of Cook County.  No
motion for special process server was filed, although an
individual was appointed as special process server by the court
without any certificate number being indicated on the court order.
The court was never advised before entry of the order appointing a
special process server that the original summons was not placed
with the Sheriff, or that the Sheriff did not attempt service of
summons.  Thereafter, a second individual, not appointed by the
court as a special process server, attempted to make service on
Mr. Selby with an alias summons issued on April 9, 2009,
containing a date for appearance of May 21, 2009, thereby
indicating a return day in excess of 40 days after issuance of the
alias summons.  Thus, an individual not appointed by any court
order attempted to effectuate service with an improper summons.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Grace E. Wein, Esq.
          GRACE WEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3010
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 629-1060

               - and -

          Robert S. Harlib, Esq.
          105 West Madison Street, Suite 810
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0290


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Goldfarb Investigating Derivative Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Goldfarb Branham LLP is investigating potential shareholder claims
against the officers and directors of Johnson & Johnson due to
lack of internal controls that led to phantom recalls and several
class action lawsuits.  Johnson & Johnson investors are encouraged
to contact the firm at 877-583-2855 or
hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com to learn about their rights.

"A class action complaint alleges that defendants received
numerous complaints that Tylenol products made in Puerto Rico had
a 'musty' odor, but failed to conduct an adequate investigation or
notify the Federal Drug Administration," securities lawyer
Hamilton Lindley said.  "It also alleges that company executives
failed to take corrective actions when foreign materials were
found in a Pennsylvania manufacturing facility.  Additionally,
when defendants learned of problems with its Motrin drug, they
sent contractors to stores to purchase the product instead of
mentioning a recall."

Goldfarb Branham LLP is investigating a derivative lawsuit against
company officers and directors for allowing this to occur.
Derivative lawsuits often lead to restored confidence in companies
involved in financial scandal and a resulting increase in
shareholder value.  Concerned shareholders who still hold their
shares are urged to contact attorney Hamilton Lindley at 877-583-
2855 or hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com

Contact:

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          GOLDFARB BRANHAM LLP
          Telephone: 214-583-2233
          Toll Free: 877-583-2855
          Fax: 214-583-2234
          hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com


KB HOME: California Court Approves Settlement in "Bagley" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has
approved the settlement agreement and dismissed the matter Bagley
et al., v. KB Home, et al., according to KB Home's Oct. 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2010.

On March 16, 2007, plaintiffs Reba Bagley and Scott Silver filed
an action brought under Section 502 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section
1132.

The action was brought against the company, its directors, certain
of its current and former officers, and the board of directors
committee that oversees the 401(k) Plan.  After the court allowed
leave to file an amended complaint, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint adding Tolan Beck and Rod Hughes as additional
plaintiffs and dismissing certain individuals as defendants.

All four plaintiffs claimed to be former employees of KB Home who
participated in the 401(k) Plan.  Plaintiffs alleged on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated that all
defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to plaintiffs and
purported class members under ERISA by failing to disclose
information to and providing misleading information to
participants in the 401(k) Plan about our alleged prior stock
option backdating practices and by failing to remove the company's
stock as an investment option under the 401(k) Plan.

Plaintiffs alleged that this breach of fiduciary duties caused
plaintiffs to earn less on their 401(k) Plan accounts than they
would have earned but for defendants' alleged breach of duties.

The parties to the litigation executed a settlement agreement on
Feb. 26, 2010 and an amended settlement agreement on April 5,
2010.

On Sept. 8, 2010, the court approved the amended settlement
agreement and dismissed the case.

KB Home -- http://www.kbhome.com/-- one of the nation's premier
homebuilders, has delivered over half a million quality homes for
families since its founding in 1957.  The Los Angeles-based
company is distinguished by its Built to Order(TM) homebuilding
approach that puts a custom home experience within reach of its
customers at an affordable price.


LAWSON SOFTWARE: Wants Court to De-Certify FLSA Action
------------------------------------------------------
Lawson Software, Inc., has filed a motion with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota to de-certify the Fair Labor
Standards Act collective action, according to the company's
Oct. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2010.

On May 20, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of current and former business, systems, and
technical consultants.  The suit, Cruz, et. al., v. Lawson
Software, Inc. et. al., alleged that the company failed to pay
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and state
law, and alleged violations of state record-keeping requirements.

The suit also alleged certain violations of ERISA and unjust
enrichment.  Relief sought includes back wages, corresponding
401(k) plan credits, liquidated damages, penalties, interest and
attorneys' fees.

The company successfully moved the case from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the District of
Minnesota.  The Minnesota Federal District Court conditionally
certified the case under the FLSA as a collective action and
granted our motion to dismiss the two ERISA counts and the state
wage and hour claims.

Plaintiffs moved for Rule 23 class certification but the Court
denied their motion.  At the present time, the size of the class
is limited to the 68 consultants who elected to participate in the
lawsuit by filing opt-in forms.  The overtime period at issue is
two years, which would be increased to three years if the
plaintiffs proved that the Company intentionally violated the
applicable wage and hour laws.

The plaintiffs' damages expert claims total aggregate damages of
$10.3 million for a two year period for the 68 consultants and an
additional $2.9 million in aggregate damages if the overtime
period is three years.  Given the inherent unpredictability of
litigation and jury trials, the company cannot at this time
estimate the possible outcome of this lawsuit.

On June 30, 2010, Lawson filed a motion to de-certify the FLSA
collective action, which, if granted, would limit the action to
the five named plaintiffs.
The company also filed a motion for summary judgment asking for
dismissal of remaining class members based on their performance of
exempt duties and/or making more than $100,000 per year.  The
court has scheduled a hearing for those motions in November 2010.

Lawson Software, Inc. -- http://www.lawson.com/-- is a global
provider of enterprise software.  The company provides business
application software, maintenance and consulting to customers
primarily in specific services, trade and manufacturing/
distribution industries.  The company specializes in and target
specific industries including healthcare, services, public sector,
equipment service management & rental, manufacturing &
distribution and consumer products industries.  The company's
software solutions include Enterprise Financial Management, Human
Capital Management, Business Intelligence, Asset Management,
Enterprise Performance Management, Supply Chain Management,
Service Management, Manufacturing Operations, Business Project
Management and industry-tailored applications.  The company's
applications help automate and integrate critical business
processes, which enable customers to collaborate with their
partners, suppliers and employees, reduce costs and enhance
business or operational performance.  Lawson is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minn., and has offices around the world.


MATTEL INC: May Face Class Action Over Fisher Price Recall
----------------------------------------------------------
Shuyee Lee, writing for Montreal Headlines Examiner, reports that
Mattel Inc. could be facing a class action lawsuit in the wake of
a massive recall of Fisher Price toys and products because of
potential safety problems.

Two Montreal parents filed the request to greenlight the lawsuit,
after their children suffered cuts and bruises while playing with
toys that were part of the Mattel-Fisher Price recall, that
included several high chair models, a tricycle, a rampway and
inflatable ball products.

Their lawyer Jeff Orenstein of Consumer Law Group says the
Montreal cases involved the trikes and high chairs.

"Subsequent to the recall, they put one and one together and said
this is obviously why their kids were injured was because of this
safety defect," Mr. Orenstein said.

Customers who bought the products were asked to stop using them
and to contact Mattel for a repair kit, refund or replacement
product.  But Mr. Orenstein says that's not good enough.

"They felt upset that a product was put on the market that
obviously did not receive the adequate testing that was necessary
to ensure that it was safe."

Mr. Orenstein says he can't put a dollar figure on the class
action what with varying injuries, possible refunds and damages,
but he notes there were an estimated 420-thousand products sold in
Canada.


NATIONAL CITY: Nov. 30 Hearing Set for Settlement Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody and Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check,
LLP:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

In re: National City Corporation Securities, Derivative & ERISA
Litigation Case No. 08-nc-70000

TO ALL CURRENT AND FORMER PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES OF THE
NATIONAL CITY SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN (THE "PLAN") (A) FOR
WHOSE INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS THE PLAN PURCHASED AND/OR HELD INTERESTS
IN THE NATIONAL CITY STOCK FUND AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 TO DECEMBER 31, 2008, INCLUSIVE; OR (B) WHOSE
INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS IN THE PLAN HELD INTERESTS IN ANY OF THE
MUTUAL FUNDS OF ALLEGIANT ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY (FORMERLY KNOWN
AS "ARMADA FUNDS") OFFERED AS INVESTMENT ALTERNATIVES IN THE PLAN.
(THE "ALLEGIANT FUNDS") AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD MARCH 25,
2002 TO DECEMBER 31, 2009, INCLUSIVE ("SETTLEMENT CLASS").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  A FEDERAL COURT AUTHORIZED
THIS NOTICE.

THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION.  YOU ARE NOT BEING SUED.

A Settlement has been preliminarily approved by a federal court in
a consolidated class action lawsuit against National City
Corporation ("National City" or the "Company"), certain of its
former officers and directors and others alleging breaches of
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA").  All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in
this Summary Notice of Class Action Settlement have the meaning
provided in the Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement
Agreement") available on the Settlement website identified in this
notice.  The Settlement will provide for a payment of $43 million
to the Plan (minus Court-approved attorneys' fees, certain
expenses and case contribution awards to the Named Plaintiffs),
which will then be allocated to the accounts of participants of
the Plan who had portions of their Plan accounts invested in
National City common stock or fund units in the National City
Stock Fund at any time during the period September 5, 2006 to
December 31, 2008 and to Plan participants who held Allegiant
Funds in their Plan accounts at any time from March 25, 2002 to
December 31, 2009.  You will receive a payment if you qualify
under a Court-approved Plan of Allocation.  You do not need to
send in a claim form or take any other action to participate in
the Settlement.  The United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio (Eastern Division) authorized this Notice.  If
you were a member of the Settlement Class as defined above than
you are included in the Settlement automatically.

The Named Plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that the
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by allowing
the investment of the Plan's assets in National City common stock
or National City Stock Fund units during a time when they knew or
should have known that such investment was imprudent and by other
related acts, and that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties
by allowing the Plan to invest in Allegiant Funds in violation of
ERISA.  All Defendants deny all wrongdoing.

Defendants have agreed to create a Settlement Fund of $43 million
to be divided among eligible Settlement Class Members after
payment of attorneys' fees and expenses to Class Counsel and Case
Contribution Awards to the Named Plaintiffs, and payment of other
costs and expenses of the Settlement, including notice and
Settlement administration, as the Court may allow.  The Settlement
Agreement and long-form Class Notice, available along with other
related documentation and a list of Frequently Asked Questions at
the website identified below, describes the details of the
proposed Settlement.  The Settlement releases certain claims
relating to the investment of the Plan's assets in National City
common stock or common stock fund units and claims related to the
Plan's offering of Allegiant Funds during the time periods listed
above.

If you are a Settlement Class member and are entitled to a share
of the Settlement Fund according to the Settlement Agreement, you
are not required to do anything to receive a payment.  The payment
will be made directly to your Plan account(s).  If you no longer
are a participant in the Plan, a Plan account will be established
for you and you will be notified of this account along with
further instructions.  If your address has changed since you
closed your Plan account(s), please contact Class Counsel toll-
free at 866-828-2555 to advise of the change of address.

You cannot opt out of the Settlement, but you may object to all or
any part of the Settlement in accordance with the Class Notice.
You will be bound by any judgments or orders that are entered in
this Action, and if the Settlement is approved, you will be deemed
to have released all of the Defendants from all claims that were
or could have been asserted in this case.

The Court will hold a hearing in this case on November 30, 2010 at
noon in the Courtroom of United States District Judge Solomon
Oliver, Jr., United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio (Eastern Division), Carl B. Stokes United States
Court House, 801 West Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1838,
to consider whether to approve the Settlement and any motion(s) by
the lawyers representing Settlement Class members for attorneys'
fees, reimbursement of expenses and Case Contribution Awards to
the Named Plaintiffs, and for other case-related expenses.  If
approved, these amounts will be paid from the Settlement Fund.
You may ask to speak at the hearing by filing a notice of your
intention to appear, but you are not required to appear at the
hearing.

This notice summarizes the proposed Settlement.  If you are a
Settlement Class member and would like to receive additional
information or to receive a copy of the long form Class Notice,
which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights
thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement),
please call toll-free 866-828-2555 or visit
www.NationalCityERISASettlement.com.

Contacts:

          Edwin J. Mills, Esq.
          Michael J. Klein, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          Telephone: (800) 337-4983
          Web site: www.ssbny.com

               - or -

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          Telephone: (888) 299-7706
          Web site: http://www.btkmc.com/


NATIONAL WESTERN: Approval of Settlement Agreement Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The approval of a settlement agreement resolving a suit against
National Western Life Insurance Company remains pending, according
to the company's Oct. 8, 2010, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

The company was a defendant in a class action lawsuit initially
filed on Sept. 17, 2004, in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles.  The California state
court certified a class consisting of certain California
policyholders age 65 and older alleging violations under
California Business and Professions Code section 17200.  The court
additionally certified a subclass of 36 policyholders alleging
fraud against their agent, and vicariously against the Company.

The California Insurance Department had intervened in this case
asserting that the company has violated California insurance laws.
The parties to this case had been involved in court-ordered
mediation and ongoing negotiations.

On Feb. 22, 2010, the Company reported in a Form 8-K filing a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs and plaintiff in
intervention, providing a settlement benefit of approximately $17
million.

Founded in 1956, National Western Life Insurance Company --
http://www.nationalwesternlife.com/-- is a stock life insurance
company offering a broad portfolio of individual universal life,
whole life and term insurance plans, annuity products, and
investment contracts meeting the financial needs of its customers
in 49 states as well as residents of various countries in Central
and South America, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, Asia and the
Pacific Rim.  The company has approximately 286 employees and
13,650 contracted independent agents, brokers and consultants, and
at June 30, 2010, maintained total assets of $8.0 billion,
stockholders' equity of $1.2 billion, and life insurance in force
of $18.9 billion.


NATIONAL WESTERN: RICO Violations Suit Still in Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------------------------
A suit against National Western Life Insurance Company alleging
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act remains in the discovery phase.

The company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit pending as of
June 12, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.

The case is titled In Re National Western Life Insurance Deferred
Annuities Litigation and is in the discovery phase.  The complaint
asserts claims for RICO violations, Financial Elder Abuse,
Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq, Violation of
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17500, et seq, Breach of Fiduciary Duty,
Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraudulent
Concealment, Cal. Civ. Code 1710, et seq, Breach of the Duty of
Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Unjust Enrichment and Imposition
of Constructive Trust.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 8, 2010, Form 10-
K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Founded in 1956, National Western Life Insurance Company --
http://www.nationalwesternlife.com/-- is a stock life insurance
company offering a broad portfolio of individual universal life,
whole life and term insurance plans, annuity products, and
investment contracts meeting the financial needs of its customers
in 49 states as well as residents of various countries in Central
and South America, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, Asia and the
Pacific Rim.  The company has approximately 286 employees and
13,650 contracted independent agents, brokers and consultants, and
at June 30, 2010, maintained total assets of $8.0 billion,
stockholders' equity of $1.2 billion, and life insurance in force
of $18.9 billion.


PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Accused in Calif. of Not Paying Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Payless Shoesource stiffs
workers for overtime, a class action claims in Los Angeles
Superior Court.


PNC BANK: Faces Class Action Suit Over Excessive Finance Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Forizs & Dogali, P.A. Friday disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit against National City Bank on behalf
of customer, Jessica Pownall, and other customers like her.  The
lawsuit, filed by Andy Dogali and David P. Meyer & Associates,
Co., LPA, alleges that PNC Bank, who was operating as National
City Bank, charged Pownall and others like her excessive finance
charges in violation of the Truth in Lending Act.  Furthermore,
Pownall alleges on behalf of the class that PNC Bank, operating
under National City Bank credit card agreements and monthly
statements, are vague and contradictory causing customers to incur
excessive finance charges for paying their credit card bill at a
bank branch on its due date.

"We hope this case will force National City Bank, now known as PNC
Bank, to comply with federal law and give their customers clear
information they need to simply pay their bill," says an attorney
for Ms. Pownall, Andy Dogali.  Further, Dogali stated, "We believe
that there are thousands of customers like Jessica who have been
charged excessive finance charges for paying their bill on the day
it was due."

The lawsuit has been filed in the Northern District of Ohio by the
law firm of Forizs and Dogali, P.A., based out of Tampa, Florida,
and David P. Meyer & Associates, Co., LPA, based out of Columbus,
Ohio.  For further information, please contact Brian Hohman at
(813) 289-0700.

Forizs & Dogali, P.A., was founded in 1999 as a firm primarily
devoted to litigation and bankruptcy practice and now employs 14
full-time attorneys.  The firm serves a wide variety of corporate,
business and individual clients in a broad range of litigation
matters, including large class action, multi-party construction,
and insurance disputes, bankruptcy cases, commercial litigation,
municipal and civil rights litigation, creditors rights,
environmental claims, mechanic's lien rights, personal injury
suits and professional malpractice defense.


POINT BLANK: 2nd Circuit Says Settlement Violated Sarbanes-Oxley
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion
holding that the indemnification and release provisions of the
settlement agreement entered into by Point Blank Solutions, Inc.,
to resolve a class action and a derivative action, violated
Section 304 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, according to the
company's Oct. 8, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On Sept. 30, 2010, in connection with an appeal from a judgment of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
approving that certain Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement,
dated as of Nov. 30, 2006, entered into by the company providing
for the settlement of a class action and a derivative action
against the company and certain of its former officers and
directors, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued
an opinion holding that the indemnification and release provisions
of the Settlement Agreement violate Section 304 of The Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002.

The Second Circuit vacated the Judgment and remanded the case to
the Eastern District for proceedings consistent with the Second
Circuit's opinion.

It is the company's position that any party who commences further
proceedings in the Eastern District with respect to the class
action or derivative action would violate the automatic stay
created by the filing on April 14, 2010 of the company's voluntary
petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United
States Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware.

Headquartered in Pompano Beach, Florida, Point Blank Solutions,
Inc. -- http://www.pointblanksolutionsinc.com/-- designs and
produces body armor systems for the U.S. Military, Government and
law enforcement agencies, well as select international markets.
The company is recognized as the largest producer of soft body
armor in the U.S.  The Company maintains facilities in Pompano
Beach, Florida and Jacksboro, Tennessee.


RED HAT: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement Pact
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
gave its preliminary approval to the settlement agreement
resolving a class action lawsuit against Red Hat, Inc., according
to the company's Oct. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31,
2010.

In the summer of 2004, 14 class action lawsuits were filed against
the company and several of its former officers on behalf of
investors who purchased the company's securities during various
periods from June 19, 2001 through July 13, 2004.  All 14 suits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina.

In each of the actions, plaintiffs sought to represent a class of
purchasers of the company's common stock during some or all of the
period from June 19, 2001 through July 13, 2004.  All of the
claims arose in connection with the company's announcement on July
13, 2004 that it would restate certain of its financial
statements.  One or more of the plaintiffs asserted that certain
former officers and the company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder by issuing the financial statements that the company
subsequently restated.

One or more of the plaintiffs sought unspecified damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, an accounting of
certain profits obtained by the Individual Defendants from trading
in the company's common stock, disgorgement by the Company's
former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer
of certain compensation and profits from trading in the company's
common stock pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and other relief.

As of Sept. 8, 2004, all of these class action lawsuits were
consolidated into a single action referenced as Civil Action No.
5:04-CV-473BR and titled In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

On May 6, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class
action complaint.  On July 29, 2005, the company, on behalf of
itself and the Individual Defendants, filed a motion to dismiss
the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.  Also on that date, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, another
defendant, filed a separate motion to dismiss.

On May 12, 2006, the Court issued an order granting the motion to
dismiss the Securities Exchange Act claims against several of the
Individual Defendants, but denying the motion to dismiss the
Securities Exchange Act claims against the company, its former
chief executive officer and former chief financial officer.  The
Court dismissed the claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in their
entirety, and also granted PwC's motion to dismiss.

On Nov. 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

Subsequent to the filing of that motion, several plaintiffs
withdrew as potential class representatives, and the company
opposed the certification of the remaining proposed class
representatives.

On May 11, 2007, the Court entered an order denying class
certification and denying all other pending motions as moot.
Thereafter, on July 13, 2007 Charles Gilbert filed a renewed
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection
of lead counsel.  On Nov. 13, 2007, the Court entered an Order
allowing Gilbert's motion, appointing him lead plaintiff, adding
him as a party plaintiff and appointing lead counsel.

On Jan. 14, 2008, Gilbert's counsel filed a motion to certify the
action as a class action.

On Aug. 28, 2009, the Court entered an Order certifying the action
as a class action, appointing Gilbert as the class representative,
and defining the class as "all purchasers of the common stock of
Red Hat, Inc. between Dec. 17, 2002, and July 12, 2004, inclusive
and who were damaged thereby," excluding company insiders.

On Dec. 15, 2009, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement in principle to settle this matter, subject, among other
matters, to completion of a final written settlement agreement and
court approval.  The company recorded, for its quarter ended Nov.
30, 2009, an estimated liability in the amount of $8.8 million for
its portion of the proposed settlement.

On March 29, 2010, counsel for the class filed a Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Settlement and, on June 11, 2010, a
United States Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation to the presiding judge that the motion be approved.

On July 8, 2010, the presiding judge approved the motion and set
the hearing for the final fairness hearing on Dec. 7, 2010.

Red Hat, Inc. -- http://www.redhat.com/-- is the world's leading
open source solutions provider and a component of the S&P 500, is
headquartered in Raleigh, NC with over 65 offices spanning the
globe.


RITE AID: 1,550 Assistant Store Managers Join "Indergit" Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 1,550 current and former assistant store managers
(out of approximately 7,000 current and former assistant store
managers comprising the purported collective group) have joined
the class suit styled Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al.,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, according to the company's Oct. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Aug. 28, 2010.

The company is currently a defendant in several putative
collective or class action lawsuits filed in federal or state
courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Ohio and
Oregon, purportedly on behalf of, in some cases (i) current and
former assistant store managers, or (ii) current and former store
managers and assistant store managers, respectively, working in
the company's stores at various locations.  The lawsuits allege
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and of certain state
wage and hour statutes.  The lawsuits seek various combinations of
unpaid compensation (including overtime compensation), liquidated
damages, exemplary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.

The Indergit action was brought on behalf of current and former
store managers and assistant store managers.  The Court, on
April 2, 2010, conditionally certified a nationwide collective
group of individuals who worked for the company as store managers
since March 31, 2007.

The Court ordered that Notice of the Indergit action be sent to
the purported members of the collective group.  Neither the actual
date on which the Notice will be sent nor the number of persons
who will opt into the Indergit action has been determined.

Rite Aid Corporation -- http://www.riteaid.com/-- is the largest
drugstore chain on the East Coast and the third largest drugstore
chain in the U.S.  The company operates more than 4,900 stores in
31 states and the District of Columbia.


RITE AID: 1,100 Assistant Store Managers Join "Craig" Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 1,100 current and former assistant store managers
(out of approximately 6,700 current and former assistant store
managers comprising the purported collective group) have joined
the class suit styled Craig et al. v. Rite Aid Corporation et al,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, according to the company's Oct. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Aug. 28, 2010.

The company is currently a defendant in several putative
collective or class action lawsuits filed in federal or state
courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Ohio and
Oregon, purportedly on behalf of, in some cases (i) current and
former assistant store managers, or (ii) current and former store
managers and assistant store managers, respectively, working in
the company's stores at various locations.  The lawsuits allege
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and of certain
statewage and hour statutes.  The lawsuits seek various
combinations of unpaid compensation (including overtime
compensation), liquidated damages, exemplary damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

The Craig action was brought on behalf of current and former
assistant store managers.  The Court, on Dec. 9, 2009,
conditionally certified a nationwide collective group of
individuals who worked for the company as assistant store managers
since Dec. 9, 2006.

Notice of the Craig action has been sent to the purported members
of the collective group.  The number of persons who will opt into
the Craig action has not been determined.

Rite Aid Corporation -- http://www.riteaid.com/-- is the largest
drugstore chain on the East Coast and the third largest drugstore
chain in the U.S.  The company operates more than 4,900 stores in
31 states and the District of Columbia.


RITE AID: Remains a Defendant in California Wage & Hour Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation remains a defendant in several putative class
action lawsuits filed in state courts in California alleging
violations by the company of California wage and hour laws
pertaining primarily to pay for missed meals and rest periods.

The suits purport to be class actions and seek substantial
damages.

No further details were disclosed in the company's Oct. 7, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Aug. 28, 2010.

Rite Aid Corporation -- http://www.riteaid.com/-- is the largest
drugstore chain on the East Coast and the third largest drugstore
chain in the U.S.  The company operates more than 4,900 stores in
31 states and the District of Columbia.


SALLIE MAE: Settles Auto-Dialing Lawsuit for $19.5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
against Sallie Mae, Inc., for calls allegedly made to the
Representative Plaintiffs and Class Members on cellular telephones
through the use of automatic telephone dialing systems and/or an
artificial or pre-recorded voice -- automated telephone equipment
-- without their prior express consent.

The Representative Plaintiffs claim that the calls at issue
violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227,
et seq.  Sallie Mae strongly denies these claims and any
wrongdoing, and has agreed to settle only to avoid the burden and
cost of litigation.

Who Is Included As A Class Member In This Settlement?

You may be a Class Member if, on or after October 27, 2005 to
September 14, 2010, you received a call to a cellular telephone
through the use of automated telephone equipment from Sallie Mae
or any other affiliate or subsidiary of SLM Corporation.

What Does The Settlement Provide?

The primary focus of the Settlement will be prospective changes to
the challenged practices, which will allow you to require that the
calls at issue no longer be placed to your cellular telephone
number.  Sallie Mae also has agreed to pay $19.5 million into a
settlement fund (the "Fund"), out of which eligible Class Members
who file qualified claims will receive Monetary Awards in the form
of cash or reductions in outstanding extensions of credit.
Monetary Awards may be reduced pro rata, based on the number of
valid and timely claims received.  While it is not possible to
predict the precise amount of the Monetary Award until all claims
have been submitted, the parties estimate that the amount of the
Monetary Award will be within the range of $20.00 to $40.00 for
each Class Member.  In no event shall the Monetary Award exceed a
total of $500.00 per Class Member.  The Fund will also be used to
pay Class Counsel's Court-awarded attorneys' fees and costs,
service awards to the Representative Plaintiffs and all costs of
notice and claims administration.  In addition, to cover the
claims of certain Class Members who do not have, and have not had,
any lending or servicing relationship with Sallie Mae or any other
affiliate or subsidiary of SLM Corporation, Sallie Mae will make a
cy pres contribution, in the amount of at least $85,000, to
organization(s) devoted to promoting higher education.

What Are Your Options?

    (A) Remain in the Settlement and submit a completed Claim Form
and/or Revocation Request Form to the Claims Administrator either
by U.S. Mail postmarked no later than February 26, 2011, or by
filing on this website, or by e-mail so that it is received no
later than February 26, 2011.  If you submit a Revocation Request,
neither Sallie Mae nor any other affiliate or subsidiary of SLM
Corporation shall make use of, nor knowingly authorize anyone
acting on its/their behalf to make use of, automated telephone
equipment, to call the cellular number that you list on the
Revocation Request Form.  If you remain in the Settlement Class,
you give up your right to sue in court or arbitration or be part
of any other lawsuit or arbitration against Sallie Mae or any
other affiliate or subsidiary of SLM Corporation regarding any
issues relating to the settled claims.  Additionally, all of the
Court's orders will apply to you and legally bind you.

    (B) Exclude Yourself ("Opt Out") from the Settlement.  You may
exclude yourself ("opt-out") from the Settlement Class by sending
a written request to the Claims Administrator postmarked no later
than December 13, 2010.  Exclusion requests must: (a) be signed;
(b) include your full name, address and account number(s) (except
that persons in the Settlement Class who do not have and have not
had some lending or servicing relationship with Sallie Mae or
another affiliate or subsidiary of SLM Corporation shall not be
required to include an account number); and (c) include the
following statement: "I/we request to be excluded from the class
settlement in Arthur, et al. v. Sallie Mae, Inc., W.D. Wash., Case
No. C10-0198 JLR."  No request for exclusion will be valid unless
all of the information described above is included.  You can send
the request to:

         Arthur TCPA Claims Administrator
         c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
         P.O. Box 9621
         Dublin, OH 43017-4921

You will not receive any money or other benefits from the
Settlement if you exclude yourself.

    (C) Object or Comment on the Settlement.  You can only object
if you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class.  You
will still be bound by all Court orders, even if your objection is
rejected.  All objections that are filed by December 13, 2010 will
be considered prior to the Court's final approval at the Fairness
Hearing on December 17, 2010.  If you do not file an objection,
you waive your right to appeal any Court order or judgment related
to the Settlement.  Your objection must include your name and
address, your contact telephone number, you or your
representative's signature, and the reasons for your objection.
If you would like to appear at the Fairness Hearing, a statement
indicating your intent to appear must be included with your
objection.  You must file your objection with the Court and send
it to both Class and Defense Counsel postmarked by December 13,
2010.

    (D) Do Nothing and Remain in the Settlement.  If you do
nothing before the deadline described in this Notice, you will not
receive any benefits under the Settlement.  You will not revoke
any right to call you on a cellular telephone through the use of
automated telephone equipment.  You will not receive any monetary
award in this Settlement.  You will lose the right to sue Sallie
Mae regarding any issues relating to the action.  You will be
considered part of the Settlement Class, and all of the Court's
orders will apply to you and legally bind you.

Fairness Hearing

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on December 17, 2010 at
9:30 a.m. at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, WA 98101.  At the Fairness
Hearing, the Court will consider if the Settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate, and should be granted final approval.  If
there are objections, the Court will consider them.  Class Counsel
will also ask the Court for approval of their request for
attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and incentive awards to the
Representative Plaintiffs.  The Fairness Hearing may be
rescheduled without further notice.

Claim forms and additional information about this matter is
available at http://www.ArthurTCPASettlement.com/


SERVICE CORPORATION: Sued for Unpaid Wages and Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Earl Blomberg, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Service Corporation International, et al.,
Case No. 2010-CH-43444 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. October 5, 2010),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and unpaid overtime owed to
employees of the defendants under the law of the State of Illinois
and common law.

Defendants Service Corporation International, with headquarters in
Houston, Texas, owns directly or indirectly various funeral home
locations in Illinois and various other companies or entities,
including co-defendants SCI Funeral and Cemetery Purchasing
Cooperative, Inc., and SCI Eastern Market Support Center, L.P.
Other co-defendants include Gwen Petterway, HR director for the
Corporate HR Strategic Delivery Team for SCI, Jane D. Jones, Vice
President of Human Resources of SCI, and Thomas Ryan, President
and Chief Executive Officer of SCI.

The Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury and are represented by:

          Douglas Werman, Esq.
          Maureen Bantz, Esq.
          David Stevens, Esq.
          WERMAN LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008

               - and -

          J. Nelson Thomas, Esq.
          Annette Gifford, Esq.
          Sarah Cressman, Esq.
          THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP
          693 East Avenue
          Rochester, NY 14607
          Telephone: (585) 272-0540


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Jan. 21 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
To:  All Persons Who Purchased Or Otherwise Acquired The Common
Stock Of Spectranetics From March 16, 2007 To September 4, 2008,
Inclusive (The "Settlement Class").

I.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the plaintiff (the "Settling Class
Action Plaintiff') in the action pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Federal Court"),
and entitled In re Spectranetics Corporation Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 08-cv-02048-REB-KLM (the "Class
Action"), has entered into a Stipulation of Settlement, dated as
of September 7, 2010 (the "Stipulation") with defendants The
Spectranetics Corporation, Guy A. Childs, Emile J. Geisenheimer,
Jonathan W. McGuire, John G. Schulte, and Craig M. Walker, M.D.
(the "Settling Class Action Defendants") to resolve the issues
raised in the Class Action as against the Settling Class Action
Defendants.

II.

PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED that pursuant to a Court order, a
hearing will be held on January 21, 2011, before the Honorable
Robert E. Blackburn, Judge of the United States District Court, at
the United States Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado
(the "Class Action Settlement Hearing") to determine:  (1) whether
the settlement of claims in the Class Action against the Settling
Class Action Defendants for $8,500,000 should be approved as fair,
just, reasonable and adequate to all members of the Settlement
Class; (2) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, just,
reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Settling
Class Action Plaintiff's Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses should be approved; and (4) whether the Class Action
should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the
Stipulations filed with the Court.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Spectranetics common stock
during the period from March 16, 2007 to September 4, 2008,
inclusive, your rights may be affected by the settlement of this
Class Action, including through the release and extinguishment of
claims you may possess relating to your purchase or acquisition of
Spectranetics common stock during the class period.  To share in
the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must establish your
rights by filing a Proof of Claim and Release form on or before
February 21, 2011.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
file a request for exclusion by November 23, 2010 in the manner
and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to below.  All
members of the Settlement Class who have not validly requested
exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Class Action.

Any objection to the settlement, plan of allocation, or the
application for fees, costs and expenses to be awarded to Settling
Class Action Plaintiff's Counsel must be filed no later than
November 23, 2010, and show due proof of service on each of the
following:

          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          Mark S. Goldman, Esq.
          140 Broadway
          New York, New York 10005
          Telephone: 888-219-6877
          Counsel for Settling Class Action Plaintiff

          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          Richard H. Zelichov, Esq.
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012
          Telephone: 310-788-4400
          Counsel for Settling Class Action Defendants

          BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          1925 Old Valley Road Stevenson, Maryland 21153
          Telephone: 410-332-0030
          Counsel for Settling Class Action Plaintiff

          Stephen C. Schulte, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: 312-558-5890
          Counsel for Settling Class Action Defendants

If you are a Member of the Settlement Class and have not received
a detailed printed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action and a Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain
copies by writing to:

          Spectranetics Corp. Securities Litigation
          c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
          P.O. Box 2381
          Faribault, MN  55021-9081
          Toll Free Hotline: 877-625-9406

or downloading these documents at spectraneticssettlement.com.
You may also download the Stipulation at the same site.  These
documents are also available for review at the Court.  Please do
not telephone or otherwise contact the court, the clerk's office,
Spectranetics, any other Settling Class Action Defendant, or
counsel for Settling Class Action Defendants for information.

Any inquiries about the Class Action can be made in writing to
Settling Class Action Plaintiff's Counsel: LABATON SUCHAROW LLP,
140 Broadway, New York, New York 10005 or BROWER PIVEN, A
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, 1925 Old Valley Road, Stevenson,
Maryland  21153.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 13, 2010

/s/ Robert E. Blackbum

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Inks MOU to Settle Suit Over Proginet Buy
---------------------------------------------------------
TIBCO Software Inc. has entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle the suit filed in connection with its acquisition of
Proginet, according to the company's Oct. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Aug. 29, 2010.

On June 28, 2010, a putative shareholder class action suit was
filed by individual stockholders in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, Nassau County, against Proginet (which the company
acquired on Sept. 15, 2010), certain of its officers and
directors, the company and its subsidiary created for the purpose
of effectuating the acquisition of Proginet.

The case is styled as Schecter et al. v. Weil et al., Index No.
600441-2010.

The complaint generally alleges that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder
value in negotiating and approving the merger agreement, and that
Proginet and we aided and abetted those alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties.  The complaint seeks, among other relief, class
certification, certain forms of injunctive relief, including
enjoining the proposed merger, and unspecified damages.  Proginet
and the other defendants have not yet responded to the complaint.

On Aug. 6, 2010, the company, Proginet and the other defendants in
this action entered into a memorandum of understanding with the
plaintiffs providing for the settlement and dismissal with
prejudice of this action, subject to customary conditions,
including completion of appropriate settlement documentation,
confirmatory discovery, consummation of the merger and all
necessary court approvals.

Although the company and Proginet believe that the action is
without merit, the company and Proginet entered into the
memorandum of understanding to avoid the risk of delaying the
merger and to minimize the expense of defending the action.  The
settlement and dismissal with prejudice, if completed and approved
by the court, will resolve all of the claims that were or could
have been brought in the action, including all claims relating to
the merger (other than claims for appraisal under Section 262 of
Delaware law).  In connection with the settlement and dismissal
with prejudice, Proginet has agreed, subject to court approval,
that it will pay plaintiffs' counsel the amount of up to $200,000
for its fees and expenses in the action.

TIBCO Software Inc.'s -- http://www.tibco.com/-- technology
digitized Wall Street in the '80s with event-driven "Information
Bus" software, which helped make real-time business a strategic
differentiator in the '90s.  Today, TIBCO's infrastructure
software gives customers the ability to constantly innovate by
connecting applications and data in a service-oriented
architecture, streamlining activities through business process
management, and giving people the information and intelligence
tools they need to make faster and smarter decisions, what the
company calls The Power of Now(R).  TIBCO serves more than 3,000
customers around the world with offices in more than 20 countries
and an ecosystem of over 200 partners.


TRUBION PHARMA: Inks Pact to Settle Suit Over Emergent Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trubion Pharmaceuticals Inc., has reached an agreement in
principle to settle lawsuits arising out of the company's plan to
merger with Emergent BioSolutions, Inc., according to the
company's Oct. 8, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On Aug. 17, 2010, two class action lawsuits were filed in the
Superior Court of Washington, King County, against Trubion, its
board of directors, and Emergent BioSolutions.  The actions are:

     (1) Rajat Sharma v. Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
         Case Number: 10-2-29637-9-SEA, and

     (2) Shirley Harris v. Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
         Case Number: 10-2-29680-8 SEA.

The suits allege in summary that, in connection with the proposed
merger of Trubion with Emergent BioSolutions, the members of the
Trubion board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by
conducting an unfair sale process and agreeing to an unfair price.
Both complaints also claim that Trubion and Emergent BioSolutions
aided and abetted the Trubion board of directors in its breach of
fiduciary duties.

On Sept. 9, 2010, the actions were consolidated into the action
entitled In re Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Lead Case No. 10-2-29637-9.

On Oct. 1, 2010, the plaintiffs in the State Action served on the
Defendants a consolidated amended class action complaint.  The
Amended Complaint alleges, among other things and in addition to
the matters alleged in the initial complaints, that the Defendants
omitted material information from the Proxy Statement/Prospectus.
The Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive
relief, and plaintiffs have indicated their intent to file a
motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Trubion from
holding the stockholder vote on the Merger, which vote is
currently scheduled for Oct. 28, 2010.

On Oct. 4, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington against the
Defendants captioned Walter Sloboda v. Trubion Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al. (Case No. C 10-1591 MJP), which makes allegations
related to the Merger that are substantially similar to those
matters alleged in the Amended Complaint, includes additional
allegations regarding purported violations of the federal
securities laws and seeks substantially similar relief.

On Oct. 8, 2010, the Defendants reached agreement in principle
with the plaintiffs in the Actions regarding the settlement of the
Actions.  In connection with the settlement contemplated by that
agreement in principle, the Actions will be stayed pending
approval of the settlement of the State Action by the State Court.
Thereafter, the State Action and all claims asserted therein will
be dismissed with prejudice and counsel for the plaintiff in the
Federal Action will take all necessary steps to dismiss the
Federal Action and all claims asserted therein with prejudice.

The terms of the settlement contemplated by that agreement in
principle require that Trubion and Emergent BioSolutions make
certain additional disclosures related to the Merger.  The parties
also agreed that the plaintiffs in the Actions may seek attorneys'
fees and costs in an aggregate amount up to $475,000, with Trubion
to pay such fees and costs if such fees and costs are approved by
the State Court.  There will be no other payment by Trubion, any
of the members of the Trubion board of directors or Emergent
BioSolutions to the plaintiffs or their respective counsels in
connection with the settlement and dismissal of the Actions.

The agreement in principle further contemplates that the parties
will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject
to customary conditions, including State Court approval following
notice to Trubion's shareholders.  In the event that the parties
enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be
scheduled at which the State Court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement.

Trubion Pharmaceuticals Inc. -- http://www.trubion.com/-- is a
biopharmaceutical company that is creating a pipeline of novel
protein therapeutic product candidates to treat autoimmune and
inflammatory diseases and cancer.  The company's mission is to
develop a variety of first-in-class and best-in-class product
candidates, customized for optimal safety, efficacy and
convenience that it believes may offer improved patient
experiences.  Trubion's current product candidates are novel
single-chain protein, or SMIP, therapeutics, and are designed
using its custom drug assembly technology.  Trubion's product
pipeline includes CD20-directed SMIP therapeutics such as SBI-087
for autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, developed under the
company's Pfizer collaboration.  Trubion's product pipeline also
includes TRU-016, a novel CD37-targeted therapy for the treatment
of B-cell malignancies developed under the company's Abbott
collaboration.  In addition to Trubion's current clinical stage
product pipeline, the company is also developing its multi-
specific SCORPION technology, both for targeting cell-surface
molecules as well as simultaneously neutralizing soluble ligands.


UNITED KINGDOM: Pension Funds to Recoup GBP1.4BB in US Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pensions.co.uk reports UK pension funds are expected to recoup
GBP1.4 billion in class action lawsuits in the U.S. after losses
suffered during the financial crisis, it has been revealed.  The
study, by the GOAL Group, reported that pension funds in North
Europe lost a total of GBP51 billion on their U.S. investments in
2008, of which GBP21 billion was attributable to U.K. pension
schemes.

GOAL has called for pension schemes to ensure they don't lose out
on GBP368 million of recoverable funds if they don't take part in
the class actions.  It commented "This is a wake-up call to
pension funds that are currently missing out on their legal right
to claim damages through the US courts."

Pension schemes such as the West Midlands Pension Fund have so far
been able to recover some monies owed, with the local authority
fund receiving GBP567,000 in class actions to date.  Tony Doyle,
the authority's senior investment manager, equities &corporate
governance, said "We perceive poor governance as a risk to a
fund's long-term financial interests.  The fund therefore submits
class actions globally where it believes that it has suffered a
financial loss through fraudulent or irresponsible corporate
behavior."

Also, in March last year, the Merseyside and North Yorkshire
pension funds filed a motion to be lead plaintiffs in a securities
class action in the US against the Royal Bank of Scotland, while
the Avon Pension Fund was also granted status of lead plaintiff in
a case against GlaxoSmithKline.


* Class Suits "Ethically Wrong," Scheme Trustee Chairman Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sebastian Cheek, writing for Professional Pensions, reports that
participating in U.S. group class action is "ethically wrong", a
trustee chairman told delegates.

British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme trustee chairman Philip
Read said he had a "fundamental problem" with group class action
cases in the U.S. because it is "stealing from shareholders".

Mr. Read said there is a difference between the risk shareholders
take on knowingly as part of the investing process, and concealed
risk -- such as fraudulent activity -- in which case it is
absolutely right to punish any wrongdoing.

Speaking about class actions, he said: "Show me the long-term
value as investors? If I was a pensioner I'd be a tad miffed."

Lloyds Banking Group pensions director Stuart Stephen also
questioned how clients would react if scheme trustees decide to
sue their investment managers and how this might affect a
company's reputation.

He added, while it is seen as "money for nothing" and trustees
might feel a fiduciary duty to scheme members, culturally the UK
is not ready for class actions noting he had not seen any
enthusiasm from trustees in this area.

DMGT Pensions chief investment officer Mike Weston said his fund
had recovered some GBP800,000 from 32 separate companies in the
last two years -- although this money was collected through the
fund's custodian.

Mr. Weston said he was "torn" between taking money on offer in a
class action case and being a long-term owner of US equity.  "What
earns more for the scheme, staying invested or participating in a
class action?

"I hope it does not develop too far and become a distraction.  I
would prefer to stay invested."

However, Pomerantz senior partner Marc Gross urged more public UK
pension funds to step to the forefront of class actions as they
are in the US -- despite a recent "earthquake" decision in the US
that states if shares are bought abroad then a company cannot
pursue a claim in the US courts.

Mr. Gross also said companies should be taking action to secure
recovery in the BP case.  "Hitting people in the pocket gets the
message across," he said.


* EU to Relaunch Debate Next Month on Class Action Lawsuit Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foo Yun Chee, writing for Reuters, reports the European Commission
will relaunch a debate next month on a controversial plan to help
consumers launch class-action lawsuits to seek compensation for
anticompetitive practices, according to a Commission document.

Former Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes tried to lay out
rules last year that would make it easier for consumers who suffer
at the hands of companies that fix prices or abuse their dominant
market position to take them to court.

But the proposals were shelved after criticism from companies
worried about U.S.-style class-action lawsuits and the possibility
of hefty punitive damages.  Class actions are rare in Europe.

Interested parties will be able to give their views during a
consultation that will run until the end of February, the document
showed.

In a May report commissioned by European Commission President Jose
Manuel Barroso, elder statesman Mario Monti said it should be
easier for victims of unfair business behavior to be compensated
in order to boost consumer confidence in the single market.

                             *********

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  * * *