CAR_Public/101021.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, October 21, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 208

                             Headlines

AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Class Action Suit Over Similac
APOLLO GROUP: Oregon to Seek Lead Plaintiff Status in Class Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Suits Over Mortgage Modifications
BANK OF SMITHTOWN: Settles Suit Over People's United Merger

BEST BUY: Accused in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
CAPITAL GOLD: Faces Suits Over Planned Sale to Gammon Gold
CHARLES SCHWAB: Class Outside CA Not Precluded to Further Claims
CHINA GREEN: Faces Federal Securities Class Action Lawsuit
CSX CORP: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Still Pending in Columbia

EMMIS COMMS: Expects Dismissal of Suits After Tender Offer Failed
GENEREX BIOTECH: Defends Suit Over Misleading CraveNX Adverts
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Final Approval of Settlement Pact Pending
LEAP WIRELESS: Accord on Suit Over Fin'l Restatement Gets Final OK
MISTRAS GROUP: Unable to Reach Settlement in Mediation

NTI GLOBAL: Sued in Mo. for Falsely Representing Agility Tunnels
QANTAS AIRWAYS: Court Sets Nov. 15 Fuel Surcharge Claims Bar Date
SALT LAKE: District Attorney Sued Over Inflated Discovery Fees
SANOFI-AVENTI US: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
SOURCE FOR PUBLIC DATA: Settlement in Drivers' Class Suit Okayed

SPRINGFIELD, MO: Suit Over Red-Light Ticket System Dismissed
TICKETMASTER.COM: Partial Fee Refunds in Class Suit Likely
UNITED STATES: Faces Potential Class Suit Over Moose Collisions
WAL-MART STORES: Accused in N.J. of Hiring Undocumented Migrants
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Class in Securities Suit Wins Certification



                             *********

AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on August 25, 2010, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of all persons who purchased American Apparel, Inc.
securities during the period from December 20, 2006, to August 17,
2010, inclusive.  American Apparel is a manufacturer and clothing
retailer that has marketed itself as "Sweatshop Free," using a
single factory in Los Angeles.

The complaint charges American Apparel and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants made false and misleading statements about the
Company's hiring practices and the effect of such practices on the
Company's financial performance.  On September 3, 2009, the
company announced that it was forced to dismiss 1,600 employees
who were unable to prove their immigration status or fix problems
with their employment records.  Those terminations came two months
after the company announced that the U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement agency charged that 1,600, or one-third, of American
Apparel's workers were illegal immigrants.  At the time, American
Apparel executives said they didn't anticipate any significant
loss in productivity.

Then, on August 17, 2010, the Company issued a press release
announcing that it expected to report a loss of $5 million to $7
million in the second quarter of 2010 on net sales of $132 million
to $143 million.  A significant factor in such losses, according
to the Company, was "lower labor efficiency at the Company's
production facilities."  The lower labor efficiency was primarily
a result of the hiring of over 1,600 net new manufacturing workers
during the second quarter of 2010."  American Apparel's stock
dropped approximately 41% on this news.

If you purchased any class of shares of American Apparel from
December 20, 2006, to August 17, 2010, you may move the court no
later than October 25, 2010, and request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  To be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must decide
that you have the largest financial interest of any competing
movant and that your claims are typical of the claims of other
class members, and that you will adequately represent the class.
Your share in any recovery will not be enhanced or diminished by
the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  If
there is a recovery in this action and you are part of the class,
you can recover as an absent class member without moving for lead
plaintiff or otherwise taking an active role in the litigation.
You may retain Milberg LLP, or other attorneys, to serve as your
counsel in this action, but do not need to retain counsel to
participate in any recovery as an absent class member

The complaint has been filed as a class action on behalf of all
persons who own American Apparel securities.  No class has yet
been certified, and there can be no guarantee that a class will be
certified.  The complaint in this action was not filed by Milberg.

                          About Milberg

Milberg LLP -- http://www.milberg.com/-- is a class action and
litigation firm, representing individual and institutional
investors, pension funds, hedge funds, unions, and consumers.
Founded in 1965, Milberg has offices in New York, Los Angeles,
Tampa, and Detroit.

To contact Milberg:

          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl.
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Telephone: (800) 320-5081
          Email: contactus@milberg.com


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Class Action Suit Over Similac
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit alleging deceptive business practices has
been filed against Abbott Laboratories over claims that the
pharmaceutical giant sold millions of tubs of infant powder
formula that was contaminated with beetles and beetle larvae.

The lawsuit, which was brought in federal court in Chicago, was
filed on behalf of Maria C. Kiely, a mother of a newborn baby boy.
The suit alleges that Abbott knew that its baby formula was
tainted for at least six days prior to announcing it to the
public.  As a result, the suit claims that the named plaintiff's
son, like thousands of babies throughout the country, suffered
gastrointestinal health issues as a result of ingesting the
tainted formula.

The lawsuit is brought by Jay Edelson and Rafey S. Balabanian of
Edelson McGuire, LLC.  According to managing partner, Jay Edelson,
this case seems especially problematic for Abbott.  "What we have
found is that certain companies handle product recalls in an
upfront and transparent way.  We believe that we can prove that
Abbott did the opposite and sat on information while babies got
sick."

Edelson McGuire has had numerous high-profile product recall
lawsuits, including a $30 million settlement involving the Thomas
the Tank lead paint recalls.

                      About Edelson McGuire

Edelson McGuire, LLC is a plaintiff's class action law firm with
attorneys in Illinois, New York, California, and Florida


APOLLO GROUP: Oregon to Seek Lead Plaintiff Status in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Korn, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports the state
of Oregon has joined a securities fraud class-action lawsuit
against Apollo Group Inc. and several of its executives, alleging
the for-profit college operator misled investors about its revenue
between 2007 and 2010.

The Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund lost $10 million as
Apollo's stock price dropped in the wake of the company's
disclosure of a Securities and Exchange Commission inquiry and
heightened scrutiny of the entire for-profit college sector,
according to a statement released by Oregon Attorney General John
Kroger and Treasurer Ted Wheeler.  The retirement fund had total
assets of $51 billion at Aug. 31.

"Companies that cook their books will have to answer to Oregon in
court," Mr. Kroger said.  A representative from Apollo wasn't
immediately available for comment.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Arizona, alleges that
Apollo failed to account for losses that stemmed from student
withdrawals.  The company disclosed in October 2009 that it was
the subject of an SEC probe regarding its revenue-recognition
practices.  Messrs. Kroger and Wheeler said Apollo's stock tumbled
on that news, and again this past August when a Government
Accountability Office report found representatives at a number of
for-profit colleges provided misleading and even fraudulent
information to undercover agents posing as prospective students.

Oregon is seeking lead plaintiff status in the class-action suit.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Suits Over Mortgage Modifications
--------------------------------------------------------------
Olga Pierce, writing for ProPublica, reports a crop of federal
lawsuits are moving forward alleging Bank of America was unfair to
homeowners who sought assistance through the government's main
loan modification program.

In a little-noticed decision earlier this month, a federal
judicial panel rolled together several class action lawsuits from
U.S. district courts across the country and assigned them to a
federal judge in Massachusetts, who will decide whether to dismiss
the suits, or allow them to proceed.

The decisions she makes could affect more than 100,000 homeowners,
and further highlights questions about the performance of the
government's Making Home Affordable program, also called HAMP.

Under the program, banks and other companies that service
mortgages are paid by the government for each loan they modify.
Homeowners are generally placed in trial periods meant to last
three months -- but which often drag on much longer.  During the
trial period, homeowners pay the reduced amount they would be
paying with a permanent modification.  The trial is a chance for
homeowners, many of whom are suffering serious financial hardship,
to show they can afford to keep their homes under modified terms.

Plaintiffs in the class were in trial mortgage modifications for
Bank of America, and then subsequently denied permanent
modifications by BofA.  The homeowners argue that the trial
agreement was a binding contract stating that if they fulfilled
their obligations during the trial they were guaranteed a
permanent modification.

The plaintiffs "thought they had saved their homes by qualifying
for temporary loan modifications, then the rug was pulled out from
under them," said Stuart Rossman, director of litigation at the
National Consumer Law Center, who is representing a group of
Massachusetts homeowners.  "Homeowners fulfilled their part of the
deal, but the bank didn't do their part."

If the homeowners' lawsuits are successful, Mr. Rossman said, they
are asking only that they be granted the permanent modifications
they sought in the first place.

In motions to dismiss filed in several of the cases, however, Bank
of America argues that a homeowner's "Trial Period Plan" is not a
binding agreement "because it fails to specify the key terms of
the permanent modification."

Therefore, BofA's motion continues, it is "nothing more than an
agreement to agree at some future date."

More broadly, the bank argues that individuals are not allowed to
sue under Making Home Affordable.

Bank of America spokeswoman Shirley Norton told us that BofA
supported the consolidation of cases -- since it streamlines the
litigation -- and said the bank "intends to continue to defend
against them aggressively."

If the cases are not dismissed, it could impact a significant
number of homeowners since Bank of America and its subsidiaries
have kicked about 160,000 homeowners out of trial modifications so
far.  Similar litigation is under way against other large mortgage
servicers.

They could also serve as a bellwether for many cases in state
courts that are not included in this federal class action.

But simply having been through a canceled trial modification is
not enough to qualify for the class action.  The same panel of
judges chose not to include several individual suits against Bank
of America because they involved details particular to each case.
One man, for example, had his trial canceled because he had sent
in payments that were $70 too low, a detail that is not shared by
other plaintiffs.


BANK OF SMITHTOWN: Settles Suit Over People's United Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica DiNapoli, writing for Long Island Business News, reports
Bank of Smithtown has reached a settlement with the people
involved in a class action lawsuit trying to stop the merger of
the 100-year-old financial institution with Bridgeport, Conn.-
based People's United Financial, according to documents filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The agreement, summarized in a "memorandum of understanding"
between Bank of Smithtown and the five people whose lawsuits were
consolidated into a class action suit, required that the
Hauppauge-based bank add more information to proxy statements
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, according to
Robert Harwood, an attorney representing shareholder Kevin Brand
in the suit.  Bank of Smithtown shareholders use the information
in the proxy statement to vote on the merger.

"More information is desirable when figuring out whether or not to
surrender your future interest in a company," Mr. Harwood said.

The defendants in the class action lawsuit, which include CEO Brad
Rock and many other board members, agreed to disclose the extra
information because of the cost of litigation, the proxy document
states.

The vote is scheduled for Nov. 19 at the Sheraton Long Island
Hotel in Hauppauge.  Bank of Smithtown is urging its shareholders
to approve the merger, which was announced July 15.

The five lawsuits filed against the Bank of Smithtown CEO and
numerous board members -- which all try to stop the $60 million
merger deal -- were consolidated into one class action suit
Oct. 6, according to a copy of the lawsuit.  Oct. 12 marked the
date that the settlement was reached, according to the proxy
statement.

The lawsuits allege that the $60 million price was too little for
the 30-branch bank.

Mr. Harwood said the Bank of Smithtown agreed to include
information on projections for future profits and losses for Bank
of Smithtown and information on how the company will perform in
the future.

Although there is no monetary compensation involved in the
settlement, Mr. Harwood said he and his client think it's a good
result.

John Romano, president of the Bank of Smithtown, did not return
calls seeking comment.


BEST BUY: Accused in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports Best Buy stiffed workers for
overtime, a class action claims in Sacramento Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Wilson v. Best Buy Company, et al.,
Case No. 34-2010-00089299 (Calif. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/18/BestBuy.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Aleaxander R. Wheeler, Esq.
          Jason P. Fowler, Esq.
          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Kitty Szeto, Esq.
          R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
          42220 10 St. West, Suite 109
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949-2595


CAPITAL GOLD: Faces Suits Over Planned Sale to Gammon Gold
----------------------------------------------------------
Capital Gold Corporation faces suits in connection with its sale
to Gammon Gold Inc., according to the company's Oct. 14, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2010.

On Oct. 1, 2010, the company and Gammon Gold entered into a
definitive merger agreement pursuant to which, if consummated,
Gammon Gold will acquire all of the issued and outstanding common
shares of Capital Gold in a cash and share transaction.  The total
consideration for the purchase of 100% of the fully diluted shares
of Capital Gold is approximately S$288 million or $4.57 per
Capital Gold share based on Gammon Gold's closing price on
Sept. 24, 2010 on the New York Stock Exchange.

On Oct. 4, 2010, Walter Earl Jenkins and Jonathan Schroeder, each
represented by the same law firm, filed identical lawsuits against
Capital Gold, its directors and Gammon Gold in New York Supreme
Court claiming, among other things, that the directors of Capital
Gold breached their fiduciary duties to Capital Gold in connection
with the approval of the merger agreement between Capital Gold and
Gammon Gold.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all stockholders of
Capital Gold stock other than stockholders who are affiliates of
Capital Gold.

The plaintiffs have asked the Court to enjoin Capital Gold from
consummating its merger with Gammon Gold.

Capital Gold Corporation -- http://www.capitalgoldcorp.com/-- is
a gold production and exploration company.  Through its Mexican
subsidiaries and affiliates, it owns 100% of the "El Chanate" gold
mine located near the town of Caborca in Sonora, Mexico.  It also
owns and leases mineral concessions near the town of Saric, also
in Sonora, that are undergoing preliminary exploration for gold
and silver mineralization.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Class Outside CA Not Precluded to Further Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
issued an opinion holding that federal securities law class
members resident outside of California would not be precluded
under the preliminary settlement agreements from bringing a
further claim under California law against The Charles Schwab
Corporation, according to the company's Oct. 15, 2010, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The company is the subject of consolidated class action
litigation, regulatory investigations and individual investor
arbitration claims relating to the Schwab YieldPlus Fund(R), an
ultra-short bond fund.  The Bond Fund was designed to invest in a
variety of fixed income instruments, including corporate bonds,
asset-backed securities, mortgage-backed securities and other
fixed income investments.  The credit crisis that began in mid-
2007 led to a decline in the value of a majority of fixed income
investments market wide.  As a result, certain Schwab clients who
chose to invest in the Bond Fund experienced a decline in their
investments, leading to the litigation.

Nine class action lawsuits were filed between March and May 2008
on behalf of investors in the Bond Fund alleging violations of
state law and federal securities law in connection with the fund's
investment policy, disclosures and marketing.  These cases were
consolidated in a single action on July 3, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Specific allegations include changes to the investment policy of
the fund regarding limits on positions in mortgage-backed
securities without obtaining a shareholder vote; inadequate
disclosure of the risks associated with fund investments in
mortgage-backed securities and fund risk management; inaccurate
reporting of the fund's weighted-average duration; and failure to
disclose redemptions of positions in YieldPlus by other Schwab
investment funds.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory and
rescission damages, unspecified equitable and injunctive relief,
and costs and attorneys' fees.

Defendants named in the lawsuit include the company, Schwab, CSIM,
the fund itself, Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the
fund's shares), Charles R. Schwab, Randall W. Merk (current
president of the fund), and current and former trustees and
officers of the fund and/or Schwab.  On Feb. 4, 2009, the court
denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' federal law
claims and dismissed all but one state law claim.  On Aug. 21,
2009, the court certified two classes of plaintiffs for purposes
of the federal law claims and a single class of plaintiffs for
purposes of the remaining state law claim.

On March 30, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment holding defendants liable for plaintiffs' state
law claim regarding changes to the investment policy of the Bond
Fund, which plaintiffs alleged were made without shareholder
approval in violation of Section 13(a) of the Investment Company
Act of 1940.

On April 5, 2010, defendants filed a motion for interlocutory
appeal of this ruling, which the court denied at a hearing on
April 26, 2010.  On April 8, 2010, the court issued an order
denying defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs'
federal law claims.

On April 23, 2010, the company entered into a settlement agreement
with plaintiffs in which the company, without admitting liability,
agreed to a total of $200 million to resolve plaintiffs' federal
law claims.  On May 14, 2010, the company entered into a
settlement agreement with plaintiffs in which the company, without
admitting liability, agreed to resolve plaintiffs' state law claim
for $35 million.

The settlement agreements were preliminarily approved by the court
on May 26, 2010, and remain subject to final court approval.

On Oct. 14, 2010, the court issued an opinion holding that federal
securities law class members resident outside of California would
not be precluded under the preliminary settlement agreements from
bringing a further claim under California law against the
defendants.  The company is reviewing the court's opinion in order
to determine its implications for the tentative settlement.

Charles Schwab Corporation -- http://www.schwab.com/-- provides
financial services, with more than 300 offices and 7.9 million
client brokerage accounts, 1.5 million corporate retirement plan
participants, 803,000 banking accounts, and $1.36 trillion in
client assets.  Through its operating subsidiaries, the company
provides a full range of securities brokerage, banking, money
management and financial advisory services to individual investors
and independent investment advisors.  Its broker-dealer
subsidiary, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (member SIPC,
http://www.sipc.org),and affiliates offer a complete range of
investment services and products including an extensive selection
of mutual funds; financial planning and investment advice;
retirement plan and equity compensation plan services; referrals
to independent fee-based investment advisors; and custodial,
operational and trading support for independent, fee-based
investment advisors through its Advisor Services division.  Its
banking subsidiary, Charles Schwab Bank (member FDIC and an Equal
Housing Lender), provides banking and mortgage services and
products.


CHINA GREEN: Faces Federal Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm Sunday disclosed that a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the federal securities laws has been filed
in the US District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of
purchasers of China Green Agriculture, Inc. ("China Green" or the
"Company") (NYSE: CGA) securities during the period from November
12, 2009 through September 1, 2010 (the "Class Period").

To join the class action against China Green, go to the Web site
at http://rosenlegal.com/or call Laurence Rosen, Esq., or Phillip
Kim, Esq., toll-free at 866-767-3653.  You may also email
lrosen@rosenlegal.com

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 CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN ABSENT
CLASS MEMBER.

The Complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws
against China Green and certain of its officers and directors
based on alleged misleading statements about the Company's
financial performance.  The Complaint further alleges that China
Green's financial statements filed with the SEC for fiscal 2010
are materially false and misleading because the Company's
financial statements filed with Chinese authorities for the
comparable periods are materially different.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 14, 2010.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of absent 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  You may also visit the firm's
Web site at http://rosenlegal.com/

The Rosen Law Firm concentrates its practice on investor
securities litigation, representing investors throughout the
world.


CSX CORP: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Still Pending in Columbia
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corp. and three other major U.S. railroads continue to face a
consolidated class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia over allegations that the individual
railroads violated the U.S. antitrust laws.

Since 2007, at least 30 putative class action suits have been
filed in various federal district courts against CSX
Transportation, CSX Corp.'s principal operating company, and three
other U.S.-based Class I railroads.  The lawsuits contain
substantially similar allegations to the effect that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws.

The suits seek unquantified treble damages, three times the amount
of actual damages, allegedly sustained by purported class members,
attorneys' fees and other relief.  All but three of the lawsuits
purport to be filed on behalf of a class of shippers that
allegedly purchased rail freight transportation services from the
defendants through the use of contracts or through other means
exempt from rate regulation during defined periods commencing as
early as June 2003 and that were assessed fuel surcharges.  Three
of the lawsuits purport to be on behalf of indirect purchasers of
rail services.

The class action suits have been consolidated in federal court in
the District of Columbia.

The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and oral arguments were
heard in October 2008.

On Nov. 7, 2008, the Court denied the railroads' Motion to Dismiss
the claims of shippers who directly purchased transportation
services.  On Dec. 31, 2009, the Court granted in part the
railroads' Motion to Dismiss the claims of indirect purchasers who
made purchases from railroad shippers rather than directly from
the railroads.

While the Court found that indirect purchasers' state law claims
for money damages are preempted by federal law, it also found that
they had stated a federal antitrust claim for injunctive relief.

On Jan. 16, 2009, on motion by the indirect plaintiffs, the Court
entered final judgment on the state law claims which allow the
indirect plaintiffs to seek an immediate appeal.  The Court also
stayed proceedings relating to the claim for injunctive relief
appeal.

Now that the Motion to Dismiss has been decided, discovery will
move forward.  The railroads intend to ask the Court to first
proceed with discovery relating to whether the case is appropriate
to certify as a class action and only if a class is certified
would merit discovery takes place.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 15, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 24, 2010.

CSX Corporation, based in Jacksonville, Fla., is a leading
transportation company providing rail, intermodal and rail-to-
truck transload services.  The company's transportation network
spans approximately 21,000 miles with service to 23 eastern states
and the District of Columbia, and connects to more than 70 ocean,
river and lake ports.


EMMIS COMMS: Expects Dismissal of Suits After Tender Offer Failed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emmis Communications Corporation, in its Oct. 15, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2010, discloses that it expects class
actions filed arising out of a proposed tender offer will be
dismissed after the said tender offer was terminated.

On April 26, 2010, JS Acquisition, Inc., a corporation then owned
entirely by the company's Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
President, Mr. Jeffrey H. Smulyan, and Alden Global Capital
entered into a non-binding Letter of Intent with respect to a
series of transactions relating to the equity securities of
Emmis.

As a result of the proposed tender offer, a number of purported
class actions were filed against various combinations of Emmis, JS
Acquisition, Alden, and members of the board of directors.

On June 4, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed,
styled Richard Frank v. Jeffrey H. Smulyan, Susan Bayh, Gary
Kaseff, Richard Leventhal, Peter Lund, Greg Nathanson, Lawrence
Sorrel, Patrick Walsh, Emmis Communications Corporation, JS
Acquisition, Inc., JS Acquisition, LLC, and Alden Global Capital,
Cause No. 49D10 1006 PL 025149.

The Frank action was filed in the Marion Superior Court in
Indiana.  Since that time, Plaintiff Frank has filed motions
seeking to have his case consolidated into the Ross matter and to
have his counsel appointed as lead counsel for a Preferred Stock
Class, the latter having been opposed by Plaintiffs Hinkle and
Stabosz.  The motions filed by Plaintiff Frank remain pending.

On September 9, 2010, the transaction was effectively terminated.
The company believes that the lawsuits related to the transaction
will be dismissed in the near future.

Headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, Emmis Communications
Corporation -- http://www.emmis.com/-- owns and operates radio
stations and magazine publications in the U.S. and in Europe.


GENEREX BIOTECH: Defends Suit Over Misleading CraveNX Adverts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Generex Biotechnology Corp. defends a class action complaint
alleging misleading advertising of its CraveNX(TM) products,
according to the company's Oct. 14, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended July 31, 2010.

On May 11, 2010, plaintiff Colleen Solis filed a class action
complaint against Generex and unidentified and unknown "Doe"
defendants in Riverside County Superior Court (Riverside,
California).  Plaintiff is seeking to enjoin Generex from alleged
misleading advertising about CraveNX(TM) and to obtain a refund of
the purchase price she paid and restitution for the purported
class.

Plaintiff also seeks certification of a class of California
consumers who purchased CraveNx(TM) in the past four years.  The
company intends to file an answer to this complaint.

Generex Biotechnology Corporation -- http://www.generex.com/-- is
engaged in the research, development and commercialization of drug
delivery systems and technologies.  Generex has developed a
proprietary platform technology for the delivery of drugs into the
human body through the oral cavity (with no deposit in the lungs).
The company's proprietary liquid formulations allow drugs
typically administered by injection to be absorbed into the body
by the lining of the inner mouth using the company's proprietary
RapidMist(TM) device.  The company's flagship product, buccal
insulin (Generex Oral-lyn(TM)), which has been approved in India,
Lebanon, Algeria, and Ecuador for the treatment of subjects with
Type-1 and Type-2 diabetes, is in Phase III clinical trials at
several sites around the world.  Antigen Express, Inc. --
http://www.antigenexpress.com/-- is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Generex.  The core platform technologies of Antigen Express
comprise immunotherapeutics for the treatment of malignant,
infectious, allergic, and autoimmune diseases.


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Final Approval of Settlement Pact Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Herley Industries, Inc., continues to await final approval of the
settlement agreement resolving the matter In re Herley Industries,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Docket No. 06-cv-2596 (JRS), according
to the company's Oct. 14, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
August 1, 2010.

Between June 2006 and August 2006, the company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors were named as defendants
in five related class actions alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.  Those cases were subsequently consolidated into
one class action on behalf of a purported class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the company's stock
during the period Oct. 1, 2001 through June 14, 2006.

At all times during the pendency of the litigation, the company
and the Individual Defendants have steadfastly maintained that the
claims raised in the securities class action were without merit,
and have vigorously contested those allegations.

In July 2010, the company reached an agreement to settle all
securities class actions.  As part of the settlement, the company
and the Individual Defendants continue to deny any liability or
wrongdoing under the securities laws.

The terms of the settlement provide for, in part, the dismissal of
the litigation against the company and all of the Individual
Defendants, and the creation by the company of a $10 million
settlement fund.  The fund will be allocated, after deduction of
court-ordered expenses, such as attorneys' fees and expenses,
settlement administration costs and any applicable taxes, among
members of the settlement class who submit valid proofs of claim.

Upon final approval of the settlement by the Court, in August
2010, the company paid $10 million out of existing cash reserves
to create the settlement fund.

Herley Industries, Inc. -- http://www.herley.com/-- is a leader
in the design, development and manufacture of microwave technology
solutions for the defense, aerospace and medical industries
worldwide.  Based in Lancaster, PA, Herley has seven manufacturing
locations and approximately 1000 employees.


LEAP WIRELESS: Accord on Suit Over Fin'l Restatement Gets Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael M. Anello grants final approval to the settlement
and plan of allocation of settlement proceeds in the class action
lawsuits captioned HCL Partners Limited Partnership, On Behalf of
Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. Leap Wireless
International, Inc., S. Douglas Hutcheson, Grant A. Burton And
Amin I. Khalifa; and Kent Carmichael, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Leap Wireless International,
Inc. S. Douglas Hutcheson, Mark H. Rachesky, Amin I. Khalifa and
Dean M. Luvisa, case nos. 07-cv-2245 and 08-cv-0128 (S.D. Calif.).

The actions arise from alleged misconduct by Defendant Leap
Wireless and certain individual officers and directors of Leap.
In April 2003, Leap filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11,
reorganized, and emerged in August 2004.  On November 9, 2007,
Leap announced that it would be restating its financial statements
for fiscal years 2004-2006 and the first two quarters of 2007.
The actions were triggered by Leap's restatement of its financial
results, including the Company's reported net profits, and the
price decline of Leap's common stock that occurred after the
restatement was disclosed to investors.

On November 27, 2007, four class actions were filed against
defendants in the Court, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.  Two of the actions were voluntarily dismissed.
On May 22, 2008, the Court consolidated the two actions and
appointed New Jersey Carpenters Pension and Benefit Funds as Lead
Plaintiff, Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. as Lead
Counsel, and Glancy Binkow as Liason Counsel.  On April 30, 2010,
the Court substituted Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as Lead
Counsel.

On July 7, 2008, Plaintiff filed the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.  On August 28, 2008, Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss.  The Court granted the motion to dismiss, but granted
Plaintiff leave to amend.

On March 10, 2009, Lead Plaintiff filed the operative Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint.  Defendants collectively filed a
motion to dismiss a second time. Following the briefing of the
second motion to dismiss, and prior to the motion's scheduled
hearing date, the parties engaged in extensive settlement
negotiations, and ultimately agreed to a resolution of this
action.  Over several weeks, the parties discussed and negotiated
several drafts of the stipulation of settlement, which was
presented to the Court for preliminary approval.  On March 24,
2010, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.

The settlement provides for a significant monetary benefit to the
class.  Approximately 7,500 claims were filed with the settlement
administrator, without any requests for exclusion or objections to
the settlement.  The plan of allocation, written by Plaintiff's
expert consultant, equitably distributes the proceeds of the
settlement by taking into account the timing of class members'
purchases, acquisitions and sales of Leap's common stock during
and after the class period.  Lastly, the plan accounted for
attorneys' fees in an amount equal to 25% of the gross settlement
fund, plus reimbursement of attorneys' out-of-pocket expenses.

A copy of the Court's Order and Final Judgment dated Oct. 14,
2010, is available at http://is.gd/g6q1Efrom Leagle.com.


MISTRAS GROUP: Unable to Reach Settlement in Mediation
------------------------------------------------------
Mistras Group, Inc., participated in a non-binding mediation in
the matters Quiroz v. Mistras Group, Inc., and Ballard v. Mistras
Group, Inc., et al., but was unable to reach a settlement,
according to the company's Oct. 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Aug. 31, 2010.

The company is a defendant in two related purported class action
lawsuits in California, based upon violations of California labor
and employment law.  The first case, Quiroz v. Mistras Group,
Inc., et al, U.S. District Court, Central District of California
(Case No. CV09-7146 PSG), was originally filed in California State
court in September 2009, and was removed to Federal Court.  This
matter was a purported class action case on behalf of existing and
former California employees of the company and its subsidiaries
for violation of various labor and employment laws, primarily for
failure to pay wages timely and for having defective wage
statements, as well as other claims, and is seeking penalties
under the California Private Attorneys General Act.

In March 2010, the plaintiff's request to certify the case as a
class action suit was denied.  The Plaintiffs have sought to
remand the case back to California State Court, but the Federal
Court has retained jurisdiction.

The second case is Ballard v. Mistras Group, Inc., et al, U.S.
District Court, Central District of California (Case No. 2:10-cv-
03186 (PSG)), filed in late March 2010 in California State Court
and removed to Federal court.  This matter is also a purported
class action case, based on substantially identical claims as the
Quiroz case, and was filed by the same attorney representing the
plaintiff in the Quiroz case, approximately two weeks after class
action certification was denied in Quiroz. The plaintiff is
attempting to remand this case back to California State Court and
is seeking class action certification.

In September 2010, the company participated in non-binding
mediation for the Quiroz and Ballard cases together, but was
unable reach a settlement.

Mistras Group, Inc. -- http://www.mistrasgroup.com/-- offers one
of the broadest "one source" services and technology-enabled asset
protection solution portfolios in the industry used to evaluate
the structural integrity of energy, industrial and public
infrastructure.  Mission critical services and solutions are
delivered globally and provide customers with the ability to
extend the useful life of their assets, improve productivity and
profitability, comply with government safety and environmental
regulations and enhance risk management operational decisions.
Mistras uniquely combines its industry leading products and
technologies - 24/7 on-line monitoring of critical assets;
mechanical integrity and non-destructive testing services; and its
proprietary world class data warehousing and analysis software --
to provide comprehensive and competitive products, systems and
services solutions from a single source provider.


NTI GLOBAL: Sued in Mo. for Falsely Representing Agility Tunnels
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a company's dog
agility tunnels don't work as advertised, a class action claims in
City Court.  The class of agile dog owners seeks damages from New
York-based NTI Global.  Named plaintiff Jennifer McDonald says the
tunnels fall apart under normal use.  McDonald seeks damages and
punitive damages.

A copy of the Complaint in McDonald v. NTI Global, Inc., Case No.
1022-CC11402 (Mo. Cir Ct., St. Louis Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/18/DogTunnels.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark I. Bronson, Esq.
          NEWMAN BRONSON & WALLIS
          2300 West Port Plaza Dr.
          St. Louis, MO 63146-3213
          Telephone: (314) 878-8200
          E-mail: mbronson@newmanbronson.com


QANTAS AIRWAYS: Court Sets Nov. 15 Fuel Surcharge Claims Bar Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------
etravelblackboard.com reports that the Federal Court of Australia
has issued travel agents with a November 15 deadline to make a
claim against Qantas Airways Limited for unpaid fuel surcharge
commissions.

Last month, Qantas lost a High Court application to appeal a
ruling that found the airline failed to include fuel surcharges
when calculating the commission paid to agents on international
tickets sold between 2004 and 2007.

Travel agents can join the class action and make a claim against
Qantas if, between 11 May 2004 and 9 May 2007, they met the
following conditions:

    * they were incorporated and their principal place of business
was in Australia;

    * they were a party to the IATA Passenger Sales Agency
Agreement;

    * they sold international published fares on behalf of Qantas,
British Airways and Air New Zealand; and

    * they have not lodged an Opt Out Notice with the Federal
Court.

Thus far, joining the "successful" claim are "mums & dads" agents
including franchisees and members from Harvey World Travel, Jetset
Travelworld Group and Travelscene American Express, according to
Slater & Gordon lawyer Steven Lewis.

"The order from the Federal Court is an important step forward in
the travel agents being paid what they are owed by Qantas,"
Mr. Lewis said.

"For almost four years travel agents have been involved in a David
and Goliath legal battle against one of Australia's biggest
companies," Mr. Lewis said.

"Now, after a historic win that will reverberate around the
airline industry, they will start to receive what they are owed."

Qantas have reportedly claimed it will cost up to $26 million
"just to cover the additional commissions owed to travel agents"
between 2004 and 2007.

Upon the completion of the Qantas proceedings, similar claims
against British Airways, Air New Zealand, Singapore Airlines and
Cathy Pacific will be heard.

To make a claim, travel agents can contact either Slater & Gordon
directly or approach the Federal Court, New South Wales Registry.


SALT LAKE: District Attorney Sued Over Inflated Discovery Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that the Salt Lake
County District Attorney is building a PR empire on the backs of
defendants, the Utah Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
claims in a state class action.  The group claims District
Attorney Lohra Miller charges defense attorneys "wildly inflated"
fees that "do not reflect actual costs" of copying documents and
tapes, and uses the money to fund her office, for which she has
created a public relations staff nearly as big as the one in Los
Angeles, which has nine times the population and 10 times as many
attorneys.

The Utah Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers claims that while
Ms. Miller was increasing fees for discovery, she sought salary
increases for herself three times, and adds that whacking just one
member of her PR staff "would be more than adequate to cover all
of the fees she is trying to extract from defendants who are doing
no more than seeking access to the evidence they are entitled to
under the United States and Utah Constitutions."

On June 16, 2009, at Ms. Miller's recommendation, the Salt Lake
City Council adopted a schedule of fees to be charged to
nonindigent defendants in criminal cases.  The attorneys claim the
standards used to determine indigence are unduly harsh, that
"Someone supporting a family of four who earns just $14.90 an hour
will be charged fees to obtain discovery."

Before June 2009, defense attorneys obtained copies of documents
and allied information from prosecutors without charge, according
to the complaint in Salt Lake County Court.

"About 80 percent of the approximately 18,000 cases filed by the
District Attorney's Office are assigned to the Salt Lake Public
Defender Association," the UACDL says.  But "the schedule of fees
does not apply to those represented by public defenders."

"As is obvious from even a cursory review of the schedule of fees,
the fees bear no relationship whatsoever to actual costs," the
attorneys say.  For example, the cost per page for black-and-white
copies ranges from 75 cents to $3.

The "grossly inflated" charges "fund the district attorney's
outsized salary and her public relations department, which rivals
in size that of the Los Angeles district attorney" and "are set to
offset budget gaps . . . not to pay for discovery itself,"
according to the complaint.

"Ms. Miller has set fees in order to force defendants --
individuals who are presumed innocent -- to fund the operation of
the District Attorney's office.  Ms. Miller cannot justify the fee
imposition by pointing to budgetary concerns.  At the same time
that Ms. Miller has imposed illegal fees on defendants attempting
to obtain discovery materials, she sought three separate increases
in her own salary.  In fact, she is now paid more than the
Attorney General of Utah.  At the same time she was imposing fees
on defendants, she created a public relations staff that is almost
the same size as that of the office of the Los Angeles District
Attorney, an agency serving a county more than nine times as
populous, with ten times as many attorneys as in the Salt Lake
District Attorney's office.  The cost of just one of Ms. Miller's
public relations employees would be more than adequate to cover
all of the fees she is trying to extract from defendants who are
doing no more than seeking access to the evidence they are
entitled to under the United States and Utah Constitutions."

The complaint adds: "Ms. Miller refused to undertake any study,
let alone the statutorily required assessment, of the actual costs
of providing discovery materials to defendants.  Instead, Ms.
Miller established a fee schedule based on nothing more than
speculation.  In a related case, the District Attorney admitted to
the Court that it did not do an adequate analysis of the actual
costs of preparing discovery, because it could not be bothered.
The District Attorney made no effort even to discuss with the
Auditor how to make a determination of actual costs, although
involvement of the Auditor is mandatory under municipal law.  As a
result, the fees imposed by Ms. Miller are grossly disproportions
to the actual costs of discovery production, and impose improper
burdens on defendants.  Her fees are significantly higher than the
costs recoverable in private litigation by public or private
person, whether before the state or federal courts."

The defense attorneys add: "The effect of the changes imposed by
Ms. Miller has been, and will continue to be, to impair the
ability of defendants to prepare their cases and to deprive them
of meaningful discovery, contrary to both the United States and
Utah Constitutions and to improperly burden defendants and their
counsel."

To make it perfectly clear, the attorney say: "Ms. Miller and the
county manipulate application of the schedule of fees to increase
general revenues and to selectively punish defendants and their
counsel."

The group claims the charges are inconsistent with the Utah Rules
of Criminal Procedure, interfere with defendants' right to a
speedy trial, violate the Sixth Amendment "both to the presumption
of innocence and to the disclosure by prosecutors of all
exculpatory evidence," and violates Article I, Section 12 of the
Utah Constitution, "which guarantees that an accused shall not 'be
compelled to advance money or fees to secure' his or her rights to
a criminal case."

The fees also delay discovery, which delays trial dates and plea
negotiations and raises court costs because cases remain on the
docket longer.

The group claims the U.S. Attorney does not charge for discovery,
nor does the attorney general of Utah impose fees on discovery for
defendants in criminal cases. Neither do Cache, Summit, or Wasatch
Counties.

Davis, Weber, and Washington Counties charge a $5 flat fee.

The class of more than 1,000 attorneys wants the new charges
enjoined, damages for the money already collected, and costs.

A copy of the Complaint in Utah Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers, et al. v. Miller, et al., Case No. 100919560 (Utah Jud.
Dist. Ct., Salt Lake Cty.), (Lindberg, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/18/SaltLakeDA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John H. Bogart, Esq.
          TELOS VG, PLLC
          299 South Main St., Suite 1300
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 535-4304
          E-mail: jbogart@telosvg.com


SANOFI-AVENTI US: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Alan Saldana, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04672 (N.D. Calif.
October 15, 2010), accuses the N.J.-based international
pharmaceutical company of requiring its employees to work more
than eight hours per day without paying them overtime wages,
failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failing
to provide compensation for missed meal periods, in violation of
California state wage and hour laws.

Mr. Saldana and the class members seek, among other things,
injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement of all benefits
defendants enjoyed from their failure to pay overtime and meal
period compensation.

Mr. Saldana is employed by Sanofi-Aventis as a pharmaceutical
representative in the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Liane L. Katzenstein, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  lkatzenstein@kingsleykingsley.com

               - and -

          Charles Joseph, Esq.
          JOSEPH & HERZFELD LLP
          757 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640

               - and -

          Michael Dichiara, Esq.
          DICHIARA LAW FIRM LLC
          77 Market Street, Suite 2
          Park Ridge, NJ 07656
          Telephone: (201) 746-0303
          E-mail: charles@JHLLP.com


SOURCE FOR PUBLIC DATA: Settlement in Drivers' Class Suit Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action
that an attorney claimed might bankrupt Missouri has been settled
for $90,000.  U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey gave final
approval last week to the settlement between Missouri drivers and
The Source for Public Data and Shadowsoft.

Plaintiffs claimed The Source for Public Data and Shadowsoft
illegally obtained a database from the Missouri Department of
Motor Vehicles, with confidential information about Missouri
drivers, and sold it to third parties, violating the Federal
Driver's Privacy Protection Act.

Ten employees of the Missouri Department of Motor Vehicles were
named as defendants.  The state itself could not be sued.

The settlement "requires the return of all personal information
that is in the possession of Shadowsoft and Source for Public
Data.  It prevents further reselling of such information and
greatly reduces the risk of identity theft and the illegal use of
such information from Missouri drivers," court papers state.

The defendants will pay $90,000, to go toward attorney's fees; of
that, $3,000 will be split evenly between the two lead plaintiffs.

The defendants have not admitted guilt as part of the settlement.

Mitchell Burgess, an attorney for plaintiffs, told Courthouse News
when the complaint was filed that it had the potential to bankrupt
Missouri.  He pointed out that federal law allows for damages of
up to $2,500 a person.  If 100,000 people were involved, damages
could get as high as $250 million.  Mr. Burgess told Courthouse
News that the class could number in the millions.

Both sides said they believe the settlement is reasonable.

"The settlement provides immediate relief.  It requires the return
of all personal information that is in the possession of
Shadowsoft and Source for Public Data.  It prevents further
reselling of such information and greatly reduces the risk of
identity theft and the illegal use of such information from
Missouri drivers."

A copy of the Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey's Oct. 12, 2010, Order
and Judgment in Roberts, et al. v. The Source for Public Data LP,
et al., Case No. 08-cv-04167 (W.D. Mo.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/18/MissouriSettle.pdf


SPRINGFIELD, MO: Suit Over Red-Light Ticket System Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge
dismissed a class action against Springfield's red-light traffic
cameras.  U.S. District Judge Nanette K. Laughery denied claims
that the $800,000 in fines the city has collected violated
drivers' due process rights.

Springfield's red-light ticket system was taken offline in March
after the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that Springfield's method
of handling red-light tickets violated state law.  The state
Supreme Court ruled that Springfield had to handle the tickets
through its court system, not through administrative hearings.

The class consists of drivers who had already paid the $100 fine
before the Supreme Court's ruling.

"Plaintiffs cannot challenge on due process grounds the procedures
they opted not to use," Judge Laughery wrote.  "Given the
procedural posture of this case, the Court declines to exercise
jurisdiction in the absence of a live claim or controversy.
Plaintiffs have no standing to challenge the administrative
procedures under Sections 106-161 because they cannot trace any
deprivation or threatened deprivation of property to any of that
ordinance's adjudicative procedures, having declined to avail
themselves of any such procedures."

A copy of the Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey's Sept. 3, 2010, Order
in Mills, et al. v. City of Springfield, et al., Case No. 10-cv-
04036 (W.D. Mo.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/18/RedLight.pdf


TICKETMASTER.COM: Partial Fee Refunds in Class Suit Likely
----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Bissell, writing for mndaily.com, reports that those who
bought tickets from Ticketmaster.com in approximately the past 10
years may have a chance to have a portion of the price refunded.

A class-action lawsuit will determine if Ticketmaster's order
processing and UPS delivery fees are deceptive and lead customers
to believe the price is representative of the costs to process and
deliver the tickets.

Companies feel they can "get away with" these kinds of small fees
because "nobody in their right mind" is going to sue over it,
prosecuting lawyer Robert Stein said.  "There's no incentive for
them to do business honestly."

Plaintiffs claim Ticketmaster's fees violate California's false
advertising law and unfair competition law, according to a court
document.

The case has been classified as a class-action suit, so it
includes all U.S. residents who have bought tickets from
Ticketmaster.com between Oct. 21, 1999 and May 31, 2010.

If found liable, Ticketmaster may have to refund a portion of the
fees back to its customers.

"The amount in question is small for any given person, but the
amount is large overall," Mr. Stein said.  "This [type of suit] is
really what keeps companies honest at the end of the day."

The case, filed in California roughly seven years ago, will be
heard before a nonjury trial in the state's Superior Court on
Jan. 26, 2011.

The court ordered an e-mail be sent to the members of the class to
notify them of the case and opportunities to opt out.  It was sent
Oct. 8.  Additionally, a Web site with court documents has been
launched.

Ticketmaster's attorney Jeff Scott declined to comment, citing
company policy against discussing pending litigation.

About 55% of advanced ticket sales at music venue First Avenue are
sold through Ticketmaster, said First Avenue general manager
Nathan Kranz.

The vast majority of the more expensive shows, however, are
Ticketmaster sales, opposed to fan club or box office tickets, Mr.
Kranz added.

"I'm always amazed at how many customers actually use
Ticketmaster," Mr. Kranz said.  "People are so used to buying
tickets through them that Ticketmaster has been able to, I guess,
use that market share to raise prices on people."

Mr. Kranz said a lot of people use Ticketmaster because they
aren't aware of any other options or simply because of
convenience.

"[It's the] same reason why people would drive their car downtown
to pay $13 to park when they could take a bus," Mr. Kranz said.

Since Ticketmaster's merger with fellow ticket provider Live
Nation, which has allowed for more control over ticket prices,
fewer venues have wanted to contract with Ticketmaster, Mr. Kranz
said.

"We're still a Ticketmaster venue because we're under contract,
but we're certainly looking at all of our options," Mr. Kranz
said.  "They weren't called a monopoly by the government, but from
where I sit it certainly looks like one."

"I think it's pretty terrible that they can just charge whatever
they want," Mr. Kranz added.  "Once you're under contract you have
very little that you can do to keep the fees at a somewhat
reasonable level."


UNITED STATES: Faces Potential Class Suit Over Moose Collisions
---------------------------------------------------------------
VOCM.COM reports St. John's lawyer Ches Crosbie has been helping
moose collision victims obtain financial compensation for years.
Now he's looking at the possibility of a class-action lawsuit for
these victims.  Mr. Crosbie says government could be held
accountable as they introduced moose to the province in 1912.  If
the hazard that moose pose to traffic was foreseeable a hundred
years ago, government could be held liable for negligence.  Mr.
Crosbie says the purpose of the class action would be compensation
for the injured, and measures to reduce or prevent collision
dangers posed by moose.


WAL-MART STORES: Accused in N.J. of Hiring Undocumented Migrants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Fry at Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal
class action, 42 named plaintiffs say Wal-Mart hired them knowing
they were undocumented, stiffed them for overtime and for regular
wages, paid them in cash or by personal checks from labor
contractors, put them to forced labor through coercion, "violated
immigration, money laundering and protective wage and hour laws,"
and routinely locked them inside stores while they worked night
shifts.

Wal-Mart and some of its contractors settled federal complaints
and paid millions in fines.  The named plaintiffs, suing for the
class, seek the wages of which they were cheated, and other
damages.

Most of the named plaintiffs have names that indicate Eastern
European descent, particularly Polish and Czech.  Many say they
worked more than 40 hours a week, seven days a week, and never
were paid overtime.

Lead plaintiff Victor Manuel Zavala, one of two named plaintiffs
with Latino surnames, claims that "beginning in no later than
March 1997, senior Wal-Mart management, realizing that Wal-Mart
could substantially reduce costs and substantially increase
profits were it to rely on the labor of undocumented migrants to
clean its thousands of stores, created a criminal enterprise that
involved conspiracies to violate, as well as substantive
violations, of federal immigration laws and other laws."

The class claims Wal-Mart engaged in a criminal RICO conspiracy
involving "the employment, encouragement, harboring and
transporting of undocumented workers," which the company hired
through outside contractors.

Wal-Mart did it to duck taxes, including Social Security, and
government regulations and to avoid having to pay for health
benefits, according to the complaint.

The class claims Wal-Mart "sheltered the undocumented migrants by
arranging or providing lodging for them and routinely transporting
them across the United States to work at different Wal-Mart
locations."  The plaintiffs say that the company structures its
business operations "in multiple shell corporations so as to
shield the continued employment of the migrants from detection"
and that "senior Wal-Mart executives . . . knew of the scheme" and
"permitted it to flourish."

The complaint adds: "The Wal-Mart Enterprise was directed by
Divisional Vice Presidents within the Wal-Mart Stores Division
with responsibility for in-store cleaning and procurement of
services."

The class claims that Wal-Mart typically paid their wages to
outside contractors, who then paid the migrant workers in cash or
sometimes by personal check.

They also claim Wal-Mart locked them in stores overnight,
"intentionally" and "against their will."  Class members who
complained about the treatment were "threatened with deportation
or other adverse legal action."

Wal-Mart paid an $11 million fine in 2005 "in order to avoid
criminal penalties" after being accused of many illegal immigrants
to "provide floor cleaning services" from 1998 to 2003, according
to the complaint.

"This action is directed at compensating the named plaintiffs and
the class they represent for the harm caused them by this criminal
enterprise."

They seek back wages and treble and punitive damages for RICO
violations, conspiracy, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and false imprisonment.

A copy of the Complaint in Zavala, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., Case No. 10-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 9702 in Case No. 33-
av-00001 on Oct. 14, 2010 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/18/Walmart.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James L. Linsey, Esq.
          COHEN, WEISS AND SIMON LLP
          330 West 42nd St.
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 563-4100


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Class in Securities Suit Wins Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that
while the shareholders of Washington Mutual Inc. wait anxiously
for the Nov. 1 examiner's report in WMI's Chapter 11 to find out
if they have any hope of recovery through the bankruptcy process,
they can rest assured that things are looking very good in their
securities class action against some very deep-pocketed
defendants.  On October 13, Seattle federal district court Judge
Marsha Pechman granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, giving the green light to investors who bought WaMu
shares in three offerings between 2005 and 2008, when the company
went bust.

Judge Pechman previously denied defense motions to dismiss the
securities class action, so the WMI shareholders will now proceed
to court-ordered mediation against four groups of defendants:

     -- the former officers of Washington Mutual Inc. (represented
        by Simpson Thacher & Bartlett);

     -- the former WMI directors (represented by Perkins Coie);

     -- 15 underwriters, including most of the biggest investment
        and commercial banks in the U.S. (represented by Gibson,
        Dunn & Crutcher); and

     -- WaMu's former auditor, Deloitte & Touche (represented by
        Latham & Watkins).

According to an Oct. 13 joint status report, the parties
(including the 11 insurance carriers that issued D&O policies to
WMI's former directors and officers) have agreed that the
mediation will be overseen by former federal district court Judge
Layn Phillips of Irell & Manella.  Mediation sessions may begin as
soon as December.

Judge Pechman's class certification ruling also confirmed
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann -- counsel to the lead
plaintiff, Ontario Teachers' Pension Board -- as class counsel.
The defendants had challenged Bernstein's involvement in the case,
arguing that the firm pressured two other named plaintiffs to join
the litigation.  The judge said that some of Bernstein's tactics
"strike the court as unseemly," but she nevertheless found that
the firm satisfied the lead counsel requirements of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.

She also, interestingly, said she was "alarmed by the prospect"
that other plaintiffs firms would try to claim a share of attorney
fees. "The briefing on class certification has revealed that two
firms, Sugarman & Susskind, P.A., and Saxena White appear only to
be shepherding plaintiffs to Bernstein Litowitz," Judge Pechman
wrote.  "The court cautions that no fees will be awarded unless
actual legal work is done by an individual lawyer to further the
present litigation, and any fee sharing relationship will be
closely scrutinized."

Barry Ostrager of Simpson told us the former WMI directors intend
to appeal Judge Pechman's class certification ruling.  "We think
there are issues with respect to the appropriateness of
certification," he said.  "Those will be raised on appeal."


                             *********

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  * * *