CAR_Public/101025.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, October 25, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 210

                             Headlines

ACTIVIDENTITY CORP: Board Faces Suit Over Sale to ASSA
AMERICAN CHARTERED: Sued for Obtaining Judgment Illegally
BANK OF AMERICA: Law Firms File Proposed Foreclosure Class Suit
BENDIGO BANK: Class Suit Over Failed Investment Schemes Junked
CENTURY 21: Franchisees' Class-Action Lawsuit Moves Forward

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Decertifies "Drenckhahn" Action
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Castaneda Agrees to Dismiss Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Pytelewski Suit in Calif.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Hawk" Action in Wash.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Ward" in California

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "Medrano" Action in California
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suit Over "Product Ambassadors"
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal on "Ellis" Certification Still Ongoing
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Expects Revised Settlement in "Fuel" Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Hesse" Action Remanded by Appellate Court

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Motion to Certify "Salmon" Suit Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Denies Motion to File Amended Complaint
COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Kilano" Suit Still Ongoing in Michigan
GREENBRIER INT'L: Recalls 275,000 Projector Flashlights
JAKKS PACIFIC: Recalls 516,000 Spa Factory & Bath Benefits Kits

LOLLYTOGS LTD: Recalls 10,200 Infant Overalls
MUNCHKIN INC: Recalls 34,000 Bathtub Subs
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: 7th Circuit Grants Petition for Rehearing
OMNI ENERGY: Enters Into MOU to Settle Suits in Western Louisiana
SHORETEL INC: Court Certifies Securities Suit as Class Action

WD-40 CO: Continues to Defend "Burns" Suit in California


                             *********

ACTIVIDENTITY CORP: Board Faces Suit Over Sale to ASSA
------------------------------------------------------
Beverly and Lionel Sacks, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. ActivIdentity Corporation, et al., Case No.
10-cv-04705 (N.D. Calif. October 18, 2010), accuse the members of
the Board of directors of the global authentication and credential
management solutions provider, aided and abetted by ActiIdentity,
of breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with their
attempts to complete the sale of ActivIdentity to ASSA ABLOY, the
parent company of HID Global, via an unfair process and at an
unfair price.

The suit further alleges that the Board was aided and abetted at
all times by ActivIdentity.  The plaintiffs seek the Court's
immediate judicial intervention to rectify existing and future
irreparable harm to the Company's shareholders.

In an October 11, 2010 press release, ActivIdentity announced that
the Company had entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired
by ASSA ABLOY, the Swedish lock manufacturer, in a cash
transaction at a price of $3.25 per share, or approximately
$162 million.  ActivIdentity expects the acquisition, which is
subject to ActivIdentity shareholder approval, applicable
regulatory clearances and other customary closing conditions, to
close in December 2010.

The Plaintiffs allege that the stock of the Company has
historically traded substantially above HID's $3.25 per share
offer, and as high as $3.33 per share as recently as April 27,
2010, and going forward, the Company should continue to experience
improvements in its financial performance.  HID disagrees, saying
that their offer represents a significant 43% premium over the
closing price of ActivIdentity shares 3 days before the
announcement of the proposed acquisition (October 8, 2010), and a
premium of 48% over the the stock's 20-day closing pricing
average.

The Plaintiffs currently own approximately 45,000 shares of
ActivIdentity common stock.

The individual defendants include:

     -- Grant Evans, CEO and Chairman of the Board
     -- Brad Boston, Director
     -- Robert Brandewie, Director
     -- James Frankola, Director
     -- Steven Humphreys, Director
     -- James E. Ousley, Director
     -- David B. Wright, Director

Plaintiffs allege that the individual defendants violated their
fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders when they failed to
secure the highest value reasonable for the Company's
shareholders, while obtaining for themselves personal benefits,
including personal financial benefits, not equally shared by the
Company's public shareholders.

For instance, less than two months ago, the Board approved
amendments to the compensation packages of Company executives,
including individual defendant Grant Evans, the Company's CEO
Chairman of the Board, promising them a big payoff upon the sale
of the Company.

On Aug. 31, 2010, the Compensation Committee of the Board agreed
to permit CEO Evans to obtain, if he is terminated within one year
of a change-in-control event: (i) an increase in his severance
amount from 18 months to 24 months of base salary plus a target
bonus for that year; (ii) an extension of the post-termination
time period for health coverage from 12 months to 24 months; (iii)
an acceleration of the vesting schedule of all equity incentive
awards then held by him; and (iv) an extension of the post-
termination exercise period for equity incentive awards to 24
months.  The Compensation Committee of the Board also approved
amendments to the compensation package of Jacques Kerrest, the
Company's Chief Financial Officer, and amendments to the
compensation package of John Boyer, the Company's Senior Vice
President.

The Company has also agreed to onerous deal protection devices,
including maintaining a "poison pill" shareholder rights plan,
which makes it too expensive for competing bidders to acquire
control of the Company.  In addition, no directors of
ActivIdentity may be removed except for cause, and ActivIdentity's
Board has the unilateral ability to add or change bylaws without
shareholder approval, can increase or decrease the size of the
Board, can fill any vacancies on the Board, and can issue blank
check preferred stock -- all of which make a takeover even more
impossible.

Defendants also agreed to these onerous deal protection provisions
in the merger agreement: (i) a no-solicitation provision that
prevents other buyers from having access to ActivIdentity's
confidential information, which is necessary to formulate a bid
except under extremely limited circumstances; (ii) a force-the-
vote provision that requires the Board to submit the Proposed
Acquisition to a shareholder vote even if a superior proposal is
made and the Board changes its recommendation; and (iii) a
termination fee that requires the Company to pay HID $1.25 million
if the merger is validly terminated, and $5 million in cash if the
Proposed Acquisition is terminated in favor of a superior
proposal.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David t. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq.
          David A. Knotts, Esq.
          Eun Jin Lee, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWN LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: darren@rgrdlaw.com
                  randyb@rgrdlaw.com
                  ricka@rgrdlaw.com
                  dwissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
                  sjodlowski@rgrdlaw.com
                  dknotts@rgrdlaw.com
                  elee@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          GOLDFARB BRANHAM LLP
          2501 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1801
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 583-2233
          E-mail: hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com


AMERICAN CHARTERED: Sued for Obtaining Judgment Illegally
---------------------------------------------------------
Louis Jones, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
American Chartered Bank, Case No. 2010-CH-45181 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty., October 15, 2010), accuses ACB of filing lawsuits in
Illinois confessing judgment against borrowers and guarantors
without process despite not having the authority to do so and
based upon powers to confess judgment that are invalid (where
there is a variable rate of interest in a promissory note).  Mr.
Jones believes that ACB's conduct was knowing and willful and
carried out for pecuniary gain.

The suit relates that Mr. Jones signed a commercial guaranty of
certain loans as evidenced by a promissory note dated August 11,
2010.  ACB sued Mr. Jones for an alleged breach of the Guaranty.
Attorney Martin F. Hauselman represented ACB in the case,
captioned American Chartered Bank v. Louis Jones Enterprises, Inc.
and Louis Jones, Case No. 09L-51701 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.).
Attorney Jay Levy confessed judgment against Mr. Jones.  The
complaint says that on December 22, 2009, and without service of
process upon Mr. Jones, judgment by confession was entered in
favor of ACB against Mr. Jones in the amount of $604,094.04

The Complaint relates that the "Confession of Judgment" section of
the Guaranty signed by Mr. Jones does not authorize the confession
of judgment against Mr. Jones without process, and that Attorney
Jay Levy did not have the authority to confess judgment against
Mr. Jones without process.  The Complaint relates that Mr. Jones
needed to be served with process prior to the entry of the
judgment by confession in order for Mr. Jones to be subject to the
court's jurisdiction.  Since summons was not served on Mr. Jones,
the court did not have jurisdiction over Mr. Jones at the time the
judgment was entered.  Therefore, the judgment by confession
entered against Jones on December 22, 2009, is a nullity and
should be vacated.

Mr. Jones says he did not discover the judgment by confession
until months later, when he became aware of the issuance of a
citation to discover assets.  The conduct of ACB in omitting from
the confession of judgment clause the fact that it could seek a
confession of judgment without process was deceptive in that Mr.
Jones believed that he was entitled to notice and would be served
with process prior to any confession of judgment, according to the
Complaint.

Plaintiff Jones asks the Court, among other things, to declare
that the judgment against him be vacated and all post-judgment
enforcement be quashed; and to order ACB to repay Mr. Jones for
any money ACB received from garnishments or other post-judgment
actions obtained to enforce judgments obtained with a power to
confess judgment that is invalid.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arnold H. Landis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD H. LANDIS
          77 W. Washington, Suite 702
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-6268


BANK OF AMERICA: Law Firms File Proposed Foreclosure Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Swiatek, writing for IndyStar.com, reports an Indianapolis
law firm has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit on behalf of
homeowners nationally who've been foreclosed on by lenders using
questionable paperwork.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis,
names a Knightstown couple as plaintiff and Bank of America,
Countrywide Home Loans and BAC Home Loans Servicing as defendants.

Bank of America is one of the national lenders that recently
stopped foreclosure proceedings against homeowners over concerns
that its paperwork procedures were improper.

The lawsuit is one of the first class-action lawsuits in the
nation filed against lenders on behalf of homeowners who've been
evicted from their homes using allegedly fraudulent documents,
said Clifford Rubenstein of Carmel, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers
in the case.

Cohen & Malad of Indianapolis is the lead counsel in the lawsuit,
which alleges Bank of America and the other defendants "engaged in
racketeering and fraud on the courts by knowingly filing perjured
affidavits" in foreclosure cases, the law firm said.

"This flies in the face of the private property rights that we
cherish in our country," Cohen & Malad said in a statement.

"Caring more about ongoing profits and less about keeping good
records, major lenders like Countrywide and Bank of America joined
together and set up a straw man, called MERS, which used an
electronic registration system instead of conventional real estate
documents.  The system was a nightmare, losing track of and
improperly entering loan information," the law firm said.
"Lenders ignored the fundamental rights of homeowners by failing
to keep track of who owned mortgages and how much, if any, was
owed."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clifford Rubenstein, Esq.
          MAURER RIFKIN & HILL, P.C.
          11550 North Meridian Street, Suite 115
          Carmel, IN 46032
          Telephone: 317-844-8372

Meanwhile, 6News reports Henry County couple is seeking class-
action status for a federal lawsuit they've filed against Bank of
America in the midst of a nationwide foreclosure investigation.

Dwayne and Melisa Davis claim the bank denied them a chance to
save their home from foreclosure because it used fraudulent
paperwork, 6News' Rafael Sanchez reported.

"This case doesn't seek to overturn the foreclosure judgments
themselves, but rather money damages for homeowners thrown out of
their homes too soon because the bank cut corners and used false
affidavits," said the couple's attorney, Richard Shevitz from
Indianapolis firm Cohen & Malad.

The lawsuit seeks to help people who were foreclosed on by Bank of
America from Oct. 18, 2006, through the present.

A representative with Bank of America Home Loans told 6News via
e-mail that the company had no comment on the litigation.

Bank of America on Monday announced it would resume foreclosures
in Indiana and 22 other states next week after questions were
raised about the paperwork the company filed in regaining control
of their properties.

The company said in a statement Monday that it found nothing wrong
with its process.

Critics allege Bank of America and several other lenders use
people known as "robo-signers" who approve a mass number of
foreclosures without verifying the information.

"It's disgraceful, they should be ashamed," said Indianapolis
consumer advocate and attorney Chris Jackson.  "I have clients who
were locked out of their homes prior to the filing of a
foreclosure complaint."

Of the 43 foreclosure cases Mr. Jackson is representing, she said
the majority involve lenders using unreliable information.

"They are mass processing these important legal matters and now we
see what's happened because it's done on the cheap," she said.

Bank of America will have 20 days to respond to the Davises'
lawsuit before the case seeking class-action status gets a
hearing.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard Shevitz, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: 317.636.6481

                       About Bank of America

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America --
http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is one of the world's largest
financial institutions.  The Company serves more than 59 million
consumer and small business relationships with more than 6,100
retail banking offices, nearly 18,700 ATMs and online banking with
nearly 29 million active users.  Following the acquisition of
Merrill Lynch in January 2009, BofA is among the world's leading
wealth management companies and is a global leader in corporate
and investment banking and trading across a broad range of asset
classes serving corporations, governments, institutions and
individuals around the world.  Bank of America offers support to
more than 4 million small business owners.  The Company serves
clients in more than 150 countries.  Bank of America Corporation
stock is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and is
listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

BofA sought government backing in completing its acquisition of
Merrill Lynch.  Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/--
is a wealth management, capital markets and advisory companies
with offices in 40 countries and territories.

BofA has received US$45 billion in government bailout money since
the economic collapse in 2008.


BENDIGO BANK: Class Suit Over Failed Investment Schemes Junked
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Kennedy, writing for Bendigo Advertiser, reports a multi-
million dollar class action brought against the Bendigo and
Adelaide Bank by lawyers acting on behalf of investors in the
failed Great Southern Plantations managed investment schemes has
been struck out.

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank managing director Mike Hirst on Tuesday
welcomed the court decision to strike out the amended statement of
claim in the first class action brought against the bank on behalf
of investors, who collectively still owe the bank more than $450
million over the failed investment schemes.

Justice Croft of the Supreme Court of Victoria on Tuesday struck
out the amended statement of claim in the class action against the
Bank initiated by the law firm Macpherson + Kelley on behalf of
investors in the Great Southern Plantations 2005 and 2006 managed
investment schemes.

While Justice Croft has left the door open for Macpherson + Kelley
to bring a new argument, in a statement released late yesterday,
Mr. Hirst said the judgment had delivered a damaging blow to the
case being alleged against the Bank.

"Macpherson + Kelley has spent the past 15 months preparing its
claim, which one could assume it believed was its strongest
argument against the Bank.  However, that argument has failed and
now it will need to think of new arguments if it is to pursue a
class action on behalf of its clients."

Mr. Hirst said the bank would now write to borrowers to inform
them of this development and urge those borrowers not making loan
repayments to consider recommencing repayments.

Mr. Hirst said the bank had worked hard in the best interests of
borrowers to secure value from the agricultural assets owned by
Great Southern, noting that many of these schemes are under new
management.  Equally, the bank expected borrowers to meet their
commitments.

"We have an obligation to all our stakeholders to recover monies
loaned to investors in these schemes and we will set out to do
so," Mr. Hirst said.

The Bendigo Advertiser understands a further action against the
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank initiated by Sydney based law firm DC
Legal is still ongoing.  Mr. Hirst has previously described the
claim document presented by DC Legal as "hopelessly inadequate".

Macpherson + Kelley Lawyers principal Ron Willemsen said it was
important to note that the court had not been prepared to excuse
the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank from answering the case.

"Macpherson + Kelley will be filing the new version as soon as is
needed," he said.

The case was set to return to court on Friday, October 22.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ron Willemsen, Esq.
          MACPHERSON + KELLEY LAWYERS
          Level 22, 114 William Street
          Melbourne Victoria 3000
          GPO Box 1666 Melbourne 3001
          Telephone: 03 9794 2625
          E-mail: ron.willemsen@mk.com.au


CENTURY 21: Franchisees' Class-Action Lawsuit Moves Forward
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit filed by Century 21 franchisees against
Century 21 Real Estate Corp. and parent company Cendant is moving
forward following a decision of the New Jersey Appellate Division.

In August, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Robert J. Brennan
certified a class of current and former Century 21 franchisees in
a lawsuit alleging breach of contract and other claims against
their franchisor, Century 21 Real Estate Corp., as well as its
parent company, consumer and business services provider Cendant
Corp. Currently, Century 21 is owned by Cendant spin-off Realogy
Corp.

Following Judge Brennan's ruling, Cendant asked the New Jersey
Appellate Division to reconsider the class certification decision.
On October 15, 2010, the appellate court announced it would not
hear the appeal, which clears the way for the case to go to trial.

"We are pleased that the case will now move forward as originally
directed by Judge Brennan," says attorney Dan Drachler of
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, who represents the franchisees
along with firm co-founder Robert S. Schachter.

"As a result of Cendant's actions, Century 21 franchisees have
suffered damages that may total in the hundreds of millions of
dollars," says Mr. Schachter.

According to the lawsuit, Cendant failed to provide the level of
services to Century 21 franchisees required by their agreements.
Additionally, the lawsuit claims that contributions to a national
advertising fund, which topped more than $40 million annually,
were misappropriated and diverted to uses other than the benefit
of Century 21, including the promotion of Century 21's Cendant-
owned real estate competitors.  Shortly after the purchase of
Century 21, Cendant also acquired Coldwell Banker and ERA.

Judge Brennan's order certified a class of current and former
Century 21 franchisees during the period from August 1995 to April
2002 whose franchise agreements contain a New Jersey jurisdiction
clause.

The franchisee plaintiffs also are represented by New Jersey-based
Keefe Bartels LLC and the Fort Lauderdale, Fla., office of Adorno
& Yoss.

Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, represents clients nationwide
in financial-related class-action lawsuits.  With offices in New
York City; Garden City, N.Y.; and Seattle, the firm currently
plays a leading role in numerous major securities and complex
commercial litigations pending in federal and state courts.  To
learn more, please visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.zsz.com/

For more information, on the class-action lawsuit involving
Century 21 franchisees, please contact Mark Annick at 800-559-4534
or mark@androvett.com

The franchisees are represented by:

          Dan Drachler, Esq.
          Robert S. Schachter, Esq.
          ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY  10010
          Telephone: 212-223-3900

               - and -

          Patrick Joseph Bartels, Esq.
          KEEFE BARTELS LLC
          170 Monmouth Street
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: 732-224-9400


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Decertifies "Drenckhahn" Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Los Angeles) granted Costco Wholesale Corporation's motion to
decertify the action captioned Jesse Drenckhahn v. Costco
Wholesale Corp., Case No. CV08-1408 FMC (JMJ), according to the
company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2010.

On Dec. 26, 2007, a putative class action was filed, principally
alleging denial of overtime compensation.  The complaint alleges
misclassification of certain California managers.

On May 15, 2008, the court partially granted the company's motion
to dismiss the complaint, dismissing certain claims and refusing
to expand the statute of limitations for the remaining claims.  An
answer to the complaint was filed on May 27, 2008.

Plaintiff's class certification motion was denied, while a Fair
Labor Standards Act collective action was conditionally certified
for notice purposes only.

The company's motion to decertify was granted on Sept. 14, 2010.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Castaneda Agrees to Dismiss Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the matter Anthony Castaneda v. Costco Wholesale
Corp., Case No. BC-399302, has agreed to dismiss his action
against Costco Wholesale Corporation, according to the company's
Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2010.

The case is purportedly brought as a class action on behalf of
present and former hourly employees in California, in which the
plaintiff principally alleges that the company's routine closing
procedures and security checks cause employees to incur delays
that qualify as uncompensated working time and that deny them
statutorily guaranteed meal periods and rest breaks.

The complaint was filed on Oct. 2, 2008, in the Superior Court for
the County of Los Angeles, and the company's motion to dismiss was
partially granted.

On Feb. 1, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification, and that ruling was appealed.  The court granted
summary judgment against the plaintiff on his individual claim on
April 19, 2010.  Plaintiff subsequently agreed to dismiss the
action.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Pytelewski Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp continues to defend the complaint styled
Mary Pytelewski v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 37-2009-
00089654, pending in the Superior Court for the County of San
Diego.

The purported class action was filed on May 15, 2009, on behalf of
present and former hourly employees in California, claiming denial
of wages and false imprisonment during the post-closing jewelry
and till "pull," when security measures allegedly cause employees
to be locked in the warehouses.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 18, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2010.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Hawk" Action in Wash.
------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. continues to defend the complaint styled
Raven Hawk v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 09-242196-0-SEA,
pending in the King County Superior Court.

The suit was filed on Nov. 20, 2009, in the State of Washington,
and contains similar allegations as in the matter Mary Pytelewski
v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

No updates or additional information on the action was disclosed
in the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Aug. 29, 2010.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Ward" in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation continues to defend the matter Carrie
Ward v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. CV08-02013 FMC (FFM),
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles).

A putative class action was filed on Jan. 24, 2008, purportedly
brought on behalf of two groups of former California employees: an
"Unpaid Wage Class"; and a "Wage Statement Class."

The "Unpaid Wage Class" alleges that the company improperly
deducts employee credit card balances from final paychecks, while
the "Wage Statement Class" alleges that final paychecks do not
contain the accurate and itemized information legally required for
wage statements.

On May 29, 2008, the court granted in part a motion to dismiss,
dismissing with prejudice the wage itemization claims.

On May 5, 2009, the court denied the company's motion for summary
judgment.  Plaintiff's class certification motion was denied,
while an FLSA collective action was conditionally certified for
notice purposes only.  Eighteen individuals filed consents to join
the FLSA collective actions.

No updates were disclosed in the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2010.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "Medrano" Action in California
------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation faces the matter Manuel Medrano v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., and Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc.,
Case No. CV-10-6626-VBF-JCGx, pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (Los Angeles), according to
the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Aug. 29, 2010.

On July 14, 2010, a putative class action was filed alleging that
the company unlawfully failed to pay overtime compensation, denied
meal and rest breaks, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to
provide accurate wage-itemization statements, and willfully failed
to pay termination wages alleged resulting from misclassification
of certain California department managers as exempt employees.

On Sept. 3, 2010, the company removed the case to federal court.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suit Over "Product Ambassadors"
-------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation faces the matter Bright v. Dennis
Garberg & Assocs., Inc., et al., Case No. BC399563, pending in the
Los Angeles Superior Court, according to the company's
Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2010.

On July 23, 2010, a putative class action was filed against
several defendants, including the company, alleging that
defendants unlawfully failed to pay overtime compensation, failed
to provide accurate wage-itemization statements, failed to pay
wages, denied meal and rest breaks, and failed to reimburse for
uniforms and expenses.  Plaintiffs are temporary promotion
employees, known as "product ambassadors," hired by various
marketing companies (also named defendants), which contract with
retailers such as the company, to staff in-store demonstrations
and promotional events.

The complaint alleges that the company is a "joint employer" of
the plaintiffs.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal on "Ellis" Certification Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation's appeal on the class certification
in the matter Shirley "Rae" Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case
No. C-04-3341-MHP, is ongoing.

A case brought as a class action on behalf of certain present and
former female managers, in which plaintiffs allege denial of
promotion based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and California state law.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive
relief, interest and attorneys' fees.  Class certification was
granted by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco) on Jan. 11, 2007.

On May 11, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
granted a petition to hear the Company's appeal of the
certification.

The appeal was argued on April 14, 2008.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 18, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2010.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Expects Revised Settlement in "Fuel" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation discloses that it expects a revised
settlement agreement to be submitted after the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas denied final approval, according to the
company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2010.

Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the
United States against motor fuel retailers, including the company,
alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by selling
gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without
adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion
or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy
equivalent received by the consumer.

The company is named in these actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v.
Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.); Phyllis
Lerner, et al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No.
07-1216 (C.D. Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation
North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.); James
Graham, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
07-193 (E.D. Va.); Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups,
Convenience Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.); Gary
Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-285 (D.
Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v. Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case No.
06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP Corporation
North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.); Zachary
Wilson, et al., v. Ampride, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-2582 (D.
Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v. BP North America Petroleum, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.); Mara Redstone, et al., v.
Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.); Fred
Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast Products LLC, et al., Case No.
07-1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et
al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.); Jonathan Charles Conlin, et
al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.);
William Barker, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07-
cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J. Couch, et al. v. BP Products North
America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07cv291 (E.D. Tex.); S. Garrett
Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess Corporation, et al., Case No. 07cv750
(M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al.,
Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D. Utah); and Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P.
America Corp., et al., Case No. 07-1754 (S.D. Cal.).

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

On Feb. 21, 2008, the court denied a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  On April 12, 2009, the company
agreed to a settlement involving the actions in which it is named
as a defendant.

Under the settlement, which is subject to final approval by the
court, the company has agreed, to the extent allowed by law, to
install over five years from the effective date of the settlement
temperature-correcting dispensers in the States of Alabama,
Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
and Virginia.  Other than payments to class representatives, the
settlement does not provide for cash payments to class members.

On Aug. 18, 2009, the court preliminarily approved the settlement.
On Aug. 13, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of the settlement.  The company expects that a revised
settlement will be submitted for court approval.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Hesse" Action Remanded by Appellate Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals has remanded a consolidated complaint against
Costco Wholesale Corporation back to the District Court, according
to the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Aug. 29, 2010.

The company has been named as a defendant in two purported class
actions relating to sales of organic milk: Hesse v. Costco
Wholesale Corp., No. C07-1975 (W.D. Wash.); and Snell v. Aurora
Dairy Corp., et al., No. 07-CV-2449 (D. Col.).

Both actions claim violations of the laws of various states,
essentially alleging that milk provided to Costco by its supplier
Aurora Dairy Corp. was improperly labeled "organic."  Plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint on July 18, 2008.

With respect to the company, plaintiffs seek to certify four
classes of people who purchased Costco organic milk.  Aurora has
maintained that it has held and continues to hold valid organic
certifications.  The consolidated complaint seeks, among other
things, actual, compensatory, statutory, punitive and/or exemplary
damages in unspecified amounts, as well as costs and attorneys'
fees.

On June 3, 2009, the district court entered an order dismissing
with prejudice, among others, all claims against the Company. As a
result of an appeal by the plaintiffs, on Sept. 15, 2010, the
court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the rulings
of the district court and remanded the matter for further
proceedings.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Motion to Certify "Salmon" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the plaintiffs to certify a class in the Farm Raised
Salmon Coordinated Proceedings, Case No. JCCP No. 4329, against
Costco Wholesale Corporation is pending in the Los Angeles
Superior Court, according to the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2010.

The company has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action relating to sales of farm-raised salmon.  The action
alleges that the company violated California law requiring farm-
raised salmon to be labeled as "color added."  The complaint
asserts violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the California False
Advertising Law, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks
restoration of money acquired by means of unfair competition or
false advertising and compensatory damages in unspecified amounts,
injunctive relief remedying the allegedly improper disclosures,
and costs and attorneys' fees.

A California Superior Court ruling dismissing the action on the
ground that federal law does not permit claims for mislabeling of
farm-raised salmon to be asserted by private parties was reversed
by the California Supreme Court.  The company has denied the
material allegations of the complaint.  Plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class is pending.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Denies Motion to File Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
denied the motion of one plaintiff in the matter In Verzani, et
ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 09 CV 2117, to file an
amended complaint, according to the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2010.

The suit is a purported nationwide class action, alleging claims
for breach of contract and violation of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, based on the failure of the Company to disclose on
the label of its "Shrimp Tray with Cocktail Sauce" the weight of
the shrimp in the item as distinct from the accompanying cocktail
sauce, lettuce, and lemon wedges.  The complaint seeks various
forms of damages (including compensatory and treble damages and
disgorgement and restitution), injunctive and declaratory relief,
attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. On April 21,
2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction,
seeking to prevent the Company from selling the shrimp tray unless
the Company separately discloses the weight of the shrimp and
provides shrimp consistent with the disclosed weight.

By orders dated July 29 and Aug. 6, 2009, the court denied the
preliminary injunction motion and dismissed the claim for breach
of contract, and on July 21, 2010, the court of appeals summarily
affirmed these rulings.

On Sept. 28, 2010, the district court denied the motion of one
plaintiff to file an amended complaint.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Kilano" Suit Still Ongoing in Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation defends the matter In Kilano, et.
ano, v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:10-cv-11456-VAR-DAS, pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
according to the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Aug. 29, 2010.

Two members purport to represent a class of certain Michigan
Executive level-members who received 2% rewards.  Plaintiffs
allege that the company "guarantees" that the member will receive
rewards of no less than the fifty dollar difference between
Executive and Gold Star membership and that the company is
required to but has failed to automatically reimburse members
whose rewards are less than this difference.

Plaintiffs allege violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection
Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.  They seek
compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief, costs, and
attorneys' fees.  The company has filed an answer denying the
material allegations of the complaint.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


GREENBRIER INT'L: Recalls 275,000 Projector Flashlights
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Greenbrier International, Inc., of Chesapeake, Va., announced a
voluntary recall of about 275,000 Wolverine, Spider-Man and Iron
Man 2 Projector Flashlights.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The flashlights can cause the batteries and/or bulb to overheat,
posing fire and burn hazards to consumers.

The firm has received three reports of incidents involving
batteries overheating in the recalled flashlights.  Reported
incidents include a flashlight that melted and a flashlight
battery that caught fire.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled projector flashlights are about 6-1/2 inches in
length and have the Wolverine, Spider-Man and Iron Man characters
and names printed on them.  The flashlights come with five extra
mini discs that attach to the flashlight to project various
images. The back of the packaging contains the number 16879-20012-
003-1003 and UPC 6 39277 16879 5.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11013.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Dollar Tree, Dollar Bill$, Dollar Tree $1 Stop, Deal$ and Dollar
Tree Deal$ stores nationwide from August 2010 for about $1.

Consumers should take the recalled flashlights away from children
immediately, remove and properly discard the batteries and return
the flashlights to the store where purchased for a full refund.
For additional information, contact Dollar Tree Stores Inc. at
(800) 876-8077 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.dollartree.com/


JAKKS PACIFIC: Recalls 516,000 Spa Factory & Bath Benefits Kits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
JAKKS Pacific(R), is reannouncing the recall of 516,000 Spa
Factory(TM) Aromatherapy Fountain & Bath Benefits Kits. Consumers
should immediately take the toy's jars and caps away from children
and dispose of any jar lids without vent holes. Only use jars that
have lids with vent holes.

This children's product was originally recalled in January 2009.
Since that time, there have been additional injuries caused by the
Spa Factory(TM)Spa Fantasy Aromatherapy Fountain & Bath Benefits
Kits.  Pressure from the buildup of carbon dioxide in the jars of
Bath Bombs/Balls or Bath Fizzies that come with the kits can cause
the unvented lids to blow off, posing explosion and projectile
hazards.  The flying pieces also can cause property damage.
Additionally, the mixture of water with the Bath Bombs/Balls or
Bath Fizzies can create citric acid.  This acid can get into
consumers' eyes when the jars explode, posing a risk of eye
irritation.

As of January 2009, CPSC had received 88 reports of exploding
jars, including 13 injuries to children.  Since that time, CPSC
has received 12 additional reports of exploding unvented jars of
JAKKS' Bath Bombs/Balls or Bath Fizzies, including 13 additional
reported injuries.  The new injuries include irritated eyes,
irritated skin and one eye injury from projectile jar lids.

        Model                       Item Number       UPC Bar Code
        -----                        ----------      ------------
Spa Factory(TM) Bath Benefits(TM)
Kit                                     37836        22876-37836-6

Spa Factory(TM) Deluxe Spa
Fantasy Aromatherapy
Fountain                                37908        22876-37908-0

Spa Factory(TM) Spa Fantasy
Aromatherapy Fountain                   37837        22876-37837-3

Spa Factory(TM) Spa Fantasy
Aromatherapy Fountain                   54892        22876-54892-9

Spa Factory(TM) Spa Fantasy
Aromatherapy Fountain                   54857        22876-54857-8

JAKKS Pacific(R) Spa Factory(TM)Spa Fantasy Aromatherapy Fountain
& Bath Benefits Kits were sold at Sam's Club, Walmart, Target and
other stores nationwide from August 2008 through August 2010.
They sold for between $13 and $50 and continue to be available in
some stores.

Consumers should immediately take the toy's jars and caps without
vent holes away from children, dispose of any jar lids without
vent holes and contact JAKKS Pacific to receive free jar lids with
vent holes.  Contact JAKKS toll-free at (877) 875-2557 between
7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday,
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.myspafactory.com/or e-
mail the firm at caps@jakks.net


LOLLYTOGS LTD: Recalls 10,200 Infant Overalls
---------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lollytogs Ltd., of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of
about 8,300 infant's overalls in the United States and 2,000 in
Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.

The overalls have snaps that could come loose and pose a choking
hazard to young children.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves infants' Carhartt (R) overalls with style
numbers GG8500 (100% cotton canvas) and GG8501 (100% cotton knit).
The overalls were sold in brown or red in infant sizes 3, 6, 9,
12, 18 and 24 months.  The Carhartt logo is sewn on the front of
the garment and the style numbers can be found on the sewn-in
label hanging from the sleeve.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11014.html

The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold through
Retailers nationwide from February 2010 through July 2010 for
about $25.

Consumers should immediately take the overalls away from children
and return them to the place of purchase for a full refund or
store credit.  For additional information, contact Lollytogs at
(800) 637-9035 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.ltapparel.com/


MUNCHKIN INC: Recalls 34,000 Bathtub Subs
-----------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Munchkin Inc, of North Hills, Calif., announced a voluntary recall
of about 34,000 Bathtub Subs.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The intake valve on the bottom of the submarine toy can suck up
loose skin, posing laceration hazard to children.

CPSC and the company are aware of 19 incidents of lacerations to
boys' genital area.  One of the incidents required medical
attention.

This recall involves battery-operated bathtub submarine toys. The
toy is yellow, has a smiling face, turquoise windows, an orange
propeller and an orange periscope that turns the toy on and off.
The intake valve has a water pump that sucks in water to propel
the submarine.  The toy is intended for use by children during
bath time.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11012.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
mass merchandise retail stores nationwide and children's stores
nationwide from November 2009 through September 2010 for about $7.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy away from
children and contact Munchkin for instructions on how to return
the product for a free replacement toy.  For additional
information, contact Munchkin at (877) 242-3134 anytime or visit
the company's Web site at http://www.munchkin.com/


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: 7th Circuit Grants Petition for Rehearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tom George, Chris Vitron, Lori Chapko and Edward Snead, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, brought a
proposed diversity-based class action against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association and Ticketmaster, alleging that
the defendants' combined ticket-distribution scheme constituted a
lottery in violation of Indiana law.  The NCAA moved to dismiss,
and the district court dismissed all claims with prejudice.
Plaintiffs then appealed.  On July 16, 2010, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment of
the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings,
with Judge Richard D. Cudahy dissenting.

Upon review after the filing of defendants "petition for rehearing
and suggestion for rehearing en banc," the Seventh Circuit granted
the petition for rehearing, vacated its opinion, stayed the
appeal, and certified three questions to the Indiana Supreme
Court.

At this juncture, the Seventh Circuit believes that affording the
Indiana Supreme Court the opportunity to interpret the application
of the Indiana statutes involved appears to be the most prudent
course of action.  The Seventh Circuit certified these questions
to the Indiana Supreme Court:

   1. Do the plaintiffs' allegations about the NCAA's method for
      allocating scarce tickets to championship tournaments
      describe a lottery that would be unlawful under Indiana law?

   2. If the plaintiffs' allegations describe an unlawful lottery,
      would the NCAA's method for allocating tickets fall within
      the Ind. Code Section 35-45-5-1(d) exception for "bona fide
      business transactions that are valid under the law of
      contracts"?

   3. If the plaintiffs' allegations describe an unlawful lottery,
      do plaintiffs' allegations show that their claims are
      subject to an in pari delecto defense as described in
      Lesher, 496 N.E.2d at 790 n.1, and Swain v. Bussell,
      10 Ind. 438, 442 (1858)?

A copy of the court's opinion George v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, No. 09-3667, is available at
http://is.gd/g9I3Yfrom Leagle.com.


OMNI ENERGY: Enters Into MOU to Settle Suits in Western Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OMNI Energy Services Corp. has entered into a memorandum of
agreement to settle suits pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division, arising out
of its planned merger with Wellspring Capital Management LLC,
according to the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 3, 2010, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Wellspring OMNI Holdings Corporation (Parent), and
Wellspring OMNI Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary
of Parent, providing for the Merger of Acquisition with and into
the company, with the company surviving the merger as a subsidiary
of Parent.

Six purported class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the Merger in state courts in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana,
and two purported class actions were filed in connection with the
Merger in the federal district court for the Western District of
Louisiana.  Each court action named the company and its directors
as defendants, and the state court actions also named Wellspring,
Parent and Acquisition.

One of the federal actions filed named Parent and Acquisition as
defendants.  The state court complaints allege, among other
things, that the director defendants have breached their fiduciary
duties to shareholders of the company by entering into the Merger
Agreement, failing to disclose certain information with respect to
the company and failing to maximize shareholder value.  The
Wellspring entities are claimed to have aided and abetted the
alleged fiduciary duty breaches by the directors of the company.
The federal court complaints make substantially the same claims as
the state court complaints, but also allege violations of federal
law relating to the company's proxy statement disclosures.  One or
more of the complaints seek injunctions against the Merger,
rescission of the Merger if it is consummated, imposition of a
constructive trust, damages, attorneys' fees, expenses and other
relief.

The complaints request class action certification and rulings that
the named complainants are representatives of the class.  No class
has been certified at present.

Plaintiffs in certain of the state actions and both federal
actions have moved for expedited discovery.

Two of the state court proceedings have been dismissed, and the
remaining cases have been consolidated.  The two complaints filed
in federal court have also been consolidated.  A motion in the
federal court to stay all proceedings until lead plaintiffs and
plaintiffs' counsel are appointed and defendants' motion to
dismiss is resolved in the federal proceedings is pending.

A motion for expedited discovery filed by the plaintiffs in the
federal proceedings was denied.

The plaintiffs in the federal litigation filed a consolidated
amended complaint that names, in addition to Parent and
Acquisition, Wellspring.  No hearing date has been set at this
time with respect to any of the pending motions in the federal
proceedings.

Discovery is proceeding by court order in the state court action.

A hearing was held on Exceptions filed by the company and certain
individual defendants on September 13, 2010 and were denied.  A
hearing on Exceptions filed by Wellspring and one Individual
Defendant was scheduled for Oct. 18, 2010.

On Oct. 14, 2010, the company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the
consolidated actions in Sherwin Johnson v. Brian Recatto, et al,
Civil Action No. 6:10-CV-01068, and John E. and Jamie Daigle v.
Dennis R. Sciotto, et al, Civil Action No. 010-1170 filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
Lafayette Division.

Headquartered in Carencro, LA, OMNI Energy Services Corp. offers a
broad range of integrated services to geophysical companies
engaged in the acquisition of on-shore seismic data and to oil and
gas companies operating primarily in the Gulf of Mexico.  OMNI
provides its services through three business segments: Seismic
Services (including drilling, survey and permitting services),
Environmental and Other Services, and Equipment Leasing.  OMNI's
services play a significant role with geophysical companies who
have operations in marsh, swamp, shallow water and the U.S. Gulf
Coast also called transition zones and contiguous dry land areas
also called highland zones.


SHORETEL INC: Court Certifies Securities Suit as Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California certified In Re Shoretel, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. C-08-00271-CRB, as a class action
for settlement purposes only on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of
ShoreTel pursuant or traceable to ShoreTel's Initial Public
Offering Prospectus and Registration Statement, or on the open
market from July 3, 2007, through January 29, 2008, inclusive.

The Court further ruled that Lead Plaintiffs are certified as
class representatives and Lead Plaintiffs' selection of Kahn Swick
& Foti, LLC as Class Counsel is approved.

A copy of the Court's FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE is available at http://is.gd/g9HGEfrom Leagle.com.


WD-40 CO: Continues to Defend "Burns" Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
WD-40 Company continues to defend that matter Andrea Burns v. WD-
40 Company, pending in the Superior Court of California in the
County of Orange, according to the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2010.

The action was filed on June 18, 2010, and seeks class action
status and alleges that the company misrepresented that its 2000
Flushes Bleach and 2000 Flushes Blue Plus Bleach automatic toilet
bowl cleaners are safe for plumbing systems and unlawfully omitted
to advise consumers regarding the allegedly damaging effect the
use of the ATBCs has on toilet parts made of plastic and rubber.

This action is substantively similar to the Drimmer v. WD-40
company case that was filed by the same plaintiff law firm in
April 2006 in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of
California.  In August 2008, the company defeated class
certification in that case, a decision that was upheld by the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in September 2009, and the case was
dismissed with prejudice in March 2010.

WD-40 Company -- http://www.wd40company.com/-- is a global
consumer product company dedicated to delivering unique, high-
value and easy-to-use solutions for a wide variety of maintenance
needs of "doer" and "on-the-job" users by leveraging and building
the brand fortress of the company.  The company markets three
multi-purpose maintenance product brands -- WD-40(R), 3-IN-ONE(R)
and BLUE WORKS(TM) -- and eight homecare and cleaning product
brands: X-14(R) mildew stain remover and automatic toilet bowl
cleaners, 2000 Flushes(R) automatic toilet bowl cleaners, Carpet
Fresh(R) and No Vac(R) rug and room deodorizers, Spot Shot(R)
aerosol and liquid carpet stain removers, 1001(R) carpet and
household cleaners and rug and room deodorizers, and Lava(R) and
Solvol(R) heavy-duty hand cleaners.  WD-40 Company markets its
products in more than 160 countries worldwide and recorded sales
of $292 million in fiscal year 2009.

                             *********

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  * * *