CAR_Public/101027.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 27, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 212

                             Headlines

ALBERTO-CULVER: D&Os Face 2nd Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
AMR CORP: Court Grants Initial OK to Accord in Air Cargo Suit
AMR CORP: Turner Plaintiffs' Plan to Pursue Claims Still Unclear
ANGEL LINE: Recalls 3,400 Drop-Side Cribs
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued for Disregarding Foreclosure Process Rules

BENDIGO AND ADELAIDE: M+K to File Amended Class Action Claim
BOEING CO: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration of Court's Ruling
BOEING CO: Defends ERISA-Related Consolidated Amended Complaint
BOEING CO: Appeal on Certification Ruling Pending in 7th Circuit
BOEING CO: Chicago Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit

CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Mental Health Budget Cuts
CLAIRE-SPRAYWAY: Recalls 73,500 Fabric Protector
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: November 1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Labaton Seeks $55-Mil. in Attorney Fees
DAYMAR COLLEGE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Overpriced Books

DELAWARE STATE UNIV: Settles Gender Equity Class Suit
ETHAN ALLEN: Recalls 3,250 Drop-Side Cribs
FRY'S FOOD: Suit Over Rights Abuses to Proceed as Class Action
GEORGETOWN CAPITAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Recalls 2 Million Strollers

HARBIN ELECTRIC: Being Sold for Too Little, Nev. Suit Claims
H & R BLOCK: LakinChapman Plans Trial for "Peace of Mind" Claim
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces "Perlmutter" Suit in California
MDL 1456: Jan. 21 Fairness Hearing on AstraZeneca Settlement
NEW ALBERTSONS: Class Suit Over UFCW Lockout Wins Certification

NORDSTROM INC: Accused of Violating California Labor Code
NVIDIA CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Class-Action Lawsuit
PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Bernstein Files Securities Class Action Suit
RAPID CASH: Judge Allows Class-Action Lawsuit to Move Forward
REGENT ASSET: Settles Colorado Collection Suit for $50,000

REGIONS FINANCIAL: Shareholders File Class Action Lawsuit
REPUBLIC NATIONAL CONVENTION: Class Suit Over Arrests Dismissed
SEIKO CORP: Fax-Related Claims Due By Dec. 6, 2010
SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Defend Suit in Wisconsin
SUPERVALU INC: Defends Consolidated Suit in Minnesota

THERMADYNE HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Mo. Suit Says
UNION CARBIDE: La. Supreme Court Reduces Damage Awards
UNITED RENTALS: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal Ruling
VICTORY LAND: Recalls 34,000 3-in-1 Drop-Side Cribs
VORTEX DEBT: Sued for Misrepresenting Debt Reduction Services

WELLS FARGO: Accused of Feigning Compliance with HAMP Program
ZYNGA GAME: Faces Second Suit for Invasion of Privacy

* NSW Plaintiff-Friendly Under Proposed Class Action Reforms
* U.S. Securities Class Action Filings Increasing, Report Says


                             *********

ALBERTO-CULVER: D&Os Face 2nd Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Inter-Local Pension Fund of the Graphic Communications Conference
of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, on behalf of itself
and others similarly situated v. Leonard H. Lavin, et al., Case
No. 2010-CH-45419 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. October 19, 2010),
accuses the members of the board of directors of Alberto-Culver
Company of breaching their fiduciary duties, and Unilever N.V.,
Unilever PLC, CONOPCO, Inc., Ace Merger, Inc., of aiding and
abetting the Board members' breaches of fiduciary duty, in
connection with the all-cash sale of the Company to Unilever for
approximately $3.7 billion.

The individual defendants include:

     1) Leonard H. Lavin, Founder and Chairman Emeritus
     2) Carol Lavin Bernick, Executive Chairman
     3) V. James Marino, President, CEO and director
     4) James G. Brocksmith, Jr., director
     5) Robert H. Rock, director
     6) Thomas A. Dattilo, director
     7) James R. Edgar, director
     8) Sam J. Susser, director
     9) George L. Fotiades, director
    10) King W. Harris, director

The suit alleges that the Board agreed to sell the Company without
performing any of the legally prescribed means to maximize
shareholder value.  The suit adds that the Board reached out to a
sole buyer, negotiated exclusively with them, and agreed to a sale
of the Company without conducting any investigation or market
check for other potential suitors.

On September 27, 2010, Unilever, an international consumer
products company, and Alberto-Culver, a leading manufacturer of
beauty care products, announced an agreement to merge, pursuant to
which Unilever would acquire Alberto-Culver for $37.50 per share
in cash.  Inter-LOcal Pension Fund, a shareholder of the Company,
says the offer represents a meager 19% premium to Alberto-Culver's
closing stock price on the trading immediately preceding the
deal's announcement.  The suit says the proposed transaction
provides Alberto-Culver shareholders with inadequate consideration
-- given the Company's recently announced consecutive quarters of
impressive sales and earnings per share, and Wall Street analysts'
predictions of rapid growth for the personal care products
industry -- and is the result of an inadequate sale process.  The
suit states that the Board further breached its fiduciary duties
by granting Unilever unreasonable and disproportionate deal
protections in the Merger Agreement, including a useless "no-shop"
provision.  The Board granted Unilever an unlimited recurring
matching rights, and an excessive $125 million termination fee,
both of which, the Complaint relates, act to dissuade competing
bids for Alberto-Culver.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Nachsin, Esq.
          JONATHAN NACHSIN, P.C.
          105 West Adams Street, Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 327-1777

               - and -

          Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
          Mark S. Willis, Esq.
          Andrew D. Abramowitz, Esq.
          David Felderman, Esq.
          Daniel J. Mirarchi, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300

               Dolores Joyce Suit in Ill. Cir. Ct.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on October 20, 2010,
Dolores Joyce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Leornard H. Lavin, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-44626
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. October 13, 2010), says certain of
Alberto-Culver's officers and directors breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to obtain the best price reasonable for the
benefit of the Company's shareholders.  The suit further alleged
Alberto-Culver's Board of Directors had substantial leverage to
negotiate a significant premium in an all-cash sale of the
Company, but elected to negotiate solely with Unilever to sell the
Company without even contacting any other potential buyers.

The Joyce Complaint added that the individual defendants had also
agreed to onerous deal protection devices designed to make the
proposed transaction a virtual fait d'accompli and deter the
emergence of any competing bidders, including: i) a termination
fee of $125 million; ii) a strict "no shop" provision that
prevents Alberto-Culver from communicating with or providing
Company information to competing bidders; and iii) a matching
rights provision, while simultaneously securing for themselves
continued employment with the surviving company.

Moreover, concurrently with the execution of the Merger Agreement,
certain of the individual defendants including Leonard H. Lavin
and Carol Lavin Bernick who collectively own over 13% of the
Company's stock, entered into a Stockholder Agreement that
irrevocably binds them to vote in favor of the proposed
transaction.


AMR CORP: Court Grants Initial OK to Accord in Air Cargo Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York gave
its preliminary approval to a settlement agreement resolving a
complaint against AMR Corporation, according to the company's
Oct. 20, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Forty-five purported class action lawsuits have been filed in the
U.S. against the company and certain foreign and domestic air
carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws
by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges on cargo
shipments.  These cases, along with other purported class action
lawsuits in which the company was not named, were consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York as In
re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, 06-MD-1775 on
June 20, 2006.

Plaintiffs are seeking trebled money damages and injunctive
relief.

To facilitate a settlement on a class basis, the company agreed to
be named in a separate class action complaint, which was filed on
July 26, 2010.

The settlement of that complaint, in which the company does not
admit and denies liability, was given preliminary approval by the
court on Sept. 8, 2010.

The settlement has not yet received final approval, and members of
the class could opt out and sue the company.

AMR Corporation operates with its principal subsidiary, American
Airlines Inc. -- http://www.aa.com/-- a worldwide scheduled
passenger airline.  At the end of 2006, American provided
scheduled jet service to about 150 destinations throughout North
America, the Caribbean, Latin America, including Brazil, Europe
and Asia.  American is also a scheduled airfreight carrier,
providing freight and mail services to shippers throughout its
system.  Its wholly owned subsidiary, AMR Eagle Holding Corp.,
owns two regional airlines, American Eagle Airlines Inc. and
Executive Airlines Inc., and does business as "American Eagle."
American Beacon Advisors Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of AMR,
is responsible for the investment and oversight of assets of AMR's
U.S. employee benefit plans, as well as AMR's short-term
investments.


AMR CORP: Turner Plaintiffs' Plan to Pursue Claims Still Unclear
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMR Corporation relates that it remains unclear whether the
plaintiffs in the matter Turner v. American Airlines, et al., will
pursue their claims.

Approximately 52 purported class action lawsuits have been filed
in the U.S. against the company and certain foreign and domestic
air carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust
laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges for
passenger transportation.  On Oct. 25, 2006, these cases, along
with other purported class action lawsuits in which the company
was not named, were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California as In re International Air
Transportation Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, Civ. No. 06-1793
(the Passenger MDL).

On July 9, 2007, the company was named as a defendant in the
Passenger MDL.  On Aug. 25, 2008, the plaintiffs dismissed their
claims against the company in this action.

On March 13, 2008, and March 14, 2008, an additional purported
class action complaint, Turner v. American Airlines, et al., Civ.
No. 08-1444 (N.D. Cal.), was filed against the company, alleging
that the company violated U.S. antitrust laws by illegally
conspiring to set prices and surcharges for passenger
transportation in Japan and certain European countries,
respectively.

The Turner plaintiffs have failed to perfect service against the
company, and it is unclear whether they intend to pursue their
claims.  In the event that the Turner plaintiffs pursue their
claims, the company says it will vigorously defend these lawsuits,
but any adverse judgment in these actions could have a material
adverse impact on the company.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 20, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

AMR Corporation operates with its principal subsidiary, American
Airlines Inc. -- http://www.aa.com/-- a worldwide scheduled
passenger airline.  At the end of 2006, American provided
scheduled jet service to about 150 destinations throughout North
America, the Caribbean, Latin America, including Brazil, Europe
and Asia.  American is also a scheduled airfreight carrier,
providing freight and mail services to shippers throughout its
system.  Its wholly owned subsidiary, AMR Eagle Holding Corp.,
owns two regional airlines, American Eagle Airlines Inc. and
Executive Airlines Inc., and does business as "American Eagle."
American Beacon Advisors Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of AMR,
is responsible for the investment and oversight of assets of AMR's
U.S. employee benefit plans, as well as AMR's short-term
investments.


ANGEL LINE: Recalls 3,400 Drop-Side Cribs
-----------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Angel Line, of Pennsville, N.J., announced a voluntary recall of
about 3,400 Drop-Side Cribs.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The crib's drop-side rail hardware can malfunction, detach or
otherwise fail, causing part of the drop-side rail to detach from
the crib.  When the drop-side rail partially detaches, it creates
a space between the drop side and the crib mattress.  An infant or
toddler's body can become entrapped in the space, which can lead
to strangulation and/or suffocation.  A child can also fall out of
the crib. Drop-side incidents also can occur due to age-related
wear and tear.

CPSC is aware of one incident in which the crib's drop side
detached.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the following models of Longwood Forest drop-
side cribs with plastic drop-side hardware: 6103S, 6105S, 6106S,
6108S, 6109S, 8025P, and 8029P.  They were sold in white, brown,
natural and oak colors.  "Longwood Forest" or "Angel Line" and the
model number are printed on a label on the crib's headboard. The
firm's fixed-side cribs and drop-side cribs with metal rod-type
hardware are not included in this recall.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11019.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
the Web at Ababy.com, Babyage.com and other Web retailers from
December 2004 through January 2009 for about $140.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cribs and
contact Angel Line to receive for a free repair kit that will
immobilize the drop-side rail.  In the meantime, parents are urged
to find an alternate, safe sleeping environment for the child,
such as a bassinet, play yard or toddler bed depending on the
child's age.  For additional information, contact Angel Line at
(800) 889-8158 anytime, visit the firm's Web site at visit
http://www.angelline.com/or e-mail the firm at
parts@angelline.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued for Disregarding Foreclosure Process Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
Bank of America has been hit with a class action on behalf of
homeowners seeking damages for alleged disregard of foreclosure
process rules.

The suit, filed Oct. 20, in federal court in Newark, N.J., accuses
Bank of America and two subsidiaries, LaSalle Bank and BAC Home
Loans Servicing, of "an undisciplined rush to seize homes" through
"pervasive and willful disregard of knowledge, facts and
statutes."

Bank of America has filed foreclosure proceedings on many
mortgages in New Jersey without holding the necessary rights as
the mortgagee or assignee at the time of foreclosure, the suit
says.

"Many thousands of foreclosures are plainly void under statute and
settled New Jersey case law.  Many borrowers never obtain
statutorily required notices, and many foreclosure suits are filed
entirely based in inaccurate recitations concerning ownership of
the mortgage, the note, or the assignment," the suit says.

The putative class in the suit, Beals v. Bank of America, N.A.,
10-cv-05427, consists of all named defendants in pending New
Jersey foreclosure actions initiated by Bank of America or its
affiliates.  The complaint includes counts of common-law fraud,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and
violations of the New Jersey Fair Foreclosure Act and Consumer
Fraud Act.

The plaintiffs cite a recent, well-publicized admission by a Bank
of America official in a Massachusetts foreclosure case that she
signed thousands of foreclosure complaints without reviewing them.

They also say the fact that the bank and its affiliates, by
imposing a moratorium on foreclosures from Oct. 8 to Oct. 18 while
reviewing their procedures, "have admitted that in all of their
foreclosure cases, they, as a moving party, prosecute their claims
with a complete disregard of whether or not they have met their
burden."

The plaintiffs claim they are entitled to compensation for
emotional distress, damage to their credit scores and time lost
from work for attorney meetings and foreclosure proceedings.

They also seek punitive damages and attorney fees as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief dismissing the foreclosures of
class members, with prejudice, declaring the mortgages and
promissory notes of class members void and unenforceable` and
rescinding or reforming the mortgages and promissory notes to
conform to plaintiffs' reasonable expectations.

The suit was brought by Lawrence Friscia, head of a Newark firm
that counsels distressed homeowners, and his associate, Jonathan
Minkove, who say they've found that Bank of America regularly
negotiates binding agreements to modify mortgage terms and then
fails to honor the terms.

The seven named plaintiffs are all New Jersey residents in danger
of foreclosure, among them Jose Grullon of Passaic, N.J., whose
binding arbitration agreement ending his foreclosure was ignored
by Bank of America, and Tanya Beals of Roselle, N.J., who received
a mortgage modification but was nonetheless found in default by
Bank of America when she made mortgage payments at her new,
reduced rate.

"There's a difference in the fact pattern [among individual cases]
but there's pattern and a practice of blatant disregard for
process," says Mr. Minkove.  "Any lawyer who's worth his salt will
tell you process matters."

And when judges call them to case management conferences in their
foreclosure cases, outside counsel for Bank of America regularly
fail to show up, says Mr. Friscia.   Worse still, New Jersey's
judges don't seem to be bothered by such behavior, he says.

"There's a shocking deference given to Bank of America on the part
of the judicial system," Mr. Friscia says.

In the firm's negotiations on behalf of homeowners, the bank
doesn't bargain in good faith, says Mr. Minkove.  For example, the
legal department will tell them to speak to the loss mitigation
department, which will order them to send in send in
documentation.  They comply, but bank officials "regularly say
they never received it.  Therefore, part of what prompted us to
action is [the realization that] this is a systemic problem.  The
left hand doesn't speak to the right hand," Mr. Minkove says.

A Bank of America spokesman in New York, T.J. Crawford, referred a
reporter's inquiry about the suit to other spokespersons in
California, who did not respond to telephone and e-mail messages.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Katharine Sweeney
Hayden.


BENDIGO AND ADELAIDE: M+K to File Amended Class Action Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Kachor, writing for InvestorDaily, reports Bendigo and
Adelaide Bank's victory claim in its legal battles against Great
Southern is premature, according to a number of legal firms.

Litigators acting on behalf of Great Southern investors have
refuted claims made by Bendigo and Adelaide Bank that their class
actions are in doubt.

In a statement released on Friday, BAAB said DC Legal's class
action has fallen over, while Macpherson + Kelley's (M+K) action
had been weakened after being struck out in the courts last week.

DC Legal solicitor Bruce Dennis denied claims its actions had
fallen over, stating the firm has discontinued part of its class
action but not all.

He said the firm decided to withdraw the action after
investigations found loans linked to clients had been handed over
to Great Southern Finance and no longer resided in the banking
group.

"Our intention is to refile the claim with someone who has a loan
directly with Bendigo and Adelaide Bank," Mr. Dennis said.

"We didn't know that at the time because the way they securitized
loans, they securitized them in bulk but then because this
particular loan was in default before the administrators and
liquidators were appointed, pursuant to the agreement ones that
were in default were handed back from Bendigo and Adelaide Bank to
Great Southern Finance.

"As soon as we were told that we agreed to withdraw the claim
against Bendigo and Adelaide Bank on behalf of [lead applicant]
Cutforth Pty Limited."

He said Cutforth are still running a claim against the directors,
but a different lead applicant will have to file in relation to
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank.

M+K principal Ron Willemsen said the company's litigation is "very
far from dead and buried".

"The fact they are keen to chop them off at the knees and not take
any part in the case, they challenged a few paragraphs in the
statement of claim . . . and in the end the judge did a couple of
days ago say the claim ought to be represented with further
detail.  He gave permission to us to submit a substitute statement
and claim with extra details," he said.

Mr. Willemsen said a court order made in a Melbourne court on
Friday has given the investors until November 23 to deliver the
amended claim.

"We will be doing that.  Bendigo Bank has remained a party to the
case -- that was never otherwise.  We will be filing the amended
claim by November 23.  The claim is alive and well," he said.

The M+K case is expected to return to court on December 7.


BOEING CO: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration of Court's Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a putative class action complaint have filed a
motion seeking reconsideration of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas' ruling granting summary judgment in favor of
The Boeing Co., according to the company's Oct. 20, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On March 2, 2006, the company was served with a complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging that
hiring decisions made by Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., near the time
of the sale of the Wichita facility were tainted by age
discrimination, violated the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, violated the company's collective bargaining agreements, and
constituted retaliation.

The case was brought as a class action on behalf of individuals
not hired by Spirit.

The company relates that while it believes that Spirit has an
obligation to indemnify Boeing for claims relating to the 2005
sales transaction, Spirit has refused to indemnify Boeing for all
claims arising from employment activity prior to Jan. 1, 2005.

On June 4, 2008, claims by individuals who filed consents to join
the Age Discrimination Employment Act collective action and were
terminated by Boeing prior to Jan. 1, 2005, were dismissed by
stipulated order.

On June 15, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification for certain former Boeing employees at the Wichita,
Tulsa and McAlester facilities over the age of 40 who were laid
off between Jan. 1, 2005 and July 1, 2005, and were not hired by
Spirit on June 17, 2005.

On July 31, 2009, Boeing filed motions opposing class
certification and seeking dismissal of the ERISA and breach of
contract claims.  On Aug. 14, 2009, Boeing filed a motion seeking
dismissal, or in the alternative, decertification of the age
claims.

Plaintiffs' reply brief on certification of ERISA Section 510 and
Labor-Management Relations Act Section 301 classes was filed on
Aug. 28, 2009.

Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment on
plaintiffs' ERISA Section 510 and LMRA Section 301 claims was
filed on Sept. 11, 2009.

On June 30, 2010, summary judgment was granted in favor of Boeing
and Spirit on all class action claims.

On Aug. 13, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
reconsideration of the summary judgment decision.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the company's Integrated Defense
Systems business.  The Other segment classification principally
includes the activities of Engineering, Operations and Technology,
an advanced research and development organization focused on
technologies, processes and the creation of new products.


BOEING CO: Defends ERISA-Related Consolidated Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. defends a consolidated amended complaint brought
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act in connection
with the sale of its Wichita facility to Spirit AeroSystems, Inc.

The alleged class action was filed on Feb. 21, 2007, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas.

The case is also brought under ERISA, and, in general, claims that
the company has not properly provided benefits to certain
categories of former employees affected by the sale.

On May 22, 2008, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint and on
June 3, 2008, filed a motion to certify a class.

On July 14, 2008, the court granted class certification for the
purpose of adjudicating liability for the class of employees who
went to work for Spirit, and deferred class certification motions
for the class of employees who did not go to work for Spirit.

A Memorandum and Order on Nov. 3, 2009, resolves discovery
disputes and discovery continues for both groups of employees.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on March 2, 2010.
Boeing's answer was filed on March 26, 2010.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 20, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the company's Integrated Defense
Systems business.  The Other segment classification principally
includes the activities of Engineering, Operations and Technology,
an advanced research and development organization focused on
technologies, processes and the creation of new products.


BOEING CO: Appeal on Certification Ruling Pending in 7th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co.'s appeal on the class certification ruling in a
lawsuit concerning the Boeing Company Voluntary Investment Plan
remains pending in the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the company was named as a defendant in a
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois.

Plaintiffs, seeking to represent a class of similarly situated
participants and beneficiaries in the Boeing Company Voluntary
Investment Plan, alleged that fees and expenses incurred by the
VIP were and are unreasonable and excessive, not incurred solely
for the benefit of the VIP and its participants, and were
undisclosed to participants.

The plaintiffs further alleged that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA, and
sought injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to Section
502(a)(3) of ERISA.  Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the
class, which the company opposed.

On Dec. 14, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint, which complaint added the company's Employee
Benefits Investment Committee as a defendant and included new
allegations regarding alleged breach of fiduciary duty.  The stay
of proceedings entered by the court on Sept. 10, 2007, pending
resolution by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals of Lively v.
Dynegy, Inc., was lifted on April 3, 2008, after notification that
the Lively case had settled.

On April 16, 2008, plaintiffs sought leave to file a second
amended complaint, which the company opposed, which would add
investment performance allegations.

On Aug. 22, 2008, the court granted plaintiffs leave to file their
second amended complaint.  On Sept. 29, 2008, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion to certify the class of current, past and
future participants or beneficiaries in the VIP.

On Sept. 9, 2008, the company filed a motion for summary judgment
to dismiss claims arising prior to Sept. 27, 2000, based on the
ERISA statute of limitations.

On Oct. 14, 2008, the company filed a petition for leave to appeal
the class certification order to the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals.

On Jan. 15, 2009, the company filed a motion seeking dismissal of
all claims as a matter of law.  On Aug. 10, 2009, the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals granted Boeing's motion for leave to
appeal the class certification order.

The district court entered a stay of proceedings in the trial
court pending resolution of the class certification appeal.

On Dec. 29, 2009, the district court lifted on plaintiffs' motion
the stay of proceedings previously entered.  Boeing responded by
filing an application for stay pending appeal with the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals on Jan. 7, 2010, which was granted on
Jan. 21, 2010.

Oral argument before the Seventh Circuit was held on May 27, 2010.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 20, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the company's Integrated Defense
Systems business.  The Other segment classification principally
includes the activities of Engineering, Operations and Technology,
an advanced research and development organization focused on
technologies, processes and the creation of new products.


BOEING CO: Chicago Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal district court in Chicago has denied The Boeing Co.'s
motion to dismiss amended complaint, according to the company's
Oct. 20, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On Nov. 13, 2009, plaintiff shareholders filed a putative
securities fraud class action against the company and two of its
senior executives in federal district court in Chicago.

The lawsuit arises from the company's June 2009 announcement that
the first flight of the 787 Dreamliner would be postponed due to a
need to reinforce an area within the side-of-body section of the
aircraft.

Plaintiffs contend that the company was aware before June 2009
that the first flight could not take place as scheduled due to
issues with the side-of-body section of the aircraft, and that its
determination not to announce this delay earlier resulted in an
artificial inflation of the company's stock price for a multi-week
period in May and June 2009.

In March 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a cognizable claim, and, on May 26, 2010, the
Court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint in its
entirety.

On June 22, 2010, the Court accepted the plaintiff's amended
complaint.  On July 2, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint.

On Aug. 10, 2010, the Court denied the motion.  The company
answered the amended complaint on Aug. 30, 2010.

On Sept. 24, 2010, the company moved to strike the portions of the
amended complaint attributed to a confidential source and to
dismiss the complaint with prejudice.  On Oct. 14, 2010, the Court
denied the company's motions and discovery has commenced.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the company's Integrated Defense
Systems business.  The Other segment classification principally
includes the activities of Engineering, Operations and Technology,
an advanced research and development organization focused on
technologies, processes and the creation of new products.


CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Mental Health Budget Cuts
-------------------------------------------------------------
KABC and The Associated Press report a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and several Los
Angeles County agencies because of state budget cuts.

The plaintiffs say cutting a $133 state million mental health
program is discriminatory against the more than 20,000 special
education students across California.

The 25-year-old program was run through county mental health
departments and offered services required by federal law.

A spokesman for the governor said it's ultimately up to school
districts to provide those services and that there was nothing
illegal about the governor cutting the program with a line item
veto.

Public Counsel, Disability Rights California, Mental Health
Advocacy Services and law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher are some of
the organizations taking part in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also names as defendants the state departments of
Education and Mental Health, the Los Angeles County Department of
Mental Health, the Los Angeles Unified School District and the Los
Angeles County Office on Education.

About 8,000 children are affected in Los Angeles County.


CLAIRE-SPRAYWAY: Recalls 73,500 Fabric Protector
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Claire-Sprayway Inc., of Addison, Ill., announced a voluntary
recall of about 73,500 Fabric Protector.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Overexposure to fumes, vapor or spray mist from the product can
pose a serious respiratory hazard to consumers.

The firm has received 36 incidents of overexposure to fumes, vapor
or spray mist, 34 of which involved coughing, wheezing or
shortness of breath.  One incident resulted in a serious
respiratory injury.

This recall involves fabric protector which is an aerosol coating
used to protect fabric. The fabric protector was sold under the
following brand names:  Sprayway(R) No. 980 Industrial Fabric
Protector; 3D Fabric Protector; Auto Brite Fabric Protector
Guardatela; Auto Magic(R) Fabric Protector No. 91-S; Crystal Aire
Products #680 Fabric Protector; Falcon Labs(R) Spotless Fabric
Protector; Quiltprotect(TM) Spray; Robbie's(TM) Fabric Shield;
Showcar Fabric Protector and Simoniz(R) System 5 Stain Sentry
Fabric Protector. The can size is 13.5 oz., and the product code
is located on the bottom of the can.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11017.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and
sold through automotive supply, auto detailing, upholstery,
textiles, furniture and fabric stores nationwide from January 2005
through August 2010 for about $10.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
contact Claire-Sprayway to receive a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Claire-Sprayway toll-free at (877) 416-7324
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web sites at http://www.clairemfg.com/
or http://www.spraywayinc.com/


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: November 1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gilman and Pastor, LLP reminds Stock Owners and Investors that
there are only 10 days remaining to move as a Lead Plaintiff in
the securities fraud class action lawsuit against Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. and certain of Corinthian's officers.  The class
action lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
purchasers of Corinthian common stock (Nasdaq:COCO) during the
period between October 30, 2007 and August 19, 2010, inclusive.

The Corinthian securities class action complaint alleges that the
Defendants made positive statements in press releases and SEC
filings regarding Corinthian's operational performance and future
growth projections and that these statements were false because:
(1) Defendants inflated Corinthian's results by inducing students
to enroll in Corinthian's scholastic and educational programs and
engaged in other manipulative recruiting tactics; (2) Defendants
had materially overstated Corinthian's growth prospects by failing
to properly disclose that defendants had engaged in illicit and
improper recruiting activities, thereby artificially inflating
Corinthian's reported results and future growth prospects; and (3)
Corinthian did not maintain adequate systems of internal operation
or financial controls which would have permitted Corinthian's
reported operational statements and foreseeable growth prospects
to be true and accurate or reliable.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Corinthian during
the Class Period.  If you purchased or otherwise acquired
Corinthian shares during the Class Period, between October 30,
2007 and August 19, 2010, and either lost money on the transaction
or still hold the shares, you may wish to join in this action.  If
you wish to serve as a representative that acts on behalf of other
class members, you may do so if the Court determines that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by
the decision whether or not to serve as a representative.  You may
retain Gilman and Pastor, LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to
serve as your counsel in this action.

To discuss your rights as a Corinthian shareholder, including as
to the recovery of your losses, or to obtain additional
information, please contact Gilman and Pastor, LLP at
http://www.investment-losses.com/by email at
rpotkay@gilmanpastor.com or by calling toll-free (877) 428-7374.

Gilman and Pastor, LLP is one of the country's premier national
law firms that represents institutional and individual investors
in class actions, complex securities and corporate governance
litigation.  The firm has been a champion of investor rights for
over 30 years and has been recognized for its reputation for
excellence by the courts.  You may retain Gilman and Pastor
without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain
other counsel of your choice.

CONTACT:  Gilman and Pastor, LLP
          Kenneth G. Gilman, Esquire
          (877) 428-7374
          Fax (508) 291-3258
          kgilman@gilmanpastor.com
          16 Fourteenth Avenue
          Wareham, MA 02571


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Labaton Seeks $55-Mil. in Attorney Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, the lead
plaintiffs firm that obtained a $624 million shareholder
settlement against Countrywide Financial Corp. and KPMG LLP -- the
largest recovery to date in a securities class action filed over
the housing crisis -- is seeking more than $55 million in attorney
fees and expenses.

Labaton Sucharow, the New York firm hired by several New York
pension funds on a contingency basis to pursue securities fraud
claims against Countrywide and its senior managers, will argue for
the fees during a Nov. 15 hearing.

U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer in Los Angeles was expected
to decide at that time whether to approve the settlement.  Judge
Pfaelzer gave the settlement preliminary approval on Aug. 2, but
questioned the hours billed and the number of associates and
contract attorneys used by Labaton Sucharow.

Acknowledging that he was "mindful of the comments expressed by
the court during the preliminary approval hearing," Joel
Bernstein, Esq., lead counsel in the case and senior partner at
Labaton Sucharow, said in an Oct. 11 motion that his firm "worked
efficiently and effectively to secure an excellent result for the
class, particularly given the nature of the claims asserted, the
defenses raised by the defendants, and the scope of and time
limitations on discovery."

Countrywide agreed to pay $600 million and KPMG, the company's
former outside auditor, $24 million.  The company is now owned by
Bank of America Corp.

The $624 million figure represents 22% of the maximum $2.83
billion in damages that the plaintiffs could have obtained if they
had been successful at trial, Mr. Bernstein wrote.

Labaton Sucharow is seeking more than $47.3 million in fees, or
about 7.59% of the total settlement.  Mr. Bernstein wrote that the
firm's clients required that its fee be limited to that percentage
under their contingency agreement.  The amount, which is
"reasonable and necessary to obtain this excellent result," is
significantly lower than fee awards in other securities class
action settlements, Mr. Bernstein wrote.

The firm submitted a chart comparing its request to the percentage
of fees awarded in 14 shareholder class action settlements valued
at between $400 million and $800 million.  In those cases, the
average fee requested amounted to 15.54% of the recovery.

The firm submitted the declaration of Michael Diamond, a mediator
in Beverly Hills, Calif., who served as head of the Los Angeles
litigation group for Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy from 2000 to
2007.  Mr. Diamond called the 7.59% figure "reasonable."

"This is clearly not a case where a strike suit lawyer seeks a
windfall fee after forcing a settlement without doing real
substantive work," he wrote.

Mr. Diamond, who is getting paid $750 per hour for his consulting
work, said that partner billing rates of $550 to $865 "seem on the
low side" and that the blended rate of $403 per hour, when
accounting for paralegals and associates, appeared to be "an
extremely reasonable rate for a New York or Los Angeles firm
handling cases at this level."  The firm also had as many as 119
"short-term attorneys" working on the case, Diamond wrote.

In addition to the fees, Labaton's motion asks for interest and
reimbursement for nearly $8.1 million in expenses incurred through
Sept. 15, including more than 182,000 hours.

Labaton submitted charts detailing how it spent those hours,
noting that nearly 43% of the time involved reviewing documents in
discovery.  The firm's lawyers reviewed nearly 30 million pages of
documents and prepared for 81 depositions, according to the
motion.

Labaton Sucharow represented New York State Comptroller Thomas
DiNapoli, who administers the New York State and Local Retirement
System and the New York State Common Retirement Fund, as well as
several pension funds for employees of New York City.

Other firms working with Labaton on the case were Los Angeles-
based Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman; New York's Kreindler &
Kreindler; New York's Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer; Lockridge Grindal
Nauen in Minneapolis; and New York's Klafter Olsen & Lesser.  Each
submitted a declaration seeking a portion of the fees and
expenses:

    * Joel Strauss, a partner at Kaplan Fox, said his firm is
requesting more than $3.8 million in fees and about $375,000 in
expenses;

    * Gretchen Nelson, a partner in the Los Angeles office of
Kreindler & Kreindler, said her firm should receive $2.8 million
and about $192,000 in expenses;

    * Karen Riebel, a partner at Lockridge Grindal Nauen, is
asking for nearly $540,000 and $22,500 in expenses;

    * Michael Hennigan of Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman wants nearly
$630,000 and more than $15,000 in expenses;

    * Jeffrey Klafter of Klafter Olsen & Lesser is seeking more
than $585,000 and about $10,400 in expenses.

In addition to Countrywide and KPMG, the shareholder case named
several former officers and directors of the company and
Countrywide's underwriters.

On Oct. 15, three of the defendants -- Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer Angelo Mozilo, President David Sambol and Chief
Financial Officer Eric Sieracki -- settled securities fraud
allegations with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In that deal, reached days before a trial was scheduled to start,
Mozilo agreed to pay $67.5 million in disgorgement and civil
penalties.  Mr. Sambol agreed to a $5.5 million payment, while
Sieracki signed off on $130,000 in civil penalties.

Calls were not returned by Countrywide's attorney, Brian
Pastuszenski, a partner at Boston's Goodwin Procter, and KPMG's
lawyer, Gwyn Quillen, a partner in the Santa Monica, Calif.,
office of Boston's Bingham McCutchen.


DAYMAR COLLEGE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Overpriced Books
-------------------------------------------------------------
ChillicotheGazette.com reports attorneys from two Kentucky law
firms met with current and former Daymar College students
regarding a class action lawsuit against the school.

The complaint alleges students were "induced to attend" Daymar's
location in Paducah, Ky., under false promises of full credit
transferability and career placement.

The complaint also alleges the students were deceived into buying
all their books from Daymar -- at inflated prices -- and were
denied the option to use their student loans to shop for less-
expensive books elsewhere.

"I would categorically deny those allegations," said Mark Gabis,
president of the Daymar Colleges Group.

The Daymar group, based in Owensboro, Ky., offers a number of
career-track programs at 17 campuses in Ohio, Kentucky and
Indiana.  One of its Ohio campuses is in Chillicothe.

Mr. Gabis said Daymar would "vigorously" defend itself against the
claims.

Fifteen plaintiffs are named in the complaint, all of them with
ties to the Paducah campus.  A posting on the Web site of
Paducah's Bryant Law Center makes reference to about 50 current
and former students who are seeking damages against Daymar.

The complaint was originally filed Feb. 8 in McCracken Circuit
Court in Paducah.

Attorneys held meetings Tuesday and Wednesday at the Comfort Inn
in Piketon to provide information about the lawsuit and see if
Daymar students in Ohio have had similar experiences, said David
Bryant, of Louisville, Ky., law firm Sales, Tillman, Wallbaum,
Catlett and Satterly.

"The stories we've heard from Ohio students are certainly similar
to the ones we've heard in Kentucky," Mr. Bryant said Wednesday.

Mr. Bryant would not say if any Ohio students are joining the
suit.  He said he and his colleagues are evaluating their options.

At least 20 people attended the meetings, including several who
have taken classes at the Chillicothe campus, he said.

Piketon was chosen as the venue because it's centrally located
between Daymar campuses in Chillicothe, Jackson and New Boston, he
said.

Mr. Gabis suspects a disillusioned former Daymar instructor
"stirred up" the lawsuit.

"That's my guess," he said. "No one has ever said that, but
typically that's how these things start."

Mr. Gabis was quick to debunk the lawsuit's allegations.

"We're very much aware of the regulatory requirements. We know the
things that get schools in trouble and we avoid them," he said.

Regarding credit transferability, Mr. Gabis said Daymar makes it
clear to students "it's up to the receiving institution as to
whether they decided to give a student credit."

The college also tells students at the outset job placement is not
guaranteed, he said.

As for books, Daymar provides them to new students on the first
day of classes whether they have money for them or not, Gabis
said.

Student loans cannot be disbursed for 30 days, per federal
regulations, meaning some students can't afford to buy them right
away, he said.

"Do our books cost more than somebody might find online? Yes, they
do," Mr. Gabis said.  "We have some overhead we need to cover, so
we need to make money on our books.  But students are not required
to buy their books from us."

He said Daymar provides students with the International Standard
Book Numbers, or ISBNs, so students can buy the books online if
they so choose.

The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as
well as punitive and compensatory damages.


DELAWARE STATE UNIV: Settles Gender Equity Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The News Journal reports Delaware State University has settled a
class-action lawsuit that charged it was in violation of a federal
law requiring gender equity in varsity sports.

As a result, the Dover university now plans to significantly
increase its spending on women's sports and recruiting to bring
the levels of female participation in athletics up to the federal
standard.

The lawsuit, which had been filed by members of DSU's female
equestrian team after the school announced it would be cutting
their program for financial reasons, had been set to go to trial
in U.S. District Court on October 18.  But the two sides reached
an agreement, details of which were not released until late
Thursday, October 21.

Attorney Abbe Fletman, who represented the female student
athletes, said the settlement, "achieves what we set out to do --
it assures long-term gender equity in sports at DSU."

DSU officials, in a press release Friday, said they will "embrace"
their obligation to provide increased opportunities for women in
varsity sports.  "DSU commits to achieving gender equity within a
few years," said Derek Carter, DSU athletics director.  "We will
explore adding new women's sports, the expanding of existing
athletics opportunity for women athletes and any other actions
designed to achieve Title IX compliance."

Mr. Carter said while they are going to have to look closely at
their budget, the school is not planning on reducing spending on
men's sports to comply with the settlement because DSU is "already
at the NCAA minimum for male sports at this time."

The lawsuit, filed in January by 15 equestrian team members, was
later converted to a class-action suit on behalf of all
prospective female athletes at DSU.

Under the settlement, DSU will have to comply with Title IX
standards that require the school to offer varsity sports to
female and male students in the same proportion as their
population on campus.

Currently the school's population is about 61% female but only 41%
of the school's varsity athletes are women, a 20% gap that DSU
will now have to close by 2013 to within 2.5 percentage points.

Ms. Fletman said DSU has failed to meet the Title IX standard for
at least the past five years and may never have met the standard
set by the gender equity law that was passed in 1972.

DSU officials responded that according to recent meetings of the
National Collegiate Athletic Association, an estimated 80% of
colleges and universities across the country are not in compliance
with Title IX and that rising levels of female enrollment at DSU
and elsewhere have made meeting the standard "more challenging."

NCAA officials could not confirm DSU's estimate about
noncompliance Friday.  "There's no way the NCAA can answer that
question," said NCAA spokeswoman Jennifer Royer in an e-mail.

DSU also will have to increase funding for the recruitment of
female athletes over the next five years until it equals that
spent on recruiting male athletes.

Currently, Ms. Fletman said, DSU spends 26% of its recruitment
money on females and in some years the rate has been as low as 9%.

And until DSU meets those Title IX goals, the school must fully
fund and maintain the equestrian team under the settlement.

If DSU decides to eliminate the equestrian team after meeting the
Title IX goals, the school must provide notice to all team members
by Nov. 30 the year before the program is to end.

And if and when the program is ended, the university has to extend
all athletic scholarships that had been awarded to team members
through the end of their undergraduate education.

And finally, the agreement requires Title IX training for all
members of DSU's athletic department.

"The significance of this settlement for women on campus cannot be
overstated.  We are very thankful that DSU has made a commitment
to meet its obligations under Title IX," said Caroline Foltz, a
member of the equestrian team and the lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

"We are looking forward to continuing to ride for DSU for as long
as we can and seeing women get more opportunities to experience
being on a team and playing for our school," added Amanda Hotz,
another team member and plaintiff, in a statement.

Mr. Carter said DSU will be exploring both adding new women's
sports and expanding current programs to meet the standard.  He
said DSU currently fields 16 intercollegiate varsity teams -- six
men's teams and 10 women's teams.

And while DSU at one point considered adding competitive
cheerleading as a new women's sport, Mr. Carter said that is no
longer the case because the NCAA does not recognize cheerleading
as a sport and therefore it would not help the school meet Title
IX goals.

In addition to Ms. Fletman, who is with the Philadelphia law firm
of Flaster/Greenberg, the DSU students were represented by the
Women's Law Project and Delaware attorney Joanne Pinckney.


ETHAN ALLEN: Recalls 3,250 Drop-Side Cribs
------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ethan Allen, of Danbury, Conn., announced a voluntary recall of
about 3,250 Drop-Side Cribs.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The crib's drop-side rail hardware can malfunction, detach or
otherwise fail, causing part of the drop side rail to detach from
the crib. When the drop-side rail partially detaches, it creates a
space between the drop side and the crib mattress.  An infant or
toddler's body can become entrapped in the space, which can lead
to strangulation and/or suffocation.  A child can also fall out of
the crib. Drop-side incidents can also occur due to incorrect
assembly and with age-related wear and tear.

Ethan Allen has received five reports of incidents involving the
crib's drop-side detaching, resulting in bumps and bruises to
three children.  One child became entrapped and two children fell
out of the crib after the drop side detached, one child received a
pinched hand and one child received an unspecified injury.

This recall involves Ethan Allen brand cribs with item numbers
14-5650, 15-5650, 16-5650, 26-5650, 35-5622, 36-5620, 36-5622 and
38-5622. "Ethan Allen" and the item number are printed on a label
on the crib's headboard or footboard.  The cribs were sold in a
variety of colors.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11018.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and the United
States sold through Ethan Allen stores from January 2002 through
December 2008 for between $550 and $900.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled drop-side
cribs and contact any Ethan Allen store to receive a free repair
kit that will immobilize the drop-side rail.  In the meantime,
parents are urged to find an alternate, safe sleeping environment
for the child, such as a bassinet, play yard or toddler bed
depending on the child's age.  For additional information, contact
Ethan Allen toll-free at (888) 339-9398 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:45
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, contact the local Ethan
Allen store or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.ethanallen.com/


FRY'S FOOD: Suit Over Rights Abuses to Proceed as Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal prosecution initiated by several Fry's Food Stores
workers, whose rights were abused by local union bosses during a
looming strike last year, will proceed as a "class action" and
will potentially affect thousands of similarly-situated employees
statewide.

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work
Foundation, employees from several Fry's locations in Arizona
filed federal unfair labor practice charges against the United
Food & Commercial Workers Local 99 union hierarchy and Fry's
management after union and company officials continued to seize
union dues from their paychecks despite repeated requests to stop.

Upset by a UFCW Local 99 boss-initiated strike threat last
November, the employees resigned formal union membership and
revoked their dues deduction authorizations -- used by union
officials to automatically withhold dues from employee paychecks
-- during a time in which the union did not have a contract at
their workplaces.

The charges, filed by Shirley Jones of Mesa, Karen Medley and
Elaine Brown of Apache Junction, Kimberly Stewart and Saloomeh
Hardy of Queen Creek, and Tommy and Janette Fuentes of Florence --
acting for other similarly situated employees -- spurred the NLRB
Regional Director in Phoenix to find that the dues deduction
authorizations used by UFCW Local 99 union officials at all
Arizona Fry's Food Stores locations were illegal because they do
not allow employees to revoke them once a contract terminates, as
required by federal law.

Subsequently, the NLRB's Regional Director initiated a statewide
prosecution against UFCW Local 99 union bosses.  However, an NLRB
administrative law judge refused to uphold a subpoena of the
union's statewide records that would indicate how widespread the
union's practice of failing to honor Fry's employees' dues
revocations really is.  Last week, the NLRB in Washington, D.C.
overruled the judge's decision and ordered the union to comply
with the subpoena.

"Thanks to the work done by this courageous group of independent-
minded employees, UFCW Local 99 bosses are now staring at the
consequences of violating the rights of possibly thousands of
Fry's Food Stores workers across the Grand Canyon State," said
Patrick Semmens, Director of Legal Information at National Right
to Work.

"Foundation attorneys are prepared to assist workers whose rights
may be violated in various UFCW-controlled retail food stores and
processing plants, banks, hospitals, manufacturing facilities, and
waste management locations across the state of Arizona," added Mr.
Semmens.


GEORGETOWN CAPITAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of New
York, Case No. 10-CV-793A(F), on behalf of all persons who
purchased and/or invested in certificates of deposit and/or other
securities through Timothy Geidel, who was an investment advisor
at Georgetown Capital Group, Inc. and a registered representative
with Royal Alliance from November 1989 through and including
August 2010.  The Hon. Richard J. Arcara is presiding over the
case.  The class period is believed to run from November 1989
through and including October 2010.

The Complaint alleges that Timothy Geidel violated federal
securities laws and New York State law by engaging in a Ponzi
scheme and offering bogus CDs, investments, and other securities
that he claimed were available especially through Georgetown
Capital Group and Royal Alliance.  The Complaint also alleges that
Georgetown Capital failed to properly supervise Timothy Geidel and
is a control person under federal securities law, and that Royal
Alliance failed to properly supervise Timothy Geidel, failed to
properly supervise its satellite offices, and is a control person
under federal securities law.

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.

If you wish to act as lead plaintiff in this action, you must move
the Court no later than December 22, 2010.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in
the litigation.  The Court determines who acts as lead plaintiff.
Your ability to share in any recovery is not impacted or changed
by choosing to act or not act as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or the pending lawsuit, please contact
Charles Ritter, Esq. at Duke, Holzman, Photiadis and Gresens, LLP
by calling 716.855.1111 or by writing to 1800 Main Place Tower,
350 Main Street, Buffalo, New York.

Contact:

          Charles Ritter, Esq.
          DUKE, HOLZMAN, PHOTIADIS AND GRESENS, LLP
          1800 Main Place Tower
          350 Main Street
          Buffalo, New York
          Telephone: 716-855-1111


GRACO CHILDREN'S: Recalls 2 Million Strollers
---------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Graco Children's Products Inc., of Atlanta, Ga., is announcing the
recall of about 2 million Graco strollers due to risk of
entrapment and strangulation.  CPSC and Graco have received four
reports of infant strangulations that occurred in these strollers
between 2003 and 2005.  In addition, CPSC is aware of five reports
of infants becoming entrapped, resulting in cuts and bruises, and
one report of an infant having difficulty breathing.

Entrapment and strangulation can occur, especially to infants
younger than 12 months of age, when a child is not harnessed. An
infant can pass through the opening between the stroller tray and
seat bottom, but his/her head and neck can become entrapped by the
tray. Infants who become entrapped at the neck are at risk of
strangulation.

The recall involves older versions of the Graco Quattro Tour(TM)
and MetroLite(TM) strollers and travel systems manufactured prior
to the existence of the January 2008 voluntary industry standard
which addresses the height of the opening between the stroller's
tray and the seat bottom.  This voluntary standard requires larger
stroller openings that prevent infant entrapment and strangulation
hazards.

This recall involves Graco Quattro Tour(TM) strollers and travel
systems manufactured prior to November 2006 and MetroLite(TM)
strollers and travel systems manufactured prior to July 2007.  The
strollers and travel systems were distributed between November
2000 and December 2007.  The model numbers are printed on a label
at the lower portion of the rear frame, just above the rear wheels
or underneath the stroller.  The name "Graco" appears on a label
on the stroller tray and the headrest.  Models included in the
recall are:

Quattro           Quattro          MetroLite        MetroLite
Stroller          Stroller         Stroller         Travel
Distributed       Travel           Distributed      System
Between           System           Between          Distributed
Nov'02-Dec'07     Distributed      Nov'02-Dec'0     Between
                  Between                           Dec'00-June'05
                  Oct'02-Oct'07

35735             35760            1104             1070

35759             7411ATR          1240            7000KSB
7111ASB           7411BGN          6110DW          7308DEL
7111BKW           7411BGN2         6110F3          7308DEL2
7111CLN           7411BLB          6110S7          7308DEL4
7111CUN           7411KBK          6110TS7         7308TYR
7111DIA           7411KBK2         6111FKB         7308TYR2
7111HEA           7411LV           6111VIN         7406PLT
7111HIG           7411MCH          6113SCR         7408MRT
7111LAG           7411MCH2         6114HAV         7409GRG
7111KSH           7411MLY          6114JAM         7410CON
7112CNP           7411MLY2         6114LAG         7413CML
7112MTR           7419LIM          6114NGS         7413MRN
7113CJR           7419LIM2         6116NRF         C7413CML
7113CMR           7419OWD2         6120SHL
7113COT           7B00BDA          6121CJG
7119GGG           7B00DRB          6121CNP
7119WSR           7B00KAS          6121GGG
7121MAY           7B01MNS          6121MTR
7125QST           7B03CST2         6123EME
7126RNS           7B03LTC2         6124LRD
7127LEG           7B03TFE2         6125SMB
7132RXY                            6J01DAI
7134SMB                            6J01HRL
7138RNS                            6J03RIT
                                   6J04JEN
                                   6J05MIN

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11015.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
AAFES, Babies R Us, Burlington Coat Factory, Fred Meyer, Meijers,
Navy Exchange, Sears, Target, Walmart and other stores nationwide
between November 2000 and December 2007 for between $90 and $190
for the strollers, and between $190 and $250 for travel systems.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled strollers and
contact Graco for a free repair kit.  To order a repair kit,
contact Graco toll-free at (877) 828-4046 anytime, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.gracobaby.com/ Consumers can
continue use of the stroller as a "travel system."  When the
stroller is used with the infant car seat, the entrapment and
strangulation hazards posed by the space gap are not present.
For additional information, consumers can contact Graco at (800)
345-4109 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday.


HARBIN ELECTRIC: Being Sold for Too Little, Nev. Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Harbin Electric is selling
itself far too cheaply to its CEO and Chairman of the Board Tianfu
Yang, for $24 a share, shareholders claim in Clark County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Elliott v. Harbin Electric, Inc.,
Case No. 10-627656 (Nev. Dist. Ct., Clark Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/22/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Griffith H. Hayes, Esq.
          Martin A. Muckleroy, Esq.
          COOKSEY, TOOLEN, GAGE, DUFFY & WOOG
          3930 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: (702) 949-3100

               - and -

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          919 North Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310


H & R BLOCK: LakinChapman Plans Trial for "Peace of Mind" Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison/St. Clair Record, reports
that LakinChapman lawyers whose giant class action against tax
preparer H & R Block shriveled to a dispute over $102, plan to
take it to trial anyway.

U.S. District Judge Michael Reagan, who denied certification of a
class alleging Block improperly sold "peace of mind" protection,
set trial for two plaintiffs April 25.

Block, figuring Judge Reagan might as well call it off, moved for
summary judgment on Oct. 18.

John Clear of St. Louis wrote that plaintiffs can't prove
deception or damages.

The former Lakin Law Firm sued H & R Block Tax Services in 2001,
in Madison County circuit court, on behalf of Lorie Marshall.

She paid $20 for peace of mind on tax returns for 1996 through
1999.

Peace of mind guarantees payment up to $4,000 for any penalties or
interest resulting from Block's errors.

Lakin lawyers later added Debra Ramirez, who paid $22 on her
return for 2000.

They claimed peace of mind lacked value because Block seldom
committed errors and the Internal Revenue Service seldom audited
returns of Block customers.

Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn certified the plaintiffs to
represent a national class, and he certified Block Tax Services to
represent a defendant class of Block entities.

Later he shrank the class to 11 states and decertified the
defendant class.

Block removed the case to federal court, claiming Judge
Mendelsohn's changes turned it into a new case for purposes of the
Class Action Fairness Act.

Block argued that liability for Block Tax Services vastly
increased because liability for all Block entities shifted to it.

Judge Reagan disagreed and remanded the case to Madison County.

On appeal, judges of the Seventh Circuit reversed Reagan.

He declared he would not honor Judge Mendelsohn's order, and he
held a hearing on class certification this April.

By then, plaintiffs had abandoned the theory that peace of mind
lacked value.

Block had countered that by showing it paid $220 million on peace
of mind claims.

LakinChapman lawyers pleaded instead that Block omitted necessary
information about audit rates, error rates, claims amounts and
sales commissions.

Judge Reagan rejected the new theory in September, finding a lack
of uniformity in the reasons customers chose to purchase peace of
mind.

He found that neither plaintiff presented a case typical of a
class.

He turned a suit that would have involved millions of transactions
over 13 years into one over four payments from Ms. Marshall and
one from Ms. Ramirez.

He set a trial date, triggering Block's motion for summary
judgment.

"Block's sales practices were entirely straightforward," Mr. Clear
wrote.

"Block accurately described the product it was selling, and
offered the opportunity for plaintiffs to ask any questions they
wished," he wrote.

"Plaintiffs do not claim they were told anything that was untrue,"
he wrote.

Judge Reagan ordered plaintiffs to respond by Nov. 12.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces "Perlmutter" Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc., a faces purported class action lawsuit
entitled Perlmutter v. Intuitive Surgical et al., No. CV10-3451,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, according to the company's Oct. 20, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The suit was filed on Aug. 6, 2010, aagainst the company and seven
of its current and former officers and directors.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
common stock between Feb. 1, 2008 and Jan. 7, 2009.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
making allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting
certain material facts in the company's filings with the SEC.

Intuitive Surgical, Inc. -- http://www.intuitivesurgical.com/--
headquartered in Sunnyvale, California, is the global technology
leader in robotic-assisted, minimally invasive surgery.  Intuitive
Surgical develops, manufactures, and markets robotic technologies
designed to improve clinical outcomes and help patients return
more quickly to active and productive lives.  The company's
mission is to extend the benefits of minimally invasive surgery to
the broadest possible base of patients.


MDL 1456: Jan. 21 Fairness Hearing on AstraZeneca Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP has agreed to pay $103 million to
settle claims with two different classes of purchases of the drug
Zoladex(R) in In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale
Price Litigation, MDL No. 1456; Master Docket No. 01-CV-12257 (D.
Mass.).  This drug is used to treat prostate cancer, advanced
breast cancer, endometriosis, and uterine fibroids.  This lawsuit
is not about the safety of Zoladex(R).  The lawsuit claims, but
AstraZeneca denies, that AstraZeneca reported false and inflated
average wholesale prices for Zoladex(R).

AstraZeneca has agreed to pay $90 million in a Nationwide
Settlement and $13 million in what's called the Massachusetts
Settlement.  The Settlements are not an admission of wrongdoing or
an indication that any law was violated.  AstraZeneca has entered
into the Settlements to avoid further expense, and to avoid the
risks of uncertain litigation.  AstraZeneca denies any wrongdoing.

The Honorable Patti B. Saris will hold a Fairness Hearing on Jan.
21, 2011, to consider whether the Settlements should be approved.
Objections, if any, must be filed and served by Dec. 31, 2010.
Class members must submit their claims by Feb. 15, 2011.
Additional information about the settlements and the claims
process is available at http://www.AstraZenecaSettlement.com/

AstraZeneca is represented by:

         D. Scott Wise, Esq.
         Joel M. Cohen, Esq.
         DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
         450 Lexington Ave.
         New York, NY 10017

              - and -

         Nicholas C. Theodorou, Esq.
         Michael B. Keating, Esq.
         Michael P. Boudett, Esq.
         Katherine B. Schmeckpeper, Esq.
         FOLEY HOAG LLP
         155 Seaport Boulevard
         Boston, MA 02210

The Plaintiff Class is represented by lawyers at Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP in Seattle, Wash., and Boston, Mass.


NEW ALBERTSONS: Class Suit Over UFCW Lockout Wins Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. Huffstutter, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that a
federal judge in Los Angeles has certified two separate class-
action lawsuits against grocery chains Ralphs and Albertsons --
the latest step that moves forward a legal fight between the
retailers and 9,000 workers who claim they were illegally denied
millions of dollars in benefits during the 2003-04 grocery lockout
and strike.

The cases -- certified by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge
William F. Highberger earlier last week -- are challenging the
California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board's decisions that
resulted in workers not receiving their benefits during the
lockout.

The class-action cases, among other things, claim that the agency
failed to take into account an unlawful lockout strategy.

Judge Highberger's decision has come in the wake of a U.S. 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the two California food
retailers violated federal antitrust laws in connection with a
mutual-aid pact they used to blunt losses from the labor dispute.
Under the agreement, Ralphs channeled money to Albertsons and
Vons, which had suffered large drops in sales during the bitter
labor action.

When the Ralphs chain pleaded guilty in 2006 to felony charges
connected to rehiring locked-out workers using fake Social
Security numbers, it paid $20 million in fines and $50 million
into a fund to reimburse workers and the union.

In 2009, three former Ralphs executives were acquitted of fraud
and conspiracy.

Rick Icaza, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers
Local 770, said in a statement that the court's move to certify
the class-action cases is a step "towards holding these
corporations accountable for their illegal and immoral behavior."

But Ralphs disagreed and expressed confidence in prevailing in the
legal fight.  In a statement, Kendra M. Doyel, group vice
president of marketing for Ralphs, said that the "procedural
ruling leads us one step closer to a favorable resolution of this
case."

Albertsons declined to comment on the pending litigation.


NORDSTROM INC: Accused of Violating California Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Nordstrom pays less than
minimum wage and sometimes doesn't pay at all for the hours
workers spend restocking the shelves, a class action claims in San
Diego Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Maraventano v. Nordstrom, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 37-2010-00060965 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/22/Nordstrom.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew F. Archbold, Esq.
          David D. Deason, Esq.
          DEASON & ARCHBOLD
          3300 Irvine Avenue, Suite 245
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 794-9560
          E-mail: matthew@yourlaborlawyers.com
                  david@yourlaborlawyers.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Barnhill, Esq.
          Maxim Vaynerov, Esq.
          BARNHILL & VAYNEROV LLP
          8200 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 943-8989


NVIDIA CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Class-Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Emspak, writing for Business & Law, reports the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California has
dismissed a class action suit against NVIDIA that accused the
company of trying to hide its knowledge of defects in a line of
graphics chips, in order to keep the stock price up.

A judge has dismissed a securities class-action suit against the
chipmaker, which accused the company of hiding defects in its
processors in order to keep the stock price up.

In a strongly worded opinion, Judge Richard Seeborg said the
plaintiffs did not establish that there was any evidence that the
company knew that its chips were defective.  Further, the opinion
notes that some of the evidence presented by witnesses was from
people who did not work at the company and were not in a position
to know if the chips were defective or not.

Judge Seeborg gave the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended
complaint, or have it dismissed and the plaintiffs barred from re-
filing another suit.

The original lawsuit was filed in 2008, by Lisa Miller, and the
class action suit eventually included two union pension funds and
the retirement fund of the city of Pontiac, Mich.  The suit
covered those who bought NVIDIA's stock between Nov.2, 2007 and
July 2, 2008.

The complaint says the company hid the extent of defects in one of
its microprocessor lines until July 2.  On that day NVIDIA
announced it would take a $150-200 million charge against its
revenue to cover the cost of fixing the problems that were showing
up in its chips.  The chips involved failed at a high rate when
repeatedly heated and cooled.  NVIDIA issued a software fix, and
eventually distributed new processors to replace those that were
defective.

After that announcement, the stock price dropped 31% from its high
the day before, and over the next few weeks it went down to
$10.55, 71% lower than its high of $36.26 reached in the period
covered by the suit.  Since the company knew that there were
defects in the chips, it should have disclosed that to investors
earlier.

The complaint also says the chief executive officer of NVIDIA at
the time, Jen-Hsun Huang, and the chief financial officer, Marvin
Burkett, both had a financial incentive to make misleading
statements as their compensation was tied to NVIDIA's stock price.

In his ruling, the judge noted that there was no evidence Huang
had sold stock ahead of the announcement to maximize profits; if
anything, he bought more NVIDIA stock during the period in
question, and only sold 2% of his holdings at the start.

The ruling also notes that when NVIDIA issued a partial software
fix ahead of distributing replacement chips in May of 2008, that
it could be interpreted as the company not knowing what the
problem with the chips was and attempting to come up with a
repair, rather than an attempt to buy time in order to defraud
investors.


PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Bernstein Files Securities Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP Friday disclosed that it
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of
PrivateBancorp, Inc.'s publicly traded common stock between
November 2, 2007 and October 23, 2009, inclusive, and investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired PrivateBancorp's common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to registered public offerings conducted
on or about June 4, 2008, and May 11, 2009.  The case is captioned
City of New Orleans Employees' Retirement System v.
PrivateBancorp., Inc., No. 10-cv-6826 (N.D. Ill.).

The claims alleged in the complaint are asserted against
PrivateBancorp, certain of its senior executives and directors,
the underwriters of PrivateBancorp's 2008 and 2009 Offerings, and
its independent auditor.

PrivateBancorp is a Chicago-based financial services company that
concentrates on commercial banking and private banking for high-
net worth individuals and families.

The action alleges that during the Class Period the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by engaging in improper
behavior and by issuing materially false and misleading statements
regarding PrivateBancorp's business and financial results that
harmed the Company's investors.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that the defendants misrepresented the Company's Strategic
Growth and Transformation Plan (the "Growth Plan") which led
PrivateBancorp to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in
commercial and industrial loans that were high risk, and that the
Company misrepresented the quality of its residential loan
portfolio, which was suffering severe deterioration.  As a result
of defendants' false statements, PrivateBancorp's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period.  While
PrivateBancorp's stock was artificially inflated, the Company
conducted two public offerings, resulting in hundreds of millions
of dollars in net proceeds to the Company.

Prior to the start of trading on October 26, 2009, PrivateBancorp
shocked investors by reporting third quarter 2009 earnings results
that fell far short of expectations.  Despite having written off
in excess of $100 million in bad loans in January 2009, the
Company revealed that it held almost $400 million in nonperforming
loans as of the third quarter 2009.  PrivateBancorp further
disclosed that its elevated levels of nonperforming loans were
originated under the Growth Plan.  In response to the Company's
October 26 disclosure, PrivateBancorp stock fell over 37%,
dropping from $19.00 per share to $11.98.  The action alleges
claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class, you must
move the Court no later than 60 days from Friday, October 22.  Any
member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the proposed class.

The City of New Orleans Employees' Retirement System is
represented by BLB&G, a firm of over 50 attorneys with offices in
New York, California, and Louisiana.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Gerald H. Silk
of BLB&G at 212-554-1400, or via e-mail at jerry@blbglaw.com
Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G has built an international
reputation for excellence and integrity.  Specializing in
securities fraud, corporate governance, shareholders' rights,
employment discrimination and civil rights litigation, among other
practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and private actions on
behalf of institutional and individual clients worldwide.  Unique
among its peers, BLB&G has obtained several of the largest and
most significant securities recoveries in history, recovering
billions of dollars on behalf of defrauded investors.  More
information about BLB&G can be found online at
http://www.blbglaw.com/

CONTACT:

          Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          Laurence J. Hasson, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400


RAPID CASH: Judge Allows Class-Action Lawsuit to Move Forward
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff German, writing for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports
District Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez on Thursday ordered a class-
action lawsuit to move forward against a payday loan company and a
process server who was convicted last week of filing false
affidavits.

"Don't you think that the public and all the rest of us have an
interest in seeing that this is appropriately resolved?" Judge
Gonzalez asked a lawyer for the payday loan company, Kansas-based
Rapid Cash, before issuing her order.

Judge Gonzalez ruled the class of plaintiffs in the lawsuit will
consist of people who step forward to allege Rapid Cash obtained
default judgments against them without proper legal notice.

The four lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit -- Casandra Harrison,
Eugene Varcados, Concepcion Quintino and Mary Dungan -- all allege
they did not learn of default judgments against them until either
their employers or banks garnished the money under court orders.
They allege Maurice Carroll and process servers for his unlicensed
company, On Scene Mediations, lied in Las Vegas Justice Court
affidavits claiming to have served them with copies of court
papers.

Mr. Carroll, 42, a former Las Vegas police officer, was convicted
last week of perjury and filing false affidavits in default cases
involving another client, debt collector Richland Holdings.
Police still are investigating Carroll and others, including
lawyers, linked to his company.

Attorneys for the Legal Aid Center and the law firm of Kemp, Jones
& Coulthard, which is assisting in the lawsuit against Rapid Cash,
said after the hearing that they couldn't predict how many
plaintiffs would be involved in the class action.

But Barbara Buckley, executive director of the Legal Aid Center,
said she thinks there could be hundreds, if not thousands, of
plaintiffs.

Justice Court officials have estimated that Rapid Cash obtained
17,000 default judgments between 2004 and 2010 with the help of On
Scene Mediations.

"We're very pleased with the judge's rulings," Ms. Buckley said.
"Obviously, there will be a lot of work done to try to determine
how to proceed with the case."

The biggest challenge will be trying to find the plaintiffs.  The
judgments involved small loans to people that were not paid pack.
Many of the people still might not know judgments were lodged
against them, and many others probably have left town.

Mark Dzarnoski, a lawyer for Rapid Cash, told Judge Gonzalez that
he is not sure how far back the company keeps records, which could
complicate the efforts to find the plaintiffs.

Judge Gonzalez ordered both sides to figure out a way to inform
potential plaintiffs about the class action and report back to her
on Nov. 2.  The judge also issued a temporary restraining order
prohibiting Rapid Cash from collecting on any of the previous
default judgments involving On Scene Mediations.

Afterward, Mr. Dzarnoski said he was pleased that Judge Gonzalez
had certified a "manageable class that gives Rapid Cash the
ability to remain in business."

During the hearing, Mr. Dzarnoski suggested that the lawsuit was
part of political agenda by Buckley, the Assembly's retiring
Democratic speaker, to drive Rapid Cash out of business.  Ms.
Buckley has led the charge in Carson City to clamp down on the
practices of Rapid Cash and other payday loan companies, he said.

Ms. Buckley later said the attack on her was a legal diversion.

"It sounds like a desperate ploy to divert attention way from the
fraud perpetrated against the court and unsuspecting Nevadans,"
she said. "It's not true."

The lawsuit, which was filed last month, accuses Rapid Cash of
failing to stop On Scene Mediations from carrying out the false
affidavit scheme.

The lawsuit alleges Rapid Cash either knew or should have known
that On Scene Mediations was not licensed as a process server in
the state and should have had greater oversight of its activities.

Mr. Carroll, who is free on bail, faces sentencing in February on
35 felony charges.  His former office manager, Vilisia Coleman,
who also is a defendant in the lawsuit, is to stand trial on
similar charges in December.


REGENT ASSET: Settles Colorado Collection Suit for $50,000
----------------------------------------------------------

                     STATE OF COLORADO
                   District Court for the
              City & County of Denver, Colorado

  Gonzales                    )
                              )
      vs.                     )  Case No.: 09-CV-6446
                              )
  James J. Standley, et al.   )

If you received a letter from James J. Standley ("Standley"),
Standley and Associates, LLC. ("S&A"), and/or Regent Asset
Management Solutions, Inc. ("Regent"), with an enclosed Summons
and Complaint Under Simplified Civil Procedure stating that if you
did not file an answer to such Summons and Complaint in a
specified county court on or before a specified time and date,
then such county court may be asked to enter a judgment against
you, and if you meet the criteria explained below, you can share
in this Settlement.

The District Court for the City & County of Denver authorized this
notice and will have a hearing to decide whether to approve the
Settlement, so that the benefits may be paid.

Who's Included?

You are a Class Member and could get benefits if between June 5,
2008, through August 18, 2008, you received a letter on S&A's
letterhead which represented that you owed to Regent a "Balance"
of money and that "In seven (7) days from the date of this letter,
we will process the attached Summons and Complaint for service to
initiate a lawsuit against you" and with which were enclosed two
documents titled "Summons" and "Complaint Under Simplified Civil
Procedure" which designated you as a defendant in a simplified
civil action before a county court in Colorado.

What's This About?

The lawsuit alleges several legal violations, including but not
limited to: 1) delivering these documents by mail instead of by
personal service; 2) making false representations that the summons
or simplified complaint were to be used to initiate a civil action
against Plaintiff; 3) stating a "Balance" purported to be owed
included fees, charges, or expenses incidental to the principal
obligation not expressly authorized by the agreement creating the
debt or permitted by law; and 4) making the threat to "process for
service" which was not intended to be taken.  Plaintiff contends
these allegations, taken together, were oppressive, abusive,
unfair, and unconscionable, and in violation of Colorado law.

What Does the Settlement Provide?

The Settlement Agreement requires Defendants to establish a
settlement fund in the amount of $50,000 in settlement of the
claims of the class.  From this fund will be paid the costs of
notice to members of the class, the administration of the
settlement, and the fees and expenses of the named Plaintiff's
attorneys in the class action, to the extent allowed by the Court,
and the balance will be distributed to members of the class.

How Do You Ask For A Payment?

A detailed Notice and Claim Form package contains everything you
need. To get one, visit the settlement Web site,
http://www.GonzalesClassSettlement.com/or call 303-399-3066 x3.
To qualify for a payment, you must send in a Claim Form, the
ORIGINAL letter you received from Defendants, and the Summons and
Complaint that were enclosed with the letter.  Claim forms are due
by NOVEMBER 22, 2010.

What Are Your Other Options?

If you want to share in the Settlement, all you need to do is
obtain a Claim Form, as just explained, and return it according to
its directions.  If you don't want the Settlement benefits or
don't want to be legally bound by the Settlement, then you must
exclude yourself from the class by NOVEMBER 22, 2010.  If you
exclude yourself, you can't get any benefits from this Settlement,
but you could bring a separate case against the Defendants, if you
want to do so.  If you remain in the class, you may object to the
Settlement by NOVEMBER 22, 2010.  The detailed notice, which you
can obtain as indicated above, explains how to exclude yourself or
object.

A Settlement Hearing will be held at 8:30 a.m. on December 9,
2010, in Courtroom 3 of the District Court for the City & County
of Denver, Colorado located at 1437 Bannock St, Room 277, Denver,
CO 80202, pursuant to an Order of the Court dated SEPTEMBER 17,
2010.  The purpose of the Settlement Hearing will be to determine
whether the proposed settlement of this suit as set forth in a
Settlement Agreement dated SEPTEMBER 30, 2010, is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by the Court and a
final judgment entered thereon.  At the Settlement Hearing, the
Court will also consider the application of the attorneys for the
Plaintiff for allowances of their fees and expenses incurred
during this lawsuit.  The Settlement Hearing may be adjourned by
the Court from time to time by an announcement at the Settlement
Hearing or at any adjournments thereof without further notice.
You may ask to appear at the hearing, but you don't have to do so.
For more information, visit the settlement Web site,
http://www.GonzalesClassSettlement.com/, call 303-399-3066 x3, or
write to the attorneys involved in this case:

    Counsel for Plaintiff:

         Jonathan Hagn, Esq.
         802 E. 19th Ave.
         Denver, CO 80218

    Counsel for Standley and S&A:

         David C. Japha, Esq.
         950 S. Cherry St, Ste. 1000
         Denver, CO 80246

    Counsel for Regent:

         Brett C. Painter, Esq.
         1550 17th St, Ste. 500
         Denver, CO 80202


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Shareholders File Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Lauren B. Cooper, writing for Birmingham Business Journal, reports
a group of Regions Financial Corp. shareholders have filed a class
action lawsuit against the company, claiming violation of
securities laws.

A complaint was filed Wednesday, October 20, in the U.S. District
Court in Northern Alabama against the Birmingham-based financial
institution (NYSE: RF) by a welfare fund, the Local 703 I.B. of T.
Grocery and Food Employees Welfare Fund.

The complaint alleges Regions issued false and misleading
statements about its financial performance between February 2008
and January 2009, causing an inflated stock price during the
massive housing downturn that gripped the nation.

A spokeswoman with Regions said the lawsuit is without merit and
the financial institution plans to vigorously defend itself
against the claims.

Earlier this month, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered a Jefferson
County judge to dismiss a shareholder lawsuit against Regions,
related to its Morgan Keegan asset funds.


REPUBLIC NATIONAL CONVENTION: Class Suit Over Arrests Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Smith, writing for StarTribune.com, reports a class action
lawsuit involving 32 people arrested outside the Republican
National Convention in 2008 was dismissed Thursday by U.S.
District Judge Paul Magnuson at a hearing in St. Paul.

BACKGROUND: The lawsuit, filed in September 2009 against the city
of St. Paul and law enforcement officials, argued that civil
rights were violated when police rounded up people perceived to be
political protesters on Sept. 1, 2008, near downtown St. Paul.

DISMISSAL A 'SURPRISE': Bob Kolstad, one of the lawyers
representing the 32 plaintiffs, said he was surprised by
Magnuson's dismissal.

"I think it's an outrage," he said.  "I obviously think it's the
wrong decision.  And we will appeal the decision."

The 32 people, 13 of whom are Minnesotans, were among about 200
people arrested along Shepard Road on the convention's first and
most volatile day.  According to the suit, they were driven into a
riverfront area by police spraying chemical and nonlethal
ammunition and detained there for a time. Those who were arrested
were held for 72 hours.

CLAIMS: The plaintiffs claimed police violated their rights to
free speech and to be free from arrest without probable cause.


SEIKO CORP: Fax-Related Claims Due By Dec. 6, 2010
--------------------------------------------------

               UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
              NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A CASH PAYMENT OF UP TO $375 FROM A CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT.

The Court authorized this notice.  This is not a solicitation from
a lawyer, and you are not being sued.

   * A settlement has been proposed in a class action
     lawsuit concerning advertisements allegedly sent
     by Seiko Corporation of America by facsimile.
     If approved, the settlement will provide cash
     payments to people or entities who were sent
     such facsimiles by Seiko between December 18,
     2004 through September 21, 2010, inclusive.

   * You must send in a claim form, which is subject to
     verification, to apply for a cash payment.

   * Your legal rights are affected by the settlement
     whether you act or don't act.

Please read this entire notice.

YOUR OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT:

SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM By December 6, 2010 -- The only way to apply
for a cash payment.

EXCLUDE YOURSELF By December 6, 2010 -- Write to exclude yourself
from the settlement and give up your right to apply for a payment
in this lawsuit.

OBJECT By December 21, 2010 -- Write to the Court about why you
don't like the settlement.

GO TO A HEARING -- Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the
settlement.

DO NOTHING -- Do not apply for a payment and give up your rights.

These options -- and the deadlines to exercise them -- are
explained in this notice.

The Stipulation and Settlement Agreement and other documents and
information are also available at
https://faxtransmissionsettlement.com/More_Information/Court_Docum
ents.aspx or by calling the Claims Administrator at 1-877-465-4877
or by calling Class Counsel at (312) 780-7364.

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR SEIKO'S COUNSEL.  THEY
CANNOT PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION OR ADVICE.

                             *   *   *

The plaintiff class in Saf-T-Gard INternational, Inc., v. Seiko
Corporation of America, Case No. 09-C-0776 (N.D. Ill.) (Bucklo,
J.), is represented by:

         Keith Keogh, Esq.
         KEOGH LAW LTD.
         101 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 605
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 726-1092

and Seiko is represented by:

         Lisa M. Simonetti, Esq.
         STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
         2029 Century Park East, Suite 1600
         Los Angeles, CA 90067


SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Defend Suit in Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint filed against SUPERVALU, Inc., in the
U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin remains
stayed.

In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the
company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC,
Inmar, Inc., Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc., Carolina
Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services.

The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a
grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company who
allege on behalf of a purported class that the company and the
other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon
processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an
illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs
seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

The company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit, however all
proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result of the
criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 20, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 11, 2010.

SUPERVALU, Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a grocery
channel that conducts its retail operations under the banners,
such as Acme Markets, Albertsons, Bristol Farms, bigg's, Cub
Foods, Farm Fresh, Hornbacher's, Jewel-Osco, Lucky, Save-A-Lot,
Shaw's Supermarkets, Shop 'n Save, Shoppers Food & Pharmacy and
Star Markets.  Additionally, the company provides supply chain
services, primarily wholesale distribution, across the United
States retail grocery channel.  The Company operates in two
segments: Retail food and Supply chain services.


SUPERVALU INC: Defends Consolidated Suit in Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
SUPERVALU, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated suit pending
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against the
Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the Company and
C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. was a conspiracy to restrain trade and
allocate markets.

In the 2003 transaction, the company purchased certain assets of
the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's
bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain assets of the company to
C&S which were located in New England.  Since December 2008, three
other retailers have filed similar complaints in other
jurisdictions.

The cases have been consolidated and are proceeding in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and
continued through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation
agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities
that the company and C&S purchased from the other.

Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

On Sept. 14, 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission issued a
subpoena to the company requesting documents related to the C&S
transaction as part of the FTC's investigation into whether the
company and C&S engaged in unfair methods of competition.  The
company is cooperating with the FTC.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 20, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 11, 2010.

SUPERVALU, Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a grocery
channel that conducts its retail operations under the banners,
such as Acme Markets, Albertsons, Bristol Farms, bigg's, Cub
Foods, Farm Fresh, Hornbacher's, Jewel-Osco, Lucky, Save-A-Lot,
Shaw's Supermarkets, Shop 'n Save, Shoppers Food & Pharmacy and
Star Markets.  Additionally, the company provides supply chain
services, primarily wholesale distribution, across the United
States retail grocery channel.  The Company operates in two
segments: Retail food and Supply chain services.


THERMADYNE HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Mo. Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Thermadyne
Holdings is selling itself too cheaply to Irving Place Capital,
shareholders claim in a class action in St. Louis County Court.
The class claims company directors sold out for $15 a share though
the stock hit $15.19 the day before the deal was announced.

Named plaintiff Robert Israeli says the merger offer, announced on
Oct. 5, was far too cheap, given Thermadyne's tremendous growth.
Israeli says Thermadyne quadrupled its growth in the second
quarter of 2010 and is on pace for a record-breaking year.

"Amazingly, despite this growth, the $15.00 per share offer
actually represents a discount to Thermadyne's stock price high on
October 4, 2010 -- the day before the announcement -- of $15.19,"
the complaint states.  "Indeed, this scenario represents the rare
case where a company hits its 52-week high based on record
earnings, then agrees to sell itself at a discount the next day."

Mr. Israeli says Thermadyne's board breached its duty to
shareholders.

St. Louis-based Thermadyne is makes welding and cutting products.

The class wants the merger enjoined and Thermadyne's board ordered
to maximize shareholder value and to provide all materials to help
shareholders make informed decisions about whether to tender their
shares in any merger.

A copy of the Complaint in Israeli v. Thermadyne Holdings
Corporation, et al., Case No. 10CL-0004228 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St.
Louis Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/22/Thermadyne.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tim E. Dollar, Esq.
          DOLLAR, BURNS & BECKER, L.C.
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas, City MO 64105
          Telephone: 816-876-2600

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          David A. Knotts, Esq.
          Eun Jin Lee, Esq.
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-231-1058

               - and -

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER, LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-682-1818


UNION CARBIDE: La. Supreme Court Reduces Damage Awards
------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted certiorari in the case
Howard v. Union Carbide Corporation, No. 2009-C-2750, to determine
whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding
damages in a class action suit resulting from a chemical leak.
The Louisiana Supreme Court concluded that the district court
abused its discretion.

The district court awarded damages to 12 claimants, with general
damage awards ranging from $1,500 to $3,500.  Defendant filed a
motion for new trial, arguing the general damage awards were
excessive, considering the exposure and proof of damages.
Specifically, it noted none of the claimants testified they sought
medical attention, evacuated, or missed any work.  The district
court denied the motion for new trial.  Defendant appealed.  The
court of appeal affirmed the twelve damage awards at issue in a
split decision.  Two judges dissented in part, and would have
reduced the damage awards.

The Louisiana Supreme Court noted that the record reveals
claimants suffered relatively minor symptoms from their exposure,
such as watering eyes, nose or throat irritation, coughing, and
headaches. None of the claimants sought or required medical
attention as a result of the exposure.  They were not required to
evacuate from the area as a result of the chemical release, nor
did they miss any work or school.  Considering the minimal nature
of the claimant's injuries, the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded
that the district court's awards of $1,500 to $3,500 represent a
clear abuse of discretion.

The Louisiana Supreme Court amends the judgment of the court of
appeal to reflect these damage awards: Ella Mae Darrensbourg
($100), Colleen Lathers ($100), Tone Silas ($100), Cynthia
Johnson-Gordon ($100), June Gross ($150), Dorothy Richard ($150),
Lisa McKnight ($250), Martin Granier ($500), Lionel Harry ($500),
Anne Ockmond ($500), James McCormick ($500), and Franklin McGinnis
($500). In all other respects, the high court affirmed the
judgment, as amended.

A copy of the Louisiana Supreme Court's opinion is available at
http://is.gd/ghdS9from Leagle.com.


UNITED RENTALS: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the
ruling dismissing the matter First New York Securities, L.L.C., et
al. v. United Rentals, Inc., et al., according to the company's
Oct. 20, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Subsequent to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 announcement that
affiliates of Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., had notified the
company that they were not prepared to proceed with the purchase
of the company on the terms set forth in the merger agreement,
three putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

The plaintiff in each of the lawsuits sought to sue on behalf of a
purported class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's securities between Aug. 29, 2007 and Nov. 14, 2007.

The lawsuits named as defendants the company, its directors and
certain of its officers and alleged, among other things, that the
named plaintiff and members of the purported class suffered
damages when they purchased or otherwise acquired securities
issued by the company, as a result of false and misleading
statements and/or material omissions relating to the contemplated
merger with affiliates of Cerberus, contained in:

     (i) proxy materials that the Company disseminated and/or
         filed with the SEC in anticipation of the Oct. 19, 2007
         special meeting of stockholders; and/or

    (ii) certain of the Company's filings with the SEC and other
         public statements.

On the basis of those allegations, plaintiff in each action
asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 thereunder; and against the individual
defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The complaints in these actions sought unspecified compensatory
damages, costs, expenses and fees.

The Court subsequently entered an order consolidating the three
actions and appointed First New York Securities, L.L.C. and Omni
Partners LLP as lead plaintiffs for the purported class.  The
actions are now consolidated under the caption First New York
Securities, L.L.C., et al. v. United Rentals, Inc., et al.

On March 24, 2008, pursuant to a schedule approved by the Court,
lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which,
among other things:

     (i) amended the purported class period to include
         purchasers of our securities from July 23, 2007 to
         Nov. 14, 2007;

    (ii) dropped as defendants one of our officers and all but
         one of the Company's directors;

   (iii) named as additional defendants Cerberus, certain of its
         affiliates, its chief executive officer and one of its
         managing directors; and

    (iv) withdrew the previously asserted claim under
         Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
         thereunder.

On March 10, 2009, the Court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice, and
granted lead plaintiffs leave to move to reopen the case within 30
days and to file a proposed amended complaint.

On April 9, 2009, lead plaintiffs moved to reopen the case and for
leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint.  With the
court's permission, lead plaintiffs filed their second
consolidated amended complaint on April 16, 2009.

The second consolidated amended complaint continued to assert
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 thereunder and, among other things:

     (i) amended the purported class period to include
         purchasers of our publicly traded securities from
         Aug. 30, 2007 to Nov. 14, 2007, and

    (ii) dropped as defendants one of the company's directors
         and the Cerberus related defendants.

On Aug. 24, 2009, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the second consolidated amended complaint with prejudice and
subsequently entered judgment in favor of defendants.

On Sept. 22, 2009, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from
the judgment dismissing the consolidated actions.

The appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut's judgment granting defendants' motion to dismiss is
now fully briefed and awaiting oral argument.

on Aug. 30, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed the judgment of the District Court granting defendants'
motion to dismiss.

On Sept. 13, 2010, plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en
banc or panel rehearing.

Greenwich, Connecticut-based United Rentals, Inc. --
http://www.unitedrentals.com/-- is the largest equipment rental
company in the world, with an integrated network of 568 rental
locations in 48 states, 10 Canadian provinces and Mexico.  The
company's 8,000 employees serve construction and industrial
customers, utilities, municipalities, homeowners and others.


VICTORY LAND: Recalls 34,000 3-in-1 Drop-Side Cribs
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Victory Land Group Inc., of Bartlett, Ill., announced a voluntary
recall of about 34,000 Heritage Collection 3-in-1 drop-side cribs.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The crib's drop-side rail can malfunction, detach or otherwise
fail, causing part of the drop-side to detach from the crib. When
the drop-side rail partially detaches, it creates a space between
the drop side and the crib mattress.  An infant or toddler's body
can become entrapped in the space, which can lead to strangulation
and/or suffocation.  A child can also fall out of the crib. Drop-
side incidents can also occur due to age-related wear and tear.

CPSC and Victory Land Group have received 17 reports of incidents
involving drop-side rail detachments from the cribs.  Three
infants received bruises and abrasions to the neck, back and legs
after becoming entrapped when the drop-side detached.

This recall involves Heritage Collection 3-in-1 drop-side cribs
with Kmart model numbers 07-1248 and 07-1252.  They were sold in
natural and white colors.  A label with Kmart and the model number
can be found on the inner side of the crib's headboard or
footboard on the bottom rail.  The 3-in-1 infant cribs can also be
converted into a toddler bed and a double bed.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11020.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold
through Kmart stores nationwide from February 2007 through October
2008 for about $130.

Consumers should immediately stop using the cribs and contact the
Victory Land Group for a free repair kit that will immobilize the
drop-side rail.  In the meantime, parents are urged to find an
alternate, safe sleeping environment for the child, such as a
bassinet, play yard or toddler bed depending on the child's age.
For additional information, contact Victory Land Group at (866)
499-2099 between 9:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.victorylandgroup.com/


VORTEX DEBT: Sued for Misrepresenting Debt Reduction Services
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Florida-based
Vortex Debt Group preys on distressed borrowers by offering but
failing to provide "debt reduction assistance," a class action
claims in Federal Court.  Vortex pushes its services on the radio,
TV and Internet and charges up-front and monthly fees with
unconscionable terms and misrepresentations, the class claims.

Named plaintiff Terry Rudd says a Vortex representative told him
the company could resolve his debts within 48 months and told Rudd
to use a Debt Negotiation Agreement on Vortex's website.

"The Vortex representative then analyzed the agreement for
plaintiff and pretended to explain the entire agreement," the
complaint states.  "The Vortex representative hid from plaintiff
the fact that the agreement purported to contain a waiver of
plaintiff's right to sue Vortex, an arbitration provision, a
waiver of plaintiff's right to participate in a class action
lawsuit against Vortex, a waiver of plaintiff's right to
participate in a class action arbitration against Vortex, a waiver
of plaintiff's right to a trial by jury, and a waiver of
plaintiff's right to pursue any action against Vortex whatsoever
unless plaintiff pursued the action in Florida."

Mr. Rudd also claims Vortex practices law without a license.  He
says the agreement allows Vortex to collect thousands of dollars
in monthly fees, including a "debt settlement fee" whether Vortex
performs any debt reduction services or not.

The class consists of all Missourians who have done business with
Vortex within the past 2 years.  It seeks actual damages and $7
million in punitive damages for violations of Missouri's
Merchandising Practices Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Rudd v. Vortex Debt Group, Inc., Case
No. 10-cv-01986 (E.D. Mo.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/22/Vortex.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James W. Eason, Esq.
          Peter R. Van Leunen, Esq.
          EASON & VAN LEUNEN, LLC
          5838 Macklind Avenue
          St. Louis, MO 63109
          Telephone: (314) 481-4646


WELLS FARGO: Accused of Feigning Compliance with HAMP Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Lucia and Jeffrey Lucia, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. d/b/a Wells Fargo
Home Mortgage, et al., Case No. 10-cv-04749 (N.D. Calif.
October 20, 2010), says Wells Fargo Bank received $25 billion in
TARP funds in 2008 but failed to modify eligible homeowners'
mortgages under the Home Affordable Modification Program of the
U.S. Government.  The plaintiffs says that Wells Fargo "falsely
informed (them) time and again that their documents had not been
received, and foreclosed on their home without notice after they
complied with their duties as HAMP-eligible borrowers."

The plaintiffs say that Wells Fargo has intentionally set up its
loan modification program to fail, and that its failure to comply
with its obligations has resulted in serious consequences for its
borrowers.

The Plaintiffs seek, among others, an order from the court
rescinding the foreclosure of their property.

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

          Brian R. Strange, Esq.
          Gretchen Carpenter, Esq.
          STRANGE & CARPENTER
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-5055
          E-mail: lacounsel@earthlink.net
                  gcarpenter@strangeandcarpenter.com


ZYNGA GAME: Faces Second Suit for Invasion of Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------
Shelley Albini, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-04732
(N.D. Calif. October 19, 2010), asserts claims against the San
Francisco, Calif.-based social game developer and Facebook, Inc.,
the world's largest social networking Web site, for breach of
contract, actual and constructive fraud, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the
Stored Communications Act, the Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200,
and California's Computer Crime law.  Ms. Albini says defendants
intentionally divulged Facebook users' personally-identifiable
data information relating to their store electronic communications
to third parties, without their consent.

Ms. Albini is a resident of New Haven County, Connecticut, and a
registered user of Facebook's services.  During the relevant
period, she used a gaming appliction or "app", created by Zynga
called "Farmville" on Facebook.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn Khorrami, Esq.
          Robert J. Drexler, Jr., Esq.
          Launa Adolph, Esq.
          KHORRAMI POLLARD & ABIR LLP
          444 S. Flower Street, 33rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 596-6000
          E-mail: skhorrami@kpalawyers.com
                  rdrexler@kpalawyers.com
                  ladolph@kpalawyers.com

               - and -

          Harris L. Pogust, Esq.
          Bharati O. Sharma, Esq.
          POGUST, BRASLOW & MILROOD, LLC
          Eight Tower Bridge, Suite 1520
          161 Washington Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 941-4204
          E-mail: hpogust@pbmattorneys.com
                  bsharma@pbmattorneys.com


* NSW Plaintiff-Friendly Under Proposed Class Action Reforms
------------------------------------------------------------
Clayton UTZ reports proposed changes to NSW's class actions laws
could see it leap-frog the Federal and Victorian court systems to
become the most popular forum for class actions in Australia.

The draft Civil Procedure Amendment (Supreme Court Representative
Proceedings) Bill 2010 is based on Part IVA of the Federal Court
of Australia Act 1976 but it is not exactly the same.  It is those
differences which could make NSW even more plaintiff-friendly than
the Federal Court.

It would allow class actions to be brought where claims are based
only in negligence and for breaches of NSW statute, and will not
require a federal cause of action.  These claims not only are
those in respect of a cause of action arising on or after the
commencement of this section, but also in respect of historical
causes of actions "with the leave of the Court".

Comment is due by November 10, 2010.

The three significant aspects of the proposed class action reforms

The three significant differences are:

    * class actions may be brought on behalf of a defined, limited
group of identified individuals, not only an open, generally-
specified class;

    * class actions may be taken against several defendants --
even if not all group members have a claim against all the
defendants; and

    * the Supreme Court can distribute the undistributed part of a
fund of damages to charities or public interest beneficiaries.

Why the proposals should concern all businesses

There are two main problems with these proposals:

First, they seem to give the Court largely unfettered powers to
order the establishment of a fund of money to be distributed to
group members and also to establish a scheme for money remaining
in the fund (or any part of it), that cannot practicably be
distributed to group members, to be applied cy-pres, which means
"As near as (possible)".  In effect, this could spur the growth of
class actions, if the US is any guide.  There, the growth of
"coupon litigation" (class actions for claims involving very small
amounts, where it is difficult to identify members of the class,
and the administrative costs of any settlement are prohibitive)
has led to minimal returns for class members, but significant
returns to plaintiff lawyers.

Secondly, the proposals would allow class actions against several
defendants -- even if not all group members have a claim against
all the defendants.  A party brought into a class action as a
respondent, but in respect of a different claim by different group
members, will incur costs associated and generated by its mere
(long-term) presence in the class actions, but is less likely to
have the case against it determined in a speedy, just and
efficient manner.  In short, it is more likely that you will be
joined to a class action, and could pay more to defend yourself.

Litigation funding reforms -- still to be considered

The NSW Government is also considering making what it calls "minor
changes" to deal with the growth of the litigation funding
industry.  These could include ensuring:

    * legal practitioners are aware that their responsibility is
to the plaintiff and not to the litigation funder;

    * disclosure of litigation funding arrangements to the court;
and

    * giving the court the power to issue cost orders to relevant
third parties.

No details of these have been released, and it is unclear if there
will be a consultation process either.


* U.S. Securities Class Action Filings Increasing, Report Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Hemenway, writing for Property and Casualty Insurance News,
reports a recent publication from risk management and insurance
intermediary Willis Group Holdings said securities class action
filings in the United States between 2007 and 2009 were about 60%
higher than in 2006.

Willis' "Boardroom Guide" said many of the claims are still
pending, but "there is good reason to assume that the average
settlement amount of these claims is also set to be higher than in
previous years" considering the size of the financial institutions
and companies being sued.

The report advised directors and officers to be clear about the
coverage they have for investigations due to an increased appetite
for improved enforcement and cooperation between regulators.

"The financial crisis has resulted in heightened regulation,
leaving directors more exposed than ever to the risk of being sued
for accounting irregularities, issues arising from insolvency
proceedings, and breaches of health and safety legislation,
environmental laws, and competition regulations," said Mark
Wakefield, executive director of FINEX Global, the executive risk
and professional liability business of Willis.

"Today, more than ever, [directors and officers] are vulnerable to
claims that may be brought in any jurisdiction in which their
business operates," he added.

                             *********

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  * * *