CAR_Public/101028.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, October 28, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 213

                             Headlines

AMERICA SERVICE: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Pact
APOLLO GROUP: Prepares Certiorari to Appeal Reversal Ruling
APOLLO GROUP: Has Yet to Respond to Complaints in Arizona
APOLLO GROUP: Wants Union's Second Amended Complaint Dismissed
APOLLO GROUP: Court Dismiss Suit by Former Phoenix U Students

APOLLO GROUP: Claim Forms in "Sabol" Action Due December 9
APOLLO GROUP: Wants to Appeal Certification Ruling in "Adoma"
APOLLO GROUP: California State Court Dismisses "Juric" Suit
APOLLO GROUP: Chicago Court Dismisses "Tranchita" Action
AT&T INC: Ex-Law Partners Agree to Split Big Sky Settlement Fee

BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Wage Class Suit
CALIFORNIA: Suit Over Red Light Camera Programs to Be Heard
CASH AMERICA: Appeal Certification Ruling with High Court
CASH AMERICA: Continues to Defend "Alfeche" Suit in Pennsylvania
CASH AMERICA: No Ruling Yet on Request to Enforce Arbitration

CONSECO LIFE: Breach of Contract Suit Gets Class Action Status
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Wage Violations
DYNAVOX INC: Faces Federal Securities Class Action Lawsuit
EASYHOME LTD: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Following Fraud Probe
EBAY INC: Plaintiffs Appeal on Summary Judgment Ruling Pending

ESPN ZONE: Laid-Off Workers File Class Action Lawsuit
FREEPORT INDUSTRIAL: May Face Class Lawsuit in Grand Bahama
FRONTLINE COMMS: Sued for Violations of State Wage and Hour Laws
GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Suit for Violating Privacy Rights
GREAT ATLANTIC: Wants Class in "LaMarca" Suit Decertified

META FINANCIAL: Shuman Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Indirect Purchaser Action Dismissed by Court
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Antitrust Class-Action Lawsuit
NAVY FEDERAL: Settles Consumer Class-Action Lawsuit
NIGERIA: Faces Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit

SIGMA ALDRICH: Says Reserves and Insurance Sufficient for Claims
SONDE RESOURCES: Inks MOU for Settlement of Class Action Suit
TRAVELERS COS: Wants Remanded Claims in Antitrust Suit Dismissed
UNITED CONTINENTAL: Settles Consolidated Merger-Related Suit
UNITED CONTINENTAL: United Air Defends ADA Violations Suit

VILLAGE DISCOUNT: Sued for Non-Payment of Minimum Wage Rate
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: PwC Ordered to Provide Documents
WYNN RESORTS: Smoking Lawsuit Can Seek Class Action Status

                             *********

AMERICA SERVICE: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee gave
its final approval to the settlement resolving a suit against
America Service Group Inc., according to the company's Oct 21,
2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On April 6, 2006, plaintiffs filed the first of four similar
securities class action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee against the company and the
company's Chief Executive Officer, at that time, and Chief
Financial Officer.

Plaintiffs' allegations in these class action lawsuits were
substantially identical and generally alleged on behalf of a
putative class of individuals who purchased the company's common
stock between Sept. 24, 2003 and March 16, 2006 that, prior to the
company's announcement of the Audit Committee investigation, the
company and/or the company's Chief Executive Officer, at that
time, and Chief Financial Officer violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5 by making false and misleading statements, or concealing
information about the company's business, forecasts and financial
performance.

The complaints sought certification as a class action, unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.
By order dated Au. 3, 2006, the district court consolidated the
lawsuits into one consolidated action and on Oct. 31, 2006,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding Secure Pharmacy Plus,
LLC, Enoch E. Hartman III and Grant J. Bryson as defendants.

Enoch E. Hartman III is a former employee of the company and SPP
and Grant J. Bryson is a former employee of SPP.

The amended complaint also generally alleged that defendants made
false and misleading statements concerning the company's business
which caused the company's securities to trade at inflated prices
during the class period.  Plaintiff sought an unspecified amount
of damages in the form of (i) restitution; (ii) compensatory
damages, including interest; and (iii) reasonable costs and
expenses.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on Jan. 19,
2007, and the parties completed the briefs on the motion in May
2007.

On March 31, 2009, the Court ruled on the defendants' motion to
dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part.

While the Court's ruling dismissed significant portions of
plaintiffs' amended complaint and, as a result, narrowed the scope
of plaintiffs' claims, none of the defendants were dismissed from
the case and several of plaintiffs' claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5 remained.  The parties were not in agreement as to the scope
of the Court's order and defendants filed a motion to confirm
which claims the Court dismissed in its March 31, 2009 ruling.

The Court granted defendants' motion to confirm the scope of the
dismissal order on July 20, 2009, ruling that certain of
Plaintiff's claims had been in fact dismissed.  The Court also
confirmed, however, that certain other claims remained viable.

On July 22, 2009, the Court administratively closed the
shareholder litigation case, while the parties pursued mediation
of this matter.

On Feb. 19, 2010, the parties agreed to the terms of a mediator's
proposal to settle all of the claims in this lawsuit.  The
settlement, which is subject to final documentation as well as
approval by the Court, provides for payment by the company of
$10.5 million and issuance by the company of 300,000 shares of
common stock and would lead to a dismissal with prejudice of all
claims against all defendants in the litigation.

The preliminary total value of the settlement, based upon the
company's closing share price for its common stock of $15.42 per
share on Feb. 19, 2010, was approximately $15.1 million.  During
the second quarter of 2010, the $10.5 million cash component of
the settlement was paid by the company to the escrow agent
appointed by the Court.

As such, at June 30, 2010 the company has a remaining reserve of
$4.6 million, which represents the preliminary value of the stock
component of the settlement and was included in accrued expenses
in the company's condensed consolidated balance sheet as of
June 30, 2010.  The final value of the stock component of the
settlement will be determined based upon the company's closing
share price at the time of final approval of the settlement by the
Court.  The settlement provides for price protection to the
plaintiffs in the event the closing share price is below $14.65
per share at the time of final approval of the settlement by the
Court.  In such event, the company would pay in cash the
difference between the share value at the time of final approval
and $14.65 per share.

In September 2009, the company and its primary directors and
officers liability carrier reached an agreement under which the
company and the primary D&O carrier mutually released each other
from future claims related to this matter and the primary D&O
carrier remitted insurance proceeds to the company totaling $8.0
million, less approximately $0.4 million in legal fees paid by the
primary D&O carrier as of the settlement date.

In addition to its primary D&O carrier, with which the company has
settled all claims, the company also maintains D&O insurance with
an excess D&O carrier that provides for additional insurance
coverage of up to $5.0 million for losses in excess of $10.0
million.  The excess D&O carrier has denied coverage of this
matter.  After failing to reach agreement with the excess D&O
carrier concerning the amount of their contribution to the
settlement, the company filed suit against the excess D&O carrier
in the second quarter of 2010.

On Oct. 15, 2010 the Court signed a Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal with Prejudice confirming and making effective the
settlement agreement entered into, and previously disclosed, by
the company.

As part of that settlement agreement, the company is issuing
300,000 shares of its common capital stock to the plaintiff class.
The shares are valued at $15.12 per share for purposes of the
settlement.  The issuance is exempt from registration under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, pursuant to Section 3(a)(10)
based on court approval of the final settlement agreement.

America Service Group Inc. -- http://www.asgr.com/-- based in
Brentwood, Tennessee, provides correctional healthcare services in
the United States.  America Service Group Inc., through its
subsidiaries, provides a wide range of healthcare programs to
government agencies for the medical care of inmates.


APOLLO GROUP: Prepares Certiorari to Appeal Reversal Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc., is preparing a petition for certiorari to the
U.S. Supreme Court, which is due on or before Nov. 15, 2010.  The
company intends to appeal the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversing a previous ruling granting judgment in favor of
Apollo, according to the company's Oct 21, 2010, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Aug. 31, 2010.

In October 2004, three class action complaints were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.  The District
Court consolidated the three pending class action complaints under
the caption In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT and a consolidated class action complaint
was filed on May 16, 2005 by the lead plaintiff.

The consolidated complaint named the company, Todd S. Nelson,
Kenda B. Gonzales and Daniel E. Bachus as defendants.  On March 1,
2007, by stipulation and order of the Court, Daniel E. Bachus was
dismissed as a defendant from the case.

Lead plaintiff represents a class of our shareholders who acquired
their shares between Feb. 27, 2004 and Sept. 14, 2004.  The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
the Act by us for defendants' allegedly material false and
misleading statements in connection with our failure to publicly
disclose the contents of a preliminary U.S. Department of
Education program review report.

The case proceeded to trial on Nov. 14, 2007.  On Jan. 16, 2008,
the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs awarding
damages of up to $5.55 for each share of common stock in the class
suit, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.  The class
shares are those purchased after Feb. 27, 2004 and still owned on
Sept. 14, 2004.

The judgment was entered on Jan. 30, 2008, subject to an automatic
stay until Feb. 13, 2008.  On Feb. 13, 2008, the District Court
granted the company's motion to stay execution of the judgment
pending resolution of the motions for post-trial relief, which
were also filed on Feb. 13, 2008, provided that the company post a
bond in the amount of $95.0 million.

On Feb. 19, 2008, the company posted the $95.0 million bond with
the District Court.  Oral arguments on the company's post-trial
motions occurred on Aug. 4, 2008, during which the District Court
vacated the earlier judgment based on the jury verdict and entered
judgment in favor of Apollo and the other defendants.

The $95.0 million bond posted in February was subsequently
released on Aug. 11, 2008.

Plaintiffs' lawyers filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals on Aug. 29, 2008.  A hearing before a
panel of the Court of Appeals took place on March 3, 2010.  On
June 23, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's
ruling in the company's favor and ordered the District Court to
enter judgment against the company in accordance with the jury
verdict.

On July 21, 2010, the company filed a petition for a rehearing en
banc by the Ninth Circuit, which was denied on Aug. 17, 2010.  On
Aug. 23, 2010, the company filed a motion to stay the mandate
while it seeks review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The company's motion to stay the mandate was granted on Aug. 24,
2010 and the company is preparing a petition for certiorari to the
U.S. Supreme Court.  The company's petition for certiorari is due
on or before Nov. 15, 2010.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu/-- is a private
education provider and has been in the education business for more
than 35 years.  The company offers innovative and distinctive
educational programs and services both online and on-campus at the
high school, undergraduate, master's and doctoral levels through
its subsidiaries: University of Phoenix, Apollo Global, Institute
for Professional Development, College for Financial Planning and
Meritus University.  The company's programs and services are
provided in 40 states and the District of Columbia; Puerto Rico;
Canada; Latin America; and Europe, as well as online throughout
the world.


APOLLO GROUP: Has Yet to Respond to Complaints in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc., has yet to respond to securities class action
complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, according to the company's Oct 21, 2010, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Aug. 31, 2010.

On Aug. 16, 2010, a securities class action complaint was filed by
Douglas N. Gaer naming the company, John G. Sperling, Gregory W.
Cappelli, Charles B. Edelstein, Joseph L. D'Amico, Brian L. Swartz
and Gregory J. Iverson as defendants for allegedly making false
and misleading statements regarding the company's business
practices and prospects for growth.  That complaint asserts a
putative class period stemming from Dec. 7, 2009 to Aug. 3, 2010.

A substantially similar complaint was also filed in the same court
by John T. Fitch on Sept. 23, 2010 making similar allegations
against the same defendants for the same purported class period.

Finally, on Oct. 4, 2010, another purported securities class
action complaint was filed in the same court by Robert Roth
against the same defendants as well as Brian Mueller, Terri C.
Bishop and Peter V. Sperling based upon the same general set of
allegations, but with a defined class period of Feb. 12, 2007 to
Aug. 3, 2010.

The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

On Oct. 15, 2010, three additional parties filed motions to
consolidate the related actions and be appointed the lead
plaintiff.  Two of the proposed lead plaintiffs identify
themselves as the "Apollo Institutional Investors Group" and the
first consists of the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund, the
Mineworkers' Pension Scheme, and Amalgamated Bank.  The second
"Apollo Institutional Investors Group" consists of IBEW Local 640
and Arizona Chapter NECA Pension Trust Fund and the City of
Birmingham Retirement and Relief System.  The third proposed lead
plaintiff is the Puerto Rico Government Employees and Judiciary
Retirement System Administration.

The company has not yet responded to these complaints and
anticipate that pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, the Court will appoint a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel pursuant to the provisions of that law, and
eventually a consolidated amended complaint will be filed.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu/-- is a private
education provider and has been in the education business for more
than 35 years.  The company offers innovative and distinctive
educational programs and services both online and on-campus at the
high school, undergraduate, master's and doctoral levels through
its subsidiaries: University of Phoenix, Apollo Global, Institute
for Professional Development, College for Financial Planning and
Meritus University.  The company's programs and services are
provided in 40 states and the District of Columbia; Puerto Rico;
Canada; Latin America; and Europe, as well as online throughout
the world.


APOLLO GROUP: Wants Union's Second Amended Complaint Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a Second Amended Complaint
by the Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare Funds remain
pending, according to the company's Oct 21, 2010, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Aug. 31, 2010.

On Nov. 2, 2006, the Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare Funds
filed a class action complaint purporting to represent a class of
shareholders who purchased company stock between Nov. 28, 2001 and
Oct. 18, 2006.  The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona, is entitled Teamsters Local 617
Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc. et al., Case Number
06-cv-02674-RCB, and alleges that the company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by purportedly making misrepresentations
concerning our stock option granting policies and practices and
related accounting.

The defendants are Apollo Group, Inc., J. Jorge Klor de Alva,
Daniel E. Bachus, John M. Blair, Dino J. DeConcini, Kenda B.
Gonzales, Hedy F. Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Todd S. Nelson, Laura
Palmer Noone, John R. Norton III, John G. Sperling and Peter V.
Sperling. Plaintiff seeks unstated compensatory damages and other
relief.

On Jan. 3, 2007, other shareholders, through their separate
attorneys, filed motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff and
approval of their designated counsel as lead counsel to pursue
this action.  On Sept. 11, 2007, the Court appointed The Pension
Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff and approved
lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel.
Lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Nov. 23, 2007,
asserting the same legal claims as the original complaint and
adding claims for violations of Section 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and allegations of breach of fiduciary duties
and civil conspiracy.

On Jan. 22, 2008, all defendants filed motions to dismiss.  On
March 31, 2009, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice as to
Daniel Bachus, Hedy Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Dino J. DeConcini,
and Laura Palmer Noone.  The Court also dismissed the case as to
John Sperling and Peter Sperling, but granted plaintiffs leave to
file an amended complaint against them.  Finally, the Court
dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims concerning misconduct before
November 2001 and all of the state law claims for conspiracy and
breach of fiduciary duty.

On April 30, 2009, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint, which alleges similar claims for alleged securities
fraud against the same defendants.

On June 15, 2009, all defendants filed another motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint.  On Feb. 22, 2010, the Court
partially granted the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, but
withheld a final determination on the individual defendants
pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint.

Discovery in this case has not yet begun.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu/-- is a private
education provider and has been in the education business for more
than 35 years.  The company offers innovative and distinctive
educational programs and services both online and on-campus at the
high school, undergraduate, master's and doctoral levels through
its subsidiaries: University of Phoenix, Apollo Global, Institute
for Professional Development, College for Financial Planning and
Meritus University.  The company's programs and services are
provided in 40 states and the District of Columbia; Puerto Rico;
Canada; Latin America; and Europe, as well as online throughout
the world.


APOLLO GROUP: Court Dismiss Suit by Former Phoenix U Students
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas has
dismissed a complaint against Apollo Group, Inc., filed by three
former University of Phoenix students, according to the company's
Oct 21, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2010.

The suit was filed on Dec. 9, 2008, against the company and
University of Phoenix.

The complaint alleges that with regard to students who dropped
from their courses shortly after enrolling, University of Phoenix
improperly returned the entire amount of the students' undisbursed
federal loan funds to the lender.  The students purport to be
bringing the complaint on behalf of themselves and a proposed
class of similarly situated student loan borrowers.

On Jan. 21, 2009, the plaintiffs voluntarily filed a dismissal
"without prejudice to re-filing."  The plaintiffs then filed a
similar complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Feb. 5,
2009.

The company filed an answer denying all of the asserted claims on
March 30, 2009.  The plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification and an amended complaint on July 14, 2009.

On March 22, 2010, the Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.  The Court's action encompasses a denial to certify
the class action for all purported nationwide classes and
California sub-classes. The plaintiffs subsequently agreed to
dismiss their allegations and settle the case for an immaterial
amount.

On Aug. 31, 2010, the Court entered the order dismissing the
lawsuit with prejudice.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu/-- is a private
education provider and has been in the education business for more
than 35 years.  The company offers innovative and distinctive
educational programs and services both online and on-campus at the
high school, undergraduate, master's and doctoral levels through
its subsidiaries: University of Phoenix, Apollo Global, Institute
for Professional Development, College for Financial Planning and
Meritus University.  The company's programs and services are
provided in 40 states and the District of Columbia; Puerto Rico;
Canada; Latin America; and Europe, as well as online throughout
the world.


APOLLO GROUP: Claim Forms in "Sabol" Action Due December 9
----------------------------------------------------------
The deadline for prospective class members in the Sabol Action to
submit a claim form and "opt in" is Dec. 9, 2010, according to the
company's Oct 21, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2010.

During fiscal year 2009 and 2010, lawsuits, each styled as a class
action, were commenced by various former and current employees
against Apollo and/or University of Phoenix alleging wage and hour
claims for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime and certain
other violations.

The Sabol action was filed on July 31, 2009, by several former
employees in Federal District Court in Philadelphia.  The company
filed an answer denying the asserted claim on Sept. 29, 2009.

During the course of the action, all but one of the former
employees voluntarily opted out of the lawsuit.

On Jan. 24, 2010, the company filed a motion for partial summary
judgment with respect to plaintiff's claim that the "Academic
Counselor" position is incorrectly classified as exempt.  On Feb.
9, 2010, plaintiff filed a Rule 56(f) motion seeking leave to
conduct additional discovery before response to our motion for
partial summary judgment. On March 3, 2010, the Court granted
plaintiff leave to conduct additional discovery on issues related
to the motion for partial summary judgment until April 5, 2010.
The Court also ordered plaintiff to file his response to the
motion for summary judgment on or before April 20, 2010. On
February 15, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification and we filed our opposition on March 5, 2010.

On April 19, 2010, the parties agreed to dismiss with prejudice
their claims regarding employment as an Academic Counselor and to
withdraw their pending motion for conditional certification to the
extent it seeks to certify a class of Academic Counselors.  On May
12, 2010, the Court granted plaintiff's motion to conditionally
certify a collective action to include current and former
admissions personnel at all of University of Phoenix's nationwide
locations.  Although the potential class is significant, the
extent to which prospective class members will choose to "opt in"
to participate in the lawsuit is unknown.

The deadline for prospective class members to submit a claim form
and "opt in" is Dec. 9, 2010.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu/-- is a private
education provider and has been in the education business for more
than 35 years.  The company offers innovative and distinctive
educational programs and services both online and on-campus at the
high school, undergraduate, master's and doctoral levels through
its subsidiaries: University of Phoenix, Apollo Global, Institute
for Professional Development, College for Financial Planning and
Meritus University.  The company's programs and services are
provided in 40 states and the District of Columbia; Puerto Rico;
Canada; Latin America; and Europe, as well as online throughout
the world.


APOLLO GROUP: Wants to Appeal Certification Ruling in "Adoma"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc., has filed a petition for permission to appeal
the class certification order granted by the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California, according to the company's
Oct 21, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2010.

During fiscal year 2009 and 2010, lawsuits, each styled as a class
action, were commenced by various former and current employees
against Apollo and/or University of Phoenix alleging wage and hour
claims for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime and certain
other violations.

An action was filed Jan. 8, 2010 by Diane Adoma in U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California.  On March 5, 2010,
the company filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to
stay or transfer, the case based on the previously filed Sabol and
Juric actions.

On May 3, 2010, the Court denied the motion to dismiss and/or
transfer.  On April 12, 2010, plaintiff filed her motion for
conditional collective action certification.

The Court denied class certification under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and transferred these claims to the District Court
in Pennsylvania.

On Aug. 31, 2010, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for class
action certification of the California claims.  On Sept. 14, 2010,
the company filed a petition for permission to appeal the class
certification order with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based
on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of loss for this action and, accordingly, we have
not accrued any liability associated with this action.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu/-- is a private
education provider and has been in the education business for more
than 35 years.  The company offers innovative and distinctive
educational programs and services both online and on-campus at the
high school, undergraduate, master's and doctoral levels through
its subsidiaries: University of Phoenix, Apollo Global, Institute
for Professional Development, College for Financial Planning and
Meritus University.  The company's programs and services are
provided in 40 states and the District of Columbia; Puerto Rico;
Canada; Latin America; and Europe, as well as online throughout
the world.


APOLLO GROUP: California State Court Dismisses "Juric" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The California State Court in Los Angeles has entered an order
dismissing a lawsuit by Dejan Juric against Apollo Group, Inc.,
after the parties agreed to settle the case, according to the
company's Oct 21, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2010.

During fiscal year 2009 and 2010, lawsuits, each styled as a class
action, were commenced by various former and current employees
against Apollo and/or University of Phoenix alleging wage and hour
claims for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime and certain
other violations.

The action was filed on April 3, 2009.

The company filed an answer denying all of the asserted claims on
May 4, 2009 and then removed the case to the Federal District
Court in Los Angeles.  On Dec. 30, 2009, plaintiff filed an
amended complaint dismissing the California class allegations and
inserting nation-wide class allegations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

On Feb. 16, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative to stay or transfer, the case based on the previously
filed Sabol action.

On June 6, 2010, the parties agreed to settle the case for an
immaterial amount.  On June 21, 2010, the Court entered the order
dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu/-- is a private
education provider and has been in the education business for more
than 35 years.  The company offers innovative and distinctive
educational programs and services both online and on-campus at the
high school, undergraduate, master's and doctoral levels through
its subsidiaries: University of Phoenix, Apollo Global, Institute
for Professional Development, College for Financial Planning and
Meritus University.  The company's programs and services are
provided in 40 states and the District of Columbia; Puerto Rico;
Canada; Latin America; and Europe, as well as online throughout
the world.


APOLLO GROUP: Chicago Court Dismisses "Tranchita" Action
--------------------------------------------------------
A Federal District Court in Chicago has entered an order
dismissing the Tranchita Action against Apollo Group, Inc.,
according to the company's Oct 21, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Aug. 31, 2010.

During fiscal year 2009 and 2010, lawsuits, each styled as a class
action, were commenced by various former and current employees
against Apollo and/or University of Phoenix alleging wage and hour
claims for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime and certain
other violations.

The Tranchita Action was filed Aug. 10, 2009, by several former
employees in Federal District Court in Chicago.

On Sept. 2, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative to stay or transfer, the case based on the previously
filed Sabol action.

The plaintiffs subsequently agreed to dismiss their class
allegations and settle the case for an immaterial amount.

On May 13, 2010, the Court entered the order dismissing the
lawsuit with prejudice.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu/-- is a private
education provider and has been in the education business for more
than 35 years.  The company offers innovative and distinctive
educational programs and services both online and on-campus at the
high school, undergraduate, master's and doctoral levels through
its subsidiaries: University of Phoenix, Apollo Global, Institute
for Professional Development, College for Financial Planning and
Meritus University.  The company's programs and services are
provided in 40 states and the District of Columbia; Puerto Rico;
Canada; Latin America; and Europe, as well as online throughout
the world.


AT&T INC: Ex-Law Partners Agree to Split Big Sky Settlement Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison/St. Clair Record, reports
attorneys Glenn Bradford and John Barberis have agreed to divvy up
a more than $500,000 fee Mr. Bradford won when a long-standing
class action settled earlier this year.  But, a lawsuit that arose
from the end of their partnership remains active.

Madison County Circuit Judge Dennis Ruth signed an order Oct. 18
denying a move by Mr. Bradford that would have put the $559,333.33
in the hands of the Madison County Circuit Clerk's office until
the suit he filed against Mr. Barberis ended.

In the same order, Judge Ruth ordered the ex-partners to mediation
and the two announced they had agreed on a way to split the fee
Bradford won when the Big Sky class action suit settled in July.

The order does not detail how the money will be split.

The case file does not offer details either.

The class action at issue was brought by lead plaintiff Big Sky
Excavating on behalf of small business owners who claimed that
AT&T botched a refund mandated by the Illinois state legislature.

Mr. Bradford was part of the legal team that netted more than $7
million in legal fees, walking away with $559,333.33.

The other claims the two have pending against one another include
breach of partnership and other accusation, but they were not
resolved according to the order.

Mr. Bradford filed suit against Mr. Barberis last month claiming
Mr. Barberis did not hold up his end of their law partnership.

The partnership that formed in 2001 dissolved in August.

In his suit, Mr. Bradford claims that Mr. Barberis did not bill
the hours the two agreed upon when they formed the partnership.

Mr. Bradford contends that Mr. Barberis seldom showed up at the
pair's office, was rude to clients and did not complete timely
work on his case files.

Mr. Barberis denies the claims and asserts counterclaims against
Bradford.

In his answer and counterclaim filed Oct. 6, Mr. Barberis contends
that Bradford did not comply with the terms set out to nix their
partnership and that breached the partnership contract when he did
not deposit the Big Sky fee into the pair's account.

Mr. Barberis seeks the dissolution of the partnership, damages of
at least $50,000 and other relief.

His former partner moved to dismiss the counter claims Oct. 14.

The case was originally assigned to Madison County Circuit Judge
Daniel Stack.

Stack bowed out of the case Sept. 20, citing his friendship with
both men and his past work on Bradford's behalf.

D. Jeffrey Ezra represents Bradford.

John McCracken represents Barberis.

The case is Madison case number 10-L-939.


BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Wage Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Li, writing for The American Lawyer, reports a federal
judge in Kansas has denied Bank of America's motion to dismiss a
multidistrict litigation class action brought by branch and call-
center employees accusing the bank of deliberately failing to pay
overtime wages in violation of state and federal laws.  The class
could include as many as 200,000 workers, according to co-lead
plaintiffs counsel Brendan Donelon of Donelon P.C.

In a 26-page opinion, Kansas City federal district court Judge
John Lungstrum held that the 12 named plaintiffs provided
sufficient details of "numerous alleged ways in which the Bank
routinely denied overtime compensation to its retail branch and
call center employees and [the complaint] details the nature of
the work that employees were allegedly required to perform off-
the-clock."

The plaintiffs have alleged that they were forced to work without
compensation before and after their shifts, as well as during meal
breaks, due to understaffing.  Call center employees, for example,
were allegedly forced to perform various tasks off the clock, such
as retrieving headsets, reviewing memoranda and e-mail, and
shutting down and cleaning up the workstation.

Mr. Donelon said he was not surprised by the decision.  "I don't
think there's any legal authority that says just because it's an
MDL, the pleading standard is even higher than what's required by
Iqbal or Twombly," he said.

In a separate decision, Judge Lungstrum handed the plaintiffs
another victory by agreeing not to toll the statute of limitations
until after all potential class members were notified.  Citing the
delays and logistical difficulties inherent to an MDL, the judge
refused to adopt the bank's position that the clock be restarted
immediately.  Mr. Donelon said that without this ruling, a lot of
potential class members might have already lost their right to
join the class.

The plaintiffs' team is also led by Stan Saltzman of Marlin &
Saltzman and George Hanson of Stueve Siegel Hanson.

Bank of America's attorneys, Matthew Kane of McGuireWoods and Jack
Rowe of Lathrop Gage, did not return phone calls.  A spokesperson
for Bank of America gave us this statement: "Bank of America has
comprehensive policies, practices and training for both managers
and associates designed to ensure full compliance with all federal
and state wage-and-hours laws.  We intend to vigorously defend
against the allegations."


CALIFORNIA: Suit Over Red Light Camera Programs to Be Heard
-----------------------------------------------------------
TheNewspaper.com reports a class action lawsuit against 59 red
light camera programs in the state of California will be heard
before Judge William H. Alsup in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  Attorney Bruce L. Simon, who is
suing Redflex Traffic Systems and American Traffic Solutions,
moved Friday that the case return to the state court system.  Mr.
Simon argues that the contracts of Redflex and ATS with
municipalities are illegal under California law.

Mr. Simon had initially filed the case on behalf of motorist S.D.
Jadeja in the San Mateo County Superior Court, a venue that has
already ruled that red light camera cost-neutrality contracts
violate state law.  The class action suit is designed to go after
the companies profiting from this type of illegal arrangement.
ATS moved last month to have the case heard in federal court where
judges have ruled more favorably toward automated ticketing
machines.  Mr. Simon wants the case back in the state courts.

"More than two-thirds of the putative class members are citizens
of California, all of the alleged harm and wrongdoing occurred in
California, the claims are based entirely on California law, and
one of the three defendants [i.e., Redflex] is a citizen of
California whose actions form a significant basis for the claims
here and against whom plaintiff seeks significant relief,"
Mr. Simon wrote in his motion to remand the case back to San
Mateo.

Mr. Simon points out that Redflex, an Australian company, calls
itself a California-based firm in 62 percent of the contracts it
signed in the Golden State.  The language variously refers to
"Redflex Traffic Systems (California)," "Redflex Traffic Systems,
Inc., a California corporation" or lists its principal place of
business as Culver City, California.  Under California law, class
action cases designated as a "local controversy" are to be heard
in state, not federal, court.  Mr. Simon argues that every aspect
of the case is local.

"All of the alleged conduct occurred in California and all harm
and damages were suffered in California," Mr. Simon wrote.  "The
cornerstone of this case is the existence of unlawful contracts,
and the operation of automated traffic enforcement equipment under
those contracts, in violation of both the California Vehicle Code
and California Business and Professions Code."

Under the cost neutrality clause, Redflex and ATS are compensated
at a rate of 100 percent of the ticket revenue collected up to a
certain amount.  Beyond that cap, the city keeps all revenue.  The
California Vehicle Code specifically prohibits red light camera
contractors from being compensated based on the amount of revenue
collected.  For that reason, Mr. Simon wants every ticket issued
under a cost-neutrality contract refunded, an amount that could
reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars.  San Mateo County,
for example, reported $13,802,808 worth of red light camera
tickets last year alone.


CASH AMERICA: Appeal Certification Ruling with High Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International, Inc., has filed a notice of appeal
with the Georgia Supreme Court on the ruling affirming class
certification in a lawsuit filed by James E. Strong, according to
the company's Oct 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2010.

On Aug. 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia against Georgia
Cash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc., Daniel R.
Feehan, and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and
"stakeholders" of Cash America.  The lawsuit alleges many
different causes of action, among the most significant of which is
that Cash America made illegal short-term loans in Georgia in
violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act
and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Community State Bank for some time made loans to Georgia residents
through Cash America's Georgia operating locations.  The complaint
in this lawsuit claims that Cash America was the true lender with
respect to the loans made to Georgia borrowers and that CSB's
involvement in the process is "a mere subterfuge." Based on this
claim, the suit alleges that Cash America is the "de facto" lender
and is illegally operating in Georgia.  The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitive
damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages.

A previous decision by the trial judge to strike Cash America's
affirmative defenses based on arbitration -- without ruling on
Cash America's previously filed motion to compel arbitration --
was upheld by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and on Sept. 24, 2007,
the Georgia Supreme Court declined to review the decision.

The case was returned to the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia,
where Cash America filed a motion requesting that the trial court
rule on Cash America's pending motion to compel arbitration and
stay the State Court proceedings.  The Court denied the motion to
stay and ruled that the motion to compel arbitration was rendered
moot after the Court struck Cash America's affirmative defenses
based on arbitration.  The Georgia Supreme Court declined to
review these orders and remanded the case to the State Court of
Cobb County, Georgia.

On Nov. 2, 2009, the State Court granted the plaintiff's request
to certify the case as a class action, and Cash America appealed
the decision to the appellate court.  On Oct. 4, 2010 the
appellate court upheld the State Court's decision on class
certification.  Cash America is challenging the appellate court's
decision on the class certification issue, and accordingly filed
its notice of appeal with the Georgia Supreme Court on Oct. 8,
2010.

Cash America International, Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2010, had 1,062
total locations offering specialty financial services to
consumers, which include 735 lending locations (including nine
unconsolidated franchised locations) operating in 28 states in the
United States under the names "Cash America Pawn," "SuperPawn,"
"Cash America Payday Advance," and "Cashland," and 202 pawn
lending locations, of which the Company is a majority owner,
operating in 21 jurisdictions in central and southern Mexico under
the name "Prenda Facil."  The company also operated 120
unconsolidated franchised and five company-owned check cashing
centers operating in 17 states in the United States under the name
"Mr. Payroll" as of Sept. 30, 2010.  Additionally, as of Sept. 30,
2010, the Company offered short-term loans over the Internet to
customers in 33 states in the United States at --
http://www.cashnetusa.com/-- in the United Kingdom at --
http://www.quickquid.co.uk/-- in Australia at --
http://www.dollarsdirect.com.au/-- and in Canada at --
http://www.dollarsdirect.ca/

The company also owns a micro-line of credit services business
that processes short-term loans on behalf of a third-party lender
with balances outstanding in all 50 states and four other United
States jurisdictions as of Sept. 30, 2010.


CASH AMERICA: Continues to Defend "Alfeche" Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International, Inc., continues to defend the suit
filed by Peter Alfeche in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's Oct 21, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The purported class action lawsuit was filed on March 5, 2009,
against Cash America International, Inc., Cash America Net of
Nevada, LLC, Cash America Net of Pennsylvania, LLC and Cash
America of PA, LLC, d/b/a CashNetUSA.com.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that CashNetUSA's online
consumer loan lending activities in Pennsylvania were illegal and
not in accordance with the Pennsylvania Loan Interest Protection
Law or the licensing requirements of the Pennsylvania Consumer
Discount Company Act.  The lawsuit also seeks declaratory judgment
that several of CashNetUSA's contractual provisions, including
choice of law and arbitration provisions, are not authorized by
Pennsylvania law.  The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, attorney's fees and the trebling of any compensatory
damages.

CashNetUSA filed a motion to enforce the arbitration provision
located in the agreements governing the lending activities.  The
Court has not yet ruled on this motion.  The Alfeche litigation is
still at an early stage.

Cash America International, Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2010, had 1,062
total locations offering specialty financial services to
consumers, which include 735 lending locations -- including nine
unconsolidated franchised locations -- operating in 28 states in
the United States under the names "Cash America Pawn,"
"SuperPawn," "Cash America Payday Advance," and "Cashland," and
202 pawn lending locations, of which the Company is a majority
owner, operating in 21 jurisdictions in central and southern
Mexico under the name "Prenda Facil."  The company also operated
120 unconsolidated franchised and five company-owned check cashing
centers operating in 17 states in the United States under the name
"Mr. Payroll" as of Sept. 30, 2010.  Additionally, as of Sept. 30,
2010, the Company offered short-term loans over the Internet to
customers in 33 states in the United States at --
http://www.cashnetusa.com/-- in the United Kingdom at --
http://www.quickquid.co.uk/-- in Australia at --
http://www.dollarsdirect.com.au/-- and in Canada at --
http://www.dollarsdirect.ca/

The company also owns a micro-line of credit services business
that processes short-term loans on behalf of a third-party lender
with balances outstanding in all 50 states and four other United
States jurisdictions as of Sept. 30, 2010.


CASH AMERICA: No Ruling Yet on Request to Enforce Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has yet to rule on Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC's motion to
enforce the arbitration provision located in the agreements
governing the lending activities, according to the company's
Oct 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On April 21, 2009, Yulon Clerk filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania, against CashNet Nevada and several other unrelated
third-party lenders.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants'
lending activities in Pennsylvania, including CashNet Nevada's
online consumer loan lending activities in Pennsylvania, were
illegal and in violation of various Pennsylvania laws, including
the Loan Interest Protection Law, the Pennsylvania Consumer
Discount Company Act and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Laws.  The complaint seeks payment of potential fines,
unspecified damages, attorney's fees and the trebling of certain
damages.

The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania where the lawsuit now resides.

The case was subsequently reassigned to the same judge presiding
in the suit filed by Peter Alfeche against the company.

On Aug. 26, 2009, the Court severed the claims against the other
defendants originally named in the litigation.

CashNet Nevada filed a motion with the federal court to enforce
the arbitration provision located in the agreements governing the
lending activities on May 4, 2009, and the Court has not yet ruled
on this motion.  The Clerk litigation is still at an early stage.

Cash America International, Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2010, had 1,062
total locations offering specialty financial services to
consumers, which include 735 lending locations -- including nine
unconsolidated franchised locations -- operating in 28 states in
the United States under the names "Cash America Pawn,"
"SuperPawn," "Cash America Payday Advance," and "Cashland," and
202 pawn lending locations, of which the Company is a majority
owner, operating in 21 jurisdictions in central and southern
Mexico under the name "Prenda Facil."  The company also operated
120 unconsolidated franchised and five company-owned check cashing
centers operating in 17 states in the United States under the name
"Mr. Payroll" as of Sept. 30, 2010.  Additionally, as of Sept. 30,
2010, the Company offered short-term loans over the Internet to
customers in 33 states in the United States at --
http://www.cashnetusa.com/-- in the United Kingdom at --
http://www.quickquid.co.uk/-- in Australia at --
http://www.dollarsdirect.com.au/-- and in Canada at --
http://www.dollarsdirect.ca/

The company also owns a micro-line of credit services business
that processes short-term loans on behalf of a third-party lender
with balances outstanding in all 50 states and four other United
States jurisdictions as of Sept. 30, 2010.


CONSECO LIFE: Breach of Contract Suit Gets Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Petra Pasternak, writing for The Recorder, reports in cases
involving financial products, it's pretty tricky to get national
class action status.

But plaintiffs lawyers going up against Conseco Life Insurance Co.
framed their case on behalf of seven policyholders as a breach of
contract instead.

It worked.  In doing so, the Gilbert law firm in Washington, D.C.,
and San Francisco's Millstein & Associates succeeded in getting
national class action status where "many other 'vanishing premium'
life insurance cases have failed," said Stephen Weisbrod, a D.C.
partner with the Gilbert firm.  The Gilbert and Millstein firms
are taking the lead in representing the Conseco policyholders.

Millstein, who first filed the Conseco case in December 2008, said
that pleading insurance or financial product cases as fraud makes
class certification tough because fraud involves many case-
specific facts.  "We are proceeding on breach of contract claims
which are common to all policyholders, uniform and fit the class
action mold very well," Millstein said.

Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom is representing Conseco in the
class action.

The plaintiffs alleged that Conseco was breaching nearly 10,000
"LifeTrend" insurance policies that the company sold in the 1980s
and 1990s, and that Conseco's contractual violations -- including
improper premium charges and improper deductions from
policyholders' accounts -- could result in losses of tens of
thousands of dollars per policyholder.

"In many cases, when plaintiffs attempt to bring national class
actions on consumer claims, defendants are able to defeat the
class actions by arguing that there are significant variations
among consumers or among the legal standards applicable in
different states," Mr. Weisbrod said, "but in our case the court
found that Conseco treated all policyholders essentially the same
way across the country and that there are no significant
variations in state contract law."

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston approved the class in San
Francisco on Oct. 6.  In the same order, Judge Illston denied a
request for a California subclass.

Conseco tried to smack down class certification, saying plaintiffs
hadn't analyzed the multiple state laws governing the claims in
suit, according to the court order.  But Judge Illston wrote that
Conseco was exaggerating any variations when it came to breach-of-
contract.

"Contrary to Conseco's representations, several courts have
recognized that the law relating to the element of breach does not
vary greatly from state to state," Judge Illston wrote.
"Plaintiffs' contractual interpretations may be rejected at the
summary judgment stage or disproved at trial, but they are not
patently untenable from the face of the documents, and do not
demonstrate a lack of common issues of law."

Skadden did not immediately return e-mails requesting comment.


DOLLAR TREE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Wage Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
On September 1, 2010, two assistant store managers (hourly
employees) of Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. filed a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act against the Company for failure
to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation.  Plaintiffs are
represented by Thomas & Pearl, P.A., in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Elissa Pearl Hulnick stated, "A company who has been sued several
times already for wage violations should have implemented
appropriate pay practices company-wide."

Dollar Tree operates thousands of stores in all 48 contiguous
states, with its headquarters located in Chesapeake, Virginia.
Their website boasts that they are the largest and most successful
single price-point retailer in the country.  Joann Badgett and
Solomon Morgan, the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit, worked in
stores located in South Florida.

Plaintiffs seek to have their claims certified as a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, (a type of class action
in which individuals employed in similar job positions are
provided with an opportunity to pursue minimum wage and overtime
pay claims by opting into a lawsuit filed by representative
plaintiffs.)  In order to participate in the FLSA lawsuit, hourly
employees (such as assistant store managers, cashiers, and stock
people) who worked for Dollar Tree during the past three years
must file a FLSA consent to join form, which may be obtained from
plaintiffs' counsel.

Plaintiffs are represented by the law firm of Thomas & Pearl,
P.A., a law firm dedicated to helping the injured, including
victims of unlawful and unfair wage practices.

Elissa Pearl Hulnick stated, "some retailers continue to ignore
the fact that hourly employees who work through lunch breaks or
run errands for their employer are typically entitled to being
paid for the time they performed such work.  These current and
former employees will also be able to recover liquidated damages
and attorneys' fees and costs."

For more information or to report claims, log onto
http://www.DollarTreeLawsuit.com/or you can also go to the Web
site for plaintiffs' law firm at http://www.HelpWhenInjured.com/
or call 1-877-FLA-INJURY.

SOURCE:

          Elissa Pearl Hulnick, Esq.
          THOMAS & PEARL, P.A.
          Telephone: 954-563-9225
                     561-632-0085 (mobile)


DYNAVOX INC: Faces Federal Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Statman Harris & Eyrich, LLC Monday disclosed that
a class action has been filed on behalf of purchasers of DynaVox,
Inc., stock issued pursuant to the registration statement and
prospectus filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Company's April 21, 2010 initial public
offering.

The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania against DynaVox and certain
of its officers and directors for violations of federal securities
laws.  DynaVox designs, manufactures, and distributes electronic
and symbol-based augmentative communication equipment, software
and services, and offers speech-generating technology and special
education software solutions for individuals with speech,
language, physical, or learning disabilities.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that the Company
was experiencing a softening of demand for its speech-generating
devices and software products, which caused the Company's
financial results to trend adversely compared to the trends
included in the IPO registration statement and prospectus.

On September 30, 2010, DynaVox issued a press release disclosing
these adverse facts, stating that during the Company's first
quarter of fiscal year 2011, "the Company experienced a softening
of demand for both its speech generating devices and software
products.  As a result, operating results for the fiscal first
quarter will not be consistent with historical performance or
indicative of what management believes to be the Company's long-
term future operating potential."

The next day, as a result of this news, shares of DynaVox declined
$2.68 per share, or 33%, to close on October 1, 2010, at $5.44 per
share, on unusually heavy volume.

If you purchased DynaVox common stock in connection with the
Company's IPO, you may, no later than December 13, 2010, request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions, please contact attorney
Melinda Nenning by telephone (513) 345-8181, Ext. 3095 or by email
at mnenning@statmanharris.com  All e-mail correspondence should
make reference to the DynaVox Securities Litigation.

Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC -- http://www.statmanharris.com/--
has offices in Chicago, Illinois; Cincinnati, Ohio; and Dayton,
Ohio.

CONTACT:

          Melinda S. Nenning, Esq.
          STATMAN, HARRIS & EYRICH, LLC
          441 Vine Street, Suite 3700
          Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
          Telephone: (513) 345-8181, Ext. 3095
          E-mail: mnenning@statmanharris.com


EASYHOME LTD: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Following Fraud Probe
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports a proposed class-action lawsuit has
been filed against Easyhome Ltd. (TSX:EH), which earlier this
month uncovered a $3.4-million fraud committed by a manager at one
of its financial services kiosks.

Siskinds LLP, a law firm specializing in class-action cases, said
the suit it filed also names current and former executives and
directors, including chief executive David Ingram and chief
financial officer Steve Goertz.

The class action arises from the company's recent disclosure of
financial irregularities and alleges Easyhome "misrepresented that
its financial statements had been compiled in accordance with
Canadian generally accepted accounting principles," Siskinds said
in a statement.

Easyhome was not immediately available for comment.

The case was brought on behalf of those who acquired Easyhome
securities from April 8, 2008, to Oct. 15, 2010.

Easyhome announced after the close of markets on Oct. 14 that it
had uncovered a $3.4-million employee fraud case.

The furniture and appliance leasing firm said the discovery was
made in its Easyfinancial lending division as part of a detailed
review of the consumer loans receivable portfolio.

A manager at one of the kiosks took out a series of fictitious
loans which were compounded as further fraudulent loans were made
to pay off the previous ones.

The revelation sent stock in the company sharply lower.

Shares in the company were up two cents at $9.40 on the Toronto
Stock Exchange on Monday, Oct. 25.  The stock was worth $11.40 per
share on Oct. 14.

The company has said it expects to take a $3.4-million charge
before taxes which will be recognized in a restatement of past
financial results for dates that have not been determined yet.  It
doesn't expect the situation to have a material adverse impact on
its future financial outlook.


EBAY INC: Plaintiffs Appeal on Summary Judgment Ruling Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the granting of summary judgment
in favor of eBay Inc., remains pending in the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals, according to the company's Oct 21, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

In March 2007, a plaintiff filed a purported antitrust class
action lawsuit against eBay in the Western District of Texas
alleging that eBay and its wholly owned subsidiary PayPal
"monopolized" markets through various anticompetitive acts
and tying arrangements.  The plaintiff alleged claims under
sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, as well as related state
law claims.

In April 2007, the plaintiff re-filed the complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (No.
07-CV-01882-RS), and dismissed the Texas action.  The complaint
seeks treble damages and an injunction. In 2007, the case was
consolidated with other similar lawsuits (No. 07-CV-01882JF).
In June 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
In March 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss the tying
claims with leave to amend and denied the motion with respect to
the monopolization claims.  Plaintiffs subsequently decided not to
refile the tying claims.

The plaintiffs' motion on class certification and the company's
motion for summary judgment were heard by the court in December
2009.

In March 2010, the District Court granted the company's motion for
summary judgment, denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification as moot, and entered judgment in eBay's favor.
Plaintiffs have appealed the District Court's decision, and the
matter is fully briefed before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

eBay Inc. -- http://www.ebay.com/-- connects buyers and sellers
globally on a daily basis through eBay, an online marketplace
located at www.ebay.com, and PayPal, which enables individuals and
businesses to send and receive online payments through
http://www.paypal.com. The company has two business segments:
Marketplaces and Payments.  On Nov. 19, 2009, the company sold its
interest in Skype Luxembourg Holdings S.a.r.l., Skype Inc. and
Sonorit Holdings, A.S. (collectively with their respective
subsidiaries, the Skype Companies) to Springboard Group S.a.r.l.
Prior to the sale, the company operated in three segments.  Its
Communications segment, which consisted of Skype, enabled Internet
communications between Skype users and provided connectivity to
traditional fixed-line and mobile telephones.  Following the
completion of the sale of Skype, the company operates through two
business segments.


ESPN ZONE: Laid-Off Workers File Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Gus G. Sentementes, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports five
former ESPN Zone employees filed a class action lawsuit Monday
against the company, alleging it had violated federal standards
for notifying and paying workers who lost their jobs when the
Inner Harbor location closed in June.

The federal lawsuit claims that ESPN Zone, owned by Walt Disney
Co., did not provide laid-off workers the mandated 60 days' notice
of termination under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.

The company has previously stated that it followed the federal
regulations.  About 140 employees, both full- and part-time, lost
their jobs when ESPN Zone closed June 15.

"We are sending a message," said Leonard Gray, a former cook at
the restaurant and one of the five plaintiffs.  "We are not
disposable.  We are human beings."

Mr. Gray was part of a group of about 40 people, many former
employees, who protested Monday morning outside the former ESPN
Zone in downtown Baltimore.  The group then marched to the U.S.
District Court in Baltimore, where the case had been filed earlier
that morning.

ESPN and Disney have denied they did anything wrong in handling
the layoffs of hundreds of workers at several ESPN Zones across
the country.  Five of the chain's seven locations closed this
summer.

Other former employees of the shuttered Baltimore ESPN Zone and of
the four other closed locations could potentially join the suit.
The five plaintiffs seek 60 days' worth of back pay and benefits
as well as attorneys' fees.  The plaintiffs are Mr. Gray, Lee
Evans, Debra Harris and Krystal Payton, all of Baltimore, and Gary
Scott, of Randallstown.

A spokesman for ESPN Zone could not be immediately reached for
comment Monday afternoon.

In past statements, ESPN has said that it was in compliance with
federal regulations, which generally require companies with more
than 50 employees to give 60 days' notice before closing.

ESPN Zone filed a notice June 15 letting state officials know that
workers would lose their jobs as of June 16, according to the
Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation.  State
officials were told that ESPN Zone would place employees on paid
administrative leave through Aug. 15.

After Aug. 15, the employees received an additional severance
benefit based on their length of service.  But the former
employees say the severance pay they received was calculated at a
lower rate than required by the WARN Act.

A nonprofit advocacy group, United Workers, helped organize the
Baltimore workers after they were laid off.  Over the summer, the
workers asked for a meeting with ESPN and Disney officials but
were denied, according to Ashley Hufnagel, an organizer with
United Workers.


FREEPORT INDUSTRIAL: May Face Class Lawsuit in Grand Bahama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Noelle Nicolls, writing for The Tribune, reports residents of
Pinder's Point, Grand Bahama, are considering a class action suit
to settle once and for all the dispute between the community and
companies in the Freeport Industrial Park.

Residents claim there are a number of "unexplained illnesses"
affecting the community, and companies in the park are a general
"nuisance" to their neighbors.

Preliminary data from a survey commissioned by Obie Wilchcombe,
Member of Parliament for West End, list a range of medical
complaints, including: shortness of breath, headaches, burning in
the eyes, throat and chest irritation, coughing, lumps and other
abnormal growths, vomiting, nausea, dry mouth, lost sense of
smell, dizziness, cancer, hoarseness.

Twenty-nine households with two to eight family members
participated in the initial survey.

"They need to do better.  We are not animals.  We are human.  I
would not wish this on my animals.  When I get to the elderly age,
I don't want to hear I have cancer because of this stuff.  That is
our fear, and I am raising five children," said Evelyn Pearson, a
resident of Pinder's Point.

Mrs. Pearson and her husband have unexplained seizures.  She said
she has constant headaches and her daughter has unexplained
rashes.

During a visit to Pinder's Point by The Tribune, families claimed
to spend thousands of dollars annually to simply live with the
noise pollution, chemical odors and other nuisances.

That does not include major medical expenses for the residents
with such serious illnesses as cancer and kidney problems.

Almost every household is stocked with Tylenol PM, Visine, Moltrin
and Claranese to deal with constant headaches and eye irritation,
which were the most constant complaints described.

Frequent trips to the clinic and hospital often result in
prescriptions for antibiotics and other over the counter drugs to
treat ailments.

Rev Oral Poitier, a 79-year-old resident, said he has been to Cuba
six times for stays ranging between two and five weeks to get
treatment for his wife.  She is currently on dialysis.  He said he
would have moved a long time ago, but all of his money goes to pay
medical bills.

He has been married for 53 years and he says he regrets the day he
chose Pinder's Point as a place to settle.  Other residents said
it was a "mistake" allowing Vopak-Borco into the community in the
first place.

When Mr. Poitier first moved in, about 46 years ago, the land now
occupied by Vopak-Borco was a pine barren.

Most of the residents live in sight of or in short walking
distance from the ocean, but there is an almost constant smell of
oil in the air destroying the island paradise they once were proud
to call home.

The large tanks of Vopak tower over the community, a stone's throw
distance from the residents' backyards.

"When we were growing up the fence wasn't here; kids would go
around and play not knowing the danger.  We would throw rocks at
the tank.  As we grew older and travelled and learned we
understood the dangers of these things," said Grace Poitier-
Pinder, Mr. Poitier's daughter.

Open trenches of oil run parallel to the boundary fence of the
community, less than 30 feet from the back doors of some
residents.  Anthony "Tony" Poitier said that at one time his dog
Rover found his way across the fence and came back with four of
his legs covered in oil.

"I had to use Joy to bathe him down," he said.

The Vopak fence separates the company's property from a row of
homes owned by the Poitier family.

According to Mr. Poitier, they would have come straight through
his house if he didn't chase the worker away with a weapon when
the fence was being installed years ago.  The fence now takes a
10-foot detour around a part of Mr. Poitier's house.

Few members of the community feel sentimental about the area
anymore.  Most of them are ready to go and have been for years.

The government claims it is assisting efforts to relocate the
community by conducting a survey that will inform the process.

Earlier this year, a land surveyor, allegedly employed for a
company inside the park, "sneaked through" the community to
appraise various properties, according to residents.

Surveyors from the Ministry of Works also have "teams on the
ground" working to establish the number of people to be relocated;
the size of the homes; and the value of the land in the affected
areas, according to Environment Minister Earl Deveaux.

One resident mocked Works Minister Neko Grant who was once MP for
the area, claiming he drives through the community in an air-
conditioned motor vehicle "chomping on a cigar."

"How can you smell the odor when your car is full of tobacco?" the
resident asked.

The case of Pinder's Point residents and the industrial park is an
extremely tangled web with issues stretching back 40 years.  It is
an issue, residents say neither political party wants to touch,
because they have all been negligent.

It affects hundreds of residents with a range of concerns about
health and assets, from a mixture of communities, including
Pinder's Point, Lewis Yard, Hunter's Point, Hawksbill and Eight
Mile Rock.

The issues straddle at least three generations of family members
and point to a range of companies inside the industrial park,
including Freeport Power, Syntax, Polymer, Bahama Rock and others.

They concern multiple government agencies, including the Ministry
of Health, Housing and Environment; community clinics and
government hospitals, some of which have been accused of
misplacing records.

For Pinder's Point, the main "nuisance" is Vopak-Borco, a company
that has changed owners at least four times in the past four
years, according to residents, and may be in the process of
another investor buy out.

They agree "Vopak takes its licks for some of other companies,"
but that is its burden to bear.  Vopak is closest to Pinder's
Point.

Four consecutive governments have "failed" to do anything
substantial to address the issue, according to residents.

There has been no mention by the government of any substantive
report into the concerns of the residents.

Records indicate the issue was addressed in a 1987 Environmental
Conference, when Dr. Norman Gay was Minister of Health.  However,
residents said the report from the conference was never released.

In a summary of plenary reports from the conference, obtained by
The Tribune, it states: "Industry should be more open with the
community; particularly with respect to the chemicals being
handled; affects of the chemicals; and reason for location of
certain processes in, and to, the Bahamas."

Some government officials say the companies inside the park only
operate in the Bahamas because of lax regulation and favorable tax
regimes.  They claim the financial benefit to the Bahamas
government is negligible.

The report states: "The government should establish a formal
channel through which odor/emissions complaints can be made,
documented, and followed up on before these become emergencies."

"The residents should be willing to learn, including the means to
identify various smells."

She said employees of the company have a beeper that goes off to
warn them of the air toxicity level.

"They don't say anything to the community," she said.  There has
been any training for community members on how to detect smells.

Tribune sources say one of the major chemicals used by Vopak -
hydrogen sulfide -- has a "rotten egg odor."  The chemical is said
to be "invisible and colorless" and fatally toxic at certain
levels.

The company is reported to have different types of alarms for
different emergencies.  Community members complain about not
knowing the meaning of the various alarms.

"They evacuate their people, but we don't know what is going on,"
said Lorna Knowles, a resident of 44 years.


FRONTLINE COMMS: Sued for Violations of State Wage and Hour Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Antoine Land, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Frontline Communications, Inc., et al., Case No.
2010-CH-45840 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. October 20, 2010), accuses
the cable, telephony and telecommunications specialist, its
president and owner Gina Urso, and cable providers Comcast
Corporation and Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, of
improperly classifying its technicians as independent contractors,
instead of as non-exempt employees under Illinois state wage and
hour laws.  In addition, the Plaintiff accuses the defendants of
failing to keep true and accurate time records for all hours
worked; failing to compensate class members for all the work they
were required to perform; improper deductions from class members'
pay for improper charges, and non-payment of overtime wages, in
willful violation of state wage and hour laws.

The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury and is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550


GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Suit for Violating Privacy Rights
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed Sunday challenges Google's alleged
practice of illegally sharing the search queries of its users with
third-parties.  Not only does Google, whose company motto is
"Don't be evil," promise in its privacy policy not to do this, but
Google has publicly denounced this very practice in the past.

In 2006, Google successfully fought a subpoena filed by the
Department of Justice that sought to compel the release of search
queries.  Google argued: "[S]earch query content can disclose
identities and personally identifiable information . . ." It
further stated that it "will keep private whatever information
users communicate absent a compelling reason."

The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in San Jose, Calif.,
is brought by Paloma Gaos of the San Francisco Bay Area.  Ms. Gaos
is represented by Kassra Nassiri of Nassiri & Jung LLP and Michael
Aschenbrener of Edelson McGuire LLC.  The class action seeks
monetary relief for those whose search queries were wrongly
shared, and injunctive relief to prevent continued privacy abuses.

"Because of its dominance in the search business, Google, more
than any other company, presents a great risk to citizen privacy.
As recent events have made clear, the selling and reselling of
personal information is a multi-billion dollar business that shows
no signs of slowing down," says Kassra Nassiri, co-lead attorney.
"By systematically disclosing user search queries, Google is
adding more fuel to the privacy fire than most people realize."

"For many people, Google is the first place they turn when they
need help with a private matter.  Google knows this and for this
reason has promised to hold user searches completely private.  Any
search engine that fails to maintain this promise risks losing its
place as a trusted adviser," says co-lead attorney Michael
Aschenbrener.

Nassiri & Jung LLP and Edelson McGuire LLC are also prosecuting
other high-profile privacy cases against major Silicon Valley
companies, including Facebook and Zynga.

Nassiri & Jung LLP -- http://www.nassiri-jung.com/-- is a
boutique litigation firm based in San Francisco that focuses on
complex business disputes.

Edelson McGuire LLC -- http://www.edelson.com/-- is a class
action firm that focuses on Internet, technology, privacy,
banking, and consumer issues with attorneys in Illinois, New York,
California, and Florida.


GREAT ATLANTIC: Wants Class in "LaMarca" Suit Decertified
---------------------------------------------------------
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., seeks to decertify
the class in the matter LaMarca et al. v. The Great Atlantic &
Pacific Tea Company, Inc et al., according to the company's Oct
21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 11, 2010.

On June 24, 2004, a class action complaint was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York against The Great Atlantic
& Pacific Tea Company, Inc., d/b/a A&P, The Food Emporium, and
Waldbaum's alleging violations of the overtime provisions of the
New York Labor Law.  Three named plaintiffs, Benedetto LaMarca,
Dolores Guiddy, and Stephen Tedesco, alleged on behalf of a class
that the company failed to pay overtime wages to full-time hourly
employees who were either required or permitted to work more than
40 hours per week.

In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

In July 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion and
certified the class as follows:  All full-time hourly employees of
Defendants who were employed in Defendants' supermarket stores
located in the State of New York, for any of the period from June
24, 1998 through the date of the commencement of the action, whom
Defendants required or permitted to perform work in excess of 40
hours per week without being paid overtime wages.  In December
2008, the Court approved the Form of Notice, which included an
"opt-out" provision and in January 2009, the Plaintiffs mailed the
Notice to potential class members and the opt-out deadline expired
in March 2009.

The parties have completed discovery and the company is proceeding
with motions for summary judgment and to decertify the class.  The
company says that if it fails to prevail on these motions, the
matter will likely be scheduled for trial in early 2011.

Based in Montvale, New Jersey, The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea
Company, Inc., founded in 1859, is one of the nation's first
supermarket chains.  The company operates 429 stores in 8 states
and the District of Columbia under the following trade names: A&P,
Waldbaum's, Pathmark, Pathmark Sav-a-Center, Best Cellars, The
Food Emporium, Super Foodmart, Super Fresh and Food Basics.


META FINANCIAL: Shuman Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Shuman Law Firm Monday disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Iowa on behalf of purchasers of Meta Financial Group,
Inc. during the period of May 14, 2009 through October 12, 2010,
inclusive.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights and interests with respect
to this matter, please contact Kip B. Shuman or Rusty E. Glenn
toll free at (866) 974-8626 or email Mr. Shuman at
kip@shumanlawfirm.com or Mr. Glenn at rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

The Complaint alleges that Meta and certain of its senior officers
made materially false and misleading statements related to the
Company's business and operations in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  In particular, the Complaint alleges that
on October 12, 2010, Meta filed a report with the Securities
Exchange Commission announcing that the Office of Thrift
Supervision had advised the Company -- as early as October 6, 2010
-- that OTS had determined that Meta had engaged in "unfair or
deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act and the OTS Advertising Regulation in
connection with the Bank's operation of the iAdvance program."

The Company's report further disclosed that it anticipated that
the discontinuance of the iAdvance program and the potential
discontinuance of tax-related programs would "eliminate a
substantial portion of [the Company's] gross profit."  Finally,
the Company stated that the discontinuance of the iAdvance program
may result in elevated rates of nonpayment on outstanding iAdvance
loans.  Following the publication of this report, Meta shares fell
over from an October 12, 2010 close of $33.23 per share to close
on October 13, 2010 at $22.25 per share -- losing approximately
one third of their value overnight.  Meta shares have continued to
fall and currently trade around $14 per share.

If you purchased Meta common stock during the Class Period, you
may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class no later than December 21, 2010.  A lead plaintiff is a
class member that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Although your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek
appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important
decisions which could affect the overall recovery for class
members.

The Shuman Law Firm represents investors throughout the nation,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative actions.

CONTACTS:

          Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
          THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
          Telephone: 866-974-8626
          E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com

               - or -

          Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.,
          THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
          Telephone: 866-974-8626
          E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Indirect Purchaser Action Dismissed by Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee has
dismissed an Indirect-Purchaser ACR Tube Action against Mueller
Industries, Inc., according to the company's Oct 21, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 25, 2010.

The company has been named as a defendant in certain pending or
recently dismissed litigations brought by direct and indirect
purchasers of copper tube.  The Copper Tube Actions allege
anticompetitive activities with respect to the sale of copper
plumbing tubes (copper plumbing tubes) and/or copper tubes used
in, among other things, the manufacturing of air-conditioning and
refrigeration units (ACR copper tubes).  The Copper Tube Actions
seek or sought monetary and other relief.

Two Copper Tube Actions were filed in June and August 2006 in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and were
consolidated to become the Indirect-Purchaser ACR Tube Action.
The Indirect-Purchaser ACR Tube Action is a purported class action
brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of ACR copper tubes in
the United States and alleges anticompetitive activities with
respect to the sale of ACR copper tubes.  The company and Mueller
Europe are named in the Indirect-Purchaser ACR Tube Action.

The company and Mueller Europe have been served, but have not yet
been required to respond, in the Indirect-Purchaser ACR Tube
Action.

On July 9, 2010, all parties to the Indirect-Purchaser ACR Tube
Action filed with the court a Stipulation for Dismissal with
Prejudice and related motion pursuant to which the parties sought
a dismissal with prejudice of the Indirect-Purchaser ACR Tube
Action.  On August 2, 2010, the court dismissed the Indirect-
Purchaser ACR Tube Action in its entirety with prejudice.

Mueller Industries, Inc. manufactures copper tube and fittings;
brass and copper alloy rod, bar and shapes; aluminum and brass
forgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions; plastic fittings
and valves; refrigeration valves and fittings; and fabricated
tubular products.  Mueller's operations are located throughout the
United States and in Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, and China.
Mueller's business is importantly linked to (1) the construction
of new homes; (2) the improvement and reconditioning of existing
homes and structures; and (3) the commercial construction market
which includes office buildings, factories, hotels, hospitals,
etc.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Antitrust Class-Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is the target of a
proposed national class-action lawsuit filed Monday claiming the
authority governing most aspects of collegiate sports has
conspired with colleges and universities to impose artificial
limits on sports scholarships, actions the suit claims violate
federal antitrust laws.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by a current student-athlete who lost his scholarship
after a series of injuries and a coaching change, the lawsuit
alleges the NCAA and its member institutions forbid member schools
from offering multi-year scholarships and illegally limit the
number of scholarships in large part to maintain the profitability
of the institutions' sports programs, a violation of the Sherman
Act's antitrust laws.

The NCAA, whose member institutions number nearly every major
college or university in the country, sets limits on the number of
scholarships those institutions can grant, and prohibits schools
from granting multi-year scholarships.  The suit claims these
limitations drive up the cost of a four-year education for
student-athletes.

According to the suit, if colleges were forced to compete for
student-athletes in an open market without limits to scholarships,
the number of scholarships would increase, and schools would be
forced to treat the student-athletes more fairly by offering
multi-year scholarships.

"The NCAA will tell you these limits are necessary to maintain a
level playing field in college sports," said Steve Berman,
managing partner of Seattle-based class-action and complex
litigation firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.  "However, we
believe the monopoly is designed to safeguard the school sports
programs' profitability, which spawns multi-million dollar
coaching contracts and rich revenue streams for the schools."

The prohibition on multi-year scholarships leaves student-athletes
who lose their scholarships through injury or coaching fiat with
three difficult options: paying tuition, room and board out of
pocket, finding another college or university that will give them
a scholarship, or abandon their education, the lawsuit states.

"Absent the unlawful agreement between the NCAA and its member
schools, student-athletes would not be forced to make a Hobson's
choice," Mr. Berman added.

"The restrictions against multi-year scholarships relegate today's
student-athletes to modern-day gladiators, but all they're really
winning is the chance to fight again for a spot on the team next
year," Mr. Berman said.

The lead plaintiff in the suit, former Rice University football
player Joseph Agnew, faced just such a dilemma.  Heavily recruited
by several top-tier Division I schools, Mr. Agnew accepted a full
scholarship to Rice and played football starting in 2006 as a
freshman.  During his sophomore year, the coach who recruited
Agnew left Rice to coach at another Division I school, and
Mr. Agnew saw his playing time significantly reduced under the new
coaching regime, according to the lawsuit.

During his sophomore season, Mr. Agnew was sidelined with shoulder
and ankle injuries sustained on the football field.  He was also
treated for severe migraine headaches.  Prior to his junior year,
he was cut from Rice's football team and his scholarship was
canceled.  Though he appealed the university's decision and won a
scholarship for his junior year, Mr. Agnew did not receive any
tuition money for his senior year, forcing him to pay for his
schooling out of his own pocket, the lawsuit states.

Mr. Berman noted, "Given Mr. Agnew's athletic talent, in a truly
competitive scholarship environment, he would have been courted by
many different schools all vying to offer him a four-year
scholarship."

The lawsuit seeks to represent anyone who, while enrolled at an
NCAA member institution, received an athletics-based scholarship
for at least one year and had their scholarship reduced or not
renewed, forcing them to pay tuition at a college, university or
other institution of higher learning.  If you have information you
believe is important to the case, please contact Hagens Berman at
206-623-7292 or by e-mail at ncaa_antitrust@hbsslaw.com

The lawsuit accuses the NCAA and its member institutions of
violating sections of federal antitrust laws.  Plaintiffs'
attorneys have asked the court to certify the case as a class
action and declare the NCAA's limiting of the number of available
scholarships and prohibition of multi-year scholarships unlawful.

Attorneys also ask the court to enjoin the NCAA from limiting the
number of available scholarships and from prohibiting multi-year
scholarships, and to award damages and attorneys' fees to the
class.

"The only way to instill a sense of fair play in college sports is
to force the NCAA and its member schools to offer more
scholarships and end the prohibition on multi-year scholarships so
student-athletes aren't left financially devastated or unable to
complete their educations should something go awry," said
co-counsel Stuart Paynter of the Paynter Law Firm PLLC in
Washington, D.C.

The NCAA includes 1,055 active member schools.  These schools are
divided into three divisions.  Division I -- the elite level of
college sports -- includes 335 schools with extensive athletic
programs.  Divisions II and III include schools with relatively
less extensive athletic programs, the suit states.

Annual revenues for the NCAA's 2007-2008 fiscal year were $614
million.  The organization's financial operations are also highly
profitable.  The direct expenses for operating the actual games
amounted to just $59 million, making it possible for NCAA
executives to treat themselves to perks normally associated with
Fortune 500 companies.  The organization's Indiana headquarters
cost an estimated $50 million, and the NCAA plans a $35 million
expansion, according to the suit.

                       About Hagens Berman

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP represents
whistleblowers, investors and consumers in complex litigation.
The firm has offices in Boston, Chicago, Colorado Springs, Los
Angeles, Phoenix, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.  Founded in
1993, HBSS continues to successfully fight for investor rights in
large, complex litigation.  More about the law firm and its
successes can be found at http://www.hbsslaw.com/ Visit the
firm's class-action law blog at
http://www.classactionlawtoday.com/

Contact:

          Mark Firmani, Esq.
          FIRMANI + ASSOCIATES INC.
          Telephone: 206-443-9357
          E-mail: mark@firmani.com


NAVY FEDERAL: Settles Consumer Class-Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Danny Jacobs, writing for The Daily Record, reports that Navy
Federal Credit Union has settled a class-action lawsuit with more
than 6,000 customers who alleged the company repossessed their
cars without fully notifying them of their consumer rights.  The
settlement, approved this month in U.S. District Court in
Maryland, calls for Navy Federal to wipe out more than $50 million
in consumer debt.


NIGERIA: Faces Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
ModernGhana.com News reports Mr. Olisa Agbakoba has filed a
Fundamental Rights Class Action against the Federal Republic of
Nigeria for himself and on behalf of the South East Zone on
grounds of discrimination pursuant to Section 42 of the 1999
Constitution.  This action was by Originating Summons supported by
an affidavit of 99 paragraphs and a statement.

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE ENUGU JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT ENUGU

SUIT NO. FHC/EN/CS/......./2010

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY OLISA AGBAKOBA FOR ENFORCEMENT
OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

AND

IN THE MATTER OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OLISA AGBAKOBA

BETWEEN:

OLISA AGBAKOBA - APPLICANT

AND

1. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
2. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION - RESPONDENTS


STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ORDER II RULE 3 OF
THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) RULES 2009


A. NAME OF THE APPLICANT:

OLISA AGBAKOBA

B. DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICANT:
The Applicant is a lawyer, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and a
Nigerian citizen of Igbo Ethnic Group and of South Eastern Geo-
political descent.

C. RELIEFS SOUGHT:

1. A DECLARATION that the Structural Composition of the States in
the 1st Respondent in this distribution: North-West, Seven States;
North-Central, Six States; North-East, Six States; South-West, Six
States; South-South, Six States; and South-East, Five States;
creates a structural imbalance against the Applicant and the
Group/Class he represents to their political and economic
disadvantage in federal legislative representation,
ministerial/political and judicial appointments, and revenue
allocation contrary to Section 14(3) of the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, which requires reflection of
federal character in conduct of public affairs, and accordingly a
violation of Section 42 of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria 1999, which prohibits discrimination against
the Applicant and the Group/Class represented based on Ethnic
Grouping and place of origin.

2. A DECLARATION that in view of the provisions of Section 162(2)
Constitution of the Federal Republic Nigeria 1999, which
prescribes not less than 13% of federal allocation accruing
directly from natural resources to be paid to the area from where
such is derived, the neglect by the 1st Respondent of the huge
Coal reserves under the rocky hills of Enugu and the environs in
relation to the Applicant and the Group/Class he represents, of
its exclusive responsibility by Item 39 in the Exclusive
Legislative List, Part I Second Schedule of the Constitution of
the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, to extract the said coal
deposits in commercial quantity in accordance with Section
16(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
1999, while extracting solid minerals in other Geopolitical Zones,
is discriminatory and a violation of Section 42 of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

3. A DECLARATION that in view of the provisions of Section 162(2)
Constitution of the Federal Republic Nigeria 1999, which
prescribes not less than 13% of federal allocation accruing
directly from natural resources to be paid to the area from where
same is derived, the neglect by the 1st Respondent of the huge
Oil/Gas reserves in the Anambra Basin in relation to the Applicant
and the Group/Class he represents, of its exclusive responsibility
under Item 39 in the Exclusive Legislative List, Part I Second
Schedule of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
1999, to extract the same Oil/Gas for commercial purpose in
accordance with Section 16(2)(b) of the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, while extracting and exploring
same in other Geopolitical Zones, is discriminatory and a
violation of Section 42 of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria 1999.

4. A DECLARATION that the neglect by the 1st Respondent of the
Federal Roads in the South-East Geopolitical Zone, the neglect of
the Niger Bridge which is nearing collapse and failure to put in
place a Second Niger Bridge to connect the South-East with other
parts of the 1st Respondent, in accordance with Section 15(3)(a)
of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, when
the 1st Respondent does so in other Geopolitical Zones, is
contrary to Section 42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria 1999.

5. A DECLARATION that the over-policing of the South-East highways
with numerous check-points by operatives of the 1st Respondent's
Nigeria Police Force (NPF) at every stretch of road wherein sums
in excess of N9 Billion annually are extorted from the South-East
people, while kidnapping and other crimes still go on unchecked in
violation of Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria 1999; when such extortion and high level of
crime are not obtainable in any other Geopolitical Zone, is
discriminatory and a violation of the provisions of Section 42 of
the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

6. A DECLARATION that the 1st Respondent's failure to develop
friendly ports and customs policies to assist traders from the
South-East Geopolitical Zone to do better in trading and on higher
scale; failure to have an operational international cargo airport
at Owerri to aid trading and failure to dredge the Lower Niger and
establish a Port at Onitsha to aid trading, in accordance with its
constitutional obligations under Section 15(4), 16(1)(a) and
(2)(a) and 17(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria 1999, when it responds to the people of other Geopolitical
Zones in respect of their areas of strength in the economic map of
the 1st Respondent, are discriminatory acts which violate Section
42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

7. A DECLARATION that the poor revenue allocation rate foisted on
the South-East Geopolitical Zone by the 1st Respondent as a result
of failure to exploit Oil/Gas and Coal in the Zone and as a result
of the structural imbalance of the States in the South-East vis--
vis other Geopolitical Zones where the 1st Respondent is mandated
under Section 16(2)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria 1999 to promote "a planned and balanced economic
development", is discriminatory and contrary to the fundamental
right of the Applicant guaranteed by Section 42(1) of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

8. A DECLARATION that the worsening menace of Erosion in the
South-East Zone generally and in particular in Agulu, Nanka and
Obosi in Anambra State, under the watch and neglect of the 1st
Respondent, who responds to similar or less-threatening ecological
problems in other Zones with dispatch and commitment, is
discriminatory and a violation of the fundamental right of the
Applicant and the Group/Class represented guaranteed under Section
42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

9. AN ORDER directing the 1st Respondent to forthwith prepare and
release for immediate execution a comprehensive South-East
Development Master Plan (SEDM) for urgent turn-around of the
infrastructure in the South-East Geopolitical Zone, and the phased
execution of such Master plan to be pursued with dispatch and
vigour; which Master Plan must include immediate relief in the
following identified areas of neglect:

(a) Complete overhauling of all Federal Highways in the Zone and
designing and construction of new ones, including the Anam-Nzam
Federal Road linking the South-East with the North-Central at Idah
in Kogi State

(b) Exploration of Oil/Gas Reserves in the Anambra Basin

(c) Reinvigoration of modernized mining activities in Enugu

(d) Re-engineering of Niger Bridge at Onitsha and construction of
a Second Niger Bridge at Onitsha Continued

(e) Dredging of the Lower Niger and construction of a Lighter
Berth at Onitsha, and

(f) Developing a modern international cargo airport in the Eastern
Heartland at Owerri

10. AN ORDER directing the 1st Respondent to forthwith prepare and
send to the National Assembly for enactment, a bill to establish
the South-East Development Commission (SEDC) and for ancillary
matters, which body shall be charged with the execution of the
said Master plan and the general development of the South-East
Geopolitical Zone.

11. AN ORDER directing the 1st Respondent to forthwith put all its
machinery, including but not limited to legal and political
apparatus, in motion, with a view to urgently creating TWO
ADDITIONAL STATES in the South-East Geopolitical Zone to balance
with the Seven States in the North-West, and thereby bring to an
end the discriminatory practices against the South-East
Geopolitical Zone in terms of legislative representation,
political and judicial appointments and net federal allocation
accruing to the Geopolitical Zone.

12. AN ORDER directing the 1st Respondent to take immediate steps
to check the excessively aggressive and nefarious, yet ineffective
policing of the South-East Geopolitical Zone and putting an end to
the extortion going on at the ubiquitous police check-points on
the highways in the South-East Geopolitical Zone.

13. PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 1st Respondent, whether
by itself, its agents, servants or privies, or otherwise howsoever
from further acts of discrimination against the Applicant or any
member of the Group/Class represented.

14. GENERAL DAMAGES in the sum of N1,000,000,000,000 (One Trillion
Naira) against the 1st Respondent to be shared among the Five
States of the South-East Geopolitical Zone.

D. GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE RELIEFS ARE SOUGHT:
1. The 1st Respondent has discriminated and continues to
discriminate against the Applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, by
reason of his being of the Igbo Ethnic group and of South-East
Geopolitical place of origin.

2. The 1st Respondent has discriminated against the Applicant and
the Group/Class represented by reason of their being of their
Ethnic Grouping place of origin, in the following terms:

(a) Total neglect of the Applicant's Geopolitical Zone by the 1st
Respondent in terms of infrastructure and general federal presence
making the Applicant feel not part of the 1st Respondent.

(b) Abandonment of the Niger Bridge to collapse and failure to
build the 'Second Niger Bridge' making the Applicant feel isolated
from other parts of 1st Respondent and causing him apprehension
about disaster on crossing the existing bridge.


SIGMA ALDRICH: Says Reserves and Insurance Sufficient for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sigma-Aldrich Corp. discloses that its reserves and insurance are
sufficient to provide for claims outstanding at Sept. 30, 2010, in
a class action complaint filed against a subsidiary.

A class action complaint was filed against a subsidiary of the
company in the Montgomery County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas
related to a 2003 explosion in a column at the company's Isotec
facility in Miamisburg, Ohio.

The case was separated into these four phases:

     -- phase one - existence of liability,
     -- phase two - quantification of any compensatory damages,
     -- phase three - existence of any punitive damages and
     -- phase four - quantification of any punitive damages.

Class certification was granted to phases one, three and four, but
denied to phase two.

Compensatory damages for all plaintiffs must be established before
the case can proceed to the punitive damages phases.

The company has accepted responsibility for phase one, existence
of liability.

The case is currently in the compensatory damages phase, where,
because no class status exists, each plaintiff must individually
establish actual damages.

The initial phase two, compensatory damages trial for 31
plaintiffs was completed on April 27, 2007 with a jury verdict
establishing actual damages of approximately two hundred dollars
per plaintiff.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal staying further action on the case
until the appeal has been resolved.

The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the jury's verdict on
compensatory damages.

The Ohio Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case pursuant to the
company's request with oral argument likely commencing in early
2010.

In a decision dated June 9, 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed
the Ohio Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court jury
instructions and thereby the verdict rendered by the jury.  The
company expects to try additional phase two compensatory damage
trials in 2011, according to the company's Oct 21, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Sigma-Aldrich Corp. -- http://www.sigma-aldrich.com/-- is a
leading Life Science and High Technology company.  The company's
biochemical and organic chemical products and kits are used in
scientific research, including genomic and proteomic research,
biotechnology, pharmaceutical development, and as key components
in pharmaceutical, diagnostic and other high technology
manufacturing.  The company has customers in life science
companies, university and government institutions, hospitals and
in industry.  Over one million scientists and technologists use
our products. Sigma-Aldrich operates in 38 countries and has 7,800
employees providing excellent service worldwide.  The company is
committed to accelerating the company's Customers' success through
leadership in Life Science, High Technology and Service.


SONDE RESOURCES: Inks MOU for Settlement of Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sonde Resources Corp. on Monday disclosed that the parties to the
class action proceedings commenced in United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York and in the Ontario Supreme
Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario against certain former
executives of Sonde and, in the Ontario proceedings, Sonde and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Challenger Energy Corp., have entered
into a memorandum of understanding whereby they have agreed to
settle the Litigation upon the terms and conditions set forth in
the MOU, subject to court approval and all other conditions to the
settlement to be mutually agreed upon in a final stipulation of
settlement.

Under the terms of the MOU, the parties have agreed that the
Stipulation will provide, among other things, for the full and
final disposition of the Litigation, with prejudice and without
costs, by the establishment of a $5.2 million settlement fund by
the Defendants' insurers for the benefit of a settlement class
which shall consist of all those who purchased securities of Sonde
between January 14, 2008 through and including February 17, 2009.
Pending the negotiation and execution of the Stipulation, the
parties to the Litigation will ask the presiding courts to
continue the stay of all proceedings in the Litigation, except as
necessary to consummate the settlement.

Under the terms of the MOU, it is acknowledged and agreed that the
Defendants have denied and continue to deny any and all liability
under securities laws and that they committed any violations of
law or engaged in any wrongful acts, and that the settlement is
being agreed to in order to eliminate the burden and expense of
further litigation.


TRAVELERS COS: Wants Remanded Claims in Antitrust Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., has filed renewed motions to
dismiss the remanded claims in the matter In re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, according to the company's Oct 21,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

In 2005, four putative class action lawsuits were brought against
a number of insurance brokers and insurers, including the company,
by plaintiffs who allegedly purchased insurance products through
one or more of the defendant brokers.  The plaintiffs alleged that
various insurance brokers conspired with each other and with
various insurers, including the company, to artificially inflate
premiums, allocate brokerage customers and rig bids for insurance
products offered to those customers.  To the extent they were not
originally filed there, the federal class actions were transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and were
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings with other class actions
under the caption In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.

On Aug. 1, 2005, various plaintiffs, including the four named
plaintiffs in the above-referenced class actions, filed an amended
consolidated class action complaint naming various brokers and
insurers, including the Company, on behalf of a putative
nationwide class of policyholders.  The complaint included causes
of action under the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, state common law and the laws of the
various states prohibiting antitrust violations.  The complaint
sought monetary damages, including punitive damages and trebled
damages, permanent injunctive relief, restitution, including
disgorgement of profits, interest and costs, including attorneys'
fees.

All defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state
a claim.  After giving plaintiffs multiple opportunities to
replead, the court dismissed the Sherman Act claims on Aug. 31,
2007 and the RICO claims on Sept. 28, 2007, both with prejudice,
and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state
law claims.

The plaintiffs appealed the district court's decisions to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  On Aug. 16, 2010, the
Third Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of all
Sherman Act and RICO claims against certain defendants, including
the company, except for Sherman Act and RICO claims involving the
sale of excess casualty insurance through one defendant broker, as
well as all state law claims, which they remanded to the district
court for further proceedings.

On October 1, 2010, defendants, including the company, filed
renewed motions to dismiss the remanded claims.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. -- http://www.travelers.com-- is a
holding company.  Through its subsidiaries, the company is
principally engaged in providing a range of commercial, and
personal property and casualty insurance products and services to
businesses, government units, associations and individuals.  The
company is organized into three business segments.  The Business
Insurance segment offers an array of property and casualty
insurance, and insurance-related services to its clients primarily
in the United States.  The Financial, Professional & International
Insurance segment includes surety and financial liability
coverages, which primarily use credit-based underwriting
processes, as well as property and casualty products that are
primarily marketed on a domestic basis in the United Kingdom,
Canada and the Republic of Ireland, and on an international basis,
through Lloyd's.  The Personal Insurance segment writes a range of
property and casualty insurance covering personal risks.


UNITED CONTINENTAL: Settles Consolidated Merger-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
United Continental Holdings, Inc., has agreed to settle a
consolidated suit arising from the merger of UAL Corporation and
Continental Airlines, Inc., according to the company's Oct 21,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Following Continental Airlines, Inc. and UAL's announcement of the
merger transaction on May 2, 2010, three class action lawsuits
were filed against Continental, members of Continental's board of
directors and UAL in the Texas District Court for Harris County.

The lawsuits purported to represent a class of Continental
stockholders opposed to the terms of the merger agreement.  The
lawsuits made virtually identical allegations that the
consideration to be received by Continental's stockholders in the
merger was inadequate and that the members of Continental's board
of directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other
things, approving the merger at an inadequate price under
circumstances involving certain conflicts of interest.  The
lawsuits also made virtually identical allegations that UAL and
Continental aided and abetted the Continental board of directors
in the breach of their fiduciary duties to Continental's
stockholders.  Each lawsuit sought injunctive relief declaring
that the merger agreement was in breach of the Continental
directors' fiduciary duties, enjoining Continental and UAL from
proceeding with the merger unless Continental implements
procedures to obtain the highest possible price for its
stockholders, directing the Continental board of directors to
exercise its fiduciary duties in the best interest of
Continental's stockholders and rescinding the merger agreement.
On May 24, 2010, these three lawsuits were consolidated before a
single judge.

On Aug. 1, 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle
regarding settlement of the action.

Under the terms of the settlement, the lawsuits will be dismissed
with prejudice, releasing all defendants from any and all claims
relating to, among other things, the merger and any disclosures
made in connection therewith.  The settlement is subject to
customary conditions, including consummation of the merger,
completion of certain confirmatory discovery, class certification,
and final approval by the District Court.  In exchange for that
release, UAL and Continental provided additional disclosures
requested by the plaintiffs in the action related to, among other
things, the negotiations between Continental and UAL that resulted
in the execution of the merger agreement, the method by which the
exchange ratio was determined, the procedures used by UAL's and
Continental's financial advisors in performing their financial
analyses and certain investment banking fees paid to those
advisors by UAL and Continental over the past two years.  The
settlement will not affect any provision of the merger agreement
or the form or amount of the consideration received by Continental
stockholders in the merger.  The defendants have denied and
continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability with respect to all
claims, events, and transactions complained of in the
aforementioned actions or that they have engaged in any
wrongdoing.  The defendants entered into the settlement to
eliminate the uncertainty, burden, risk, expense, and distraction
of further litigation.

United Continental Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.unitedcontinentalholdings.com/-- is the holding
company for both United Airlines and Continental Airlines.
Together with United Express, Continental Express and Continental
Connection, these airlines operate a total of approximately 5,800
flights a day to 371 airports on six continents from their hubs in
Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Guam, Houston, Los Angeles, New
York/Newark Liberty, San Francisco, Tokyo and Washington, D.C.
United and Continental are members of Star Alliance, which offers
more than 21,200 daily flights to 1,172 airports in 181 countries
worldwide through its 28 member airlines.  United's and
Continental's more than 80,000 employees reside in every U.S.
state and in many countries around the world.


UNITED CONTINENTAL: United Air Defends ADA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
United Air Lines, Inc. continues to defend a suit alleging
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

On June 5, 2009, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
filed a lawsuit on behalf of five named individuals and other
similarly situated employees alleging that United's reasonable
accommodation policy for employees with medical restrictions does
not comply with the requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

United is investigating this matter and cannot assess its possible
exposure at this time.

No updates were reported in United Continental Holdings, Inc.'s
Oct 21, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

United Continental Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.unitedcontinentalholdings.com/-- is the holding
company for both United Airlines and Continental Airlines.
Together with United Express, Continental Express and Continental
Connection, these airlines operate a total of approximately 5,800
flights a day to 371 airports on six continents from their hubs in
Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Guam, Houston, Los Angeles, New
York/Newark Liberty, San Francisco, Tokyo and Washington, D.C.
United and Continental are members of Star Alliance, which offers
more than 21,200 daily flights to 1,172 airports in 181 countries
worldwide through its 28 member airlines.  United's and
Continental's more than 80,000 employees reside in every U.S.
state and in many countries around the world.


VILLAGE DISCOUNT: Sued for Non-Payment of Minimum Wage Rate
-----------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Ramos, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Village Discount Outlet, Inc., Case No. 2010-CH-45402 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. October 19, 2010), accuses Village Discount,
who operates 14 used clothing stores in Illinois, of not paying
its workers the state mandated minimum wage.  Mr. Ramos, who is
employed at defendant's store located at 26th Street in Chicago,
says that the defendant paid him a rate of $7.50 per hour for the
pay periods ending on March 6, 2010, and March 20, 2010, when the
Illinois Minimum Wage Rate during these periods was $8.00 per
hour.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alonzo Rivas, Esq.
          Carlos G. Becerra, Esq.
          RIVAS & BECERRA
          122 South Michigan, Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 753-6967


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: PwC Ordered to Provide Documents
--------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Proctor, et al., on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., et al., Case No.
04-cv-018977 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.), was filed on
August 12, 2010.  The plaintiffs, on behalf of the minority
shareholders of Siliconix, Inc., accused Vishay, Siliconix's
majority shareholder, of misappropriating the Company's assets and
breaching its fiduciary duties.

On October 21, 2010, Rebecca Proctor, et al., filed with the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, an
application for a court order authorizing them to serve in New
York a subpoena duces tecum upon Pricewaterhouse Coopers and
directing PwC to produce the documents identified in the
Deposition Subpoena on November 23, 2010 (pursuant to a commission
issued in connection with the action pending in the Superior Court
of the State of California).  The New York County Clerk assigned
Case No. 113854/2010 to the proceeding.

In an unsigned order dated the same day, the Supreme Court of the
State of New York ordered, pursuant to CPLR Section 3102(e),
respondent to produce the documents requested in subpoena, and an
appropriate Subpoena Duces Tecum be made upon Respondent on or
before October 26, 2010.

David J. McCarthy, Esq., of the law firm Butler, Fitzgerald,
Fiveson & McCarthy, APC, representing the petitioners, in his
affidavit dated October 21, 2010, relates that after the
California Action was commenced, Vishay acquired all the
outstanding shares of Siliconix through a short form merger.
Subsequent to that merger, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to
assert a claim for "quasi-appraisal," alleging Vishay obtained the
shares at a price unfair to the minority shareholders.  Although
the defendants removed the case to federal court, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit later issued an order remanding
the case back to California State Court, in the Superior Court of
Santa Clara County, where Plaintiffs are now proceeding with
discovery on their claims for breach of fiduciary duty and for
inadequacy of notice given to the minority shareholders prior to
Vishay's acquisition of Siliconix.

A central allegation in the California Action is that Vishay
failed to disclose to the shareholders of Siliconix, before the
short-form merger with Siliconix, the scope and financial impact
of a certain Royalty Agreement on its financial position even
though Vishay knew of the same at the time.  Attorney McCarthy
said that PwC was retained by Vishay to evaluate the financial
impact of the Royalty Agreement and therefore the documents
requested are likely to demonstrate the extent of that impact and
Vishay's knowledge of the same.

The Petitioners are represented by:

          David J. McCarthy, Esq.
          BUTLER, FITZGERALD, FIVESON & McCarthy, APC
          36 W. 44th Street, Suite 916
          New York, NY 10036


WYNN RESORTS: Smoking Lawsuit Can Seek Class Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Miller, writing for Las Vegas Business Press, reports a
Wynn Las Vegas employee's lawsuit that accuses the hotel-casino of
creating an unsafe work environment by allowing secondhand smoke,
can proceed and seek class action status, an attorney for the
casino worker said.

Senior Nevada U.S. District Court Judge Lloyd George denied a
motion by Wynn Resorts Ltd. attorneys to dismiss the 2009 lawsuit
filed by Wynn table-games dealer Kanie Kastroll.  In seeking
dismissal, Wynn Resorts argued that the hotel-casino had no duty
under Nevada law to protect employees from secondhand smoke.

Wynn Resorts argued that Ms. Kastroll shouldn't be allowed to
pursue class action status because she failed to meet the
qualifications of a class.  Furthermore, Wynn Resorts argued that
the U.S. District Court in Nevada lacked jurisdiction to hear
Ms. Kastroll's lawsuit, a claim George denied.

Jay Edelson, Ms. Kastroll's Chicago-based lawyer, said he hopes to
file for class action status within 90 days.  Mr. Edelson's firm,
Edelson McGuire, is known for class actions, including a recent
settlement involving lead-painted Thomas the Tank Engine toys.

"I think this ruling is not just a victory in the Wynn case, but
for employee rights around the country," Mr. Edelson said Oct. 13.

A Wynn Las Vegas official said the company does not comment on
pending litigation.

Ms. Kastroll's case could set precedents for determining what
duties employers have to protect workers from secondhand smoke.
Smoking is not prohibited at the Wynn Las Vegas casino floor.  The
lawsuit claims the practice was actually encouraged by the
casino's practice of offering free cigarettes to gamblers.

The lawsuit claims Wynn Las Vegas employees were required if asked
to tell patrons they did not object to customers' smoking.

Mr. Edelson said he has received calls from other Wynn Las Vegas
employees since news of Ms. Kastroll's case broke a year ago.

"If we are successful, we can protect all Wynn employees," he
said.

Mr. Edelson's firm had filed another lawsuit involving secondhand
smoke complaints on behalf of a Caesars Palace employee.  That
lawsuit was later dropped.


                             *********

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  * * *