CAR_Public/101102.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, November 2, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 216

                             Headlines

ADVANCED HEARING: Settlement Hearing Set for Dec. 21
ALLSTATE CORP: Posts Underwriting Loss on Class Action Costs
BAC HOME: Faces Class Action for Obtaining Wrongful Foreclosures
BELL CANADA: Sued Over Excessive Interest Rate on Late Fees
C.R. BARD: Intends to Appeal $1.5 Million Judgment Award

C.R. BARD: Continues to Defend Suit Over Filter Products
C.R. BARD: Rehearing on St. Francis Medical's Appeal Pending
CALIFORNIA: Sued for Exposing People to Identity Theft
CLARK COUNTY: Judge Junks Class Action Over Child Welfare System
DELTA AIR: Motion to Certify Section 1 Class Remains Pending

EXTENDED STAY: Sued Over Unlawful Long-Term Lodging Agreement
FERRO CORP: Defends Five Indirect Purchaser Suits in Penn.
FERRO CORP: Continues to Defend Suit in California
HARMONY GOLD: Defends Class Suit by ADR Holders in U.S.
HAWK CORPORATION: D&Os Sued Over Sale to Carlisle

HUGOTON ROYALTY: Court Denies "Roderick" Plaintiffs' Motion
HUGOTON ROYALTY: Oklahoma Court Denies Intervention of "Nevins"
HUGOTON ROYALTY: Class Certification in "Beer" Still Pending
INERGY HOLDINGS: Inks MOU to Settle Suit by Unitholders
INERGY LP: Defends Consolidated Suit by Unitholders

JPMORGAN CHASE: Accused of Manipulating COMEX Silver Market
LEGACY HEALTH: Brown Chiari Files Class Action Lawsuit
LIFE INSURANCE: Removes "Walker" Complaint to N.D. Calif.
MCDONALD'S CORP: Obesity Case Can't Proceed as Class Action
NETBANK INC: Securities Litigation Gets Class Action Status

OMNI ENERGY: Enters Into MOU to Settle Suits in State Court
ONE BEACON: LakinChapman Settles Potential Class Action
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Action Over Cold & Flu Products
RADIOSHACK CORP: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement
RADIOSHACK CORP: App. Ct. Reverses Decertification in "Brookler"

SAN FRANCISCO: Suit Complains About Child Abuse at Juvenile Hall
SONOCO PRODUCTS: Continues to Defend Suit in South Carolina
STEWART TITLE: Sued Over Excessive Title Insurance Premiums
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces New Charges in Acceleration Class Action
ZIMMER INC: Canadian Class Action Over Faulty Durom Cup Begins

* Canadian Employers to Overhaul Policies to Avoid Class Action
* Impact of Foreclosure Proceedings on Local Market Uncertain


                             *********

ADVANCED HEARING: Settlement Hearing Set for Dec. 21
----------------------------------------------------

                    STATE OF OHIO
          BUTLER COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT

  Craig                     )
                            )
          v.                ) Case No. CV2009-01-0196
                            )
  Advanced Hearing          )
  Technologies, Inc.        )

             NOTICE OF HEARING ON
       PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

To: Ohio Residents who purchased hearing aid(s) from
   Advanced Hearing Technologies, Inc. or who were
   sued by Advanced Hearing Technologies, Inc.
   between January 1, 2006 and January 20, 2009
   and who have not previously excluded themselves
   in writing.

   You are hereby notified that there has been filed a proposed
settlement of the class action.  Details of said proposed
settlement can be reviewed at
http://www.proseniors.org/AHTClassAction

    A hearing on whether the proposed settlement should be
approved and adopted by the court is set before Judge Hedric
Butler County Common Pleas Court, Fourth Floor, 315 High Street,
Hamilton, Ohio 45011 on December 21, 2010 at 8:30 A.M.  Class
members who wish to object to said proposal must file objections
in writing, including the heading and case number, with the Butler
County Common Pleas Court no later than DECEMBER 15, 2010.
Objections must also be received by December 15, 2010 by:

      Advanced Hearing Technologies Class Action Litigation
      Notice Administrator
      c/o Pro Seniors, Inc.
      7162 Reading Road, Suite 1150
      Cincinnati, OH 45237


ALLSTATE CORP: Posts Underwriting Loss on Class Action Costs
------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Holm, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports Allstate
Corp.'s shares declined 6% on Thursday, October 28, after the
insurer's third-quarter profit missed analyst estimates.

Results were released after markets closed on Wednesday,
October 27.

Operating earnings of $452 million, or 83 cents a share, were down
16% from the same period a year earlier as Allstate's homeowners
unit reported an underwriting loss on costs tied to settling a
class-action lawsuit.  Analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters had
expected an operating profit of 98 cents a share.

The class-action case had alleged that Allstate had failed to
properly pay general contractors who oversaw construction work on
its customers' damaged homes.  While the case hasn't yet formally
settled, Allstate's settlement offer "appears acceptable to the
plaintiffs," which prompted the company to set aside $70 million
in its reserves, the firm said in a regulatory filing.

The company's auto-insurance operation, its largest unit, also
reported less favorable results.  Underwriting income fell 8.8% to
$281 million as a decrease in claims costs failed to offset a
decline in premium revenue.  The company continued to lose auto
policyholders, as new customers were outnumbered by those who
dropped coverage for the 11th straight quarter.

Allstate shares closed down $2.05 a share, or 6.3%, to $30.43 on
the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday, October 28.

Reversing the decline in auto policyholders has become one of
Chief Executive Officer Tom Wilson's main goals at Allstate.  The
company has tied its employee-incentive programs to customer
loyalty and increased its spending on advertising in an effort to
boost its policy count.

"We have to get to higher customer-service standards," Mr. Wilson
said in an interview.  "We've been pushing that hard.  We did not
make progress on that in this quarter" based on the company's own
measures of loyalty.

But the auto results were also affected by price increases in
Florida and California that caused some customers to leave when
their policies were due to renew, Wilson said.

While analysts most closely follow operating results, the
company's net income, which includes investment gains and losses,
surged 66% to $367 million on markedly improved investment
results.

Furthermore, the company said it expects to hit its 2010 target of
a 10-cent to 12-cent profit margin for every dollar it collects in
premiums from its home and auto customers.  That figure excludes
catastrophe costs and the sort of reserve reestimate that cost the
homeowners unit money in the third quarter.

On that basis, the company earned 10.8 cents on every dollar after
paying claims and expenses in the quarter.


BAC HOME: Faces Class Action for Obtaining Wrongful Foreclosures
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ferraro Law Firm, Daniels Kashtan and The Burton Firm filed a
Class Action lawsuit Wednesday, October 27, against BAC Home Loans
Servicing, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership, a subsidiary of Bank
of America Corporation, and successor in interest to Countrywide
Home Loans Servicing, LP, a Texas limited partnership; Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company, a New York corporation; and U.S. Bank
National Association, a Minnesota association, on behalf of all
those property owners who lost title to their property in
foreclosure proceedings based on false and perjurious affidavits
filed by the Banks and their servicing companies.  They seek to
restore title to the property owners.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants obtained wrongful
foreclosures by abusing the court process and submitting
affidavits that were false, even though sworn to under penalty of
perjury, as the basis for obtaining foreclosure judgments.  The
property owners' due process rights were violated and the Banks
used and abused the court rules and process to obtain judgments
against all of the Class Members.  "The rule of law and due
process are the cornerstone of our judicial system and we must be
able to rely on the integrity of the judicial system before
property rights can be taken away," said Juan Bauta, II, of The
Ferraro Law Firm.  The courts relied on the Banks to provide true
and accurate affidavits before granting judgments and taking the
property away from the property owners.  "In essence, the courts
were lied to and the property owners' due process rights were
blatantly violated," stated Mr. Bauta, II, of The Ferraro Law
Firm, one of the attorneys representing the property owners.

The Complaint seeks to have the judgments that the Banks obtained
with fraudulent affidavits vacated and title restored to the
property owners.


BELL CANADA: Sued Over Excessive Interest Rate on Late Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Louis Aka-Trudel on Thursday, October 28, introduced a motion to
authorize the institution of a class action against the
corporations Bell Canada and Bell Mobility Inc. regarding the
imposition since June 1, 2010, of an annual interest rate of
42.58% on the amounts paid after the expiry date prescribed for
payment.

The unilateral modification by Bell Canada and Bell Mobility Inc.
of the annual interest rate applicable on late fees represents a
58% increase compared to the annual interest rate of 26.82% that
was charged by the two corporations to their clients before
June 1, 2010.

This class action concerns all persons who have paid late fees
since June 1, 2010 pursuant to a contract with Bell Canada or Bell
Mobility Inc. for mobile services, telephone services and other
mobile services as well as Internet services.

All persons concerned by the present motion to authorize the
institution of this class action, may, if they wish, provide us
with their relevant information by completing the form obtained by
consulting the web site of the petitioner's lawyers at
http://www.paquettegadler.com/


C.R. BARD: Intends to Appeal $1.5 Million Judgment Award
--------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc., intends to appeal the $1.5 million judgment
awarded to the plaintiffs in a Multidistrict Litigation over its
hernia repair implant products, according to the company's Oct 25,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

As of Oct. 21, 2010, 1,780 federal and 1,570 state lawsuits
involving individual claims by 3,465 plaintiffs, as well as two
putative class actions in the United States and four putative
class actions in various Canadian provinces, have been filed or
asserted against the company with respect to its Composix(R)
Kugel(R) and certain other hernia repair implant products.

One of the U.S. class action lawsuits consolidates ten previously-
filed U.S. class action lawsuits.  The putative class actions,
none of which has been certified, seek (i) medical monitoring,
(ii) compensatory damages, (iii) punitive damages, (iv) a judicial
finding of defect and causation and/or (v) attorneys' fees.

Approximately 1,545 of the state lawsuits, involving individual
claims by a substantially equivalent number of plaintiffs, are
pending in the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with
the remainder in various other jurisdictions. The Hernia Product
Claims also generally seek damages for personal injury resulting
from use of the products.  The company voluntarily recalled
certain sizes and lots of the Composix(R) Kugel(R) products
beginning in December 2005.

On June 22, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits pending in federal
courts nationwide into one Multidistrict Litigation for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Rhode Island.  The MDL court subsequently
determined to include other hernia repair products of the company
in the MDL proceeding.

The first MDL trial was completed in April 2010 and resulted in a
judgment for the company based on the jury's finding that the
company was not liable for the plaintiff's damages.  The second
MDL trial was completed in August 2010 and resulted in a judgment
for the plaintiffs of $1.5 million.  The company intends to appeal
the judgment.

The company says it expects additional trials of a limited number
of the Hernia Product Claims to take place over the next 12
months.

C. R. Bard, Inc. -- http://www.crbard.com/-- headquartered in
Murray Hill, NJ, is a multinational developer, manufacturer and
marketer of innovative, life-enhancing medical technologies in the
fields of vascular, urology, oncology and surgical specialty
products.


C.R. BARD: Continues to Defend Suit Over Filter Products
--------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc., continues to defend a putative class action
lawsuit involving its vena cava filter products, according to the
company's Oct 25, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

As of Oct. 21, 2010, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 30 plaintiffs have been filed
or asserted against the company in various federal and state
jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use
of the company's vena cava filter products.

In addition, a putative class action lawsuit has been filed
against the company in California state court on behalf of
plaintiffs who are alleged to have no present injury.

The putative class action, which has not been certified, seeks (i)
medical monitoring, (ii) punitive damages, (iii) a judicial
finding of defect and causation and/or (iv) attorneys' fees.

C. R. Bard, Inc. -- http://www.crbard.com/-- headquartered in
Murray Hill, NJ, is a multinational developer, manufacturer and
marketer of innovative, life-enhancing medical technologies in the
fields of vascular, urology, oncology and surgical specialty
products.


C.R. BARD: Rehearing on St. Francis Medical's Appeal Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The rehearing on St. Francis Medical Center's appeal in pending in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, according to C.
R. Bard, Inc.'s Oct 25,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On Feb. 21, 2007, Southeast Missouri Hospital filed a putative
class action complaint on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated against the company and another manufacturer,
Tyco International, Inc., which was subsequently dismissed from
the action.

The complaint was later amended to add St. Francis Medical Center
as an additional named plaintiff.

The action was re-named as St. Francis Medical Center, et al. v.
C. R. Bard, Inc., et al., (Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00031, in the
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern
District) when the court denied Southeast's motion to serve as a
class representative and dismissed Southeast from the lawsuit.

In September 2008, the court granted St. Francis's motion for
class certification and determined the measurement period for any
potential damages.  St. Francis alleges that the company conspired
to exclude competitors from the urological catheter market and
that the company sought to maintain market share by engaging in
conduct in violation of state and federal antitrust laws.  St.
Francis seeks injunctive relief and has presented an expert report
that calculates damages of up to approximately $320 million, a
figure that the company believes is unsupported by the facts.

The company's expert report establishes that, even assuming a
determination adverse to the company, the plaintiffs suffered no
damages.

In September 2009, the District Court granted Bard's summary
judgment motion and dismissed with prejudice all counts in this
action.  St. Francis appealed the court's decision to the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court
dismissing the class action lawsuit.

In October 2010, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals granted St.
Francis's request for a re-hearing of its appeal.

The rehearing is pending.

C. R. Bard, Inc. -- http://www.crbard.com/-- headquartered in
Murray Hill, NJ, is a multinational developer, manufacturer and
marketer of innovative, life-enhancing medical technologies in the
fields of vascular, urology, oncology and surgical specialty
products.


CALIFORNIA: Sued for Exposing People to Identity Theft
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the California Department of
Health Care Services exposes people to identity theft and violates
their privacy by mailing checks with recipients' Social Security
number visible on the front of the envelope, a class action claims
in Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Snyder, et al. v. State of California,
et al., Case No. 34-2010-00090067 (Calif. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/28/IDTheft.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David P. Mastagni, Esq.
          Isaac S. Stevens, Esq.
          Anthony P. Donoghue, Esq.
          MASTAGNI, HOLSTEDT, AMICK, MILLER & JOHNSEN
          1912 "I" Street
          Sacramento, CA 95811-3151
          Telephone: (916) 446-4692


CLARK COUNTY: Judge Junks Class Action Over Child Welfare System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Haynes, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports a
federal judge on October 27 threw out a class action civil rights
lawsuit aimed at revamping Clark County's system for protecting
abused and neglected children.

In his 31-page decision, U.S. District Judge Robert C. Jones said
the lawsuit filed by a national child advocacy group on behalf of
13 foster children failed to show why county and state officials
should be held liable in federal court for problems in Southern
Nevada's child welfare system.

Donna Coleman, founder of the Las Vegas-based Children's Advocacy
Alliance and a critic of the county's Department of Family
Services, said the judge had his mind made up after a hearing last
week.

"He doesn't want these lawyers from California telling Nevada how
to run its child welfare system, but somebody has to," Ms. Coleman
said, referring to the Oakland, Calif.-based National Center for
Youth Law.

Members of the center could not be reached for comment.

In a statement, county officials praised Judge Jones' decision.

"We believe the best way to serve our community is to focus our
efforts on improving services for children and families in Clark
County, not exhausting resources on litigation," the statement
said.

State officials would not comment, saying their lawyers had not
reviewed the decision.

The National Center for Youth Law filed its first lawsuit against
state and county officials in 2006 but withdrew it a year ago
after running into several legal issues raised by Judge Jones.

Lawyers for the group refiled the lawsuit in April after finding
new plaintiffs and rewriting the lawsuit to address Judge Jones'
concerns.  The new lawsuit's defendants included Nevada Department
of Health and Human Services Director Michael Willden, Clark
County Manager Virginia Valentine and county Department of Family
Services Director Tom Morton.

The lawsuit sought class action status for three subgroups among
the county's 3,600 foster children and monetary damages for the 13
foster children named as plaintiffs.

In his decision, Judge Jones ruled that the defendants had
"qualified immunity" from most of the claims in the lawsuit.
Under federal law, government officials have such immunity if
their actions did not violate "clearly established" constitutional
rights.

The lawsuit alleged the officials did not provide adequate
medical, dental and mental health care for foster children.  Judge
Jones wrote that the state is required only to provide "basic
human needs" to children under its care and that anything else
beyond that was not a "clearly established" right.

The lawsuit also alleged the county and state acted with
"deliberate indifference" to obvious dangers when they placed
children in dangerous foster homes.

But under federal law, Jones ruled, officials cannot be held
liable unless their actions created or increased the danger for
the children, not merely exposed them to dangers that already
existed.

Another issue raised was the county's failure to provide
independent representatives for foster children, known as
guardians ad litem, in every case.

But Judge Jones ruled that the state law requiring a guardian ad
litem in every case is in line with the federal law, though in
practice they are not appointed in every case.

Judge Jones wrote that he did not want to step in and enforce that
provision, because it would interfere too much with the workings
of a state court.

Despite Judge Jones' ruling, Ms. Coleman said she was not unhappy
with the dismissal.

She said an appeal is likely and welcomed the chance to put the
case before a new judge.

"In the end we will prevail because we have to," she said.  "These
kids need us."


DELTA AIR: Motion to Certify Section 1 Class Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Section 1 class in the case
entitled In Re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litigation is
pending, according to Delta Air Lines, Inc.'s Oct 25, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

In May, June and July 2009, a number of purported class action
antitrust lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the
Northern District of Georgia, the Middle District of Florida, and
the District of Nevada, against Delta and AirTran Airways.

In these cases, the plaintiffs originally alleged that Delta and
AirTran engaged in collusive behavior in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act in November 2008 based upon certain public
statements made in October 2008 by AirTran's CEO at an analyst
conference concerning fees for the first checked bag, Delta's
imposition of a fee for the first checked bag on Nov. 4, 2008 and
AirTran's imposition of a similar fee on Nov. 12, 2008.

The plaintiffs sought to assert claims on behalf of an alleged
class consisting of passengers who paid the fist bag fee after
Dec. 5, 2008 and seek injunctive relief and unspecified treble
damages.

All of these cases have been consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings in the Northern District of Georgia by the Multi-
District Litigation Panel.

In February 2010, the plaintiffs in the MDL proceeding filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint which substantially
expanded the scope of the original complaint.

In the consolidated amended complaint, the plaintiffs add new
allegations concerning alleged signaling by both Delta and AirTran
based upon statements made to the investment community by both
carriers relating to industry capacity levels during 2008-2009.
The plaintiffs also add a new cause of action against Delta
alleging attempted monopolization in violation of Sherman Act Sec.
2, paralleling a claim previously asserted against AirTran but not
Delta.  Plaintiffs have advised that they do not intend to seek
certification of a class with respect to the Section 2 claims.

In August 2010, the District Court issued an order granting
Delta's motion to dismiss the Section 2 claim, but denying its
motion to dismiss the Section 1 claim, which is now proceeding
through discovery.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify the
Section 1 class, which remains pending.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. -- http://www.delta.com/-- serves more than
160 million customers each year.  With its unsurpassed global
network, Delta and the Delta Connection carriers offer service to
355 destinations in 65 countries on six continents.  Delta employs
more than 70,000 employees worldwide and operates a mainline fleet
of nearly 800 aircraft.  A founding member of the SkyTeam global
alliance, Delta participates in the industry's leading trans-
Atlantic joint venture with Air France KLM.  Including its
worldwide alliance partners, Delta offers customers more than
16,000 daily flights, with hubs in Amsterdam, Atlanta, Cincinnati,
Detroit, Memphis, Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York-JFK, Paris-
Charles de Gaulle, Salt Lake City and Tokyo-Narita.  The airline's
service includes the SkyMiles frequent flier program, the world's
largest airline loyalty program; the award-winning BusinessElite
service; and more than 50 Delta Sky Clubs in airports worldwide.


EXTENDED STAY: Sued Over Unlawful Long-Term Lodging Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Extended Stay Hotels has its rental agreements expire every 29
days and 20 hours to duck state housing laws, subjecting long-
term, often poor families to sudden rent increases and evictions.

A copy of the Complaint in Soroka v. Extended Stay, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-02883 (E.D. Calif.), is available to:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/28/HouseDiscrim.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian J. Barlow, Esq.
          Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          455 Capitol Mall, Suite 231
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 492-1100
          E-mail: mjt@wexlerwallace.com
                  ijb@wexlerwallace.com


FERRO CORP: Defends Five Indirect Purchaser Suits in Penn.
----------------------------------------------------------
Ferro Corporation continues to defend five indirect purchaser
class action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

On May 6, 2004, the company was named in an indirect purchaser
class action in California seeking monetary damages and injunctive
relief relating to alleged violations of the antitrust laws by the
company and others participating in the plastics additives
industry.  The suit is Competition Collision Center, LLC v.
Crompton Corporation, et al., Superior Court of the State of
California for the City and County of San Francisco, Case No.
CGC-040431278.

On Aug. 4, 2005, the company was named in an indirect purchaser
class action lawsuit captioned In Re Indirect Purchaser, Plastic
Additives Litigation, D.R. Ward Construction, et al., v. Rohm &
Haas Company, et al., Case No. 2:05-CV-04157-LDD, MDL No. 1684,
filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

In June 2008, the Company was named in four more indirect
purchaser class action lawsuits:

     (1) Defren v. Rohm & Haas Company, et al.,
         Case No. 2:08-CV-03702-LDD, filed June 12, 2008;

     (2) Zebrowski v. Rohm & Haas Company, et al.,
         Case No. 2:08-CV-04161-LDD, filed June 23, 2008;

     (3) Burg v. Rohm & Haas Company, et al.,
         Case No. 2:08-CV-04162-LDD, filed June 30, 2008; and

     (4) Miller v. Rohm & Haas Company, et al.,
         Case No. 2:08-CV-03701-LDD, filed June 18, 2008.

The four indirect purchaser cases filed in 2008 have been
transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The suits allege violations of antitrust laws by the company and
others participating in the plastics additives industry.  The
suits are currently in their early stages.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct 25, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Ferro Corporation -- http://www.ferro.com/-- is a global supplier
of technology-based performance materials for manufacturers.
Ferro materials enhance the performance of products in a variety
of end markets, including electronics, solar energy,
telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, building and renovation,
appliances, automotive, household furnishings, and industrial
products.  Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Ferro has
approximately 5,200 employees globally and reported 2009 sales of
$1.7 billion.


FERRO CORP: Continues to Defend Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------
Ferro Corporation continues to defend the matter Competition
Collision Center, LLC v. Crompton Corporation, et al., Case No.
CGC-040431278, in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the City and County of San Francisco.

On May 6, 2004, the company was named in an indirect purchaser
class action in California seeking monetary damages and injunctive
relief relating to alleged violations of the antitrust laws by the
company and others participating in the plastics additives
industry.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct 25, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Ferro Corporation -- http://www.ferro.com/-- is a global supplier
of technology-based performance materials for manufacturers.
Ferro materials enhance the performance of products in a variety
of end markets, including electronics, solar energy,
telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, building and renovation,
appliances, automotive, household furnishings, and industrial
products.  Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Ferro has
approximately 5,200 employees globally and reported 2009 sales of
$1.7 billion.


HARMONY GOLD: Defends Class Suit by ADR Holders in U.S.
-------------------------------------------------------
Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited defends a class action filed
by certain American Depositary Receipt holders, according to the
company's Oct. 25, 2010 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.

There is a pending class action in the United States whereby
certain ADR holders are seeking damages against the company
pertaining to its business practices for the period April 7, 2007
to Aug. 6, 2007.

The company has filed with the court a Motion to Dismiss all
claims asserted in the class action case, the plaintiffs have
filed an opposing response, and the company has subsequently
replied to that response.

On March 19, 2010 the Court denied the company's application for
dismissal and subsequently the company filed a Motion for
Reconsideration in which it requested the Court to reconsider its
judgment.  This matter was heard on April 27, 2010, and the
company's request for reconsideration of judgment was denied.  The
company is defending the matter and the legal process is taking
its course.

Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited -- http://www.harmony.co.za/
-- is a gold producer.  The company conducts underground and
surface gold mining and related activities, including exploration,
processing, smelting and beneficiation.


HAWK CORPORATION: D&Os Sued Over Sale to Carlisle
-------------------------------------------------
Timothy B. Hardy, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Hawk Corporation, et al., Case No. 5925- (Del. Ch. Ct.
October 25, 2010), accuses certain officers and directors of Hawk
-- aided and abetted by Carlisle Companies Incorporated -- for
breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company's public
shareholders, in connection with the proposed acquisition of the
Company by Carlisle in an all cash transaction valued at
approximately $413 million.  The transaction has been unanimously
approved by the Boards of Directors of both companies.

Under the terms of the merger which was announced on October 15,
2010, Hawk common shareholders will receive $50 per share in cash
for each share of Hawk they own.  Carlisle and its wholly owned
subsidiary, HC Corporation, will commence a cash tender to
purchase all outstanding shares of Hawk's Class A common stock, to
be followed by a merger of HC with and into the Company.  The
tender offer is expected to commence later this month, and
Carlisle and Hawk expect to close the deal by year-end.

Mr. Hardy says the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by agreeing to the proposed transaction for inadequate
consideration and via an unfair process.

Hawk is a worldwide supplier of friction products for brakes,
clutches and transmissions.  Carlisle is a diversified global
manufacturing company serving the construction materials,
commercial roofing, specialty tire and wheel, power transmission,
heavyduty brake and friction, foodservice, aerospace, and test and
measurement industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR P.A.
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 West Street, 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3800

               - and -

          Juan Monteverde, Esq.
          Shane Rowley, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Fl.
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330


HUGOTON ROYALTY: Court Denies "Roderick" Plaintiffs' Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the plaintiffs in the matter Wallace B. Roderick
Revocable Living Trust, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc., to include the
former class in the matter Beer, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc., has
been denied by the court, according to the company's Oct 25, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

In September 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO
Energy styled Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust, et al.
v. XTO Energy Inc. in the District Court of Kearny County, Kansas.
XTO Energy removed the case to federal court in Wichita, Kansas.

The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has improperly taken post-
production costs from royalties paid to the plaintiffs from wells
located in Kansas, Oklahoma and Colorado.  The plaintiffs also
seek to represent all royalty owners in these three states as a
class.  The plaintiffs' claims overlap the claims made by the
plaintiffs in the Beer/Fankhouser case as to certain properties.

XTO Energy has answered, denying all claims, and has filed motions
to dismiss a portion of the claims.

In January 2010, the federal court granted XTO Energy's motion for
summary judgment concerning prior settled class actions that
overlap plaintiffs' proposed class action.  The court also granted
XTO Energy's motion to dismiss those portions of plaintiffs' class
that are currently being prosecuted in the Beer/Fankhouser class
action.

The Roderick plaintiffs have also filed a motion to include the
former Beer/Fankhouser class into this litigation.  The court
denied the motion.

Hugoton Royalty Trust -- http://www.hugotontrust.com/-- is an
express trust created under the laws of Texas pursuant to the
Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into on Dec. 1, 1998
between XTO Energy Inc., as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as
trustee.  Bank of America, N.A. succeeded NationsBank as the
trustee of the Trust.  XTO Energy conveyed to the Trust 80% net
profits interests in certain natural gas producing working
interest properties in Kansas, Oklahoma and Wyoming under three
separate conveyances.  In exchange for these net profits interest
conveyances to the Trust, 40 million units of beneficial interest
were issued to XTO Energy.  XTO Energy distributed all of its
remaining 21.7 million trust units.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, XTO
Energy is not a unitholder of the trust.  The net profits
interests entitle the Trust to receive 80% of the net proceeds
from the sale of oil and gas from the underlying properties.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: Oklahoma Court Denies Intervention of "Nevins"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The federal district court in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, has denied
intervention of Richard Nevins, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc., et al.,
according to Hugoton Royalty Trust's Oct 25, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

In June 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO Energy
styled Richard Nevins, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc., et al. in
federal district court in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

The case was administratively assigned to the same court where the
Beer case was pending because the complaint purported to cover the
same class as Beer.

With the granting of the Fankhouser intervention, the court denied
the intervention of Nevins.  The time period for appeal of the
ruling has passed.

Hugoton Royalty Trust -- http://www.hugotontrust.com/-- is an
express trust created under the laws of Texas pursuant to the
Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into on Dec. 1, 1998
between XTO Energy Inc., as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as
trustee.  Bank of America, N.A. succeeded NationsBank as the
trustee of the Trust.  XTO Energy conveyed to the Trust 80% net
profits interests in certain natural gas producing working
interest properties in Kansas, Oklahoma and Wyoming under three
separate conveyances.  In exchange for these net profits interest
conveyances to the Trust, 40 million units of beneficial interest
were issued to XTO Energy.  XTO Energy distributed all of its
remaining 21.7 million trust units.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, XTO
Energy is not a unitholder of the trust.  The net profits
interests entitle the Trust to receive 80% of the net proceeds
from the sale of oil and gas from the underlying properties.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: Class Certification in "Beer" Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Texas County, Oklahoma, has yet to rule on
the motion requesting the a class be certified in the matter
Beer, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc, according to Hugoton Royalty
Trust's Oct 25, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

An amended petition for a class action lawsuit, Beer, et al. v.
XTO Energy Inc., was filed in January 2006 in the District Court
of Texas County, Oklahoma by certain royalty owners of natural gas
wells in Oklahoma and Kansas.

The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has not properly accounted
to the plaintiffs for the royalties to which they are entitled and
seek an accounting regarding the natural gas and other products
produced from their wells and the prices paid for the natural gas
and other products produced, and for payment of the monies
allegedly owed since June 2002, with a certain limited number of
plaintiffs claiming monies owed for additional time.  XTO Energy
removed the case to federal district court in Oklahoma City.  A
hearing on the class certification was conducted in October 2008.
At the class certification hearing, the plaintiffs sought to
certify a class of royalty owners whose wells were connected to a
processing plant owned by a subsidiary of XTO Energy in the
Hugoton Field, with two sub-classes consisting of owners in
Oklahoma and Kansas.

In March 2009, the court granted the motion to certify the class.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment for only the
two named plaintiffs.  The court granted the motion in the amount
of $12,779.  A motion for summary judgment related to the
remainder of the class was denied.  Trial was scheduled for April
2010; however, the court vacated the trial date.

At a hearing in April 2010, the court ruled that the class
representatives were no longer proper representatives and stated
that it is considering whether to dismiss class counsel or
decertify the class in whole or in part.  In a subsequent ruling
in April 2010, the court decertified the class.

In April 2010, new counsel and representative parties, Fankhouser
and Goddard, filed a motion to intervene and prosecute the Beer
class.  This motion was granted on July 13, 2010.

The new plaintiffs and counsel filed an amended complaint
asserting new causes of action for breach of fiduciary duties and
unjust enrichment.

Following an additional class discovery period, a class
certification hearing was held on Sept. 27, 2010.  The court has
not ruled on class certification.

Hugoton Royalty Trust -- http://www.hugotontrust.com/-- is an
express trust created under the laws of Texas pursuant to the
Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into on Dec. 1, 1998
between XTO Energy Inc., as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as
trustee.  Bank of America, N.A. succeeded NationsBank as the
trustee of the Trust.  XTO Energy conveyed to the Trust 80% net
profits interests in certain natural gas producing working
interest properties in Kansas, Oklahoma and Wyoming under three
separate conveyances.  In exchange for these net profits interest
conveyances to the Trust, 40 million units of beneficial interest
were issued to XTO Energy.  XTO Energy distributed all of its
remaining 21.7 million trust units.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, XTO
Energy is not a unitholder of the trust.  The net profits
interests entitle the Trust to receive 80% of the net proceeds
from the sale of oil and gas from the underlying properties.


INERGY HOLDINGS: Inks MOU to Settle Suit by Unitholders
-------------------------------------------------------
Inergy Holdings, L.P., has entered into a memorandum of agreement
to resolve a consolidated unitholder suit and the matter Platt v.
John J. Sherman, et al., according to the company's Oct 25, 2010,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Inergy, L.P., Inergy GP, LLC, Inergy Holdings, L.P., Inergy
Holdings GP, LLC, NRGP Limited Partner, LLC and NRGP MS, LLC
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger on Aug. 7, 2010,
which was amended and restated on Sept. 3, 2010, as part of a plan
to simplify the capital structures of Inergy and Holdings.

Following the announcement of the Merger Agreement, five
unitholder class action lawsuits were filed by Holdings
unitholders challenging the proposed merger.

The Holdings Unitholder Lawsuits allege a variety of causes of
action challenging the proposed merger, including that the named
directors and officers have breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed merger and that the named entities
have aided and abetted in these breaches of the directors and
officers' fiduciary duties.  Specifically, the Holdings Unitholder
Lawsuits allege, among other things, that (i) the consideration
offered by Inergy is unfair and inadequate, (ii) the merger is
structured to preclude other potential purchasers of Holdings from
proposing a competing transaction, (iii) the named directors and
officers have engaged in "self-dealing" and, through the merger,
will obtain benefits not equally shared by the public unitholders
of Holdings, and (iv) the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed
by Inergy on Sept. 3, 2010 fails to disclose material information
regarding the proposed merger.  The Holdings Unitholder Lawsuits
were consolidated on Oct. 7, 2010.

In addition to the Consolidated Holdings Action, a sixth Holdings
unitholder class action lawsuit, Platt v. John J. Sherman, et al.,
No. 4:10-cv-991, has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.

The Platt lawsuit brings claims alleging: (1) a violation of
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
alleging that the definitive proxy statement filed on Schedule 14A
on October 1, 2010 contained false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose material facts regarding the negotiation of the
merger agreement and the value of Holdings; (2) breach of
fiduciary duty against Holdings GP and the directors of Holdings
GP; and (3) aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against
Holdings GP and Inergy.

The specific allegations include the following: (i) Holdings
negotiated an inadequate price for its units; (ii) the directors
of Holdings GP breached their fiduciary duties by including deal
protection devices such as a limited "go-shop" period and a
termination fee within the merger agreement; (iii) directors of
Holdings GP engaged in self-dealing and will benefit personally
from the proposed merger at the expense of unaffiliated
unitholders; and (iv) Holdings failed to disclose the underlying
methodologies, projections, key inputs, and multiples relied upon
by its financial advisor, including the bases for the financial
forecasts provided by Holdings management to TudorPickering and
the identities, descriptions, and premiums paid in comparable
transactions, limiting the ability of voting unitholders to assess
the credibility of the TudorPickering fairness opinion. The Platt
lawsuit, like the other Holdings Unitholder Lawsuits, seeks (i) to
enjoin the consummation of the merger or rescind the merger should
it take place, (ii) damages, (iii) an account or disgorgement of
profits, and (iv)attorneys' fees.  The Platt plaintiff filed a
motion for expedited proceedings on Oct. 13, 2010.

On Oct. 25, 2010, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the
Consolidated Holdings Action and the Platt lawsuit.  The MOU
provides that Holdings will make certain supplemental disclosures
in connection with the proxy statement/prospectus sent to the
Holdings unitholders soliciting approval of the proposed merger.
In addition, the MOU provides that plaintiffs' counsel will
petition the court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to
be paid by Holdings.  As part of the proposed settlement, Holdings
has agreed to pay up to $1,000,000 to plaintiffs' counsel for
their fees and expenses, subject to court approval that such an
award is reasonable.  The MOU further provides that the parties
will enter into a stipulation of settlement which will provide,
among other things, for the conditional certification of a
settlement class.  The stipulation of settlement will be subject
to customary conditions, including court approval following notice
to Holdings unitholders.

In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
settlement.  If the settlement is finally approved by the court,
it will resolve and release on behalf of the class in the
Consolidated Holdings Action and the Platt lawsuit all claims that
were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the
proposed merger, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith and a dismissal with prejudice will be filed.
The proposed settlement is subject to a number of conditions,
including, without limitation, completion of certain discovery by
the plaintiffs, the consummation of the merger and court approval
of the proposed settlement.

Inergy Holdings, L.P.'s assets consist of its ownership interest
in Inergy, L.P., including limited partnership interests,
ownership of the general partners, and the incentive distribution
rights.

Headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri, Inergy, L.P.'s operations
include the retail marketing, sale, and distribution of propane to
residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural customers.
Inergy serves approximately 800,000 retail customers from over 300
customer service centers throughout the United States.  The
company also operates a natural gas storage business; a supply
logistics, transportation, and wholesale marketing business that
serves independent dealers and multi-state marketers in the United
States and Canada; and a solution-mining and salt production
company.


INERGY LP: Defends Consolidated Suit by Unitholders
---------------------------------------------------
Inergy, L.P., defends a consolidated action filed by unitholders
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, according to
the company's Oct 25, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Inergy, L.P., Inergy GP, LLC, Inergy Holdings, L.P., Inergy
Holdings GP, LLC, NRGP Limited Partner, LLC and NRGP MS, LLC
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger on Aug. 7, 2010,
which was amended and restated on Sept. 3, 2010, as part of a plan
to simplify the capital structures of Inergy and Holdings.

Following the announcement of the Merger Agreement, a unitholder
class action lawsuit, G-2 Trading LLC v. Inergy GP, LLC et al.,
No. 5816, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware by common unitholders of Inergy against Inergy, Holdings,
Inergy GP, John J. Sherman, Phillip L. Elbert, Warren H. Gfeller,
Arthur B. Krause, Robert D. Taylor, R. Brooks Sherman, Jr., Andrew
L. Atterbury, William C. Gautreaux and Carl A. Hughes.

In addition to the unitholder class action lawsuit challenging the
proposed merger, a second Inergy unitholder class action lawsuit,
Joel A. Gerber v. Inergy GP, LLC et al., No. 5864, has been filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

The plaintiffs in the Inergy Unitholder Lawsuits filed a motion
for a temporary injunction and a motion for expedited treatment.
The court granted the motion for expedited treatment and
consolidated the Inergy Unitholder Lawsuits.

The parties have engaged in discovery, and a hearing on the motion
for temporary injunction was held on Oct. 22, 2010.

The Consolidated Inergy Action alleges several causes of action
challenging the proposed merger, including that the named
directors and officers have breached Inergy's limited partnership
agreement and their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed merger.  Specifically, the Consolidated Inergy Action
alleges that Inergy is paying an excessive price to Holdings
unitholders, thereby diluting the value of Inergy to its current
unitholders.

The consideration provided to Holdings unitholders, the
Consolidated Inergy Action alleges, represents a 20.7% premium to
Holdings unitholders and exceeds Holdings' aggregate enterprise
value by 27%.  The Consolidated Inergy Action further alleges that
the proposed merger will reduce Inergy's public unitholders'
ownership in Inergy from 92% to 57% -- without providing an
adequate return to Inergy unitholders -- so that the named
directors and officers can avoid potential tax ramifications
related to their Holdings common units.  Additionally, the
Consolidated Inergy Action alleges several deficiencies in the
process by which the named directors and officers are conducting
the proposed transaction. Finally,  the plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Inergy Action argue that Inergy's unitholders must
vote on the proposed merger because the merger agreement, they
allege, constitutes a merger between Inergy and Holdings.

Headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri, Inergy, L.P.'s operations
include the retail marketing, sale, and distribution of propane to
residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural customers.
Inergy serves approximately 800,000 retail customers from over 300
customer service centers throughout the United States.  The
company also operates a natural gas storage business; a supply
logistics, transportation, and wholesale marketing business that
serves independent dealers and multi-state marketers in the United
States and Canada; and a solution-mining and salt production
company.

Inergy Holdings, L.P.'s assets consist of its ownership interest
in Inergy, L.P., including limited partnership interests,
ownership of the general partners, and the incentive distribution
rights.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Accused of Manipulating COMEX Silver Market
-----------------------------------------------------------
GoldAlert reports two of the world's largest banks, JPMorgan Chase
and HSBC were accused of manipulating the COMEX silver market
during the first half of 2008 by two individual traders, Brian
Beatty and Peter Laskaris.

The lawsuit, which seeks class action-status, alleges that
"between in or about March 2008 and continuing through the
present, Defendants have combined, conspired and agreed to
restrain trade in, fix, and manipulate prices of silver futures
and options contracts traded in this District on the COMEX
division of the NYMEX.  Defendants thereby have violated Section 1
of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C Par. 1.  Also during the Class
Period, individual Defendants have intentionally acted to
manipulate prices of COMEX silver futures and options contracts.
Such conduct violates Section 9(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act,
7 U.S.C. Par. 13b."

The cases are Beatty v. JPMorgan Chase & Co et al, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, No. 10-08146, and Laskaris
v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al. in the same court, No. 10-08157.


LEGACY HEALTH: Brown Chiari Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
New York nursing home abuse and neglect law firm Brown Chiari LLP
has filed a class action lawsuit against Legacy Health Care on
behalf of all residents who resided at Legacy facility from at
least 2007 to the present, citing neglect and endangerment to the
welfare of residents.  Legacy Health Care operates numerous
elderly care facilities including Ridge View Manor LLC,
Williamsville Suburban LLC, Williamsville View Manor Nursing Home,
and Sheridan Manor.  Richard Zacher, owner and administrator of
the named facilities, is also listed as a defendant in the case,
as are John Doe 1-200, which includes agents or employees of the
above-mentioned facilities.

Brown Chiari filed the class action lawsuit against the nursing
home chain on behalf of plaintiffs due to alleged deprivation of
rights and benefits to which residents were legally entitled.
Among the causes of action brought in this lawsuit, the named
defendants are accused of failing to ensure a dignified existence
for residents, inadequate staffing, and quality of care issues.

Legacy Health Care Facilities and those named under their umbrella
are also accused of fraud, breach of contract and negligence.  The
complaint states that defendants have violated Section 2801-d of
the Public Health Law by failing to staff facilities with adequate
and qualified personnel to care for residents, compromising
dignity of residents and quality of care.  Plaintiffs' complaint
also claims breach of contract, as individual plaintiffs entered
into contracts with defendants in return for health care services
for related residents.

Questions raised by plaintiffs in this complaint relate to
fraudulent conduct by defendants, failure to employ sufficient
staff to properly care for residents, engagement in unfair or
deceptive conduct in regards to administration, management and
operation of facilities, and failure of defendants to support and
advance environments that provide dignity and proper quality of
care to residents.

Brown Chiari represents all plaintiffs in this lawsuit on behalf
of their right to be compensated for damages and other costs
related to breach of contract, fraud, and misrepresentation of
care and services provided.


LIFE INSURANCE: Removes "Walker" Complaint to N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Walker, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. Life Insurance Company of the Southwest (LSW), Case
No. CGC-10-504-020 (Calif. Super. Ct. San Francisco Cty.), was
filed on September 24, 2010.  The plaintiffs accuse LSW, which
sells indexed universal life insurance policies, including the
SecurePlus Provider policy and the SecurePlus Paragon policy, to
individuals throughout California, of misrepresenting that its
policies will provide the policyholder with significantly yearly
income, while concealing the very substantial costs of buying and
maintaining the policies, the risks that the policies will not
perform as LSW illustrated, and the safety of security of the
policies as investment or retirement vehicles, in violation of
Insurance Code Sections 330, 332 and 10509, et seq., and
California's Unfair Competition Law.  As a result of these
misrepresentations and non-disclosures, policyholders are induced
to invest substantial assets in the policies, in many cases by
cashing out their retirement accounts or selling their homes, only
to realize that they are unable to take their money out of the
policies without paying enormous surrender charges.

SecurePlus Provider and SecurePlus Paragon are equity-indexed
universal life insurance policies that have a fixed interest rate
component as well as an indexed account option.  Indexed universal
life insurance policies provide a death benefit to a designated
beneficiary upon the death of the insured person and allow a
policyholder also to accumulate cash value based on the
performance of certain stock indices.  The indexed account option
options accumulates cash value in the policy based on the
performance on the Standard & Poor's 500.

On the basis that the appropriate U.S. District Court has removal
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d), LSW, on
October 26, 2010, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of
California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 10-cv-04852 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles N. Freiberg, Esq.
          Brian P. Brosnahan, Esq.
          Jacob N. Foster, Esq.
          KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP
          101 California Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 421-6140

               - and -

          Harvey R. Levine, Esq.
          Craig A. Miller, Esq.
          LEVINE STEINBERG MILLER & HUVER
          550 West C Street, Suite 1810
          San Diego, CA 92101-8596
          Telephone: (619) 231-9449

The Defendant, LSW, is represented by:

          Jonathan A. Shapiro, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          950 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 858-6101
          E-mail: jonathan.shapiro@wilmerhale.com


MCDONALD'S CORP: Obesity Case Can't Proceed as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew M. Harris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports McDonald's
Corp. convinced a U.S. judge that consumers' claims that its food
contributed to childhood obesity were too distinct to be gathered
in a single group lawsuit.

"Plaintiffs' claims will necessitate extensive individualized
inquiries," Judge Donald Pogue in Manhattan said Wednesday in a
43-page decision in a lawsuit filed in 2002 by teenagers Ashley
Pelman and Jazlen Bradley.

They accused McDonald's of deceptively marketing its Chicken
McNuggets, fish sandwiches, hamburgers and French fries from 1985
to 2002, harming their health and violating New York law.

Judge Pogue, a U.S. Court of International Trade judge sitting by
special designation in district court, said the consumers hadn't
shown that other people of a similar age suffered the same medical
injuries after being exposed to the same marketing and eating the
same food.

Lawyers for Ms. Pelman and Ms. Bradley estimated that the class
size could number in the thousands, according to the ruling.

The decision comes a week after the restaurateur, based in the
Chicago suburb of Oak Brook, Illinois, posted a 10 percent gain in
third-quarter profit by luring customers with new menu items
including fruit smoothies and frappes.

The landscape for the unhealthy-fast-food dispute has changed in
the eight years since the New York lawsuit was filed.

New York City's Board of Health in 2006 banned the use of trans
fats in cooking oils, requiring the city's 24,000 food
establishments to eliminate it from their kitchens.  At least a
dozen other municipalities have adopted similar ordinances.

Healthier Alternatives

McDonald's has added healthier alternatives to its children's
menu, including apples, apple juice and low-fat milk.

"We are extremely pleased with the court's decision [Wednes]day,"
Heidi Barker, a spokeswoman for McDonald's, said in an e-mailed
statement.  "As we have maintained throughout these proceedings,
it is unfair to blame McDonald's for this complex societal
problem."

A federal appeals court in 2005 reversed a judge's decision
dismissing the case, which sought billions of dollars in damages.
The appeals court ruled that the teens and their attorneys should
be allowed to collect evidence to support their claims that
McDonald's misled consumers about cumulative effect of daily
consumption.

Samuel Hirsch, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, didn't
immediately respond to a call and e-mail seeking comment on
Wednesday's decision.

Happy Meal Toys

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based
nonprofit consumer advocacy group, sent McDonald's a letter in
June demanding that it stop including toys as premiums with its
children's Happy Meals.

"McDonald's is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to
children," Stephen Gardner, the center's litigation director, said
in a statement.

"McDonald's use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits
young children's developmental immaturity -- all this to induce
children to prefer foods that may harm their health," Mr. Gardner
said.  "It's a creepy and predatory practice that warrants an
injunction."

McDonald's Chief Executive Officer Jim Skinner, in a July 6 reply
letter called the "stranger in the playground" characterization
"an insult to every one of our franchisees and employees around
the world."

Nutrition Information

The company makes "comprehensive nutrition information" available
to parents, Mr. Skinner said, adding that the public doesn't
support CSPI's claims.

"Parents, in particular, strongly believe they have the right and
responsibility to decide what's best for their children, not
CSPI," the CEO said.

Jeff Cronin, a spokesman for the center, didn't immediately reply
to voice-mail and e-mail requests seeking comment Wednesday on the
status of the group's dispute with McDonald's.

The case is Pelman v. McDonald's Corp., 02-cv-07821 (S.D.N.Y.).


NETBANK INC: Securities Litigation Gets Class Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C., Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the
Class in the NetBank, Inc. Securities Litigation class action
suit, announced the following:

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

    IN RE NETBANK, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-cv-02298-TCB

    SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO, DURING THE PERIOD MARCH 16, 2005 THROUGH AND
INCLUDING MAY 21, 2007, PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE
PUBLICLY-REGISTERED COMMON STOCK OF NETBANK, INC. ("NETBANK"), AND
HELD SUCH STOCK AS OF MAY 21, 2007, AND WERE DAMAGED AS A RESULT
("THE CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a class action has been certified in
the above entitled matter pending before the Honorable Timothy C.
Batten, Sr., United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Georgia.  The action asserts claims against Defendants
Douglas K. Freeman, James P. Gross, Steven F. Herbert, Thomas H.
Muller, Jr., Eula L. Adams and David W. Johnson, Jr., for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws.

If you are a member of the Class and have not yet received the
"Notice of Pendency of Class Action," which more completely
describes the terms of this class action and your rights
thereunder, you should immediately obtain a copy at
http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com/;
http://www.bergermontague.com/; or http://www.gorbypeters.com/;
or by contacting:

   In re NetBank, Inc. Securities Litigation -- Notice of Pendency
   c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP
   P.O. Box 58999
   Philadelphia, PA  19102-8999
   Telephone: (800) 768-8450
   Web site: http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com/

DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE FOR INFORMATION.


OMNI ENERGY: Enters Into MOU to Settle Suits in State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
OMNI Energy Services Corp. has entered into a memorandum of
agreement to settle suits pending in the 15th Judicial District
Court, Parish of Lafayette, State of Louisiana, arising out of its
planned merger with Wellspring Capital Management LLC, according
to the company's Oct 25, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The consolidated actions in state court captioned Dominick Nasuti
v. OMNI Energy Services Corp., et al. No. C-20103872 C (La. 15th
JDC); consolidated with Kevin J. Jeansonne v. OMNI Energy Services
Corp., et al., No. C-20104156 C (La. 15th JDC); consolidated with
Ted Moreno v. OMNI Energy Services Corp., et al., No. C-20103872 C
(La. 15th JDC); and consolidated with Kenneth Olsen, et al. v.
Omni Energy Services Corp., et al., No. C-20104041 C (La 15th JDC)
filed in the 15th Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafayette,
State of Louisiana, remained pending notwithstanding the Federal
Court settlement.

Following the execution of the memorandum of understanding with
the Federal Court plaintiffs, defendants moved for and were
granted a stay of the consolidated State Court actions.  Shortly
thereafter, the state plaintiffs requested and were granted the
right to intervene in the Federal Court action to, among other
things, request that the Federal Court vacate the stay of the
State Court actions.  The State Court plaintiffs also requested,
and were granted, an expedited hearing of their motions.  The
Federal Court lifted the stay.  The State Court plaintiffs filed a
motion in State Court for a preliminary injunction enjoining the
shareholder vote on the Merger.  A hearing on the preliminary
injunction motion was set for Oct. 25, 2010 in State Court.
Defendants filed papers in opposition to the State Court
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and challenging the
scheduling of the preliminary injunction hearing.

On Oct. 24, 2010, the company, along with the other defendants,
entered into a memorandum of understanding with the state
plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the consolidated actions
pending in State Court.  Pursuant to the memorandum of
understanding with the State Court plaintiffs, we, together with
the other defendants, agreed that in addition to the disclosures
in the Supplement to the Proxy Statement that plaintiffs' counsel
in the State Court had previously requested and some of which was
contained in the Supplement to the Proxy Statement, the company
would make further supplemental disclosures regarding the Merger.

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


ONE BEACON: LakinChapman Settles Potential Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison/St. Clair Record, reports
LakinChapman lawyers settled a potential class action over claims
that One Beacon Insurance improperly discounted medical bills
before paying them.

Madison County Circuit Judge David Hylla announced an agreement on
Sept. 29, asking for appropriate papers before Nov. 17.

He set the stage in August by denying summary judgment to the
insurer.

The former Lakin law firm sued One Beacon in 2005, ahead of the
effective date of the Class Action Fairness Act that steered most
new class actions to federal courts.

As the deadline approached, the Lakins sued every insurer they
could.

For class representatives they offered a network of local
chiropractors and their clinics, alone or in combinations, with
identities and roles that would shift from year to year.

Judge Hylla's August order identified Lebanon Chiropractic Clinic
as lead plaintiff.

His September order, in his own hand, identified Metro East as
lead plaintiff.

All the complaints focus on contractors the chiropractors didn't
sue.

Judge Hylla's August order declared, "Genuine issues of material
fact still exist as to whether Intracorp had a contract with CCN
during the 1997 and 2000 time frames."

"In addition, the court finds that Intracorp was not a 'payor' as
defined and required by the provider agreements," Judge Hylla
wrote.

"Also, nothing in the provider agreements authorizes a payor to
pass along PPO discounts to a non-payor such as defendant, One
Beacon.

"Whether Defendants had a contract with or were in privity with a
party that had a contract with plaintiffs for PPO discounts
remains a question of material fact."

Judge Hylla found further issues of fact on consumer fraud and
unjust enrichment, "including whether contractual privity existed
that entitled defendant to take PPO discounts."

"If no such contractual privity existed, defendants'
representations that it was taking discounts pursuant to such
privity may be found to be fraudulent," Judge Hylla wrote.

He held that workers' compensation law didn't apply because the
alleged damages didn't result from a patient's injury.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Action Over Cold & Flu Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric F. Greenberg, writing for Healthcare Packaging, reports when
P&G adds Vitamin C to Vicks DayQuil and NyQuil products, FDA
complains and plaintiffs bring class action.

Two recent developments, both relating to Procter & Gamble over
its marketing of combination cold and flu products with vitamin C,
provide slightly differing windows into two distinct legal issues
of importance to packagers.

The first issue dates back to last year when P&G combined its
popular Vicks DayQuil and NyQuil products for colds and flu, which
the U.S. Food & Drug Administration views as drugs, with Vitamin
C, usually a dietary supplement.  FDA wrote P&G a Warning Letter
saying that's a no-no.  The reason, essentially, is that Vitamin C
is not generally recognized as safe and effective as an active
ingredient in cold and flu remedies.  FDA noted that including
Vitamin C in a cold and flu product, together with claims on the
label and the company Web site that, for example, Vitamin C will
"blunt the effects" of a cold, made the whole product a drug, and
Vitamin C an active ingredient.

The emergence of dietary supplements in the mid-90's following the
passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act has led
to a complex and sometimes confusing proliferation of products--
some of them drugs, some of them supplement-- claiming to have
health effects.  Since then, exactly where the boundary lies
between drugs and supplements, when the supplements make claims
for their effects, has been a constant subject of examination and
debate.

But this P&G combination raises new and different questions, as it
represents a creative new way to challenge the border between drug
and supplement.  It's not always going to be unlawful to combine a
drug and supplement, but it is important not to combine the claims
for the two in such a way that the supplement becomes part of the
drug product, rendering the whole product a drug with an
unapproved active ingredient.  At least that's FDA's position on
the matter.

Regulatory enforcement

The second topic is the interplay of regulatory enforcement and
private civil lawsuits.  If your company violates the Federal
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), we know the FDA can come
after you with enforcement actions, but can a private person sue
you for your violations and alleged they were damaged by the
alleged violations?

No, they can't.  As we say, there is no "private right of action"
under the FFDCA that gives an individual the legal power to sue
for damages over a company's violation of the FFDCA.

But what if whatever it was your company is alleged to have done
wrong -- say, putting false or misleading information in its ads
or on its labels -- also violates some other law, such as one or
another state's consumer protection law?  A lot of those laws say
consumers are to be protected from false or misleading product
advertising and labeling, and they allow private persons who have
seen that advertising or labeling to bring a lawsuit for damages
against the offending company.  Commonly, the individual hasn't
been damaged much if at all, so industrious lawyers combine
thousands or millions of "plaintiffs" into a class action case.

In September, a federal court in Ohio dismissed one such class
action, Loreto v. Procter & Gamble Co., this one against P&G over
these very same Vicks DayQuil and NyQuil products.

The plaintiffs and their lawyers appeared to have been inspired by
FDA's Warning Letter, seeing what they perceived as an opportunity
to attack a product civilly that had already been attacked
regulatorily.

The court said the plaintiffs hadn't alleged that P&G had done
anything wrong except market a product that was an unapproved new
drug, in other words, violated FDA's requisites for drugs under
the FFDCA.  In fact, the court said the plaintiffs hadn't alleged
that the products "were actually ineffective."  Makes you wonder
if they could have proven such a thing if they had alleged it.
Probably not, so that's why they didn't allege it.

Interestingly, the court noted that just because the FDA has said
in the past that Vitamin C is not generally recognized as safe and
effective for halting or shortening colds doesn't mean it doesn't
help colds.  In other words, it's not an automatic logical leap
from saying FDA doesn't approve of this product to saying that
marketing it is misleading or fraudulent.  The court found the
plaintiffs' claims to be equivalent to trying to assert a "private
right of action" for the company's alleged violations of the
FFDCA.

We might not have heard the end of either of these episodes (the
dismissal of the Loreto case is on appeal) but for now, for P&G,
it's a case of win some, lose some.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
gave its final approval to the settlement agreement resolving the
purported class action lawsuit Richard Stuart v. RadioShack
Corporation, et al., according to the company's Oct 25, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The suit was filed on June 7, 2007, against RadioShack based on
allegations that RadioShack failed to properly reimburse employees
in California for mileage expenses associated with their use of
personal vehicles to make transfers of merchandise between company
stores.

On Feb. 9, 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.

Following a mediation held on Oct. 5, 2009, the parties reached an
agreement to settle the lawsuit for a total of $4.5 million,
subject to court approval.

The parties reached agreement on all terms of the proposed
settlement agreement in January 2010, and the plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Preliminary Approval on Feb. 24, 2010.

On April 19, 2010, the court approved plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Settlement and set the hearing for
final approval of the settlement for Aug. 6, 2010.

On Aug. 9, 2010, the court granted final approval to the
settlement.

The settlement proceeds were delivered to the claim administrator
for distribution to the class members and others on October 1,
2010.

RadioShack Corp. -- http://www.radioshackcorporation.com/-- is
primarily engaged in the retail sale of consumer electronics goods
and services through its RadioShack store chain and non-RadioShack
branded kiosk operations.


RADIOSHACK CORP: App. Ct. Reverses Decertification in "Brookler"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Appellate Court reversed the Los Angeles County
Superior Court's decertification of the class in the matter
Brookler v. RadioShack Corp., according to the company's Oct 25,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The litigation involves allegations that RadioShack violated
California's wage order and labor code relating to the provision
of meal periods.

On Oct. 10, 2008, the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted
RadioShack's second Motion for Class Decertification in the class
action lawsuit.

Plaintiffs' claims that RadioShack violated California's wage and
hour laws relating to meal periods was originally certified as a
class action on Feb. 8, 2006.  RadioShack's first Motion for
Decertification of the class was denied on Aug. 29, 2007.

However, after the California Appellate Court's favorable decision
on similar facts in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior
Court, RadioShack again sought class decertification.

Based on the California Appellate Court's decision in Brinker, the
trial court granted RadioShack's second motion.

The plaintiffs in Brookler have appealed this ruling.

Due to the unsettled nature of California state law regarding the
standard of liability for meal period violations, RadioShack and
the Brookler plaintiffs agreed to a stay with respect to the
plaintiffs' appeal of the class decertification ruling, pending
the California Appellate court's decision in Brinker.

The appellate court denied this joint motion and then heard oral
arguments for this matter on Aug. 5, 2010.

On Aug. 26, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
decertification of the class, and the company's Petition for
Rehearing was denied on Sept. 14, 2010.

On Sept. 28, 2010, the company filed a Petition for Review with
the California Supreme Court.  The Petition is currently pending.

RadioShack Corp. -- http://www.radioshackcorporation.com/-- is
primarily engaged in the retail sale of consumer electronics goods
and services through its RadioShack store chain and non-RadioShack
branded kiosk operations.


SAN FRANCISCO: Suit Complains About Child Abuse at Juvenile Hall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action brought by a Juvenile Hall counselor on behalf of
child claims alleges detention officers abused the children in
their care and conspired to cover it up.  The long list of abuses
includes "punching, kicking, choking," and "inappropriate touching
of a sexual nature to a minor under the age of sixteen," according
to Alfred Lam, Esq., who is also the attorney for the class.

"Multiple violations of the United States Constitution under the
4th, 8th, and 14th Amendments for use of excessive, unreasonable,
and unnecessary force; conspiracy to use such force and the cover
up of violations thereof in using such force" are among the many
allegations in the 42-page complaint filed on behalf of Resident
Minors of the City and County of San Francisco.

Mr. Lam claims the District Attorney for the City and County of
San Francisco (CCSF) "has a 'pattern and history' of refusing to
investigate and prosecute CCSF juvenile detention officers
involving the same or similar action, behavior, and conduct giving
rise to child abuse and neglect."

Mr. Lam claims that one child who was detained "several years
before 2000" at San Francisco's Juvenile Hall was forced by a much
larger officer "into the public urinal area to drink the fluid."

The complaint also states: "On or about February 7, 2007, minor
No. 16 reported to authorities that because of his nightmares,
stress, and horror that he was subjected to, he had difficulty
sleeping and was in constant fear and worry that officers would
come into his room and beat him up because just three days earlier
he witnessed two officers go into another minor's room and
severely beat that minor for no apparent reason."

In another case: "Throughout 2006 and 2007, several minors,
including minor No. 14, made numerous complaints of unlawful force
and abuse by officers inside CCSF JH to Captains No. 1 and No. 2.
However, their typical responses were 'Who (in CPS) are they going
to believe, you little punk ass criminal or Peace Officers?'"

Mr. Lam claims Juvenile Hall officials failed to properly
investigate an officer who eventually was arrested and imprisoned
for distributing child pornography over the Internet.

"Why would any state agency hire a pedophile into a position of
authority to watch over juveniles? Again, this is a 'fox guarding
the chicken coop' mentality," Mr. Lam says in the complaint.

"All of the aforementioned incidents represents only the 'tip of
the iceberg' into the magnitude and severity of the problems
occurring on a daily basis at CCSF JH between officers and minor
residents," the complaint states.

"Unfortunately, the well-known 'code of silence' by management and
staff members keeps these problems from ever being resolved as
employees witnessing or being involved in the incidents are too
afraid to come forward or know it will be futile."

The class demands punitive damages for civil rights violations,
conspiracy to deprive them of constitutional rights, gross
negligence, and assault and battery.

A copy of the Complaint in Resident Minors of the City and County
of San Francisco v. Brown, et al., Case No. 10-cv-04838 (N.D.
Calif.) is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/28/JuvyHall.pdf


SONOCO PRODUCTS: Continues to Defend Suit in South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sonoco Products Co. continues to defend a class action complaint
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina.

On July 7, 2008, the company was served with a complaint filed by
the City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated.  The suit is a class
action on behalf of those who purchased the company's common stock
between Feb. 7, 2007 and Sept. 18, 2007, except officers and
directors of the company.

The complaint, as amended, alleges that the company issued press
releases and made public statements during the class period that
were materially false and misleading.  The complaint also names
certain company officers as defendants and seeks an unspecified
amount of damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct 25, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2010.

Founded in 1899, Sonoco Products Co. --
http://http://www.sonoco.com/-- is a $3.6 billion global
manufacturer of industrial and consumer products and provider of
packaging services, with more than 300 operations in 35 countries,
serving customers in some 85 nations.


STEWART TITLE: Sued Over Excessive Title Insurance Premiums
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Stewart Title charged
homeowners who refinanced in Texas more for title insurance than
allowed by state law, a class action claims in Dallas County
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Mims, et al. v. Stewart Title Guaranty
Company, Case No. 10-14112 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Dallas Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/28/StewartTitle.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric G. Calhoun, Esq.
          TRAVIS, CALHOUN & CONLON, P.C.
          1000 Providence Towers East
          5001 Spring Valley Road
          Dallas, TX 75244
          Telephone: (972) 934-4100
          E-mail: eric@travislaw.com

               - and -

          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          James A. Maro, Jr., Esq.
          BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces New Charges in Acceleration Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Gardner, writing for Free Press Business, reports new court
filings accuse Toyota of secretly repurchasing vehicles whose
owners reported unintended acceleration and forcing owners to sign
confidentiality agreements promising not to discuss their
complaints.

In addition, attorneys representing thousands of Toyota owners
charged that the automaker's technicians were able to replicate
the sudden acceleration and failed to notify the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration of the problem.

NHTSA spokeswoman Olivia Alair said the agency first received
Toyota technicians' reports earlier this year "as part of our
ongoing investigation of unintended acceleration, but we didn't
receive complaints directly from the consumers."

The new charges are part of a 1,056-page document filed Wednesday,
October 27, as part of a class action case against the Japanese
automaker.

Toyota said in a statement that it repurchased two vehicles for
further engineering analysis.  However, it said that technical
specialists and engineers were unable to duplicate the condition.

"As part of our commitment to investigate acceleration concerns,
we have voluntarily repurchased other vehicles," said Brian Lyons,
a Toyota spokesman.  "The repurchase was not mandatory or directed
through an arbitration or court process."

Toyota technicians confirmed cases in which vehicles accelerated
out of control.

More than 200 lawsuits filed against Toyota after the automaker
recalled millions of vehicles because of acceleration problems
have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge James Selna in
Santa Ana, Calif.

In October, Toyota settled a lawsuit over a fatal crash near San
Diego.  Off-duty California Highway Patrol Officer Mark Saylor,
his wife, daughter and brother-in-law died in August 2009 when
their 2009 Lexus ES350 crashed.  The accident prompted Toyota to
recall more than 6 million cars to replace floor mats that it said
could cause the accelerator to stick or replace accelerator pedals
it said could stick.


ZIMMER INC: Canadian Class Action Over Faulty Durom Cup Begins
--------------------------------------------------------------
On October 27, 2010, the Toronto law firm of Rochon Genova LLP
issued a national class action on behalf of persons in Canada,
excluding residence of British Columbia, who were implanted with
the Zimmer Acetabular Durom Component.  The national class action
is against Zimmer Inc., Zimmer Holdings, Inc. Zimmer GMBH and
Zimmer of Canada Limited.  The Zimmer group of companies is one of
the largest producers of orthopedic devices in the world.

The Durom Cup was first licensed by Health Canada in 2005.  The
Durom Cup is an artificial joint socket used in total hip
replacement surgery.  It is part of a metal-on-metal hip implant
system that was widely marketed to physicians and patients as
providing greater range of motion and greater durability than
traditional hip replacement prosthetic implant components.  The
Durom Cup was designed to bond to the patient's hip bone, thus
keeping the cup in place.

In July 2008, Zimmer, Inc., and its related companies issued a
"temporary suspension" of sales of the Durom Cup in the United
States due to a high failure rate of the device.  The Statement of
Claim estimates that the failure rate to date of Durom Cups
implanted in the United States and Canada is approximately 24%.
Despite the suspension of sales in the United States, the product
continued to be marketed and sold in Canada.  It was not until
November 15, 2009 that Zimmer issued a safety notice in Canada.
Despite the suspension of sales in the United States, sales
continued in Canada.

It is alleged that that the Durom Cup is defective and fails to
adhere to the bone as intended.  Rather than bonding to the bone,
the device loosens and separates from the hip socket causing the
patient excruciating pain and potentially damaging the pelvic
bone.   When the product fails, patients are required to undergo
revision surgery to replace the defective component.

According to the Statement of Claim, Zimmer began receiving
complaints from physicians that the Durom Cup was failing as early
as 2007. Joel P. Rochon, a partner at Rochon Genova LLP said: "The
disturbing aspect of this claim is that despite strong warnings
from a leading American orthopedic surgeon in April 2008, and
suspension of sales in the United States in July 2008, Zimmer
continued to market the Durom Cup to surgeons and patients in
Canada."

Eric Mets, a resident of Toronto, Ontario is the proposed
representative plaintiff.  Mr. Mets was implanted with the Durom
Cup in October 2008 several months after sales of the device had
been suspended in the United States.  Following his 2008 hip
replacement, Mr. Mets suffered excruciating pain that hindered his
ability to perform basic daily tasks.  In August 2010, as a result
of the defective Durom Cup, he was required to undergo a further
hip replacement surgery.


* Canadian Employers to Overhaul Policies to Avoid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daryl-Lynn Carlson, writing for Financial Post, reports that in
light of a number of class action lawsuits initiated against
workplaces due to their failure to properly compensate all of
their employees for overtime hours worked, employers are taking
the initiative to revisit their policies to ensure they are not
next to be sued.

Yet it may take one key case to reach the Supreme Court of Canada
to clarify the Canada Labour Code definition of employees --
particularly those in supervisory roles who, at many workplaces,
have not been entitled to overtime pay for work performed beyond
the 40-hour work week mandated under the code.

In the United States, Wal-Mart has requested that the Supreme
Court review a California 9th Circuit court decision to certify
and uphold a class action against the department store chain for
allegedly being biased in its treatment of women employees.

"Under the Canada Labour Code, all overtime that is required or
permitted by the employer has to be paid, so the issue is whether
an employer can say, 'We won't pay you for anything that doesn't
comply with our strict policy'," said Louis Sokolov, who leads the
class action and civil litigation groups at Sack Goldblatt
Mitchell in Toronto.

Mr. Sokolov -- who is representing the plaintiff groups in class
actions against ScotiaBank, CIBC and CNR -- said that, should a
case reach the SCC, it could resolve many questions regarding
workplace overtime policies across the country.

In the CNR case, the company is appealing a Superior Court
decision to certify the case although justices at the Ontario
Court of Appeal have already differed in their opinions in earlier
employment-related class actions.

"There are procedural complexities and what is also interesting is
that you have different judges who have different approaches to
the cases," Mr. Sokolov said.  "So what it means for workplaces is
that the courts are going to have to determine what policies are
lawful and what aren't."

Peter Roy and David O'Connor, with Roy Elliott O'Connor in
Toronto, are working with Mr. Sokolov on the three cases.  They
agree the cases each have their own complexities, although they
are encouraged with the number of employers they've been told of
that have changed their overtime policies before being sued.

"We're trying to bring the force of the class-action process to
bear on behavior modification and we think it's very important for
employers to change their approach in the way they pay supervisors
and schedule employment," Mr. Roy said.

But each case is symbolic of a "David versus Goliath" battle, he
said.  "We are in the process of fighting some of the largest,
most financially able and well-represented defendants that you
could imagine, so we have a lot of time, effort and anxiety
invested into these cases."

Mr. O'Connor elaborated, "I think in that way the class actions in
the overtime field have proven advantageous in modifying behavior
and, in addition, have already provided some access to justice and
change without all of the employers being sued."

He pointed to the class action against KPMG which reached a
settlement -- and two other professional accounting firms followed
suit, offering their employees a lump-sum payment to compensate
for overtime work.

"I don't want people to think this is a wide-open attack on every
employer in Canada because it's not," he added.  "We are
concentrating on employers who have systems that are open to
debate or challenge on a systemic level."

But the lawsuits are, indeed, having a positive affect.  "We've
heard from employers that they all want to make sure their
employees are being paid correctly."

Henry Juroviesky, at the Juroviesky law firm in Toronto,
represented the plaintiffs in the KPMG case.  He said the case was
significant for employers on several fronts, particularly KPMG's
eagerness to achieve an equitable settlement.

It demonstrates that an overtime class action case can be a
viable, fair and manageable class action, said Mr. Juroviesky.

"KMPG came to the table very early. Gone are the days when you
fight for five years and then you settle," he said.  "KPMG said
'Let's make it right' and they set a very good example for
corporate citizens in Canada."

As a result, his firm has been approached by other employees
seeking to resolve overtime issues at their respective workplaces
and, in many instances, the workplace is happy to comply.

"When we do knock on their door, given the current case law
landscape as it stands, they are receptive and willing to work
with us," he said.

John Lorn McDougall and Norm Emblem, at FMC Law, represented KPMG.
Mr. McDougall said once the firm realized it was not in compliance
with the law, it offered up a generous plan that was dubbed the
Overtime Redress Plan, or ORP for short.

Through FMC, KPMG retained Crawford & Company class-action
services to provide mediation and arbitration services to
determine how much to pay their professionals, so those who had a
dispute would not feel like they were fighting their employer
again.

Ultimately, 99% of the OPR money was collected and the additional
1%, which was unclaimed by former employees, was donated to the
United Way.


* Impact of Foreclosure Proceedings on Local Market Uncertain
-------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Baniak, writing for Smiley Pete Publishing, reports as banks
and courts across the country look to resolve concerns about
improper paperwork in foreclosure proceedings, one thing is clear:
The longer the uncertainty lingers, the worse the effects will be
-- and the problems don't appear to be going away any time soon.

In September, a civil-racketeering class action was filed in
Louisville by Kentucky homeowners against GMAC Mortgage, Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company, Citimortgage and others, alleging
that they conspired with Mortgage Electronic Registry Systems
Inc., or MERS, to wrongly foreclose on homes.  The lawsuit holds
that MERS, an electronic registry service created as a means to
track the ownership of mortgage loans, did not hold title to any
of the properties in question, and therefore did not have the
right to initiate foreclosure proceedings.

Among other allegations, the 124-page class action complaint, the
first of its kind to be filed in the country, takes issue with the
conversion of mortgage loans into collateral for mortgage-backed
securities without the knowledge of the homeowners.  The lawsuit
argues that failure to disclose this information should make the
mortgage contracts voidable under Kentucky contract law.

"As an attorney, I would make the argument that securitization is
illegal, as the homeowner has agreed to pledge their home by
signing a mortgage enforcing a negotiable instrument, not as a
pledge for the collateral of a MBS," said Heather Boone McKeever
Haffey, the Lexington attorney representing the Kentucky
homeowners in the class action, by e-mail.  "Most times, the home
had been pledged to a MBS and made part of the Investor Sales
Prospectus before the homeowner ever made it to the closing
table."

The lawsuit also calls into question the legitimacy of REMICs, or
real estate mortgage investment conduits, federally regulated
securities used as "pass-through" vehicles by corporations and
trusts in the pooling of mortgage loans.  If the courts and the
IRS were to agree, such entities could potentially lose their
status as tax-exempt entities and wind up on the hook
retroactively for federal and state income taxes.  MERS and other
entities along the hidden chain of title that did not file the
proper documentation during the process could owe considerable
county clerks' mortgage recording fees as well.

The potential back taxes could amount to billions, according to
Ms. McKeever Haffey.

"Avoiding and breaking mortgage recording laws was one of the
goals of MERS," Ms. McKeever Haffey said.  "The recoupment of the
county clerks' recording fees alone could get Kentucky out of
debt."

But while such a ruling might prove to be a boon for state and
local governments, a lengthy stalling of foreclosures could bring
more trouble for the economy as a whole.  Throwing the brakes on
foreclosures could impede correction in the housing market, which
would also slow the country's economic recovery, said Donald
Mullineaux, the DuPont Endowed Chair in Banking and Finance
Services at the University of Kentucky's Gatton College of
Business and Economics.

"It would slow down the necessary adjustment in the housing
sector," Mr. Mullineaux said.  "It will just take us a lot longer
to work through the problem."

At the same time, a halt to foreclosure would also mean losses for
those invested in mortgage-backed securities, which are currently
the biggest asset on the market and included in many pension
funds, Mr. Mullineaux said.  And depending on the extent of the
problem, it could also drive up the cost of obtaining a mortgage
in the future.

"Creating uncertainty about how foreclosures work is quite likely
to make mortgages more expensive in the long term," Mr. Mullineaux
said.  "How much, we can't say, but we know it's not going to make
them cheaper."

In terms of the local real estate market, it is too early to tell
if there will be any fallout from foreclosure concerns at this
point, said Anthony de Movellan, operations manager of Prudential
A.S. de Movellan and president of the Lexington-Bluegrass
Association of Realtors.

"I think it's yet to be seen or proven in the courts if there's
actually a problem with concern to the news that's come out,"
Mr. de Movellan said.  "But I would get advice if I was going to
buy a foreclosed property right now."

The foreclosure and eventual sale of a property is a lengthy
process, Mr. de Movellan said, and a few weeks of uncertainty
would have no immediate effect on the Lexington market, which has
been slow growing but relatively stable over the past 12 to 24
months.  The only noticeable fluctuation in home sales,
Mr. de Movellan said, occurred shortly after the expiration of the
home buyer tax credit.

"If something happens so that no bank can foreclose on a home for
six months or one year or whatever, then somewhere down the line,
we may see an effect in terms of fewer homes coming on the
market," Mr. de Movellan said.  But at this point, Mr. de Movellan
expects continued slow growth in the future for central Kentucky
real estate, which he sees as healthy for the market.

As of mid-October, Keysha Cuyler, director of home ownership
education and counseling for Community Ventures Corporation, was
still waiting for information from lenders on the status of
pending client cases.  While the voluntary temporary halt on
foreclosures by a few banks was seen by some as an opportunity for
distressed borrowers to buy more time in keeping their home,
Cuyler is concerned that those seeking an alternative resolution
to foreclosure, such as a short sale or unemployment mortgage
forbearance, might be kept in limbo as well.

"I'm hoping that that doesn't happen," Ms. Cuyler said.

The number of foreclosure counseling clients served by the CVC has
started to pick up in recent months, which Ms. Cuyler attributes
to a recent wave of mortgage loans, including many interest-only
mortgages, coming due.

"We saw a decline in the beginning of this year, but we suspected
there was going to be a rise heading into 2011," Ms. Cuyler said.
"Starting in September, we did see a rise in our call volume."

So far, neither de Mr. Movellan nor Ms. Cuyler has sensed any
hesitancy on the part of homebuyers as a result of the
uncertainties related to foreclosures.

"We are still working with the lenders," Ms. Cuyler said.  "We are
still working with clients and just hope they don't get
discouraged about what's going on.  If they need help, they can
call us."


                             *********

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  * * *