CAR_Public/101103.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, November 3, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 217

                             Headlines

AGA MEDICAL: Being Sold for Too Little, Delaware Suit Claims
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Accused in Tex. of Selling Defective Cars
BROADCOM CORP: Court Gives Final Approval to $160MM Settlement
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Sued for Breach of Contract
CASH AMERICA: Appeals Court Allows Class Action to Move Forward

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Zamansky Files Lead Plaintiff Motion
FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set November 30
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Fleischer's Class Action Claim May Be Dismissed
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Decertification Ruling
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court Gives Preliminary OK to Settlement Pact

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Geauga County Court Dismisses Suit
GILLETTE COMPANY: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $7.5 Million
GRUNENTHAL GMBH: Faces Class Action Over Thalidomide Injuries
PENNSYLVANIA: Accused of Abusing Powers of Eminent Domain
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Defends Suit Over Defective NID Test Kits

UBS FINANCIAL: Removes "Lewis" Labor Complaint to N.D. Calif.
VITACOST.COM INC: Probe in Securities Class Action Continues
WALGREEN CO: Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Granted
WASHINGTON POST: Faces Shareholder Securities Class Action

                             *********

AGA MEDICAL: Being Sold for Too Little, Delaware Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that AGA Medical is selling itself
too cheaply through an unfair process to St. Jude Medical, for
$1.3 billion, in a stock and cash transaction, shareholders claim
in Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Walling v. AGA Medical Holdings, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 5934 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/29/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Accused in Tex. of Selling Defective Cars
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that BMW sold 2007-2001 model cars
with defective turbochargers, fuel pumps and software, and its
replacement software caused more problems, which customers
couldn't fix unless they installed after-market software that
costs thousands of dollars and voids the warranty, a class action
claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Laurel v. BMW of North America, L.L.C.,
Case No. 10-cv-00346 (S.D. Tex.) (Jack, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/29/BMWCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph M. Dunn, Esq.
          Neil A. Goro, Esq.
          David L. Rumley, Esq.
          Jeffrey G. Wigington, Esq.
          WIGINGTON RUMLEY DUNN, L.L.P.
          601 Howard St.
          San Antonio, TX 78212
          Telephone: (210) 487-7500


BROADCOM CORP: Court Gives Final Approval to $160MM Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
gave its final approval to the agreement settling a consolidated
shareholder class action for $160.5 million, according to the
company's Oct. 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

From August through October 2006 several plaintiffs filed
purported shareholder class actions in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against Broadcom and certain of
its current or former officers and directors.

The suits are Bakshi v. Samueli, et al. (Case No. 06-5036 R
(CWx)), Mills v. Samueli, et al. (Case No. SACV 06-9674 DOC
R(CWx)), and Minnesota Bakers Union Pension Fund, et al. v.
Broadcom Corp., et al. (Case No. SACV 06-970 CJC R (CWx)), (the
Stock Option Class Actions).

The essence of the plaintiffs' allegations is that the company
improperly backdated stock options, resulting in false or
misleading disclosures concerning, among other things, its
business and financial condition.  Plaintiffs also allege that the
company failed to account for and pay taxes on stock options
properly, that the individual defendants sold its common stock
while in possession of material nonpublic information, and that
the defendants' conduct caused artificial inflation in the
company's stock price and damages to the putative plaintiff class.

The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

In November 2006 the Court consolidated the Stock Option Class
Actions and appointed the New Mexico State Investment Council as
lead class plaintiff.

In October 2007 the federal appeals court resolved a dispute
regarding the appointment of lead class counsel.  In March 2008
the district judge entered a revised order appointing lead class
counsel.

The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint in late April 2008, naming additional defendants
including certain current officers and directors of Broadcom as
well as Ernst & Young LLP, the company's former independent
registered public accounting firm.

In October 2008 the district judge granted defendants' motions to
dismiss with leave to amend.  In October 2008 the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint.  In November 2008 defendants filed
motions to dismiss.  In February 2009 these motions were denied
except with respect to E&Y and the former Chairman of the Audit
Committee, which were granted with leave to amend, and with
respect to the former Chief Executive Officer, which was granted
without leave to amend.

The lead plaintiff did not amend its complaint with respect to the
former Chairman of the Audit Committee and the time period to do
so has expired.  With respect to E&Y, in March 2009 the district
judge entered a final judgment for E&Y and against the lead
plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff has appealed the final judgment.

In December 2009, the company agreed in principle to settle the
Stock Option Class Actions.

Under the proposed settlement, the claims against Broadcom and its
current and former officers and directors will be dismissed with
prejudice and released in exchange for a $160.5 million cash
payment by Broadcom.  The parties entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement dated as of April 30, 2010.
The company recorded the settlement amount as a one-time charge in
2009 and subsequent payment was made in June 2010 into a
settlement fund for distribution pending final approval.

On June 1, 2010, the District Court granted preliminary approval
for the proposed settlement and entered an order providing for
notice and a hearing in connection with the proposed settlement.
On July 12, 2010 the lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for
final approval of the proposed settlement.

On Aug. 12, 2010, the District Court entered an order granting
final approval of the Stock Option Class Actions settlement.  On
Sept. 10, 2010 a single purported Broadcom shareholder filed a
notice of appeal of the order in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On Oct. 18, 2010, the Ninth
Circuit dismissed the shareholder's appeal for failure to pay the
filing fees.

Broadcom Corporation -- http://www.broadcom.com/--
provides semiconductors for wired and wireless communications.
Broadcom provides a portfolio of system-on-a-chip solutions to
manufacturers of computing and networking equipment and, broadband
access products and mobile devices.  Its product portfolio
includes solutions for the home (Broadband Communications),
solutions for the hand (Mobile and Wireless) and solutions for
network infrastructure (Enterprise and Networking).


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Sued for Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------
Julia Gallo, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Cablevision Systems Corp., Case No.
10-cv-08125 (S.D.N.Y. October 26, 2010), accuses the cable
services provider of failing to provide its customers Fox
Channels' programming as a result of a contract dispute with News
Corporation and refusing to make restitution to its customers for
the substantial and material interruption of service.

Cablevision's customers pay an average of $150 per month for the
service.

On October 15, 2010, Cablevision's agreement with News Corporation
expired.  According to News Corporation, Cablevision had rejected
numerous proposals on the same terms and conditions of other cable
providers in the New York metropolitan market.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd J. Krouner, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TODD J. KROUNER
          93 North Greeley Avenue
          Chappaqua, NY 10514
          Telephone: (914) 238-5800
          Email: info@krounerlaw.com


CASH AMERICA: Appeals Court Allows Class Action to Move Forward
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Smith, writing for Atlanta Business Chronicle, reports the
Georgia Court of Appeals has given the go-ahead for a class-action
lawsuit against Cash America International Inc.

The suit accuses Cash America (NYSE: CSH) of running illegal
payday loans to Georgia consumers through Community State Bank.

The Georgia Court of Appeals on Oct. 4 upheld the State Court's
decision granting the case class certification.  Cash America
appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court on Oct. 8.

"Cash America believes that the Plaintiffs' claims in this suit
are without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit," the
company said in an Oct. 21 filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Cash America case has been traveling through the Georgia
courts since 2004 when the first lawsuit was filed against the
company in Cobb County State Court.

The plaintiffs claim that Cash America, in an act of "subterfuge,"
used a contract with CSB to funnel payday loans through the bank
in violation of Georgia's usury laws, the state Industrial Loan
Act and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act.

Payday loans are small short-term, high-interest loans opposed by
many consumer advocates.  Payday lending is a multibillion-dollar
industry that is legal in most states, but not in Georgia.

Past attempts to legalize the practice here have failed.  In 2004,
the Georgia General Assembly passed a law bumping up the penalties
for payday lending.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Zamansky Files Lead Plaintiff Motion
---------------------------------------------------------
Zamansky & Associates LLC Friday disclosed that on October 29,
2010, it filed a lead plaintiff motion on behalf of an investor-
client in the securities fraud class action lawsuit against
Corinthian Colleges Inc., and certain of its officers and
directors, pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California (No. 10CV6523).  The lead plaintiff
motion alleges that Zamansky & Associates' client is the investor
with the largest known financial interest in the Corinthian
lawsuit.  Corinthian is accused in the class action lawsuit of
violating United States securities law, causing artificial
inflation of its stock price. According to the Complaint,
Corinthian engaged in fraudulent practices which led to its
overstating its revenues, enrollment and qualifications for
continued participation in federal loan programs.

Zamansky & Associates is also investigating Grand Canyon Education
Inc.; Capella Education Company; Career Education Corporation; and
The Washington Post Company -- whether these Companies engaged in
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to
investors:

   (1) their overstated growth prospects by engaging in illicit
and improper recruiting activities, which also had the effect of
artificially inflating the Companies' reported results and future
growth prospects;

   (2) the Companies' financial results were overstated in that
the Companies' colleges inflated tuition costs and its student
loan repayment rates were well below levels required for
participation in federal loan programs;

   (3) the Companies failed to maintain adequate systems of
internal operational or financial controls; and

   (4) the Companies lacked a basis for their positive statements
about their financial results, their prospects and growth.

Investors in Strayer Education, Inc. should contact Zamansky &
Associates immediately if they wish to file a lead plaintiff
motion in the pending class action in the Untied States District
Court in Florida, Middle District, Tampa Division.  There is a
deadline for filing a lead plaintiff motion. Please contact us for
information on the deadline, and any other information about this
lawsuit.

For more information about Zamansky & Associates' for-profit
education stock cases log on to www.zamansky.com/edustocks

If you have suffered from financial losses in stocks for any of
the education stocks, you may have a legal claim to recover your
losses or other damages.  Please contact us as soon as possible to
protect your rights at 212-724-1414 or at Jake@zamansky.com

                   About Zamansky & Associates

Based in New York City and founded in 1998 by Jacob H. Zamansky,
one of the most successful securities attorneys in the country,
Zamansky & Associates files cases across the United States on
behalf of institutional and individual investors as well as
employees of securities firms and brokerages.  The firm has
represented a wide array of investors and securities industry
clients, and the firm's cases have set major precedents and
spurred industry-wide reform.


FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set November 30
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors of the important November 30,
2010 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action lawsuit the firm
filed on behalf purchasers of FalconStor Software, Inc. common
stock during the period beginning February 5, 2009 through
September 29, 2010, seeking remedies under the federal securities
laws.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other absent members of the class in directing the litigation.

To join the class action against FalconStor, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653.  You may also email
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN
AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The Complaint alleges that FalconStor and certain of its officers
and directors are liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the issuance of
materially false and misleading statements about the Company's
financial condition and prospects.  The Complaint asserts that
defendants failed to disclose that the FalconStor was making
improper payments to secure a contract with at least one of its
customers; the Company was experiencing weak demand for its
products and services; and consequently defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their statements about the Company's
prospects.  The Complaint asserts that when the truth of these
statements began to enter into the market on September 29, 2010
the price of FalconStor stock fell, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 30, 2010.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing and overseeing the litigation.  If you wish to join the
litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action, please contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim,
Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-
mail at lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com
You may also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


FEDERAL EXPRESS: Fleischer's Class Action Claim May Be Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison/St. Clair Record, reports
Mark Goldenberg admits a client who sued Federal Express in 2001
didn't have a valid class action claim, but he argues that a
client he added later can carry the case.

On Oct. 22, Mr. Goldenberg abandoned lead plaintiff Stephen
Fleischer, who claimed Fed Ex owed him and others for late
deliveries.

"After substantial discovery in this action, and after reviewing
the extensive service guide and worldwide directory as they affect
Fleischer's shipments, plaintiffs are willing to stipulate that
Fleischer's claims may be dismissed," Mr. Goldenberg wrote.

Inland Marketing Services, second plaintiff since joining the case
in 2003, would advance to the leading role.

Inland alleges Fed Ex delivered a shipment almost 20 hours late,
in 2001.

According to Mr. Goldenberg, Fed Ex data showed nearly 10,000 late
shipments in Madison County and nearly 18 million nationwide.

He has moved for summary judgment finding Fed Ex breached
contracts.

Fed Ex has moved for summary judgment too, arguing plaintiffs
didn't follow policies requiring them to request invoice
adjustments in writing before they sued.

Mr. Goldenberg responded that a lawsuit counts as a request in
writing.

"The service guide does not say the request cannot be contained in
a complaint filed in court," he wrote in opposition to summary
judgment.

"Plaintiffs have always intended their complaint and first amended
complaint as written requests for refund of an overcharge," he
wrote.

In 2007, Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder denied a motion to dismiss
the case.

Chief Judge Ann Callis transferred the case to Circuit Judge
Daniel Stack this July, after assigning Crowder to asbestos cases
full time.

Judge Stack plans to retire in December.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Decertification Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal the ruling affirming
the decertification of the class in a suit against Jersey Central
Power & Light Company is pending, according to FirstEnergy Corp.'s
Oct. 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat
wave, which resulted in power outages throughout the service
territories of many electric utilities, including JCP&L's
territory.

Two class action lawsuits -- subsequently consolidated into a
single proceeding -- were filed in New Jersey Superior Court in
July 1999 against JCP&L, GPU, Inc., and other GPU companies,
seeking compensatory and punitive damages due to the outages.
After various motions, rulings and appeals, the Plaintiffs' claims
for consumer fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
strict product liability and punitive damages were dismissed,
leaving only the negligence and breach of contract causes of
actions.

On July 29, 2010, the Appellate Division upheld the trial court's
decision decertifying the class.

Plaintiffs have filed, and JCP&L has opposed, a motion for leave
to appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

JCP&L is waiting for the Court's decision.

FirstEnergy Corp. is a diversified energy company headquartered in
Akron, Ohio.  Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the
generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, as well
as energy management and other energy-related services.  Its seven
electric utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth
largest investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million
customers served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio,
Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries
control more than 14,000 megawatts of capacity.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court Gives Preliminary OK to Settlement Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, gave its
preliminary approval to the settlement agreement resolving suits
in connection with its planned merger with Allegheny Energy, Inc.,
according to the company's Oct. 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2010.

In Feb. 10, 2010, FirstEnergy entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger, subsequently amended on June 4, 2010, with Element
Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary and Allegheny Energy,
Inc.  Upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in
the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into
Allegheny Energy with Allegheny Energy continuing as the surviving
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy.

In connection with the proposed merger, purported shareholders of
Allegheny Energy have filed putative shareholder class action
and/or derivative lawsuits against Allegheny Energy and its
directors and certain officers, referred to as the Allegheny
Energy defendants, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub.

Four putative class action and derivative lawsuits were filed in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (Maryland Court).
One was withdrawn.  The Maryland Court has consolidated the
remaining three cases under the caption: In re Allegheny Energy
Shareholder and Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 24-C-10-1301.

Three shareholder lawsuits were filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania and the court has
consolidated these actions under the caption: In re Allegheny
Energy, Inc. Shareholder Class and Derivative, Litigation, Lead
Case No. 1101 of 2010.

One putative shareholder class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and is
captioned Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System
v. Evanson, et al., C.A. No. 10-319 NBF.  In summary, the lawsuits
allege, among other things, that the Allegheny Energy directors
breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement,
and that Allegheny Energy, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub aided and
abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

The complaints seek, among other things, jury trials, money
damages and injunctive relief.

While FirstEnergy believes the lawsuits are without merit and has
defended vigorously against the claims, in order to avoid the
costs associated with the litigation, the defendants have agreed
to the terms of a disclosure-based settlement of all these
shareholder lawsuits and have reached agreement with counsel for
all of the plaintiffs concerning fee applications.

Under the terms of the settlement, no payments are being made by
FirstEnergy or Merger Sub.  A formal stipulation of settlement was
filed with the Maryland Court on Oct. 18, 2010 and agreements have
been signed with plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania proceedings to
dismiss those actions once the settlement is approved by the
Maryland Court.

The Maryland judge has preliminarily approved the stipulation of
settlement and set the final approval hearing date for Dec. 13,
2010.

FirstEnergy Corp. is a diversified energy company headquartered in
Akron, Ohio.  Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the
generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, as well
as energy management and other energy-related services.  Its seven
electric utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth
largest investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million
customers served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio,
Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries
control more than 14,000 megawatts of capacity.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Geauga County Court Dismisses Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The Geauga County Court of Common Pleas granted FirstEnergy
Corp.'s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit related to the
reduction of a discount that had previously been in place for
residential customers with electric heating, electric water
heating, or load management systems, according to the company's
Oct. 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On Feb. 16, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Geauga
County Court of Common Pleas against FirstEnergy, The Cleveland
Electric Illuminating Company and Ohio Edison Company seeking
declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory, incidental and consequential damages, on behalf of a
class of customers related to the reduction of a discount that had
previously been in place for residential customers with electric
heating, electric water heating, or load management systems.

The reduction in the discount was approved by the Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio.

On March 18, 2010, the named-defendant companies filed a motion to
dismiss the case due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court of
common pleas.  The court granted the motion to dismiss on Sept. 7,
2010.

FirstEnergy Corp. is a diversified energy company headquartered in
Akron, Ohio.  Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the
generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, as well
as energy management and other energy-related services.  Its seven
electric utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth
largest investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million
customers served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio,
Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries
control more than 14,000 megawatts of capacity.


GILLETTE COMPANY: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $7.5 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a proposed class action settlement with The Gillette
Company in a class action lawsuit called In re M3Power Razor
System Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation.

The lawsuit claims that Gillette's advertisements stating that the
M3Power Razor "raises or stimulates hair up and away from the
skin" were false and misleading and violated consumer-related laws
in the USA and Canada.  In mid-2005, Gillette deleted those
representations from its ads.  The proposed Settlement is not an
admission of wrongdoing or an indication that any law was
violated.  The Court has not ruled on the merits of the
plaintiffs' claims or on the defenses made by Gillette.  Gillette
denies the allegations but agreed to the proposed Settlement to
resolve this class action.  This lawsuit is not about the safety
of the M3Power Razor.

The proposed Settlement provides $7,500,000 to benefit Settlement
Class Members who obtained an M3P in the USA between May 1, 2004
and September 30, 2005 and in Canada between May 1, 2004 and
October 31, 2005.  M3Ps purchased for re-sale are not included.

The proposed Settlement will provide Settlement Class Members who
submit a valid, timely claim with either a refund (a minimum of
$13 US or $16.25 Canadian, depending on the place of purchase) for
their M3P, or up to two $5 US rebates (up to a total of $10 US, or
the equivalent in Canadian dollars) for any M3Power blades and/or
any Fusion or Fusion ProGlide razor purchased before May 2, 2011,
or a new Gillette manual men's razor as a replacement, and other
relief.

Claims are limited to one per person and three per household.  If
claims exceed the amount available for benefits, there will be no
benefit for replacement razors and the refunds and rebates will be
reduced in proportion.  If claims do not exceed the amount
available, additional benefits may be distributed.

Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. and Robert M. Rothman,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP have been appointed as Settlement
Class Counsel.  If approved, Gillette will pay fees, costs, and
expenses of Settlement Class Counsel, as well as incentive awards
to the individuals who brought the lawsuit.  These amounts will
not be deducted from the proposed Settlement.  You may hire your
own attorney, if you wish, at your own expense.

If you do not want to be legally bound by the proposed Settlement,
you must exclude yourself in writing, postmarked by March 4, 2011,
and sent to the Settlement Administrator at the address below.  If
you stay in the Settlement Class, you may file a claim.  Claims
must be postmarked by May 2, 2011.  You may object to any aspect
of the proposed Settlement.  Objections must be postmarked by
March 4, 2011.  You also may request in writing to appear at the
Final Fairness Hearing, which will be held on March 25, 2011 at
2:00 p.m.  The U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts will consider whether the proposed Settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate and the motion for attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses.  The Court will also consider objections at
that time.

This is only a summary of the proposed Settlement.  For a more
detailed Notice, a copy of the Settlement Agreement, and how to
file a claim: call: 1-877-506-4030, visit:
http://www.m3powersettlement.com/or write to:  M3Power
Settlement, P.O. Box 2302, Faribault, MN 55021-9002.


GRUNENTHAL GMBH: Faces Class Action Over Thalidomide Injuries
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Iaria, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
Australian children who developed deformities after their mothers
took thalidomide while pregnant have launched a class action
against the German company which developed and marketed the drug.

In a writ filed in the Victorian Supreme Court, the five
plaintiffs say they were born with or have suffered injuries
caused by their pregnant mothers' consumption of thalidomide in
Australia.

The action against German company, Grunenthal GmbH is brought on
behalf of those born in Australia or New Zealand between
January 1, 1955 and December 31, 1964, who suffered injuries
including defects and deformities after their pregnant mothers
took the drug.

According to a statement of claim, Grunenthal developed, patented
and marketed thalidomide between about 1950 and 1957 and licensed
Distillers Company Ltd to bring thalidomide to the market within
nine months.

The drug was made available throughout the British Commonwealth
including in Australia and New Zealand by Distillers Company
Limited from 1958.

Marketed under brand name "Distaval", it was made available to
doctors, pharmacies and hospitals in Australia and New Zealand to
supply to women as a tranquilliser and treatment for morning
sickness.

But the statement of claim alleges Grunenthal knew or should have
known Distillers would have little or no chance to test its safety
and was required to rely upon representations Grunenthal made.

Despite not adequately testing its safety, Grunenthal allegedly
portrayed the drug as "completely safe".

The claim also alleges Grunenthal knew from the time it executed
its licensing agreement that there was a suggested link between
thalidomide and a range of adverse health effects.

Between about 1956 and 1961, the company is alleged to have
received reports of birth deformities in infants whose mothers
took thalidomide during pregnancy, but ignored, suppressed and
denigrated people who complained.

When thalidomide was withdrawn from sale in Australia and New
Zealand in 1961, Grunenthal falsely claimed it was withdrawn due
to irresponsible media reporting, according the statement of
claim.

It says the company was so motivated by profits, it acted in
contempt for the rights and health of its victims and ignored
evidence of risks to consumers.

The claim says plaintiffs are likely to suffer reduced life
expectancy and develop, after the age of 50, peripheral
neuropathy, which is a problem with nerves carrying information to
and from the brain and spinal cord.


PENNSYLVANIA: Accused of Abusing Powers of Eminent Domain
---------------------------------------------------------
Erin McAuley at Courthouse News Service reports that with help
from a law office, Pennsylvania and a county redevelopment agency
abused their condemnation powers to help a coal company get its
hands on billions of dollars worth of coal deposits, the Borough
of Centralia and its citizens say in a federal class action.
Centralia claims the conspirators used the pretext of an
underground fire to make a land grab: a gross abuse of their
powers of eminent domain.

"The original government pretense, if indeed it was ever
legitimate, has long since expired," the complaint states.  "In
short, the purported 'Centralia Mine Fire,' which allegedly
threatened the Borough of Centralia, no longer provides, or never
did provide, a viable explanation for the application of
government power (exercise of eminent domain) and the taking of
these American citizens' property."

"These defendants covet billions of dollars worth of extremely
valuable anthracite coal which lies beneath the surface of the
Borough of Centralia.  These persons and entities, by and through
political connections and the manipulation of governmental
agencies and entities, are, among other things, illegally taking
the property of the plaintiffs through the unlawful use of
government police power."

The complaint continues: "Plaintiffs allege that their rights are
being violated by abusive government officials and entities, in
concert with private persons, and that they have been exploited by
the defendants to accomplish their unlawful ends.  The persistent
efforts of this private/government enterprise have resulted in a
massive and continuing fraud reflective of both civil and criminal
RICO violations.  Perhaps the most succinct characterization of
this process is expressed in the wisdom of the Hon. Scott Naus of
the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia County when he obviously
questioned, through the choice of his words, the basis for the
suspicious rush to judgment by individuals and government entities
who were purportedly seeking to respond to the dangers of a fire
that has never materialized as a threat to Centralia.  The fire
has never been investigated. No court has ever held a hearing to
determine whether the fire is, or ever was, a threat to the
Borough or these plaintiffs.  Despite pervasive conflicts in the
'evidence' of the alleged 'threat' posed by the fires, and the
additional evidence of questionable political rationales, the fire
that has never reached, and will never reach, Centralia has been
allowed to act as an engine of private aggrandizement resulting in
the unlawful denigration of citizens' rights."

The class claims that hundreds of fires occur in Pennsylvania
abandoned mines, particularly the anthracite coal mining region in
and around northeast Pennsylvania.  The so-called "Centralia Mine
Fire" started in 1962 in an abandoned coal stripping pit that
Centralia used as a trash dump.

The class adds that any evidence that the fire actually endangered
Centralia was "contrived," and that "no court has ever held a
hearing to determine whether the fire is, or ever was, a threat,"
that "certainly it does not threaten Centralia now and is
retreating at its worst."

The class claims the defendants -- including the Columbia County
Redevelopment Authority and the Rosenn Jenkins and Greenwald law
office -- used the underground fire as a pretext for a "massive
fraud designed to acquire access to the coal under the condemned
area."

The class claims the Borough owns all the coal beneath it and the
defendants cannot get their hands on the coal unless Centralia
ceases to exist.

The class claims the fraud was carried out by Rosenn, Jenkins and
Greenwald on behalf of it client, co-defendant Blaschak Coal Co.,
in corporation with government entities and individuals, including
Rosenn, Jenkins attorneys John Zelinka and Gary Taroli, and Steven
Fishman, spokesman and counsel for the defendant state Department
of Community and Economic Development.

Rosenn, Jenkins has represented various predecessors in interest
of Blaschak, which have asserted rights to the coal since the
1980s, the class says.  Blaschak has significant holdings in the
condemned area, including roughly 52.8 acres of surface rights in
Centralia.

The class claims that any "examination of the applicable maps
showing the geology and water table in the area would demonstrate
that the 'Centralia Mine Fire' would never, and could never reach
Centralia."

They say that the state and county agencies claim to be protecting
Centralia through the Pennsylvania Redevelopment Act from the
"alleged raging presence of an oncoming fire, but there is no
evidence to support the position that the fire presented a real
and present unabatable hazard to any of the residents."

The class adds: "Plaintiffs believe and aver that sometime during
the course of the efforts to extinguish the fires that a plan was
hatched among and between RJG, Nogard, Blaschak, and their
principals to use the fire as a pretext to justify the removal of
all the residents of the Borough, and, as such, to extinguish the
Borough, so that access to billions of dollars worth of coal under
the Borough of Centralia and Conyngham Township could be mined.
Plaintiffs further believe and aver that this conspiracy also
involved a number of local and state public officials, and other
private persons, all of whose identities are not yet known, but
will be developed through discovery."

They add: "(T)he fire that has never reached, and will never
reach, Centralia has been allowed to act as an engine of private
aggrandizement resulting in the unlawful denigration of citizens'
rights."

The class claims that Rosenn, Jenkins knew about the tremendous
coal vein 20 years after the "Centralia Mine Fire" began, but
before the class knew the coal existed, when it made a claim to
the subsurface mineral rights under Centralia in 1981, while
representing the Nogard Coal Co.

In 1983, the class says, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Mines Office of Surface Mining "issued a report trumpeting the
dangers" of what it called the "Centralia Mine Fire."

That same year the Columbia County Redevelopment Authority, as
agent for the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs,
"started a voluntary relocation effort for the citizens of
Centralia Borough, although the fire is believed to never have
existed under the Borough."

The class claims that citizens of Centralia agreed to settlements
because they felt threatened -- but they felt threatened because
they had been misled about the fire and were unaware of the coal
deposits beneath them.

Four hundred of approximately 465 properties were transferred
through a "voluntary program," leaving owners of roughly 60
properties to face formal eminent domain proceedings -- all of
which were filed in the Columbia County Court of Common Pleas in
1993.

Never in any proceedings was the basis or necessity for the use of
eminent domain in Centralia ever explained, the class claims.

As "irrefutable evidence" that the defendants knew there was no
real threat from the fire, even as they bought out the residents
of the borough, the class says that Blaschak "built a warehouse
for mining activities literally right across the Borough line in
or around 2004, within the purported fire impact area.  Upon
information and belief, this facility is to be a hub for mining
activity in the Borough after it ceases to exist."

They add that this "reflected the inside track that RJG's clients
had on manipulating the condemnation issues."

The class claims that Rosenn, Jenkins and its clients bought them
out on the cheap, because they were "feeling threatened, and being
misled about the dangers of the fire."

The complaint continues: "None of these were aware of the
incredible value of the coal beneath them nor that there were
plans to acquire the coal and mine in the Borough, although the
approximate $90,000 amount received by a former Centralia mayor
for her property, an amount believed to be far in excess of the
values offered to other residents, suggests that persons other
than the named defendants, all additionally to be determined
through discovery, were complicit in the scheme."

The class claims their property has been illegally taken through
unlawful use of government police power and exercise of eminent
domain.  It seeks injunctive relief and punitive damages for
conspiracy, fraud, civil and criminal misconduct, violations of
due process and equal protection, punitive damages.

A copy of the Complaint in Hynoski, et al. v. Columbia County
Redevelopment Authority, et al., Case No. 10-cv-02222 (M.D. Pa.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/29/EminentDomain.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Don Bailey, Esq.
          BAILEY & OSTROWSKI
          4311 North Sixth Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Telephone: 717-221-9500


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Defends Suit Over Defective NID Test Kits
------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Inc. and its subsidiary, Nichols Institute
Diagnostics, defend a putative class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The suit was filed on April 2010, York on behalf of entities that
allegedly purchased or paid for certain of NID's test kits.

The complaint alleges that certain of NID's test kits were
defective and that defendants, among other things, violated the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and state
consumer protection laws.

The complaint alleges an unspecified amount of damages.

The test kits are the automated test to measure parathyroid
hormone levels in human blood or urine samples.  Parathyroid
hormone regulates calcium levels and bone cells; parathyroid gland
failure is a common complication of severe kidney disease.
Doctors must monitor hormone levels to ensure that patients
continue to experience burn turnover and a regulated metabolism.

Insufficient levels of vitamin D can cause bone pain, while too
much calcium can cause nausea, vomiting, kidney stones and other
side effects.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 26, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Quest Diagnostics Inc. -- http://www.QuestDiagnostics.com/-- is
the world's leading provider of diagnostic testing, information
and services that patients and doctors need to make better
healthcare decisions.  The company offers the broadest access to
diagnostic testing services through its network of laboratories
and patient service centers, and provides interpretive
consultation through its extensive medical and scientific staff.
Quest Diagnostics is a pioneer in developing innovative diagnostic
tests and advanced healthcare information technology solutions
that help improve patient care.


UBS FINANCIAL: Removes "Lewis" Labor Complaint to N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brooks Lewis, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. UBS Financial Services Inc., Case No. CGC-10-501446 (Calif.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed on July 9, 2010.  The
plaintiff accuses the global financial services company of failing
to pay wages for all hours worked, failing to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, failing to reimburse expenses, and other
violations of the California Labor Code.

Based on diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1332, UBS Financial Services Inc., on October 27, 2010,
removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of California, and
the Clerk assigned Case No. 10-cv-04867 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scot David Bernstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERSTEIN, APC
          101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 447-0100
          E-mail: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com

               - and -

          William Philip Torngren, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM P. TORNGREN
          117 J. Street, Suite 300
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 554-6447

The Defendant is represented by:

Kirby C. Wilcox, Esq.
            Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
            Zach P. Hutton, Esq.
            PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
            55 Second Street, 24th Floor
            San Francisco, CA 94105-3441
            Telephone: (415) 856-7000
            E-mail: kirbywilcox@paulhastings.com
                    jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
                    zachhutton@paulhastings.com


VITACOST.COM INC: Probe in Securities Class Action Continues
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, and KSF partner Former Attorney General of
Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr. disclosed that the firm continues
its investigation in the firm's securities class action lawsuit
against Vitacost.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: VITC).  The lawsuit, Case No.
10-80644, is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of the Company between September 24, 2009 and April 20,
2010, inclusive.  No class has yet been certified in this action.

                         What You May Do

If you have information that would assist KSF in its ongoing
investigation prior to the filing of a consolidated amended
complaint in December, or would like to discuss your legal rights,
you may, without obligation or cost to you, call or e-mail KSF
Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com -- toll
free 1-866-467-1400, ext. 200, after hours via cell phone 504-301-
7900.  KSF encourages anyone with information regarding Vitacost's
conduct during the period in question to contact the firm to
discuss the investigation, including whistleblowers, former
employees, shareholders and others.  KSF attorneys have
significant experience in representing both institutional and
individual shareholders in securities fraud litigation nationwide.

                        About the Lawsuit

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 by
virtue of the Company's failure to disclose during the Class
Period and/or in the offering documents (registration statement
and prospectus) for its initial public offering on or about
September 24, 2009, that the Company was starting a product-mix
shift away from the high-margin proprietary products yet inflated
demand for its proprietary products by pushing out excess product
to customers so that it could mask declining demand; that the
Company was knowingly experiencing logistical issues at its own
plants, lacking adequate oversight processes and procedures and
utilizing ineffective operations software; that the Company lacked
adequate internal and financial controls; and that as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's financial results were materially
inflated at all relevant times.  According to the complaint,
after, on April 20, 2010, the Company announced updated guidance
for revenue for the quarter ending March 31, 2010 and for the full
year 2010, the value of Vitacost.com stock declined significantly.

KSF, whose partners include the Former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., -- http://www.ksfcounsel.com/-- is a law
firm focused on securities class action litigation with offices in
New York and Louisiana.  KSF's lawyers have significant experience
litigating complex securities class actions nationwide on behalf
of both institutional and individual shareholders.


WALGREEN CO: Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted Walgreen Co.'s motion to dismiss a second amended
complaint, according to the company's Oct. 26, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2010.

On April 16, 2008, the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 7
Pension Fund filed a putative class action suit against the
company and its former and current chief executive officers.  The
plaintiffs amended the complaint on Oct. 16, 2008, which upon the
company's motion the District Court dismissed on Sept. 24, 2009.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs moved for the District Court to
reconsider the dismissal and to allow plaintiffs leave to further
amend the complaint.  The District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion on Nov. 11, 2009.

The second amended complaint was then filed on behalf of
purchasers of company common stock during the period between
June 25, 2007 and Oct. 1, 2007.

As in the first amended complaint, the second amended complaint
charges the Company and its former and current chief executive
officers with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, claiming that the company misled investors
by failing to disclose (i) declining rates of growth in generic
drug sales and (ii) increasing selling, general and administrative
expenses in the fourth quarter of 2007, which allegedly had a
negative impact on earnings.

On Feb. 1, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.

On Sept. 29, 2010, the District Court dismissed the second amended
complaint with prejudice.  The plaintiffs have until Oct. 29,
2010, to appeal the District Court's dismissal.

Walgreen Co. -- http://www.walgreens.com/-- is engaged in retail
drugstore business.  As of Aug. 31, 2009, the company operated
7,496 locations in 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico and Guam.  During the fiscal year ended Aug. 30, 2009 (fiscal
2009), the company opened or acquired 691 locations.  Total
locations do not include 337 convenient care clinics operated by
Take Care Health Systems, Inc. within the company's drugstores.
The company's drugstores are engaged in the retail sale of
prescription and non-prescription drugs and general merchandise.
General merchandise includes, among other things, household items,
personal care, convenience foods, beauty care, photofinishing,
candy, and seasonal items. Walgreens offers customers the choice
to have prescriptions filled at the drugstore counter, as well as
through the mail, by telephone and through the Internet.  In
January 2010, the company announced that it has completed the
acquisition of the assets of 12 Eaton Apothecary pharmacies.


WASHINGTON POST: Faces Shareholder Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Washington Post failed to
disclose that its Kaplan education subsidiaries used "abusive and
fraudulent recruiting and financial aid lending practices" to
increase revenue, and the Post's share price dropped by 8 percent
the day after the news came out, shareholders say in a federal
class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Plumbers Local #200 Pension Fund v.
The Washington Post Company, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01835
(Friedman, J.) (D.D.C.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/29/WashPost.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger M. Adelman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROGER M. ADELMAN
          1100 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 730
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 822-0600
          E-mail: radelman@erols.com

               - and -

          David J. George, Esq.
          Robert J. Robbins, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          E-mails: dgeorge@rgrdlaw.com
                   rrobbins@rgrdlaw.com


                             *********

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  * * *