CAR_Public/101104.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 4, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 218

                             Headlines

ABBOTT LABS: Sued for Selling Defective Similac Powdered Formulas
ACURA PHARMA: D&Os Face Another Suit Over Acurox
AGA MEDICAL: Board Sued Over Sale to St. Jude Medical
ARENA PHARMA: Securities Class Action Deadline Approaching
BRISTOL-MYERS: Motion to Dismiss Indirect Purchaser Suit Pending

BRISTOL-MYERS: Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration Pending
BRISTOL-MYERS: Final Approval Hearing of Settlement in November
BRISTOL-MYERS: Supreme Grants Certiorari to 340B Entities
CALIFORNIA: Request to Rescue Photo Ticketing Programs Junked
CANADA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Illegal Smoke Shacks

CANADA: Tobacco Producers File Class Action Over Excise Tax
CELANESE CORP: Court Dismisses "Freeman Industries" Suit
CELANESE CORP: CNA Holdings Remains a Defendant in Various Suits
CELANESE CORP: Aggregate Funding for Settlement at $1.1 Billion
CHEMTURA CORP: Jan. 5 Claims Filing Deadline Set in BioLab Suit

CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Class Action Over Bond Market Fund Losses
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeals Court Junks Labor Law Class Action
CLARIENT INC: Board Sued Over Sale to General Electric
E.I. DUPONT: Expects Ruling on Plaintiffs' Appeal in 2011
E.I. DUPONT: Continues to Defend Two Suits in New Jersey

E.I. DUPONT: Plaintiffs in Virginia Suit Agree to Reduced Award
EDUCATIONAL TESTING: Faces Class Action Over GRE Results
ENCORE CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Class Suit Counterclaim
ENCORE CAPITAL: Defends Suits Over Claims for FDCPA Violations
FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Corrects Class Action Filing Release

FAMILY DOLLAR: Discloses "Scott" Suit Has 48 Named Plaintiffs
FAMILY DOLLAR: Continues to Defend "McCauley" Suit in Kentucky
FAMILY DOLLAR: Continues to Defend "Wright" Suit in Illinois
FAMILY DOLLAR: Defends Suits Over Store Managers' Exempt Status
FORD MOTOR: ERISA Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay

GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Class Action Over Hudson CDO Securities
HEIDI DIAZ: Loses Kimkins Diet Class Action Lawsuit
HOSPIRA INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Court's Ruling Still Pending
INTUIT INC: Faces Class Action Over Quickbooks Service Outages
LENNOX INTERNATIONAL: Inks MOU to Settle "Keilholtz" Suit

MDL 2029: Wal-Mart Settles Netflix & Blockbuster Customers' Suits
NEW ORLEANS: City Council Seeks to Bring Back Red-Light Cameras
POINT BLANK: Creditors Back Effort to Upset Class Action Suit
SANTEE ELECTRIC: Releases Independent Audit Report
SIGMA PHARMA: Faces Class Action for Misleading Investors

TOYOTA MOTOR: Berman DeValerio Unveils Class Action Settlements
U.S. STEEL: Antitrust Suit Over Products Ongoing in Illinois
WALGREEN CO: Sued in Florida for Misleading Advertising


                             *********

ABBOTT LABS: Sued for Selling Defective Similac Powdered Formulas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria C. Kiely, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., Case No.
2010-CH-46753 (Ill. Cir. Ct. October 27, 2010), accuses the
healthcare company of selling defective Similac-brand infant
powder formulas.  Ms. Kiely alleges that Abbott's Similac-brand
formulas had been contaminated and contained beetles and beetle
larvae, which if consumed by infant children, could lead to
serious health concerns, including gastrointestinal problems,
diarrhea and the like.

On September 22, 2010, Abbott announced a voluntary recall for
Similac powder products.

Ms. Kiely says she purchased Similac Advance Early Shielf Poweder
34 oz. With Lot No. 712077Y as well as other defective Similac
products.  She alleges that her infant child became sick after
ingesting the defective product.

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

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com


ACURA PHARMA: D&Os Face Another Suit Over Acurox
------------------------------------------------
Jason Hagan, derivatively on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2010-CH-46621 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. October 27, 2010), is
a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of nominal
defendant Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., against the members of the
Company's Board of directors and certain of its executive officers
seeking to remedy defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and
other violations of the law that occurred from at least
February 21, 2006, through April 22, 2010.  The suit alleges that
defendants misrepresented the Company's clinical trial results on
Acurox, its leading product candidate, to obtain FDA approval.
After the FDA rejected the Company's new drug application for
Acurox in April 2010, the Company's stock price plummeted and
nearly 50% of the Company's market capitalization evaporated.

Acura, a specialty pharmaceutical company, and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Acura Pharmaceutical Technologies, Inc., engage in the
research, development, and manufacture of pharmaceutical products
designed to discourage drug misuse and abuse.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
         POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
         10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Telephone: (312) 377-1181

              - and -

         Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
         THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
         The Preston Commons
         8117 Preston Road, Suite 300
         Dallas, TX 75225
         Telephone: (214) 706-9314

              - and -

         Patrick Powers, Esq.
         Mark Taylor, Esq.
         Peyton Healey, Esq.
         POWERS TAYLOR
         8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 1575
         Dallas, TX 75206
         Telephone: (214) 239-8900

Kiley Hill, derivatively and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2010-CH-46380 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. October 25, 2010), was
reported by the Class Action Reporter on November 1, 2010.


AGA MEDICAL: Board Sued Over Sale to St. Jude Medical
-----------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Walling, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Aga Medical Holdings, Inc., Case No. 5934- (Del. Ch.
Ct. October 28, 2010), accuses the Plymouth, Minn.-based company,
which engages in the development, manufacture, and marketing of
medical devices for the treatment of structural heart defects and
vascular abnormalities primarily in the United States and Europe,
and its Board of Directors of breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with the proposed sale of the Company to St. Jude
Medical, Inc., and its indirect, wholly owned subsidiary, Asteroid
Subsidiary Corporation, in a cash and stock tender offer and
second-step merger valued at roughly $1.3 billion in the
aggregate.  St. Jude Medical commenced a Tender Offer on October
20, 2010.  The Offer is currently set to expire on November 17,
2010.

St. Jude Medical, a Minnesota corporation, develops, manufactures,
and distributes cardiovascular and implantable neurostimulation
medical devices worldwide.

Ms. Walling says the proposed transaction is the product of a
flawed process that resulted from the failure of the Board to
maximize shareholder value and also deprived the Company's public
shareholders of the ability to participate in the Company's long-
term prospects.

Franck L. Gougeon, the Company's Co-Founder, who beneficially
holds roughly 20% of the Company's outstanding common stock, and
Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, which beneficially holds roughly
45% of the Company's outstanding common stock, have agreed to
tender all of their shares in the Tender Offer.

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) 294-5310


ARENA PHARMA: Securities Class Action Deadline Approaching
----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors of the important November 19,
2010 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action lawsuit the firm
filed on behalf of purchasers of Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
securities.  The Rosen Law Firm encourages purchasers of Arena
securities during the period between December 8, 2008 and
September 17, 2010, to contact the firm to inquire about being a
lead plaintiff.

To join the class action against Arena Pharmaceuticals, 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.

The complaint alleges that the Company misled investors to believe
that the pre-clinical and clinical trial data for its
developmental drug lorcaserin, or Lorqess, indicates it is a safe
therapy for weight management.  On September 14, 2010, the FDA
disclosed that lorcaserin caused cancer in rats in certain
preclinical studies.

As a result of this adverse news, Arena shares declined from a
close of $6.85 per share on September 13, 2010, to close at $4.13
per share on September 14, a decline of $2.71 per share or
approximately 40%.  On September 16, 2010, the Wall Street Journal
reported that a federal advisory panel rejected lorcaserin.  On
September 17, 2010, Arena shares declined an additional $1.99 per
share or approximately 47%, causing investors substantial losses.

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 ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 19, 2010.  If you wish to join the litigation,
or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- or Phillip Kim, Esq. --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at
866-767-3653.  You may also visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/

The Rosen Law Firm concentrates its practice on investor
securities litigation, representing investors throughout the
world.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Motion to Dismiss Indirect Purchaser Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.'s motion to dismiss the matter In re:
Plavix Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, remains pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Eighteen lawsuits comprised of both individual suits and purported
class actions have been filed against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division, by various plaintiffs, including pharmacy chains --
individually and as assignees, in whole or in part, of certain
wholesalers -- various health and welfare benefit plans/funds and
individual residents of various states.

These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the purported
settlement with Apotex Corp. of the patent infringement litigation
violated the Sherman Act and related laws.

Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, permanent injunctive
relief barring the Apotex settlement and/or monetary damages.

The putative class actions filed on behalf of indirect purchasers
have been consolidated under the caption In re: Plavix Indirect
Purchaser Antitrust Litigation.  An amended complaint was filed on
Oct. 19, 2007.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in December 2007 and that
motion remains pending.

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.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. -- http://www.bms.com/-- is a global
biopharmaceutical company committed to discovering, developing and
delivering innovative medicines that help patients prevail over
serious diseases.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for reconsideration of the plaintiffs on the dismissal
of the matter In re: Plavix Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation,
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.

Eighteen lawsuits comprised of both individual suits and purported
class actions have been filed against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division, by various plaintiffs, including pharmacy chains --
individually and as assignees, in whole or in part, of certain
wholesalers -- various health and welfare benefit plans/funds and
individual residents of various states.

These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the purported
settlement with Apotex Corp. of the patent infringement litigation
violated the Sherman Act and related laws.

Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, permanent injunctive
relief barring the Apotex settlement and/or monetary damages.

The putative class actions filed on behalf of direct purchasers
have been consolidated under the caption In re: Plavix Direct
Purchaser Antitrust Litigation.  An amended complaint was filed on
Oct. 19, 2007.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in December 2007.

In March 2010, the District Court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss with respect to all the direct purchaser claims.

In April 2010, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration with the District Court.

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.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. -- http://www.bms.com/-- is a global
biopharmaceutical company committed to discovering, developing and
delivering innovative medicines that help patients prevail over
serious diseases.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Final Approval Hearing of Settlement in November
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., in its Oct. 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2010, discloses that the final approval hearing
for the settlement agreement in a consolidated suit is scheduled
to occur in November 2010.

The company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class
actions as well as suits brought by the attorneys general of
various states.  In these actions, plaintiffs allege that
defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices of their products
to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs, entities and
persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on AWPs.

One set of class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (AWP MDL).

In August 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval of
a proposed settlement of the AWP MDL plaintiffs' claims against
the company for $19 million, plus half the costs of class notice
up to a maximum payment of $1 million.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. -- http://www.bms.com/-- is a global
biopharmaceutical company committed to discovering, developing and
delivering innovative medicines that help patients prevail over
serious diseases.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Supreme Grants Certiorari to 340B Entities
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on the issue of whether
entities that purchased drugs pursuant to the 340B drug discount
program have standing to sue pharmaceutical manufacturers,
including Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 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 August 2005, the County of Santa Clara filed a purported class
action against the company and numerous other pharmaceutical
manufacturers on behalf of itself and a putative class of other
cities and counties in California, as well as the covered entities
that purchased drugs pursuant to the 340B drug discount program
(340B Entities), alleging that manufacturers did not provide
proper discounts to 340B Entities.

In May 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California denied plaintiff's motion, without prejudice, to
certify the class. In September 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court
granted certiorari on the issue of whether 340B Entities have
standing to sue.

The District Court had previously dismissed the case after finding
that 340B Entities did not have standing, but the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court.  The
District Court Judge has stayed the case pending a decision by the
U.S. Supreme Court.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. -- http://www.bms.com/-- is a global
biopharmaceutical company committed to discovering, developing and
delivering innovative medicines that help patients prevail over
serious diseases.


CALIFORNIA: Request to Rescue Photo Ticketing Programs Junked
-------------------------------------------------------------
TheNewspaper.com reports the highest courts in California and
Louisiana on Oct. 27 denied the requests of municipal officials
desperate to save their photo enforcement programs.  In New
Orleans, the red light camera and speed camera program must shut
down after the Louisiana Supreme Court unanimously rejected the
city's request to overturn the decision of Orleans Parish Civil
District Court Judge Paulette R. Irons who found earlier this
month that the program violated the city's own charter.

"We are obviously disappointed in supreme court's decision because
these cameras have proven to be an important deterrent to unlawful
traffic practices," a city statement explained.

As a matter of law, the high court found no reason to overturn the
Irons decision, just as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals had
done less than two weeks ago.  As victorious Attorney Edward R.
Washington III considers launching a class action suit to force
refunds, the city is digging in its heels, refusing to pay back
citations paid under the illegal program.

"It is our position that camera violations issued through
[Wednes]day will still be valid," the city insisted.  "You must
continue to pay all tickets issued until this point."

The California Supreme Court likewise rejected a request by the
cities of Santa Ana and West Hollywood to depublish an appellate
decision that found cities had to provide warning notices for
thirty days at each and every red light camera intersection before
issuing actual tickets.  Almost no cities do so, raising the
possibility of a class action challenge to refund tickets
illegally issued.

The high court rejected municipal arguments and declared the case
closed, leaving it to stand with precedential value in Orange
County and persuasive value throughout the state.  The decision
comes as justices prepare to rule on a larger case that turns on
the question of whether contracts for red light camera services
paid on a per-ticket basis are inherently void.  That case had
been pending the resolution of a case, County of Santa Clara v.
Atlantic Richfield, which the court decided in July.


CANADA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Illegal Smoke Shacks
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Babbage, writing for The Canadian Press, reports two Ontario
tobacco producers are taking Ottawa to court over so-called smoke
shacks, accusing both the federal and provincial governments of
turning a blind eye to the sale of contraband cigarettes.

In the proposed class-action lawsuit, Stanley and Linda Koscik and
Weninger Farms Ltd. -- both in Aylmer, Ont. -- claim Ottawa
"knowingly and deliberately" failed to collect taxes from illegal
smoke shacks.

"The Crown agents have ignored flagrant violations of the
prohibition on the sale of contraband tobacco products and have
permitted open trade in contraband tobacco and tobacco products on
First Nation reserves through illegal outlets established off the
reserve," the statement of claim for the $500-million suit reads.

The allegations have not been proven in court.

There are almost 350 illegal smoke shacks in Ontario and Quebec,
which are forcing many retailers -- most of them families --  to
close their doors, according to the Canadian Convenience Stores
Association.

Cartons of black-market cigarettes usually sell for $11 or $12,
compared to nearly $50 for a carton of legal smokes, said Michel
Gadbois, senior vice-president of the association.

"It's a total injustice," he said.  "You have two laws that do not
apply to the same citizens.  If you can't enforce the law, then
act."

About 35 to 40 per cent of all cigarettes sold in Ontario and
Quebec are contraband, Mr. Gadbois said.

"That's a $2-billion market going directly to criminal
organizations.  That's the bottom line," he said.

"That's where the money goes.  And you can imagine what they do
with that money."

The RCMP warned in a progress report last May that illegal tobacco
"continues to attract organized crime, undermining Canadians'
expectations of safe communities and economic integrity."

Last year, the national police force seized about 975,000 cartons
of illegal cigarettes across Canada, higher than 2008's record
haul of 965,000 cartons and more than double what the RCMP seized
in 1994.

"The illicit trade in tobacco products continues to be a serious
threat to public safety and the health of Canadians," the report
stated.

Despite the dangers associated with black market tobacco, the
Ontario government has done little to stop the proliferation of
smoke shacks, said NDP justice critic Peter Kormos.

"The trafficking in illegal cigarettes in Ontario is widespread,
it's notorious, it's well known," he said.  "The police have
refused to enforce the law as it stands."

Ontario Liberal government -- which is suing tobacco companies
over health-care costs associated with smoking -- won't even crack
down on two shacks that are operating on government property in
Caledonia, said Conservative Toby Barrett.

The community near Hamilton is home to a former housing
development occupied by First Nations protesters who say the land
belongs to them.

"I've watched it myself many times . . . officers astoundingly
turning a blind eye to illegal activity," Mr. Barrett said.

"It's literally right in front of their nose."

There's a theory that police are simply following government
orders and condoning the illegal activity to avoid a confrontation
with First Nations, he added.

But Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley insists the province is
tough on contraband cigarettes and is working with its
counterparts in Ottawa and the United States to fix the problem.

"What you have seen over the past year is a greatly increased
action in terms of enforcement of the various rules that exist,"
he said.

"So we'll be speaking more completely to the next steps in our
approach in the months to come."

Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson declined to comment on the
lawsuit.

Mr. Kormos argues there's a "stunning" lack of enforcement that is
jeopardizing the health of minors who are getting hooked on
contraband cigarettes.

"It's not hard to identify vehicles leaving so-called smoke shacks
and identifying which ones are most likely to have trunkfuls of
illegal tobacco and illegal cigarettes and simply busting them,"
he said.

The proposed class-action lawsuit, filed Oct. 29 in Federal Court
on behalf of all tobacco producers, is similar to another suit
filed last year in Ontario Superior Court by the same group.

That suit named both the federal and Ontario governments.

John Finley, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said his
clients plan to continue action against the provincial government.
But it's not yet clear whether that will require pursing the suit
that has been filed in Ontario court.

Neither lawsuit has been certified as a class action.


CANADA: Tobacco Producers File Class Action Over Excise Tax
-----------------------------------------------------------
CD98.9 in Ontario reports a class action law suit has been filed
on behalf of tobacco producers who've suffered financial loss as a
result of the Canadian government's failure to enforce the
provisions of the Excise Act, 2001 and the Excise Tax Act which
regulates the production and taxing of tobacco products.

Oxford County and Elgin County farms have employed the services of
Findlay McCarthy LLP and McDonald/Ross on behalf of themselves,
and all tobacco producers throughout Canada.

A press conference was being held on Monday, Nov. 1, at Queen's
Park to make the announcement.


CELANESE CORP: Court Dismisses "Freeman Industries" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Tennessee has
dismissed a complaint filed against Celanese Corporation,
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 2004 a civil antitrust action styled Freeman Industries LLC v.
Eastman Chemical Co., et al. was filed against Hoechst AG and
Nutrinova, Inc. in the Law Court for Sullivan County in Kingsport,
Tennessee.

The plaintiff sought monetary damages and other relief for alleged
conduct involving the sorbates industry.

The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and upon appeal
the Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the dismissal of the
plaintiff's claims.  In December 2005, the plaintiff lost an
attempt to amend its complaint and the entire action was dismissed
with prejudice.

Plaintiff's counsel subsequently filed a new complaint with new
class representatives in the District Court of the District of
Tennessee.  The company's motion to strike the class allegations
was granted in May 2008 and the plaintiff's request to appeal the
ruling remains pending.

On Aug. 20, 2010, this action was dismissed with prejudice.

Celanese Corporation -- http://www.celanese.com/-- as a global
leader in the chemicals industry, makes products essential to
everyday living.  The company's products, found in consumer and
industrial applications, are manufactured in North America, Europe
and Asia.  Net sales totaled $5.1 billion in 2009, with
approximately 73% generated outside of North America. Known for
operational excellence and execution of its business strategies,
Celanese delivers value to customers around the globe with
innovations and best-in-class technologies.  Based in Dallas,
Texas, the company employs approximately 7,400 employees
worldwide.


CELANESE CORP: CNA Holdings Remains a Defendant in Various Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Corporation's U.S. subsidiary, CNA Holdings LLC, remains
a defendant in putative class actions seeking recovery for alleged
damages caused by leaking polybutylene plumbing.

During the period between 1995 and 2001, CNA Holdings was named as
a defendant in these putative class actions:

     (a) Cox, et al. v. Hoechst Celanese Corporation, et al.,
         No. 94-0047 (Chancery Ct., Obion County, Tennessee)
         (class was certified);

     (b) Couture, et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al.,
         No. 200-06-000001-985 (Quebec Superior Court, Canada);

     (c) Dilday, et al. v. Hoechst Celanese Corporation, et al.,
         No. 15187 (Chancery Ct., Weakley County, Tennessee);

     (d) Furlan v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. C967239
         (British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry,
         Canada);

     (e) Gariepy, et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al.,
         No. 30781/99 (Ontario Court General Division, Canada);

     (f) Shelter General Insurance Co., et al. v. Shell Oil
         Company, et al., No. 16809 (Chancery Ct., Weakley
         County, Tennessee);

     (g) St. Croix Ltd., et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al.,
         No. 1997/467 (Territorial Ct., St. Croix Division, the
         US Virgin Islands); and

     (h) Tranter v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. 46565/97
         (Ontario Court General Division, Canada).

In addition, between 1994 and 2008 CNA Holdings was named as a
defendant in numerous non-class actions filed in Arizona, Florida,
Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Tennessee and Texas,
the US Virgin Islands and Canada of which ten are currently
pending.

In all of these actions, the plaintiffs have sought recovery for
alleged damages caused by leaking polybutylene plumbing.

Damage amounts have generally not been specified but these cases
generally do not involve (either individually or in the aggregate)
a large number of homes.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company had remaining accruals of $55
million, of which $1 million is included in current Other
liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets.  As of Dec. 31,
2008, the Company had remaining accruals of $64 million, of which
$2 million was included in current Other liabilities in the
consolidated balance sheets.

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.

Celanese Corporation -- http://www.celanese.com/-- as a global
leader in the chemicals industry, makes products essential to
everyday living.  The company's products, found in consumer
andindustrial applications, are manufactured in North America,
Europe  and Asia.  Net sales totaled $5.1 billion in 2009, with
approximately 73% generated outside of North America. Known for
operational excellence and execution of its business strategies,
Celanese delivers value to customers around the globe with
innovations and best-in-class technologies.  Based in Dallas,
Texas, the company employs approximately 7,400 employees
worldwide.


CELANESE CORP: Aggregate Funding for Settlement at $1.1 Billion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Corporation discloses that aggregate funding in
connection with settlements entered into by its U.S. subsidiary,
CNA Holdings LLC., as one of the defendants in a suit stands at
$1,111 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.

CNA Holdings, which included the U.S. business now conducted by
the Ticona business which is included in the Advanced Engineered
Materials segment, along with Shell Oil Company, E.I. DuPont de
Nemours and company and others, has been a defendant in a series
of lawsuits, including a number of class actions, alleging that
plastics manufactured by these companies that were utilized in the
production of plumbing systems for residential property were
defective or caused such plumbing systems to fail.

Based on, among other things, the findings of outside experts and
the successful use of Ticona's acetal copolymer in similar
applications, CNA Holdings does not believe Ticona's acetal
copolymer was defective or caused the plumbing systems to fail.
In many cases CNA Holdings' potential future exposure may be
limited by invocation of the statute of limitations since CNA
Holdings ceased selling the resin for use in the plumbing systems
in site-built homes during 1986 and in manufactured homes during
1990.

In November 1995, CNA Holdings, DuPont and Shell entered into
national class action settlements that called for the replacement
of plumbing systems of claimants who have had qualifying leaks, as
well as reimbursements for certain leak damage.  In connection
with such settlement, the three companies had agreed to fund these
replacements and reimbursements up to an aggregate amount of $950
million.

As of Sept. 30, 2010, the aggregate funding is $1.111 billion due
to additional contributions and funding commitments made primarily
by other parties.  The time to file claims for the class in Cox,
et al. v. Hoechst Celanese Corporation, et al., No. 94-0047
(Chancery Ct., Obion County, Tennessee) has now expired.
Accordingly, the court ruled the terms of the Cox settlement have
been fully performed.  The entity previously established to
administer all Cox related claims was dissolved on Sept. 24, 2010.

Celanese Corporation -- http://www.celanese.com/-- as a global
leader in the chemicals industry, makes products essential to
everyday living.  The company's products, found in consumer
andindustrial applications, are manufactured in North America,
Europe  and Asia.  Net sales totaled $5.1 billion in 2009, with
approximately 73% generated outside of North America. Known for
operational excellence and execution of its business strategies,
Celanese delivers value to customers around the globe with
innovations and best-in-class technologies.  Based in Dallas,
Texas, the company employs approximately 7,400 employees
worldwide.


CHEMTURA CORP: Jan. 5 Claims Filing Deadline Set in BioLab Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Jones, writing for Rockdale Citizen, reports federal courts
have set filing deadlines for those wishing to make a claim or be
excluded in a class action lawsuit settlement for damages caused
by the 2004 BioLab fire.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court of New York City set Jan. 5 as the
deadline for anyone wishing to join a class action lawsuit
settlement from the BioLab fire.  A notice released by the court
said a $7 million settlement fund is being created to pay claims
arising from the fire that occurred May 25-26 at BioLab's Plant 14
and warehouse of finished goods.

The notice said the claims are to be compensated to persons who
lived, owned property, worked, were scheduled to work or were
present in the settlement class area on the day of the fire.
Businesses located in the settlement class area and plaintiffs
with claims in other lawsuits are also eligible to join the class
action settlement.

The settlement class area covers all of the city of Conyers,
surrounding areas and an area following Interstate 20 into western
Newton County, which follows the path of the chlorine gas cloud
produced by the fire.  The area roughly covers the DeKalb County
line to Crowell Road in Newton County from west to east and Hi Roc
Road to Flat Shoals and Fairview roads from north to south.

A cause of the BioLab fire was never determined. An early morning
explosion at the 200,000-square-foot BioLab building on Old
Covington Highway produced a thick, gray plume of toxic smoke a
half-mile wide and parallel to I-20 and into Newton County.

The incident shut down the interstate and forced hundreds of
residents to evacuate.

Payouts are determined by a formula based on location of the
claimants when they were affected by the fire.  Those claims from
the evacuation area would be higher than those outside the
evacuation area but inside the wider settlement class area.

Individual claim payments are estimated at about $230 for those
inside the evacuation area and $59 for those outside the
evacuation area.  Estimated payout to local businesses would go up
to $4,000 inside and up to $1,000 outside the evacuation area,
according to the court notice.

Those who submit a claim form to the class action settlement lose
their right to file a different lawsuit against the company.  The
court notice states that all other pending lawsuits would be
dismissed following the class action award settlement.  The courts
did offer an option to be excluded from the class action
settlement.  Those wishing to do so must do so by Nov. 12.

Since the fire, BioLab's parent company, Chemtura, filed for
bankruptcy protection on March 18, 2009.  The court's notice
states the procedure for debt settlement from the company's
bankruptcy filings is separate from the process involving damages
claims from the 2004 fire.

In August, Chemtura announced it had filed a plan of
reorganization with the federal bankruptcy courts and was moving
forward on leaving Chapter 11 protection.

To file a claim or for more information, visit
http://www.conyersfiresettlement.com/or call 800-345-0837.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Class Action Over Bond Market Fund Losses
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A. on Saturday
disclosed that a class action lawsuit, Case No. CV-10-3971, has
been filed against Charles Schwab (NYSE:SCHW) on behalf of
investors who purchased Schwab's Total Bond Market Fund
(Nasdaq:SWLBX).  Potential class members should consider whether
they should participate in the class action or file an individual
securities arbitration claim.

According to the suit, Charles Schwab caused the Fund to deviate
from its fundamental investment objective to track the Lehman
Brothers U.S. Aggregate Bond Index.  Specifically, "the Fund
deviated from its stated investment objective by investing a
material percentage of its portfolio in high risk non-agency
collateralized mortgage obligations.  The non-agency CMOs were not
a part of the Index and were substantially more risky than the
U.S. agency securities and other instruments that comprised the
Index."  Moreover, it is alleged that "the Fund . . . deviated
from its stated fundamental investment objective by investing more
than 25% of its total assets in non-agency mortgage backed
securities and CMOs.  The Fund's investment objectives prohibited
any concentration of investments greater than 25% in any industry
(other than if necessary to track the Index)."

K&T reminds investors of the benefits of filing an individual
securities arbitration claim, as opposed to participating in a
class action lawsuit.  By participating in a class action lawsuit,
an investor may only recover a nominal amount.  However, if one
has experienced significant losses in Schwab's Total Bond Market
Fund, it may be more beneficial for them to file an individual
securities arbitration claim.  In 2003, K&T conducted a detailed
study of securities arbitration versus class action.  The study
concluded that investors who file a securities arbitration claim
traditionally obtain an overall higher rate of recovery as opposed
to participating in a class action lawsuit.  To view the full
results of the comparison, please visit:

     http://www.nasd-law.com/documents/classvr.pdf

Investors who purchased the Total Bond Market Fund and sustained
significant losses can contact K&T to explore their legal rights
and options.  The attorneys at K&T are dedicated to pursuing
claims on behalf of investors who have suffered investment losses.

K&T -- http://www.nasd-law.com/-- is a securities litigation law
firm.  It practices exclusively in the field of securities
arbitration and litigation.  It continues its representation of
investors throughout the world in securities arbitration and
litigation matters against major Wall Street brokerage firms.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeals Court Junks Labor Law Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Chipotle Mexican Restaurant does not have to ensure that its 3,000
employees take meal and rest breaks, a California appeals court
ruled, rejecting a class action against the restaurant chain.

Rogelio Hernandez works at one of the 130 Chipotle restaurants in
California.  He filed a class action accusing Chipotle of
violating labor laws by denying meal and rest breaks to their
employees.

The restaurant fought back by submitting declarations from 57
employees who said they got all of their meal and rest breaks.  A
Chipotle human resources manager said that because employees are
paid for their breaks, they sometimes forget to clock in and out.

Mr. Hernandez countered with declarations from 23 employees that
Chipotle managers denied or interrupted their breaks.

The trial court ruled that a class action would be inappropriate
if the California Supreme Court was likely to rule that managers
must ensure that employees take their break.  The lower court also
ruled that while managers had to provide breaks, they were not
obligated to ensure that employees took those breaks.

The Los Angeles-based Second District Court of Appeal agreed that
the case could not move forward as a class action.

"In order to prove Chipotle violated break laws, Mr. Hernandez
would have to prove an analysis restaurant-by-restaurant, and
perhaps supervisor-by-supervisor, Justice Evelyn Grimes wrote.
"Given the variances in the declarations, Mr. Hernandez did not
demonstrate a common practice or policy."

A copy of the decision in Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill,
Inc., No. B216004 (Calif. App. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B216004.PDF

Mr. Hernandez is represented by:

          Michael Rubin, Esq.
          James M. Finberg, Esq.
          Eve Cervantez, Esq.
          Danielle E. Leonard, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151

               - and -

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Douglas W. Perlman, Esq.
          RASTEGAR & MATERN
          1010 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 100,
          Torrance, CA 90501
          Telephone: (310) 218-5500

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., is represented by:

          Richard J. Simmons, Esq.
          Geoffrey D. DeBoskey, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Forty-Eighth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Telephone: 213-620-1780


CLARIENT INC: Board Sued Over Sale to General Electric
------------------------------------------------------
Bette R. Grayson Kurzweil, as Trustee Under the Will of Bernard
Rosenman, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
v. Clarient, Inc., et al., Case No. 5932- (Del. Ch. Ct.
October 27, 2010), accuses the Aliso Viejo, Calif.-based
diagnostic technologies and pathology provider and its Board of
Directors of breaching its fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed sale of the Company to General Electric Company through
its wholly owned subsidiary GE Healthcare and merger subsidiary
Crane Merger Sub, Inc.

The suit says the proposed offer of $5.00 per common share and
$20.00 per preferred share, or a total of roughly $580 million net
of cash and investments as of June 30, 2010, is grossly inadequate
and is the result of a flawed process that resulted from the
Board's failure to maximize shareholders value and deprives
Clarient's shareholders of the ability to participate in the
Company's favorable long-term prospects.

Shareholders holding roughly 47% of Clarient's current outstanding
voting stock have agreed, among other things, to tender their
shares in the proposed transaction.  The Supporting Shareholders
have also agreed to vote such shares in support of the proposed
transaction in the event shareholder approval is required to
consummate the proposed transaction.

The Tender Offer is schedules to commence by November 1, 2010, and
the proposed transaction is expected to close by early 2011.

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 294-5310

               - and -

          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street,
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230

               - and -

          WEISS & LURIE
          551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
          New York, NY 10176
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025


E.I. DUPONT: Expects Ruling on Plaintiffs' Appeal in 2011
---------------------------------------------------------
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company relates that it expects the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to issue a ruling on
the plaintiffs' appeal of the final judgment entered in favor of
the company in 2011, 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 the second quarter 2006, three purported class actions were
filed alleging that drinking water had been contaminated by
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in excess of 0.05 ppb due to alleged
releases from certain DuPont plants.

One of these cases was filed in West Virginia state court by
three individual plaintiffs on behalf of customers of the
Parkersburg City Water District, but was removed on DuPont's
motion to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia.

In September 2008, the U.S. District Court ruled that the case
could not proceed as a class action.  Plaintiffs' appeal of the
ruling was denied.

In the second quarter 2009, the plaintiffs added a claim based on
public nuisance and moved for again class certification.  In the
third quarter 2009, the Court granted summary judgment in DuPont's
favor dismissing all claims brought by the three plaintiffs,
including public nuisance and class certification, except for
medical monitoring.

In the fourth quarter 2009, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
medical monitoring claims.

The court entered final judgment for DuPont in January 2010.  In
the first quarter 2010, plaintiffs' appealed the final judgment to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The company says that a ruling is expected in 2011.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company is a science-based products and
services company.  Founded in 1802, DuPont puts science to work by
creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer,
healthier life for people everywhere.  Operating in more than 70
countries, DuPont offers a wide range of innovative products and
services for markets including agriculture and food; building and
construction; communications; and transportation.


E.I. DUPONT: Continues to Defend Two Suits in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company continues to defend two class
action in New Jersey, 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.

A purported class action was filed in federal court in New Jersey
on behalf of individuals who allegedly drank water contaminated by
releases from DuPont's Chambers Works plant in Deepwater, New
Jersey.

A second purported class action was filed in state court on behalf
of customers serviced primarily by the Pennsville Township Water
Department and was removed to New Jersey federal district court on
DuPont's motion.

The New Jersey cases have been combined for purposes of discovery
and the complaints have been amended to allege that drinking water
had been contaminated by PFOA in excess of 0.04 ppb.

In December 2008, the court denied class action status in both
cases, but ordered additional briefing on certain issues.

In October 2009, the Court granted class certification for certain
sub-classes regarding public and private nuisance claims, while
denying class certification for all other claims.  The court also
certified a legal question related to strict liability.

In April 2010, the Court allowed plaintiffs in both cases to add a
claim under RCRA alleging "imminent and substantial endangerment
to health and or the environment."

The court will set a trial date upon resolution of motions filed
in the third and fourth quarter 2010.

Pending further rulings by the court, the remedies sought by the
class are expected to include abatement of the alleged nuisance,
e.g. reduction of PFOA in drinking water to less than 0.04 ppb,
and monetary damages for alleged property diminution.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company is a science-based products and
services company.  Founded in 1802, DuPont puts science to work by
creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer,
healthier life for people everywhere.  Operating in more than 70
countries, DuPont offers a wide range of innovative products and
services for markets including agriculture and food; building and
construction; communications; and transportation.


E.I. DUPONT: Plaintiffs in Virginia Suit Agree to Reduced Award
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a suit against E.I. DuPont de Nemours and
Company relating to its operation of a zinc smelter in Spelter,
West Virginia, have accepted the reduced punitive damage award,
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 September 2006, a West Virginia state court certified a class
action against DuPont that seeks relief including the provision of
remediation services and property value diminution damages for
7,000 residential properties in the vicinity of a closed zinc
smelter in Spelter, West Virginia.

The action also seeks medical monitoring for an undetermined
number of residents in the class area.

The smelter was owned and operated by at least three companies
between 1910 and 2001, including DuPont between 1928 and 1950.
DuPont performed remedial measures at the request of the EPA in
the late 1990s and in 2001 repurchased the site to facilitate and
complete the remediation.

The fall 2007 trial was conducted in four phases: liability,
medical monitoring, property and punitive damages.  The jury found
against DuPont in all four phases awarding $55.5 million for
property remediation and $196.2 million in punitive damages.

In post trial motions, the court adopted the plaintiffs' forty-
year medical monitoring plan estimated by plaintiffs to cost $130
million and granted plaintiffs' attorneys legal fees of $127
million plus $8 million in expenses based on and included in the
total jury award.

In June 2008, DuPont filed its petitions for appeal with the West
Virginia Supreme Court seeking review of a number of issues
associated with the trial court's decisions before, during and
after the trial.

The Court issued its decision on March 26, 2010, affirming in part
and reversing in part the trial court's decision.

The Court conditionally affirmed the verdict, but reduced punitive
damages to $97.7 and gave plaintiffs the option to re-try punitive
damages.  In July 2010, plaintiffs accepted the reduced punitive
damage award and, as a result, the issue of punitive damages will
not be re-tried.

Also in its March 2010 decision, the Court reversed the trial
court's order granting summary judgment to the adult plaintiffs on
the issue of statute of limitations and ordered a new jury trial
on the sole issue of when the plaintiffs possessed requisite
knowledge to trigger the running of the statute.

The trial has been set for March 7, 2011.

If the jury determines that the adult plaintiffs had or should
have had requisite knowledge more than 2 years prior to filing
their case, then the trial court must set aside the verdict and
render judgment in DuPont's favor.  DuPont does not have a statute
of limitations defense as to medical monitoring claims for
plaintiffs who were minors when their claims accrued.

As of Sept. 30, 2010, the company had recorded accruals of $55
million, although given the uncertainties inherent in litigation
there can be no assurance as to the final outcome.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company is a science-based products and
services company.  Founded in 1802, DuPont puts science to work by
creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer,
healthier life for people everywhere.  Operating in more than 70
countries, DuPont offers a wide range of innovative products and
services for markets including agriculture and food; building and
construction; communications; and transportation.


EDUCATIONAL TESTING: Faces Class Action Over GRE Results
--------------------------------------------------------
CRIENGLISH.COM, citing Beijing Morning Post, reports Chinese test
takers are considering a class action lawsuit against U.S.-based
Educational Testing Service following its recent decision to
cancel their Graduate Record Examination results.

ETS of New Jersey cancelled the scores of those who took the GRE
in China on October 23, because administrators mistakenly used a
previous edition of the test.

Some 24,000 participants, most of whom plan to apply to graduate
schools in the United States, have been affected.

The report indicated that 82.2% of the test takers said the score
cancellations would disrupt their plans for applying to graduate
schools.

ETS said in a statement that the decision to cancel the scores was
"difficult" and offered test takers the option of free make-up
tests on November 20 or June 11, 2011, or a full refund of their
test fee.

But because the scores of the November make-up test will not be
available until December 10, some students will have to submit
their applications without knowledge of their scores.  As a
result, some of the test takers believe they should not bear the
consequences of ETS's error and have proposed a class action
lawsuit.


ENCORE CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Class Suit Counterclaim
-----------------------------------------------------------
Encore Capital Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Midland Credit
Management, Inc., defends a class action counter-claim pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

In an action captioned Brent v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.,
et al., filed on May 19, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio [Western Division], the plaintiff has
filed a class action counter-claim against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. and Midland Funding LLC.

The complaint alleges that the Midland Defendants' business
practices violated consumers' rights under the FDCPA and the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act.

The plaintiff is seeking actual and statutory damages for the
class of Ohio residents, plus attorney's fees and costs of class
notice and class administration.

On Aug. 11, 2009, the court issued an order partially granting
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and entering findings
adverse to the Midland Defendants on certain of plaintiff's
claims.

The Midland Defendants subsequently moved the court to reconsider
the order and were partially successful.  However, because the
court did not completely reverse the August 11 order, certain
portions of the order remain subject to reversal only on appeal.
On Feb. 22, 2010, the District Court denied Plaintiff's attempts
to enlarge the case to include a national class of consumers, and
ordered the parties to brief issues relating to whether a
statewide class should be certified.  No class has been certified
to date.

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.

Encore Capital Group, Inc. -- http://www.encorecapitalgroup.com/
-- is a systems-driven purchaser and manager of charged-off
consumer receivable portfolios and, through its wholly owned
subsidiary Ascension Capital Group, Inc., a provider of bankruptcy
services to the finance industry.  The company acquires receivable
portfolios at deep discounts from their face values using its
valuation process that is based upon an analysis of the individual
consumer attributes of the underlying accounts.  The receivable
portfolios it purchases consist primarily of unsecured, charged-
off domestic consumer credit card, auto loan deficiency and
telecom receivables purchased from national financial
institutions, retail credit corporations, telecom companies and
resellers of such portfolios.  In September 2007, the company
exited its healthcare purchasing and internal collection
activities, although it receives collections from certain
healthcare portfolios that it purchased.


ENCORE CAPITAL: Defends Suits Over Claims for FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Encore Capital Group, Inc., continues to defend class action
lawsuits over claims based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and comparable state statutes.

These claims may result in class action lawsuits, which can be
material to the company due to the remedies available under these
statutes, including punitive damages.

A number of cases styled as class actions have been filed against
the company.

A class has been certified in several of these cases.  Several of
these cases present novel issues on which there is no legal
precedent.

No specific details or updates regarding the cases were disclosed
by 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.

Encore Capital Group, Inc. -- http://www.encorecapitalgroup.com/
-- is a systems-driven purchaser and manager of charged-off
consumer receivable portfolios and, through its wholly owned
subsidiary Ascension Capital Group, Inc., a provider of bankruptcy
services to the finance industry.  The company acquires receivable
portfolios at deep discounts from their face values using its
valuation process that is based upon an analysis of the individual
consumer attributes of the underlying accounts.  The receivable
portfolios it purchases consist primarily of unsecured, charged-
off domestic consumer credit card, auto loan deficiency and
telecom receivables purchased from national financial
institutions, retail credit corporations, telecom companies and
resellers of such portfolios.  In September 2007, the company
exited its healthcare purchasing and internal collection
activities, although it receives collections from certain
healthcare portfolios that it purchased.


FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Corrects Class Action Filing Release
-----------------------------------------------------
First graph, first sentence of release dated October 8, 2010,
should read: The Shuman Law Firm announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of FalconStor
Software, Inc. common stock during the period between February 5,
2009 and September 29, 2010, inclusive (the "Class Period"). (sted
September 29, 2009).

The corrected release reads:

THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM ANNOUNCES THE FILING OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
AGAINST FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE, INC.

The Shuman Law Firm announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of purchasers of FalconStor Software, Inc.
("FalconStor" or the "Company") common stock during the period
between February 5, 2009 and September 29, 2010, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

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

The complaint charges FalconStor and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of federal securities laws.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented
and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that
the Company was experiencing weak demand for its products and
services; (ii) that FalconStor was making improper payments to
secure a contract with at least one of the Company's customers;
and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about FalconStor
and its prospects.

On September 29, 2010, FalconStor announced that, effective
immediately, the Company's founder, ReiJane Huai, had resigned
from his positions as Chairman of the Board of Directors,
President, and Chief Executive Officer of FalconStor.  Mr. Huai
tendered his resignation following the disclosure that certain
improper payments were allegedly made in connection with the
Company's contract with one customer.  As a result of this
announcement, shares of FalconStor fell to $3.15, a decline of
more than 22% from the closing price of $4.06 on September 28,
2010.

If you purchased FalconStor common stock during the Class Period,
you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of
the class no later than November 30, 2010.  A lead plaintiff is a
class member that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Although your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek
appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important
decisions which could affect the overall recovery for class
members.

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


FAMILY DOLLAR: Discloses "Scott" Suit Has 48 Named Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., in its Oct. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Aug. 28, 2010, relates that there are presently 48
named plaintiffs in the matter Scott, et al. v. Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., with no additional opt-ins.

On Oct. 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
in Birmingham, Alabama captioned Scott, et al. v. Family Dollar
Stores, Inc. alleging discriminatory pay practices with respect to
the company's female store managers.

This case was pled as a putative class action or collective action
under applicable statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female
store managers.  The plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory and
punitive money damages, recovery of attorneys' fees and equitable
relief.

The case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- http://www.familydollar.com/--
operates a chain of more than 6,500 general merchandise retail
discount stores in 44 states, providing consumers with a selection
of merchandise in neighborhood stores.  The company's merchandise
assortment includes consumables, home products, apparel and
accessories, and seasonal and electronics.  The company's products
include apparel, food, cleaning and paper products, home decor,
beauty and health aids, toys, pet products, automotive products,
domestics, seasonal goods and electronics.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Continues to Defend "McCauley" Suit in Kentucky
--------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., defends the matter McCauley et al. v.
Family Dollar, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky, 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. 28, 2010.

The McCauley Action is a putative state law class actions filed on
behalf of store Team Members who are paid on an hourly basis.  The
suit was filed on April 27, 2010, in Circuit Court in Jefferson
County, Kentucky, and was removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky.

The plaintiffs allege that they and a putative class of similarly
situated store Team Members throughout Kentucky were required to
work off the clock and without breaks in violation of the Kentucky
Wages and Hours Law.

The plaintiffs seek the value of their unpaid wages (off-the-clock
time and statutory breaks), liquidated damages in an equal amount,
attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- http://www.familydollar.com/--
operates a chain of more than 6,500 general merchandise retail
discount stores in 44 states, providing consumers with a selection
of merchandise in neighborhood stores.  The company's merchandise
assortment includes consumables, home products, apparel and
accessories, and seasonal and electronics.  The company's products
include apparel, food, cleaning and paper products, home decor,
beauty and health aids, toys, pet products, automotive products,
domestics, seasonal goods and electronics.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Continues to Defend "Wright" Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., defends the matter Wright v. Family
Dollar, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, 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. 28, 2010.

The Wright Action is a putative state law class actions filed on
behalf of store Team Members who are paid on an hourly basis.  The
suit was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois on June 11, 2010, and was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 15, 2010.

Plaintiffs claim that they were required to work off the clock in
violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collections Act.  The plaintiffs seek the value of
their unpaid wages (off-the-clock time), liquidated damages in an
equal amount, equitable relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and
pre-judgment interest.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- http://www.familydollar.com/--
operates a chain of more than 6,500 general merchandise retail
discount stores in 44 states, providing consumers with a selection
of merchandise in neighborhood stores.  The company's merchandise
assortment includes consumables, home products, apparel and
accessories, and seasonal and electronics.  The company's products
include apparel, food, cleaning and paper products, home decor,
beauty and health aids, toys, pet products, automotive products,
domestics, seasonal goods and electronics.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Defends Suits Over Store Managers' Exempt Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., continues to defend class action
lawsuits in which the sole or dispositive issue is the exempt
status of Store Managers under various state laws, 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. 28, 2010.

The matter Twila Walters et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of
Missouri, Inc., alleging violations of the Missouri Minimum Wage
Law, was originally filed on January 26, 2010, in the Circuit
Court of Jackson County, Missouri.  The company removed it to
federal court, and the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed.  The
plaintiff later re-filed the case in the Circuit Court of Jackson
County.

The MDL Panel has ordered that three other state-law
misclassification cases should not be (or should not remain)
consolidated with the related MDL cases pending in the N.C.
Federal Court.

The matter Barker v. Family Dollar, Inc., alleging violations of
the Kentucky Wages and Hours Law, was filed in Circuit Court in
Jefferson County, Kentucky on Feb. 17, 2010, and removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.  The MDL
Panel declined to transfer and consolidate this case with the
related misclassification cases.

The matter Youngblood, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.,
Family Dollar, Inc., Family Dollar Stores of New York, Inc. and
Does 1 through 10, 3:09-cv-1941, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on April 2, 2009.

The matter Rancharan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was filed
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County on
March 4, 2009, and removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on May 6, 2009.

Both Youngblood and Rancharan involve alleged violations of the
New York Labor Law.  These cases had been transferred to the N.C.
Federal Court and consolidated with the MDL cases, on June 8,
2009, and June 30, 2009, respectively, but the MDL Panel remanded
them on Aug. 17, 2010.

The plaintiffs in these cases seek recovery of overtime pay,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and court costs.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- http://www.familydollar.com/--
operates a chain of more than 6,500 general merchandise retail
discount stores in 44 states, providing consumers with a selection
of merchandise in neighborhood stores.  The company's merchandise
assortment includes consumables, home products, apparel and
accessories, and seasonal and electronics.  The company's products
include apparel, food, cleaning and paper products, home decor,
beauty and health aids, toys, pet products, automotive products,
domestics, seasonal goods and electronics.


FORD MOTOR: ERISA Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
The FOMOCO ERISA Settlement Administrator announces to all members
of the following Class: All current or former participants in or
beneficiaries of the Ford Motor Company Savings and Stock
Investment Plan for Salaried Employees and the Ford Motor
Company Tax-Efficient Savings Plan for Hourly Employees, whose
individual Plan account(s) included investments in Ford Motor
Company stock at any time during the period April 15, 2000 and
August 27, 2010, inclusive and all beneficiaries, alternate
payees, representatives, and successors-in-interest of any such
person.

Please read this Notice carefully.  This is a Court-ordered legal
notice, not a solicitation.

A proposed Settlement has been preliminarily approved by the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
in In re Ford Motor Company ERISA Litigation, Consolidated Master
Case No. 06-cv-11718, a class action lawsuit alleging breaches of
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, as amended, in connection with the Plans identified
above.  The terms of the Settlement are contained in a Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement, dated August 27, 2010, a copy of
which is available at http://www.ERISAsettlementfomoco.com/or by
contacting FOMOCO ERISA Settlement Administrator, PO Box 3266,
Portland, OR 97208-3266.  Capitalized terms used in this Notice
and not defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the
Stipulation.

Under the proposed Settlement, Ford has agreed to implement
remedial provisions to enhance the ability of Class Members to
save for retirement.  Specifically, Ford will make online
financial advice tools or materials (or their equivalent)
available to Class Members for a four-year period beginning on the
date the online financial advice tools or materials are
implemented.  For a period of four years following Final Approval
of the Settlement, Ford will enhance participant communications to
Active Participants, and arrange third-party fiduciary training
for Ford's Investment Process Oversight Committee and Investment
Process Committee.  Ford will also, within ninety days of the
Effective Date of Settlement, provide a notice to Active
Participants whose Plan investment in Ford stock at that time
exceeds 20% of their total Plan holdings concerning the importance
of maintaining diversified investments.

Additionally, if Ford elects in its discretion to offer an
employee match under the Ford Motor Company Savings and Stock
Investment Plan for Salaried Employees during the three-year
period following the Final Approval of Settlement such a match
will be (a) provided in cash; and (b) invested in any applicable
investment option under the SSIP designated by the Active
Participant or, if no investment option has been designated, then
in the applicable default investment option.

Members of the Settlement Class do not need to submit a claim or
take any other action unless they wish to object to the
Settlement.  The Court authorized this Notice. The Court will hold
a hearing at 2:00 p.m. on February 15, 2011 to decide whether to
approve the Settlement.

Additional information concerning the proposed Settlement
(including the Notice of Class Action Settlement which explains
how Class Members can object to the Settlement and the
Stipulation) is available at http://www.ERISAsettlementfomoco.com/

In addition, a toll-free number, (877) 483-2918, and email address
-- Questions@ERISAsettlementfomoco.com -- have been established to
assist in answering questions regarding the settlement.  You may
also contact FOMOCO ERISA Settlement Administrator at:

          FOMOCO ERISA Settlement Administrator
          PO Box 3266
          Portland, OR 97208-3266


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Class Action Over Hudson CDO Securities
------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A., on Monday
disclosed that a class action lawsuit, Case No. 10-CV-07497, has
been filed against Goldman Sachs on behalf of investors who
purchased Hudson CDO Securities from Goldman Sachs, including
Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-1, Ltd., Hudson Mezzanine Funding
2006-1, Corp., Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-2, Ltd., and Hudson
Mezzanine Funding 2006-2, Corp. Goldman's broker-dealer
subsidiary, Goldman, Sachs & Co., underwrote, offered and sold the
Hudson CDO Securities to investors.  Potential class members who
purchased Hudson CDO Securities from Goldman Sachs should consider
whether they should participate in the class action or file an
individual securities arbitration claim.

According to the suit, "in a classic case of 'heads we win, tails
you lose,' the defendants failed to disclose to investors both
that the CDOs were structured by defendants such that they were
doomed to lose value, and that Goldman would profit enormously
from proprietary short positions when the CDOs did lose value . .
.  By the fall of 2007, both [Hudson] CDOs had, in fact, declined
in value significantly, saddling . . . investors with enormous
losses."

K&T reminds investors of the benefits of filing an individual
securities arbitration claim, as opposed to participating in a
class action lawsuit.  By participating in a class action lawsuit,
an investor may only recover a nominal amount.  However, if one
has experienced significant losses in Hudson CDO Securities, it
may be more beneficial for them to file an individual securities
arbitration claim. In 2003, K&T conducted a detailed study of
securities arbitration versus class action.  The study concluded
that investors who file a securities arbitration claim
traditionally obtain an overall higher rate of recovery as opposed
to participating in a class action lawsuit.  To view the full
results of the comparison, please visit:

     http://www.nasd-law.com/documents/classvr.pdf

Investors who purchased Hudson CDO Securities from Goldman Sachs
and sustained significant losses can contact K&T to explore their
legal rights and options.  The attorneys at K&T are dedicated to
pursuing claims on behalf of investors who have suffered
investment losses.

K&T is a securities litigation law firm.  It practices exclusively
in the field of securities arbitration and litigation.  It
continues its representation of investors throughout the world in
securities arbitration and litigation matters against major Wall
Street brokerage firms.

If you wish to discuss this announcement or sustained investment
losses in Hudson CDO Securities, please contact Steven D. Toskes,
Esquire of Klayman & Toskes, P.A., at 888-997-9956, or visit us on
the web at http://www.nasd-law.com/


HEIDI DIAZ: Loses Kimkins Diet Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
CalorieLab reports Southern California class action law firm Tiedt
& Hurd prevailed over Kimkins Diet promoter Heidi Diaz in their
three-year class action lawsuit over the diet.  Ms. Diaz
anonymously promoted the diet on the claim that she had lost 198
pounds, and when Kimkins hit the big time with a Woman's World
cover story, Ms. Diaz quickly developed a Web site that included
fake before-and-after photographs and endorsements, charging $40
for a lifetime membership.  A class action lawsuit involves a
lawyer organizing a small number of plaintiffs and convincing the
court that they represent a larger group of people, in this case
about 40,000 paid-up members of Ms. Diaz's Kimkins site.  In
addition to a $2.3 million verdict the law firm was awarded
attorneys fees for their three-year prosecution of the lawsuit.


HOSPIRA INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Court's Ruling Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs in the matter Myla Nauman, Jane
Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira,
Inc., on the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois in favor of the defendants, is pending,
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.

Hospira has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit alleging
generally that the spin-off of Hospira from Abbott resulted in a
mass termination of employees so as to interfere with the future
attainment of benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 8, 2004, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.

Plaintiffs generally seek reinstatement in Abbott benefit plans,
disgorgement of profits and attorneys fees.  On Nov. 18, 2005, the
complaint was amended to assert an additional claim against Abbott
and Hospira for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA.

Hospira has been dismissed as a defendant with respect to the
fiduciary duty claim.

By Order dated Dec. 30, 2005, the Court granted class action
status to the lawsuit.

As to the sole claim against Hospira, the court certified a class
defined as: "all employees of Abbott who were participants in the
Abbott Benefit Plans and whose employment with Abbott was
terminated between August 22, 2003, and April 30, 2004, as a
result of the spin-off of the HPD [Hospital Products Division]/
creation of Hospira announced by Abbott on August 22, 2003, and
who were eligible for retirement under the Abbott Benefit Plans on
the date of their terminations."

Hospira denies all material allegations asserted against it in the
complaint.  Trial of this matter has concluded.

On April 22, 2010, the court issued a ruling in favor of Hospira
and Abbott on all counts.  Plaintiffs have appealed that verdict.

In 2008, Hospira received notice from Abbott requesting that
Hospira indemnify Abbott for all liabilities that Abbott may incur
in connection with this litigation.  Hospira denies any obligation
to indemnify Abbott for the claims asserted against Abbott in this
litigation.

The suit is Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v.
Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-07199
(N.D. Ill.) (Gettleman, J.).

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Paul William Mollica, Esq.
         MEITES, MULDER, BURGER & MOLLICA
         208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1410
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Telephone: 312-263-0272

Hospira is represented by:

         James F. Hurst, Esq.
         WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
         35 West Wacker Drive
         41st Floor, Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: 312-558-5230


INTUIT INC: Faces Class Action Over Quickbooks Service Outages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Massey, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reports
Dallas title attorneys have filed a proposed class action against
Intuit's Quickbooks after experiencing several brief outages
associated with Quickbooks Online and Quickbooks Payroll
Subscription Service.

Claiming breach of contract, plaintiffs Celaratec, Uptown Title
Dallas and Ishmael Law Firm filed suit against Intuit Inc. on
Sept. 9 in Collin County District Court seeking a refund of their
subscription costs.  Intuit removed the case to the Eastern
District of Texas, Sherman Division on Oct. 22.

According to the lawsuit, Quickbooks Online has suffered at least
four outages since their subscription started in September 2009.

Service was not accessible for several hours on April 23 and
July 21, for nearly two days on June 15 and 16 and not available
all day on July 14.

Plaintiffs are asking for an award of actual damages in the form
of a pro-rated refund of the subscription and service fees paid to
Intuit for Quickbooks Online services which was not provided as
detailed in the parties' agreements.

The proposed class will include all persons or organizations which
purchased the services since September 2009 and who have not
received a refund or other credit of service and subscription fees
for the failure with regard to the service outages.  The lawsuit
could include approximately 140,000 individuals and entities.

The petitioners are asking the court to issue a permanent
injunction preventing the defendant from retaliatory conduct and
for an award of actual damages, attorneys' fees and expenses,
interest and court costs.

The plaintiffs are represented by Christopher M. Joe and Eric W.
Buether of Buether Joe & Carpenter in Dallas.

Jury trial is requested.

Case No. 4:10-cv-00566


LENNOX INTERNATIONAL: Inks MOU to Settle "Keilholtz" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc., has entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the matter styled Keilholtz v. Lennox
Hearth Products, Lennox Industries and Lennox International, Inc.,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, 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.

The class action lawsuit against the company was filed on
Feb. 6, 2008.

The lawsuit, which involves no personal injury claims, alleges
that certain of the company's single-pane, glass-front, gas
fireplaces are hazardous and that consumers were not adequately
warned, and seeks economic damages.

On Feb. 16, 2010, the court issued an order certifying a
nationwide class of plaintiffs.

On Aug. 23, 2010, the company and the plaintiffs entered into a
binding Memorandum of Understanding and have reached tentative
terms for settlement of the case.  At the parties' request, the
court has stayed the litigation.

If the terms of the MOU are fulfilled, as is expected, the parties
will file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with
the court by Dec. 1, 2010.

Through its subsidiaries, Lennox International Inc. --
http://www.lennoxinternational.com/-- is a global leader in the
heating, air conditioning, and refrigeration markets.


MDL 2029: Wal-Mart Settles Netflix & Blockbuster Customers' Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., has settled complaints filed in federal
court by subscribers of Netflix, Inc., and Blockbuster Inc.,
according to Netflix, Inc.'s Oct. 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2010.

In January through April 2009, a number of purported anti-trust
class action suits were filed against the company.  Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. and Walmart.com USA LLC were also named as defendants
in these suits.

Most of the suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California and other federal district courts
around the country.  A number of suits were filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County.

The plaintiffs, who are current or former Netflix customers,
generally allege that Netflix and Wal-Mart entered into an
agreement to divide the markets for sales and online rentals of
DVDs in the United States, which resulted in higher Netflix
subscription prices.  On April 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered all cases pending in federal
court transferred to the Northern District of California to be
consolidated or coordinated for pre-trial purposes.

These cases have been assigned the multidistrict litigation number
MDL-2029.

On March 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

The cases pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, Santa Clara County have been consolidated.

In addition, in May of 2009, three additional lawsuits were filed
-- two in the Northern District of California and one in the
Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County --
alleging identical conduct and seeking identical relief.
In these three cases, the plaintiffs are current or former
subscribers to the online DVD rental service offered by
Blockbuster Inc.  The two cases filed in federal court on behalf
of Blockbuster subscribers have been related to MDL-2029.

On Dec. 1, 2009, the federal Court entered an order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss the two federal cases filed on
behalf of Blockbuster subscribers.  Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on March 1, 2010.

Defendants moved to dismiss the Blockbuster subscribers' amended
complaint on March 31, 2010.

The Court denied the motion to dismiss on July 6, 2010.

The lawsuit filed in Superior Court of the State of California,
San Mateo County has been coordinated with the cases pending in
Santa Clara County.  The complaints, which assert violations of
federal and/or state antitrust laws, seek injunctive relief, costs
(including attorneys' fees) and damages in an unspecified amount.

On August 27, 2010, Wal-Mart stated that it had settled the cases
filed in Federal Court with both the Netflix and Blockbuster
plaintiffs.  Details of the settlement were not disclosed and
plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for preliminary approval of
the Wal-Mart settlement.

Netflix, Inc. -- http://www.netflix.com/-- provides online movie
rental subscription service in the United States to approximately
10 million subscribers.  The company offers a variety of plans and
provides subscribers access to over 100,000 digital versatile disc
(DVD) and Blu-ray titles plus more than 12,000 streaming content
choices.


NEW ORLEANS: City Council Seeks to Bring Back Red-Light Cameras
---------------------------------------------------------------
WDSU.com reports the city officials were working Thursday,
Oct. 28, to bring back red-light cameras, a day after the
Louisiana Supreme Court shut down the use of red-light and
speeding cameras in New Orleans.

Members of the City Council have started working overtime to
change the city's charter with a new ordinance after the state's
highest court ruled on Wednesday, Oct. 27, that the red-light
traffic cameras violated the city's charter by allowing the
Department of Public Works to oversee them.

"It will be putting the jurisdiction of the red-light cameras
under police instead of public works," Jackie Clarkson, of the New
Orleans City Council, said.

Lawyer Edward Washington said, however, the battle is far from
over because his group is set to file a class action suit to get
ticketed drivers their money back.  Mr. Washington originally
fought against the cameras in court.

"That's the people's damages, the fees and fines, the late fees
that they've paid.  We believe they're entitled to those tickets
that were issued under an unlawful program." Mr. Washington said.

Mr. Washington said the lawsuit will include tickets that were
issued since the traffic system started in New Orleans in 2008.

Courtney Johnson, who got three citations from the traffic camera
six months ago, said the lawsuit is good news.

"I had them for a couple of different reasons like, they had
speeding, they had one for right on red, like I stopped too far
past the line instead of stopping before the line," Ms. Johnson
said.

Ms. Johnson said she will be entitled to $400 if a judge rules in
favor of the class action suit.

City officials, meanwhile, said the class action suit is not their
priority because they are still focusing on putting the cameras
back to work.

City officials noted that drivers who received tickets from the
red-light cameras before Thursday are still required to pay them.
At least $15 million is generated each year from the traffic
system, officials said.


POINT BLANK: Creditors Back Effort to Upset Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports Point Blank Solutions Inc. has support from the creditors'
committee in its effort at upsetting a shareholders' class action
suit settled more than four years ago.

At a Nov. 23 hearing, Point Blank will ask the bankruptcy judge in
Delaware to rule that the settlement of the class action is an
executory contract that can be rejected.  Point Bank believes that
rejection will enable it to recover $35.2 million that is being in
escrow by the class plaintiffs' lawyers.

The committee naturally supports Point Blank, hoping the
$35.2 million will be available to pay $40 million in unsecured
creditors' claims.  The funds also could be used to pay off
$20 million of reorganization financing that matures on Dec. 31.

The lead plaintiffs in the class suit began their argument by
contending that the settlement stipulation is not an executory
contract.  They believe no performance remains on either side.
Only the finality of approval orders is required for the money to
be distributed to members of the shareholder-plaintiff class.

The plaintiffs say that the money in escrow wouldn't in any event
come back to Point Blank because the funds weren't paid by the
company and never was its property.

The class action was filed for investors who bought stock between
2003 and 2006.  The former chief executive and chief operating
officer were convicted in September of orchestrating a $185
million fraud.

Point Blank has a plant and head office in Pompano Beach, Florida,
and a second plant in Jacksboro, Tennessee.  Revenue in 2009
exceeded $153 million.

The Chapter 11 petition in April listed assets of $64 million
against debt totaling $68.5 million.  Debt included a
$10.5 million secured loan paid off by financing for the
Chapter 11 case.  Point Blank said it also owes $28.2 million
to trade suppliers.

The case is In re Point Blank Solutions Inc., 10-11255 (Bankr.
D. Del.).

                        About Point Blank

Headquartered in Pompano Beach, Florida, Point Blank Solutions,
Inc. -- http://www.pointblanksolutionsinc.com/-- designs and
produces body armor systems for the U.S. Military, Government and
law enforcement agencies, as well as select international markets.
The Company maintains facilities in Pompano Beach, Florida, and
Jacksboro, Tennessee.

The Company's former chief executive officer and chief operating
officer were convicted in September 2010 of orchestrating a
$185 million fraud.

Point Blank Solutions, formerly DHB Industries, filed for
Chapter 11 protection on April 14, 2010 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No.
10-11255).  Laura Davis Jones, Esq., and Timothy P. Cairns, Esq.,
at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, serve as bankruptcy counsel
to the Debtor.  Olshan Grundman Frome Rosenweig & Wolosky LLP
serves as corporate counsel.  T. Scott Avila of CRG Partners Group
LLC is the restructuring officer.  Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions
serves as claims and notice agent.

The U.S. Trustee has appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors and a separate Official Committee of Equity Security
Holders in the case.  The Equity Committee has tapped Morrison
Cohen LLP, and The Bayard, P.A., as counsel.  Robert M. Hirsh,
Esq., and Heike M. Vogel, Esq., at Arent Fox LLP, serve as counsel
to the Creditors Committee, and Frederick B. Rosner, Esq., and
Brian L. Arban, Esq., at Messana Rosner & Stern LLP, serve as co-
counsel.


SANTEE ELECTRIC: Releases Independent Audit Report
--------------------------------------------------
SCNow.com reports Santee Electric Cooperative, Inc. released an
independent report on the cooperative's management and board
practices addressing complaints triggered by a class action
lawsuit filed earlier this year by several co-op members.

According to a press release issued by Santee Electric's on
Friday, Smith and Christensen, a Charlotte law firm specializing
in cooperative governance, spent several weeks preparing the
review after the cooperative's board of trustees hired the firm to
conduct a comprehensive internal audit of management and board
practices.

According to the release, the report suggested Santee Electric
alter its board election bylaws and procedures to make it easier
for candidates to appear on the ballot.  Investigators also
recommended the cooperative take steps to make it easier for
members to exercise their right to vote and reduce and clarify
board compensation and benefits.

The release said the audit also recommended greater transparency
and member access to the board of trustees also recommending less
micro-management by the board itself; however, the release said
the report did not conclude co-op members were being overcharged
for their electric service.

"The investigators found no basis for allegations that the
cooperative has been charging inflated rates," the release said.
"According to their analysis of the cooperative's data, Santee's
rates are justifiable and within the appropriate range."

The release also said accusations that the co-op "lavishly on
facilities" were found to be untrue based on the report.

"Regarding capital credits, the investigators recommended a more
formal board policy but found no fault with Santee's history of
capital credit retirements," the release said.  The release also
said investigators found "no evidence to support allegations that
Santee's management is overcompensated or guilty of misconduct."

"We appreciate the hard work that went into this process," Billy
L. Morris, Jr., chairman of the cooperative's board of trustees
said in the release.  "We look forward to the opportunity to sit
down with the plaintiffs in this lawsuit to discuss the report's
recommendations."

Floyd Keels, the cooperative's president and chief executive
officer, acknowledged that parts of the report are not favorable
in the release and said the co-op would take steps to improve.
"The facts are what they are," he said.  "Our next step is to
explore the report's recommendations for ways to improve the
cooperative's operations and responsiveness to the membership."

Santee has yet to file a formal answer in the lawsuit, the release
said.  "We've made the audit findings very public, and now we just
need to get together and talk about what is best for the
cooperative," Mr. Morris said.

"We are ready to meet with the plaintiffs to address their
concerns," Mr. Keels said.  "In the meantime, we will begin
working on our own reformation plan based on the independent
report."

The report is available on the cooperative's Web site
http://www.santee.org/

Members without access to the Internet may obtain a copy at any of
the cooperative's offices.


SIGMA PHARMA: Faces Class Action for Misleading Investors
---------------------------------------------------------
Ben Butler, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
investors in troubled biotech Sigma Pharmaceuticals have filed a
class action lawsuit worth up to $100 million against the company.

The Federal Court lawsuit, filed in Melbourne on Friday by Slater
& Gordon, alleges Sigma misled the market about profit forecasts
and failed to disclose hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
writedowns.

It covers investors who held Sigma shares between September 7 last
year and February 25.

"By September 7, 2009, Sigma was unlikely to achieve its 2010 NPAT
[net profit after tax] forecast" unless it achieved sales
"significantly" higher than average, launched new products or
increased margins, the statement of claim alleges.

It also failed to disclose likely impairments and redundancy
costs, Slater & Gordon alleges.

Sigma shocked the market on March 31, unveiling a $389 loss and
$424 million in goodwill impairments.

"The release of the March 2010 disclosures caused the trading
price of interests in Sigma shares to fall from their inflated
prices," Slater & Gordon alleges.

Company scrip fell from 91 cents on February 25, the last day
before Sigma went into a trading halt, to close at 47 cents.

"The price fall of 44 cents during March 31, 2010, constituted a
negative reaction to the March 2010 disclosures and reflected the
removal of inflation of the Sigma shares trading price by February
25 as a result of the contraventions," the statement of claim
alleges.

In a statement to the stock exchange, Sigma said it "refutes these
allegations and will vigorously defend the proceedings".

The case has been assigned to Justice Ray Finkelstein but a date
for a directions hearing has yet to be set.

Sigma shares were down 0.5 cent, or 1.1 per cent, at 44.5 cents in
morning trade.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Berman DeValerio Unveils Class Action Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
If You Purchased or Leased a New Car or Truck Manufactured by Any
of the Following Automakers During 2001 to 2006, Two Class Action
Settlements May Affect Your Legal Rights and You May Be Eligible
to Receive a Payment.

   -- Acura,
   -- Audi,
   -- BMW,
   -- Buick,
   -- Cadillac,
   -- Chevrolet,
   -- Chrysler,
   -- Dodge,
   -- Ford,
   -- GMC,
   -- Honda,
   -- Hummer,
   -- Infiniti,
   -- Jaguar,
   -- Jeep,
   -- Land Rover,
   -- Lexus,
   -- Lincoln,
   -- Mazda,
   -- Mercedes,
   -- Mercury,
   -- Mini,
   -- Nissan,
   -- Oldsmobile,
   -- Plymouth,
   -- Pontiac,
   -- Saab,
   -- Saturn,
   -- Toyota,
   -- Volkswagen, and
   -- Volvo.

Two settlements resolve claims against Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,
Inc. ("Toyota") and the Canadian Automobile Dealers' Association
("CADA") in several lawsuits across the country.  The lawsuits are
about an alleged conspiracy among several automakers to keep
Canadian new car exports out of the U.S. Toyota and CADA assert
that they have acted lawfully and independently and that there is
no legal or factual basis for these lawsuits.  This is just a
summary -- for more info, visit
http://www.CanadianExportAntitrust.com/

Who Is a Class Member?  You are a Class Member if you reside in
the U.S. and purchased or leased a new vehicle manufactured by one
of the automakers listed above from a dealer in the U.S. during
the period from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2006.

What Are the Lawsuits About?  The lawsuits claim that several
automakers (Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan and Toyota) and a
dealer association (CADA) conspired with each other to prevent
cheaper, but virtually identical, new cars from being exported to
the U.S. from Canada.  The lawsuits allege that this violated
state antitrust and consumer protection laws and caused new
vehicle prices in the U.S. to be higher than they should have
been.  After considering the extensive evidence of the case after
seven years of litigation, the federal Court has ruled in favor of
the non-settling defendants and dismissed them from the federal
lawsuit.  Related lawsuits in state courts in AZ, CA, FL, MN, NM,
TN and WI, however, continue against several of the same
automakers.  See the website for details.  If you are a California
resident, you should follow the link on the website concerning the
pending California class action lawsuit to see how that case may
affect you.

What Do the Settlements Provide?  Toyota has agreed to pay $35
million, and CADA has agreed to pay $700,000, to settle the
lawsuits.  Toyota and CADA have agreed not to conspire or share
information with others aimed at stopping Canada-to-U.S. new
vehicle exports.  It is proposed that $500,000 to $1,000,000 of
the settlement funds be donated to a nonprofit or government
agency engaged in educating or advocating for car buyers.

Will You Receive Any Payment from the Settlements?  That depends.
You are eligible to file a claim for a payment if you are a Class
Member and all of the following apply to you:

   1. You purchased or leased your new vehicle during the period
January 1, 2001 to April 30, 2003;

   2. At the time of your purchase or lease, you resided in one of
the following "Eligible States": AZ, AR, CA, ID, KS, ME, MA, MI,
MN, MS, NE, NV, NH, NM, ND, SD, TN, VT, WV or WI; and

   3. You purchased or leased from a dealer located in one of the
Eligible States.

How Do You Ask for Payment?  You must submit a claim, which you
should do online.  A detailed Notice, available at the website,
contains all the information you need to submit a claim.

What Are Your Options?  You have a choice whether or not to be
part of the proposed settlements.

   1. If you want to be part of the proposed settlements and you
are not eligible for a payment, you don't need to do anything.

   2. To get a payment, you must be eligible and file a claim.
You should file your claim online at the website.  Your claim must
be submitted by February 1, 2011.

   3. If you do not want to be part of the settlements you must
exclude yourself, in writing, by January 28, 2011.

   4. If you do not exclude yourself, you may object to either
settlement, in writing, by January 28, 2011.

The detailed Notice explains how to exclude yourself or object.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine will hold a
hearing on February 18, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. to decide whether to
approve the settlements. Attorneys for the Class have not been
reimbursed for nearly $10 million in out-of-pocket costs,
including expert witness fees, and have not been paid any
attorneys' fees for litigating the case for over seven years and
negotiating the settlements.  The Court will consider whether to
approve payment of attorneys' fees and costs, combined, not to
exceed 30% of the settlement funds plus interest to the attorneys
for the Class.  You may object to the request for attorneys' fees
and costs, in writing, by January 28, 2011.

If you do not have any Internet access, please call 1-866-266-9034
for more info and to learn how to submit a claim by mail.


U.S. STEEL: Antitrust Suit Over Products Ongoing in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Steel Corp. continues to face several purported antitrust
class-action lawsuits in Illinois over steel products.

In a series of lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois beginning Sept. 12, 2008, individual
direct or indirect buyers of steel products have asserted that
eight steel manufacturers, including U. S. Steel, conspired in
violation of antitrust laws to restrict the domestic production of
raw steel and thereby to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
price of steel products in the United States.

The cases are filed as class-action lawsuits and claim treble
damages for the period 2005 to present, but do not allege any
damage amounts.

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

U.S. Steel Corp. -- http://www.ussteel.com-- is an integrated
steel producer with production operations in North America and
Central Europe. The company has an annual raw steel production
capability of 24.3 million net tons in the North America and 7.4
million tons in Central Europe.  U.S. Steel is also engaged in
several other business activities, most of which are related to
steel manufacturing. These include the production of coke in both
in North America and Central Europe, and the production of iron
ore pellets from taconite, transportation services (railroad and
barge operations), real estate operations and engineering and
consulting services in North America.


WALGREEN CO: Sued in Florida for Misleading Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Walgreen pushes its house
brand mouthwashes with bogus claims about their health benefits,
a class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Moss v. Walgreen Co., Case No.
10-cv-62089 (S.D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/01/Walgreen.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
          Mark Dearman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: 561-750-3000
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  cobrien@rgrdlaw.com
                  mdearman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven Gerson, Esq.
          THE GERSON LAW FIRM
          8551 West Sunrise Blvd., Suite 300
          Plantation, FL 33322
          Telephone: 954-915-8888
          E-mail: sgerson@gersonlawfirm.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  * * *