CAR_Public/101109.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, November 9, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 221

                             Headlines

AIRTRAN HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Sherman Act Violations Claim
AIRTRAN HOLDINGS: Defends Seven Suits Over Southwest Merger
ALLSTATE CORP: No High Court Precedent on Anti-Assignment Clause
ALLSTATE CORP: Agrees to Settle Suits by General Contractors
ALLSTATE CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in Wage & Hour Suit

ALLSTATE CORP: Defends Consolidated EEOC/Romero Suit
ALLSTATE CORP: Former Employee Agents' Suit Remain Pending
AT&T SERVICES: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
ANZ BANK: Fee-Gouging Suit Could Come Down to Two Witnesses
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued for Breach of Contract & False Advertising

BMW NORTH AMERICA: Sued for Concealing Design Defects in Vehicles
BRITAX CHILD: Recalls 23,000 Chaperone Infant Car Seats
CAPITAL GOLD: D&Os Face Fourth Suit Over Sale to Gammon
CONOPCO INC: Sued for Falsely Marketing Products as "All-Natural"
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces Class Suit Over Hip Replacement System

DISH NETWORK: Faces Class Action Over Fox Channel Charges
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Plaintiffs Agree to Dismissal of Securities Suit
ECOLAB INC: Accused in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
GAIAM INC: Settles Class Action Over BPA in Water Bottles
GE APPLIANCES: Recalls 174,000 Profile & Monogram Dishwashers

GREEN MOUNTAIN: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
GUAM: Dec. 16 Show Cause Hearing Set for Pay Raise Class Action
HAIER AMERICA: Recalls 67,500 Chest Freezers
INDIANA: Dept. of Correction Loses Class Suit Over Kosher Meals
INDYMAC BANK: Jan. 11 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set

MCKESSON CORP: No Ruling Yet in San Francisco Suit Certification
MCKESSON CORP: Still No Ruling in "Kansas" Suit Certification
MCKESSON CORP: Settles Connecticut Action for $26 Million
MCKESSON CORP: Defends "Rodriguez" Suit in California
PFIZER INC: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Wages

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sued in California for False Advertising
ST. JOE: Barroway Corrects Release on Shareholder Class Action
TARGET CORP: Wins Mislabeling Class Action Lawsuit
WB/STELLAR IP: Accused of Wrongfully Charging Market Rate Rents
ZYNGA GAME: Faces Fifth Suit for Invasion of Privacy

ZYNGA GAME: Faces Sixth Suit for Invasion of Privacy
ZURICH FINANCIAL: Profit Down 22% After Class Action Settlement

* Class Actions with Huge Payouts Come with Heavy Costs
* Four Australian Banks May Face Fee-Gouging Class Action Suits



                             *********

AIRTRAN HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Sherman Act Violations Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims that AirTran Holdings, Inc., had
violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.  The Court however let
stand the claims of a conspiracy to with respect to the imposition
of a first bag fee, according to the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air and AirTran in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that AirTran conspired
with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the first item of
checked luggage.  The initial complaint sought treble damages on
behalf of a putative class of persons or entities in the United
States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on
domestic flights beginning Dec. 5, 2008.

Subsequent to the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other
nearly identical complaints also seeking certification as class
actions were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia;
Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada.  All of the cases were
consolidated before a single judge in Atlanta.

An amended complaint filed in February 2010 in the consolidated
action broadened the allegations to add claims that Delta and
AirTran also cut capacity on competitive routes and raised prices.
The amended complaint seeks injunctive relief against a broad
range of alleged anticompetitive activities and attorneys fees.

On Aug. 2, 2010, the Court dismissed that portion of the
plaintiffs' claims of a continuing conspiracy such that AirTran
had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the Court let stand the
claims of a conspiracy to with respect to the imposition of a
first bag fee.

AirTran Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.airtran.com/-- conducts all
of its flight operations through its wholly owned subsidiary,
AirTran Airways, Inc.  The company operates scheduled airline
service throughout the United States and to selected international
locations.  Approximately half of its flights originate or
terminate at its hub in Atlanta, Georgia and it serves a number
of markets with non-stop service from its focus cities of
Baltimore, Maryland, Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Orlando, Florida.
As of Feb. 1, 2010, the company operated 86 Boeing B717-200
aircraft (B717) and 52 Boeing B737-700 aircraft (B737) offering
approximately 700 scheduled flights per day to 63 locations in the
United States, including San Juan, Puerto Rico, and to Orangestad,
Aruba, Cancun, Mexico, and Nassau, The Bahamas.  During the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009, the company initiated service to seven
domestic locations and initiated service to three international
destinations.


AIRTRAN HOLDINGS: Defends Seven Suits Over Southwest Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
AirTran Holdings, Inc., is defending against seven purported class
action lawsuits in connection with its planned merger with
Southwest Airlines Co., according to the company's Oct. 27, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On Sept. 26, 2010, AirTran, Southwest, and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Southwest entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, providing for the acquisition of AirTran by Southwest.

As of Oct. 25, 2010, seven purported class action lawsuits have
been filed on behalf of individual shareholders and similarly
situated AirTran stockholders in state court in Nevada (three
cases) and in state court in Florida (four cases) against each
member of the AirTran board of directors, Southwest and Merger
Sub, and certain officers of the company.

Each of the Merger Litigation Cases alleges substantially the same
claims including that the consideration to be received by the
company's stockholders in the merger is unfair and inadequate and
that those AirTran officers and directors named as defendants
violated their fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement
through an unfair and flawed process and by approving certain deal
protection mechanisms contained in the merger agreement and that
AirTran, Southwest and Merger Sub aided and abetted the individual
AirTran defendants in the breach of their fiduciary duties to
AirTran's stockholders.

The Merger Litigation Cases generally seek injunctive relief: (i)
enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger unless
AirTran adopts and implements a procedure or process to obtain the
highest possible price for AirTran's stockholders and discloses
all material information to AirTran's stockholders, (ii) directing
the individual AirTran defendants to exercise their fiduciary
duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of
AirTran's stockholders, (iii) rescinding, to the extent already
implemented, the merger agreement, including the deal protection
devices that may preclude premium competing bids for AirTran, (iv)
awarding plaintiff's costs and disbursements of the action,
including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, and (v)
granting such other and further equitable relief as the court may
deem just and proper.

Each of the Merger Litigation Cases is in a preliminary stage.

AirTran Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.airtran.com/-- conducts all
of its flight operations through its wholly owned subsidiary,
AirTran Airways, Inc..  The company operates scheduled airline
service throughout the United States and to selected international
locations.  Approximately half of its flights originate or
terminate at its hub in Atlanta, Georgia and it serves a number of
markets with non-stop service from its focus cities of Baltimore,
Maryland, Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Orlando, Florida.  As of Feb.
1, 2010, the company operated 86 Boeing B717-200 aircraft (B717)
and 52 Boeing B737-700 aircraft (B737) offering approximately 700
scheduled flights per day to 63 locations in the United States,
including San Juan, Puerto Rico, and to Orangestad, Aruba, Cancun,
Mexico, and Nassau, The Bahamas.  During the year ended Dec. 31,
2009, the company initiated service to seven domestic locations
and initiated service to three international destinations.


ALLSTATE CORP: No High Court Precedent on Anti-Assignment Clause
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated that there
is no controlling Louisiana Supreme Court precedent on the issue
of whether an insurance policy's anti-assignment clause prohibits
post-loss assignments.  Thus, the Fifth Circuit is certifying that
issue to the Louisiana Supreme Court, according to the company's
Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The Louisiana Attorney General filed a putative class action
lawsuit in state court against Allstate and other insurers on
behalf of Road Home fund recipients alleging that the insurers
have failed to pay all damages owed under their policies.

The insurers removed the matter to federal court.

The district court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand the matter
to state court and the Fifth Circuit affirmed that ruling.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs filed
a motion to remand the claims involving a Road Home subrogation
agreement.

In March 2009, the district court denied the State's request that
its claims be remanded to state court.  As for the defendant
insurers' motion, the judge granted it in part and denied it in
part.  Dismissal of all of the extra-contractual claims, including
the bad faith and breach of fiduciary duty claims, was granted.
Dismissal also was granted of all claims based on the Valued
Policy Law and all flood loss claims based on the levee breaches
finding that the insurers flood exclusions precluded coverage.
The remaining claims are for breach of contract and for
declaratory relief on the alleged underpayment of claims by the
insurers.  The judge did not dismiss the class action allegations.

The defendants also had moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds
that the State had no standing to bring the lawsuit as an assignee
of insureds because of anti-assignment language in the insurers'
policies.  The judge denied the defendants' motion for
reconsideration on the assignment issue but found the matter was
ripe for consideration by the federal appellate court.

The defendants have filed a petition for permission to appeal to
the Fifth Circuit.  The Fifth Circuit has accepted review.

After the Fifth Circuit accepted review, plaintiffs filed a motion
to remand the case to state court, asserting that the class claims
on which federal jurisdiction was premised have now effectively
been dismissed as a result of a ruling in a related case.  The
Fifth Circuit has denied the motion for remand, without prejudice
to plaintiffs' right to re-file the motion for remand after the
Fifth Circuit disposes of the pending appeal.

The Fifth Circuit heard oral argument on July 7, 2010.

On July 28, 2010, the Fifth Circuit issued an order stating that
since there is no controlling Louisiana Supreme Court precedent on
the issue of whether an insurance policy's anti-assignment clause
prohibits post-loss assignments, the Fifth Circuit is certifying
that issue to the Louisiana Supreme Court.  The Louisiana Supreme
Court may rule based on the pleadings that have been filed with
the Fifth Circuit, or it may request additional briefing as well
as oral argument.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Company.  The company's
business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance
Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates.
Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and
casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement and
investment products business.  It conducts its business primarily
in the United States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Agrees to Settle Suits by General Contractors
------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp. has agreed to settle suits alleging that it
failed to properly pay general contractors overhead and profit on
many homeowner structural loss claims, according to the company's
Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

There are one nationwide and several statewide class action
lawsuits pending against the company alleging that it failed to
properly pay general contractors overhead and profit on many
homeowner structural loss claims.  Most of these lawsuits contain
counts for breach of contract, as well as one or more counts
asserting other theories of liability such as bad faith, fraud,
unjust enrichment, or unfair claims practices.

General contractors overhead and profit is an amount that is added
to payments on claims where the services of a general contractor
are reasonably likely to be required.  To a large degree, these
lawsuits mirror similar lawsuits filed against other carriers in
the industry, some of which have settled.

These lawsuits are pending in various state and federal courts,
and they are in different stages of development.  No classes have
been certified against Allstate.

The company has extended an offer of settlement on a 48-state
basis in the nationwide class action that appears acceptable to
the plaintiffs.  Many terms and conditions of such a settlement
are still to be worked out, and any final agreement to settle will
be subject to the approval of the court.  The settlement was
accrued as a prior year reserve reestimate in property-liability
insurance claims and claims expense in the third quarter of 2010.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Company.  The company's
business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance
Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates.
Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and
casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement and
investment products business.  It conducts its business primarily
in the United States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in Wage & Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a lawsuit involving worker classification issues are
appealing the decision favoring The Allstate Corp., according to
the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

The lawsuit is a certified class action challenging a state wage
and hour law.  The plaintiffs seek monetary relief, such as
penalties and liquidated damages, and non-monetary relief, such as
injunctive relief.

In December 2009, the liability phase of the case was tried and,
on July 6, 2010, the court issued its decision finding in favor of
Allstate on all claims.

The plaintiffs are appealing the decision.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Company.  The company's
business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance
Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates.
Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and
casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement and
investment products business.  It conducts its business primarily
in the United States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Defends Consolidated EEOC/Romero Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp. continues to defend a consolidated suit
alleging, among others, age discrimination.

A lawsuit was filed in 2001 by the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission alleging retaliation under federal civil
rights laws (EEOC I suit) and a class action filed in 2001 by
former employee agents alleging retaliation and age discrimination
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, breach of contract
and ERISA violations (Romero I suit).

In 2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I litigation, the
trial court issued a memorandum and order that, among other
things, certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class
of agents who had signed a release, for purposes of effecting the
court's declaratory judgment that the release is voidable at the
option of the release signer.

The court also ordered that an agent who voids the release must
return to Allstate "any and all benefits received by the [agent]
in exchange for signing the release."  The court also stated that,
"on the undisputed facts of record, there is no basis for claims
of age discrimination."

The EEOC and plaintiffs asked the court to clarify or reconsider
its memorandum and order and in January 2007, the judge denied
their request.

In June 2007, the court granted the company's motions for summary
judgment.

Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an order in December 2007
stating that the notice of appeal was not taken from a final order
within the meaning of the federal law and thus not appealable at
this time.

In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should
not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the
matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Third
Circuit along with the merits of the appeal.  In July 2009, the
Third Circuit vacated the decision which granted the company's
summary judgment motions, remanded the cases to the trial court
for additional discovery, and directed that the cases be
reassigned to another trial court judge.

In January 2010, the cases were assigned to a new judge for
further proceedings in the trial court.

No updates were disclosed in the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Company.  The company's
business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance
Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates.
Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and
casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement and
investment products business.  It conducts its business primarily
in the United States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Former Employee Agents' Suit Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A putative nationwide class action filed by former employee agents
against The Allstate Corp. remains pending in trial court.

The putative nationwide class alleged various violations of ERISA,
including a worker classification issue.  The plaintiffs are
challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and are
seeking to have exclusive agent independent contractors treated as
employees for benefit purposes.

This matter was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court, was
the subject of further proceedings on appeal, and was reversed and
remanded to the trial court in 2005.

In June 2007, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the case.

Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the Third
Circuit issued an order in December 2007 stating that the notice
of appeal was not taken from a final order within the meaning of
the federal law and thus not appealable at this time.

In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should
not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the
matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Third
Circuit along with the merits of the appeal.

In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated the decision which granted
the company's motion to dismiss the case, remanded the case to the
trial court for additional discovery, and directed that the case
be reassigned to another trial court judge.

In January 2010, the case was assigned to a new judge for further
proceedings in the trial court.

No updates were disclosed in the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Company.  The company's
business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance
Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates.
Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and
casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement and
investment products business.  It conducts its business primarily
in the United States.


AT&T SERVICES: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Lauren O'Donnell, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. AT&T Services, Inc., Case No. 2010-CH-46886 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty. October 28, 2010), accuses AT&T of misclassifying
employees working in internet technology job positions as exempt
and failing to compensate them for the overtime hours they worked,
in violation of the overtime compensation provisions of the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Ms. Lauren O'Donnell works as an IT analyst for AT&T.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Bantz, Esq.
          David E. Stevens, Esq.
          WERMAN LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  mbantz@flsalaw.com
                  dstevens@flsalaw.com


ANZ BANK: Fee-Gouging Suit Could Come Down to Two Witnesses
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Australia's largest-ever
class action case, involving almost 30,000 people taking on the
ANZ bank over fee-gouging, could come down to just one witness for
each party to decide the winner.

In the first of a series of class actions planned against
Australian banks, the law firm Maurice Blackburn is alleging ANZ
has charged its customers excessive fees since 2006.

Maurice Blackburn is claiming about $50 million for fees the banks
charged, including dishonor fees on bank accounts, as well as
over-limit fees and late payment fees on credit cards.

In a directions hearing in the Federal Court Thursday, Justice Ray
Finkelstein told counsel for Maurice Blackburn and the defendant,
ANZ, he would prefer both parties picked their best witness to try
the case.

"One case, one calculation, one fee -- then hang your case on the
result of that on the basis [that] if you lose your best case,
then you lose the lot," he said.

Counsel for Maurice Blackburn, Michael Lee, said it seemed a
sensible course to take, but ANZ's counsel, Alan Archibald, SC,
believed it could be more complicated than that.

He said the bank's systems, processes and costs had changed over
time so cases would be very diverse.

"Even if you focus on one account, the task seems to be very, very
large," he said.  But Justice Finkelstein said he would like to
see the class action "stand or fall" on the best case with the
other claimants "bound along the way".

Outside the court, the chairman of Maurice Blackburn, Bernard
Murphy, told reporters his counsel would consider the judge's
remarks and try to break the case down to a handful of claimants.

"We are seeking to slice the case up into manageable sections, but
the defendant appears to be saying it's like an octopus with
tentacles everywhere," Mr. Murphy said.

Justice Finkelstein set December 15 and 16 for the case to get
under way.

Another 11 banks, including the Commonwealth, Westpac and National
Australia Bank, are set to have similar actions taken against them
by Maurice Blackburn.


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued for Breach of Contract & False Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Arevalo, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Bank of America Corporation, Case No.
10-cv-04959 (N.D. Calif. November 2, 2010), brings claims against
Bank of America for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, international misrepresentation,
violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, violation of Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200, et seq. (The Unfair Competition
Law), violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17500 (False
Advertising Act), and unjust enrichment, in connection with Bank
of America's 'fraudulent course of conduct' in marketing, selling,
imposing, and administering products associated with its credit
cards known as 'Credit Protection', 'Credit Protection Plus,' or
other similar monikers that all offer similar coverage.

Mr. Arevalo says Bank of America violated California statutory and
common law by charging customers for Credit Protection who either
did not want or were not entitled to entitled to benefits, and by
"the unfair, misleading, and bait-and-switch manner in which Bank
of America administered claims for benefits by consumers."

The suit says Bank of America markets the "Credit Protection Plus"
plan as a service that pays the required minimum monthly payment
due on the subscriber's credit card account and the Credit
Protection Plus plan fee for a limited period of time under
certain triggering situations, such as involuntary unemployment,
illness, or changes in family status, thus preventing the account
from becoming delinquent.

Mr. Arevalo says, however, that the Credit Protection Plus plan is
"virtually worthless" because of the numerous restrictions that
are imposed, the exclusions of benefits, the hurdles that are
placed in the way of California subscribers who attempt to secure
payments from Bank of America under Credit Protection, and based
on comparison fees for Credit Protection against its benefits even
in the best case scenario, given that interest accrues during
periods of coverage.

Mr. Arevalo relates that in January 2010 he called Bank of America
to activate cash advance checks received through his credit card.
During the call, Bank of America tried to sell him the Credit
Protection Plus plan, but he declined to enroll.  In April 2010,
he discovered that his February, March, and April 2010 credit card
statements included charges for "Credit Protection Plus", and when
he told the customer service representative he did not want the
plan and wanted a refund, he was told he could cancel the plan but
they could not refund his money.  Mr. Arevalo says that Bank of
America has not refunded the money he paid towards the Credit
Protection premiums even though he did not voluntarily enroll in
the program.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
          Alison Elgart, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: msobol@lchb.com
                  aelgart@lchb.com

               - and -

          Wendy R. Fleishman, Esq.
          Rachel Geman, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMAN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          E-mail: wfleishman@lchb.com
                  rgeman@lchb.com


BMW NORTH AMERICA: Sued for Concealing Design Defects in Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence John Hackett, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. BMW North America, LLC, Case No.
2010-CH-46882 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. October 28, 2010), accuses
BMW of concealing defects in the design or manufacture of various
models of BMW vehicles, which render the subject unsafe for
driving.

The vehicles that are the subject of this action include all BMW
2007-2010 135i, 335i, 335xi, 335d, 535i, 535xi, X5 xDrive 35d, X6
xDrive 35i, and Z4 S Drive 35i models equipped with an N54 3.0
liter twin turbo inline-6 engine, which are manufactured,
marketed, sold and leased by BMW through its official dealers
throughout the State of Illinois.


BRITAX CHILD: Recalls 23,000 Chaperone Infant Car Seats
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Britax Child Safety Inc., of Charlotte, N.C., announced a
voluntary recall of about 23,000 Chaperone Infant car seats.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The harness chest clip can break and pose a laceration hazard. Due
to its small size it also poses a choking hazard.

The firm has received four reports of the chest clip breaking.
Injuries from three reports included minor lacerations and
scratches to arms and a finger; and one report involved an infant
placing the clip in his mouth.

This recall involves Chaperone infant car seats with model numbers
E9L95P2 (Red Mill), E9L95P3, E9L95P5 (Cowmooflage), E9L69N9
(Moonstone) manufactured between April 2009 and May 2010.  The
white serial label with the seat's serial number, model number,
and manufacture date can be found on the underside of the car
seat.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11031.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Mass and independent retailers nationwide and on the Britax
website from June 2009 to October 2010 for about $230.

Consumers should immediately contact Britax for a free repair kit,
which includes a replacement chest clip.  Registered owners have
been directly contacted by Britax.  This product was also recalled
by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
Recall Notice: http://is.gd/gPsWh

For additional information, contact Britax at (888) 427-4829
anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.britax.com/


CAPITAL GOLD: D&Os Face Fourth Suit Over Sale to Gammon
-------------------------------------------------------
Warren Bromberg, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Capital Gold Corporation, et al., Case No. 651904/2010
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. November 2, 2010), accuses the
directors of the New York City-based gold production and
exploration company, aided and abetted by Gammon Gold, of
breaching their fiduciary duties arising out of their agreement to
sell the Company to Gammon in a stock and cash transaction valued
at roughly $288 million, via an unfair process and for inadequate
consideration.

Under the terms of the proposed transaction and merger agreement,
each Capital Gold shareholders is to receive $.79 per share in
cash and 0.5209 shares of Gammon common stock, for each share of
Capital Gold common stock valued at $4.57 based on Capital Gold's
closing price on September 24, 2010.  The proposed transaction has
been approved by Capital Gold's Board of Directors.

Defendant Gammon is a Canadian mid-tier gold and silver producer
and miner.

The suit say that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to properly value the company and by
failing to take steps to maximize the value of Capital Gold to its
public shareholders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
          HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
          488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 935-7400

               - and -

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Dale MacDiarmed, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150


CONOPCO INC: Sued for Falsely Marketing Products as "All-Natural"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chanee Thurston and Tanasha Denmon-Clark, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Conopco, Inc. d/b/a Unilever
(formerly d/b/a Good Humor-Breyers) d/b/a Breyers, Case No.
10-cv-04937 (N.D. Calif. November 1, 2010), accuses Breyers of
packaging and marketing its Ice Cream Products as being "all
natural", despite the fact that they contained alkalized cocoa --
a non-natural processed ingredient that additionally contains
potassium carbonate, a synthetic ingredient, in violation of
California's Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.
(The Unfair Competition Law), and 17500 et seq. (False Advertising
Act).

The Plaintiffs ask the Court, among other things, to order Breyers
to restore the money improperly obtained from them and to disgorge
the profits Breyers has made on its Ice Cream products.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 392-8801
          E-mail: jlspielberg@jlsp.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
          Ellen M. Doyle, Esq.
          SEMPER FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & CORDES LLP
          Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          E-mail: jkravec@stemberfeinstein.com
                  edoyle@stemberfeinstein.com


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces Class Suit Over Hip Replacement System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley M. Chesley of the Cincinnati, Ohio-based law firm of
Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A. earlier Thursday
filed a major class action lawsuit against DePuy Orthopaedics,
Inc. and Johnson and Johnson (NYSE: JNJ).

DePuy and Johnson and Johnson recently recalled over 90,000 ASR XL
Acetabular hip replacement Systems.  The system has an
unacceptable failure rate causing patients to undergo hip
replacement surgery.

DePuy and Johnson and Johnson notified Mr. Chesley's client
Carolyn Pearcy that she has a recalled ASR XL Acetabular hip
system and advised her, similar to other recipients, to undergo a
series of tests.  Ms. Pearcy believes that her recalled hip was
the probable cause of her persistent and excruciating pain.

In her action Ms. Pearcy seeks court supervised medical
monitoring.  The goal is to ensure that every recipient receives
without cost necessary medical tests.  According to Mr. Chesley,
"DePuy refuses to accept fundamental financial responsibility.  It
wants patients and their insurance companies to pay for medical
tests required because of DePuy's bad hips."

Ms. Pearcy also is seeking damages including punitive damages.
Mr. Chesley commented that "DePuy and J&J were on notice of the
defective system, yet continued to manufacture, market and sell it
to innocent victims."

For more than 40 years, Stanley M. Chesley and Waite, Schneider,
Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A. -- http://www.wsbclaw.com/-- have
represented individuals from across the United States in a variety
of personal injury, breach of contract, fraud, and negligence
claims, including complex product liability cases, toxic exposure,
and dangerous prescription drugs.

CONTACT:

          Stanley M. Chesley, Esq.
          Terrence L. Goodman, Esq.
          CHESLEY OF WAITE, SCHNEIDER, BAYLESS & CHESLEY CO.
          Telephone: (513) 621-0267


DISH NETWORK: Faces Class Action Over Fox Channel Charges
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Dearden, writing for The Madison/St. Clair Record, reports
two Madison County residents have filed a class action lawsuit
against Dish Network, claiming customers are being charged for
programming they are not receiving.

The class action was filed Oct. 22 in Madison County Circuit Court
on behalf of all Dish Network customers in Illinois who have
contracts with the satellite provider for programming that
includes Fox Network's regional sports channel.

Steven Rippee of Granite City and Lois Fernandez of Collinsville
are the lead plaintiffs represented by Goldenberg, Heller,
Antognoli & Rowland in Edwardsville and Bartimus, Frickleton,
Roberston & Gorny in Jefferson City.

The plaintiffs claim they are paying for a Dish Network
programming package that includes Fox regional sports.  According
to the complaint, Dish removed the Fox channel from the line-up on
Oct. 1 but did not reduce the amount they are charging customers.

The class action accuses Dish Network of breach of contract,
failing to act fairly and in good faith and for violating the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.  They are asking to be allowed out of
their Dish contracts without penalty.  They are also requesting
punitive damages to compensate for Dish Network's wanton and
willful disregard of the rights of its Illinois customers.

Mr. Rippee and Ms. Fernandez are demanding a jury trial.

Madison County Circuit Court Case# 10-L-1093


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Plaintiffs Agree to Dismissal of Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a suit against Express Scripts, Inc., filed a
stipulation with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri to dismiss with prejudice the matter In re Express
Scripts Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-1009, according to
the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On Sept. 13, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The
complaint alleges that Express Scripts and certain of the
company's officers violated federal securities law.  The complaint
alleges that the company failed to disclose certain alleged
improper business practices and issued false and misleading
financial statements and that certain officers violated insider
trading laws.

The complaint is brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's
stock during the period Oct. 29, 2003 to Aug. 3, 2004.  The
complaint requests unspecified compensatory damages, equitable
relief and attorney's fees.

On Sept. 13, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging
that Express Scripts and certain of its officers violated federal
securities laws.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Oct. 28, 2005 and
supplemental briefing was completed in January 2009.

On June 30, 2010, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
and dismissed the action.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on July 29, 2010, then filed a
stipulation for dismissal with prejudice on Aug. 26, 2010.

Express Scripts, Inc. -- http://www.express-scripts.com/-- one of
the largest pharmacy benefit management companies in North
America, is leading the way toward creating better health and
value for patients through ConsumerologySM, the advanced
application of the behavioral sciences to healthcare.  This
approach is helping millions of members realize greater healthcare
outcomes and lowering cost by assisting in influencing their
behavior.  Headquartered in St. Louis, Express Scripts provides
integrated PBM services including network-pharmacy claims
processing, home delivery services, specialty benefit management,
benefit-design consultation, drug-utilization review, formulary
management, and medical and drug data analysis services.  The
company also distributes a full range of biopharmaceutical
products and provides extensive cost-management and patient-care
services.


ECOLAB INC: Accused in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ecolab makes its service
employees work 12- to 14-hour days and stiffs them for overtime, a
class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Schuler Jr. v. Ecolab, Inc., Case No.
10-cv-02255 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/04/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223


GAIAM INC: Settles Class Action Over BPA in Water Bottles
---------------------------------------------------------
Gary Long, Esq., Greg Fowler, Esq., and Simon Castley, Esq., at
Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, writing for the firm's Product Liability
Litigation Report, dated October 28, 2010, report that plaintiffs
alleging economic losses from the purchase of aluminum sports
bottles containing bisphenol A (BPA) have reportedly agreed to
settle their claims in exchange for replacement of the products
and $723,000 in attorney's fees.  Smith v. Gaiam, Inc., No.
09-2545 (U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Colo., joint stipulation of settlement
filed October 13, 2010).  According to a news source, the
settlement will address class actions filed in California and
Colorado; they were consolidated before the Colorado court in
March 2010.

No physical injury was alleged in these product liability actions,
and the defendant has denied that it misled consumers.  The
company contends that "when Plaintiffs brought their concerns to
the Company's attention, Gaiam acted promptly and responsibly.
And to ensure that every customer who purchased one of Gaiam's
Aluminum Water Bottles is completely satisfied, the Company is
entering into this Stipulation."

The putative settlement class has about 930,000 members.  They
will be eligible for free shipping and handling to exchange their
first generation bottles for replacement bottles made from
stainless steel or "next generation aluminum."  Those members who
no longer possess their water bottles will be able to receive a
replacement if they can document the purchase.  The agreement must
undergo court approval following a fairness hearing; if approved,
the claims will be dismissed with prejudice according to the
stipulation's terms.

BPA is a chemical widely used in food packaging and reusable food
and beverage containers.  It has come under scrutiny in recent
years with some studies claiming that is has reproductive and
endocrine-disrupting effects on lab animals.  Government agencies
worldwide are divided over whether BPA should be banned in
consumer products; the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is
currently reassessing its position on the chemical's safety, has
expressed some reservations about its use in products intended for
use by infants.

Shook, Hardy & Bacon attorneys assist food industry clients in
developing early assessment procedures that allow for quick
evaluation of potential liability and the most appropriate
response in the event of suspected product contamination or an
alleged food-borne safety outbreak.  The firm also counsels food
producers on labeling audits and other compliance issues, ranging
from recalls to facility inspections, subject to FDA, USDA and FTC
regulation.  SHB lawyers have served as general counsel for feed,
grain, chemical, and fertilizer associations and have testified
before state and federal legislative committees on agribusiness
issues.

For additional information on SHB's Global Product Liability
capabilities, please contact:

          Gary Long, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          Telephone: 816-474-6550
          E-mail: glong@shb.com

               - and -

          Greg Fowler, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          Telephone: 816-474-6550
          E-mail: gfowler@shb.com

               - and -

          Simon Castley, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          Telephone: 207-332-4500
          E-mail: scastley@shb.com


GE APPLIANCES: Recalls 174,000 Profile & Monogram Dishwashers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
GE Appliances & Lighting, of Louisville, Ky., announced a
voluntary recall of about 174,000 GE Profile(TM) and GE
Monogram(R) Dishwashers.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Water condensation can drip onto the electronic control board,
causing a short circuit and resulting in an overheated connector.
This poses a fire hazard to consumers.

GE has received five reports of fires, four of which caused minor
damage to the kitchen countertops where the dishwashers were
installed and one caused minor damage to adjacent cabinets and
smoke damage to the home.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the GE Profile dishwashers manufactured
between July 2003 and December 2005 and GE Monogram dishwashers
manufactured between January 2004 and December 2006.  They were
sold in white, black, bisque, stainless steel and with custom
panels.  The recalled model and serial numbers listed below are
located on the inside on the front left side of the dishwasher
tubs.

  Brand   Model Number Begins With:   Serial Number Begins With:
  -----   -------------------------   --------------------------
GE Profile     PDW9200J, PDW9280J     MF, RF, SF, TF, VF, ZF, AG,
                                      DG, FG, GG, HG, LG, MG, RG,
                                      SG, TG, VG, ZG, AH, DH, FH,
                                      GH, HH, LH, MH, RH, SH, TH,
                                      VH, ZH
               PDW9800J, PDW9880J     MF, RF, SF, TF, VF, ZF, AG,
                                      DG, FG, GG, HG, LG, MG, RG,
                                      SG, TG, VG, ZG, AH, DH, FH,
                                      GH, HH, LH, MH, RH

               PDW9700J               MF, RF, SF, TF, VF, ZF, AG,
                                      DG, FG, GG, HG, LG, MG, RG,
                                      SG, TG, VG, ZG, AH, DH, FH,
                                      GH, HH, LH, MH, RH, SH, TH

GE Monogram  ZBD6800K00, ZBD6800K01,
             ZBD6800K03, ZBD6800K10   AG, DG, FG, GG, HG, LG, MG,
                                      RG, SG, TG, VG, ZG, AH, DH,
                                      FH, GH, HH, LH, MH, RH, SH,
                                      TH, VH, ZH, AL, DL, FL, GL,
                                      HL, LL, ML, RL

             ZBD6880K00, ZBD6880K01,
             ZBD6880K03, ZBD6880K10   AG, DG, FG, GG, HG, LG, MG,
                                      RG, SG, TG, VG, ZG, AH, DH,
                                      FH, GH, HH, LH, MH, RH, SH,
                                      TH, VH, ZH, AL, DL, FL, GL,
                                      HL, LL, ML, RL, SL, TL, VL,
                                      ZL

            ZBD6890K00, ZBD6890K01,
            ZBD6890K03, ZBD6890K10    DG, FG, GG, HG, LG, MG, RG,
                                      SG, TG, VG, ZG, AH, DH, FH,
                                      GH, HH, LH, MH, RH, SH, TH,
                                      VH, ZH, AL, DL, FL, GL, HL,
                                      LL, ML, RL, SL

           ZBD0700K00, ZBD0700K01,
           ZBD0700K03, ZBD0700K10    VG, ZG, AH, DH, FH, GH, HH,
                                     LH, MH, RH, SH, TH, VH, ZH,
                                     AL, DL, FL, GL, HL, LL, ML,
                                     RL, SL

           ZBD0710K00, ZBD0710K01,
           ZBD0710K03, ZBD0710K10    RG, SG, TG, VG, ZG, AH, DH,
                                     FH, GH, HH, LH, MH, RH, SH,
                                     TH, VH, ZH, AL, DL, FL, GL,
                                     HL, LL, ML, RL, SL, TL, VL

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11022.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
through Retail stores nationwide, appliance dealers and authorized
builder distributors from July 2003 through December 2006 for
between $750 and $1,400.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled dishwashers,
disconnect the electric supply by shutting off the fuse or circuit
breaker controlling it and inform all users of the dishwasher
about the risk of fire.  Contact GE for a free in-home repair or
to receive a GE rebate of $200 for the purchase of a new GE
Profile dishwasher and a GE rebate of $400 for purchase of a new
GE Monogram dishwasher.  For additional information, contact GE
toll-free at (877) 275-6840 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday or visit the company's Web site at
http://www.geappliances.com/recall/


GREEN MOUNTAIN: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit against Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., and certain
of its officers.  The class action is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Green Mountain
securities during the period from July 28, 2010 through September
29, 2010, inclusive.  The Complaint alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Green Mountain sells whole bean and ground coffee selections,
cocoa, teas and coffees in K-Cup portion packs, and also
manufactures and markets gourmet single-cup brewing systems under
the Keurig brand name.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their
public statements concerning the Company's business, operations
and prospects were materially false and misleading.  Specifically,
defendants (1) deceived the investing public regarding Green
Mountain's business, operations, management, and the intrinsic
value of Green Mountain common stock; (2) enabled Defendants to
artificially inflate the price of Green Mountain shares; (3)
enabled Green Mountain to sell $250 million of Company shares to
Lavazza, while Defendants were in possession of material, adverse,
non-public information about the Company; (4) enabled Green
Mountain insiders to sell millions of dollars of their privately
held Green Mountain shares while in possession of material,
adverse, non-public information about the Company; and, (5) caused
Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase Green
Mountain common stock at artificially inflated prices.

On September 28, 2010, Green Mountain disclosed that the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission was conducting an inquiry
related to certain of the Company's revenue recognition practices
and that the Company had been using an incorrect gross margin
percentage to eliminate the inter-company markup in its K-Cup
inventory balance residing at its Keurig business unit, which had
resulted in a lower margin applied to the Keurig ending inventory
balance effectively overstating consolidated inventory and
understating cost of sales.

As a result of this news, on September 29, 2010, Green Mountain's
stock price declined $5.95 per share, or more than 16%, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Green Mountain securities
during the Class Period, you have until November 29, 2010 to ask
the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/

To discuss this action, contact Fei-Lu Qian at flqian@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free.  Those who inquire
by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and
telephone number.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago and
Washington, D.C., is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as
the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


GUAM: Dec. 16 Show Cause Hearing Set for Pay Raise Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kerrigan, writing for Pacific News Center, reports Superior
Court Judge Micheal Bordallo Thursday ordered the Camacho
Administration to implement the 10% pay raise for public safety
employees, or to show cause why the pay raise should not be
implemented at a hearing scheduled for December 16th.

The Show Cause order was the result of a class action lawsuit
filed Monday by Attorney Denial Somerfleck on behalf of the more
than 500 public safety employees who were due for their third 10%
pay increase provided by Public Law 29-105.  The increase was
supposed to take effect October 15th.

The Camacho Administration explained at the time that the raises
were not included in the budget because the decision was made to
provide funding for the implementation of the Hay Study pay raises
which would apply to more than 6,000 GovGuam employees.

Governor's Spokesman Shawn Gumataotao told PNC News at that time
that the law says that increase would be implemented only if the
money is available, and no money was available.

Again, the show cause hearing is slated for December 16th before
Superior Court Judge Bordallo.


HAIER AMERICA: Recalls 67,500 Chest Freezers
--------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Haier America Trading LLC, New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary
recall of about 67,500 Chest Freezers.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

A capacitor in the freezer's circuitry can overheat, posing a fire
hazard.

Haier America and CPSC have received reports of 18 incidents,
including four reports of fires with minor property damage,
consisting of smoke damage, damage to a wall, and food spoilage.
There have been no reports of injuries.

This recall involves the Black & Decker(R) Model BFE53 and
Haier(R) Model ESNCM053E 5.3 cubic foot capacity white chest
freezers.  "Black & Decker" is printed at the front upper-right
corner or "Haier" is printed on the front upper-left corner of the
freezer.  "Black & Decker" or "Haier," the model number, the
unit's serial number and other information are printed on a rating
label at the top center of the back of the freezer.  Only Model
BFE53 and Model ESNCM053E freezers with serial numbers beginning
as follows are included in this recall:

                Beginning of Serial Number on Rating Label
                                1001
                                1002
                                1003
                                1004
                                1005
                                1006
                                1007

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11028.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Black & Decker Model BFE53 was sold exclusively at Wal-Mart
nationwide from January 2010 through September 2010, for about
$150.  Haier Model ESNCM053E was sold through Amazon.com and other
retailers from May 2010 through October 2010 for between $220 to
$290.

Consumers should immediately unplug their freezer and contact the
company to schedule an appointment for a free repair to the
freezer.  For additional information, call the company toll-free
at (877) 878-7579 between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Eastern Time,
Saturdays and from 8:00 a.m. to 8 p.m. ET Sundays or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.chestfreezerrecall.com/


INDIANA: Dept. of Correction Loses Class Suit Over Kosher Meals
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports a federal judge has ruled the Indiana
Department of Correction is violating the law by not offering
kosher meals to prison inmates whose religious beliefs require it.

An Orthodox Jew inmate at Miami Correctional Facility filed a
class action suit last year after the agency began substituting
vegan meals for kosher meals it formerly served, citing higher
costs.  American Civil Liberties Union attorney Ken Falk says the
change affected about 90 to 120 inmates.

Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson last week ruled in favor of inmate
Matson Willis, finding that the department's handling of the issue
had violated his religious rights.

The judge set a hearing for Nov. 30 on the scope of a possible
injunction.


INDYMAC BANK: Jan. 11 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker &
Jackson, P.C. are Issuing the Following Statement Regarding the
IndyMac ERISA Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


IN RE INDYMAC ERISA
LITIGATION
      
Master File No.: 08-04579 DDP (VBKx)

CLASS ACTION
        
TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE FOLLOWING CLASS:

All persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan") at any time between
July 1, 2006, and June 1, 2010 (the "Class Period"), and whose
accounts included investments in the IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. stock
fund.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.
THIS IS A COURT-ORDERED LEGAL NOTICE.
THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION.

A proposed settlement (the "Settlement") has been preliminarily
approved by a federal court in the above-captioned class action
lawsuit alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") in connection with the
Plan.  The terms of the Settlement are contained in a Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement -- ERISA Action ("Settlement
Agreement"), which was executed on June 1, 2010. A copy of the
Settlement Agreement is available at
http://www.gcginc.com/cases/idm

Capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice and not defined
herein have the same meaning assigned to them in the Settlement
Agreement.

The proposed Settlement provides for a payment of $7 million to
settle all claims against all Defendants.  Under the Settlement,
the proceeds, net of expenses described in the Settlement
Agreement (which include notice and administrative expenses,
Court-approved attorneys' fees and expenses and Plaintiff case
contribution awards, taxes, and other costs related to the
Settlement Fund administration) will be allocated to members of
the Class whose Plan account(s) suffered losses as a result of
investing in IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. stock during the Class Period.
Settlement proceeds will be allocated in accordance with a Plan of
Allocation approved by the Court.

If you qualify, you will receive such an allocation.  You do not
need to submit a claim or take any other action unless you wish to
object to the Settlement.  The United States District Court for
the Central District of California (the "Court") authorized this
Notice.

THE COURT WILL HOLD A HEARING AT 11:00 A.M. ON JANUARY 10, 2011 TO
DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT.

Additional information about the proposed Settlement, including
the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement that has been
mailed to Class Members and explains how Class Members can object
to the Settlement and the Settlement Agreement is available at
http://www.gcginc.com/cases/idm

In addition, Plaintiffs' Counsel have established a toll-free
number, 1 (888) 404-8013, to assist in answering questions
regarding the Settlement.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT.

DATED: NOVEMBER 4, 2010.

By Order of the Court

The Hon. Dean D. Pregerson, United States District Court Judge

Contacts:

          Erin Riley, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          Telephone: 206-623-1900

               - or -

          Jim Keenley, Esq.
          LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.
          Telephone: 510-839-6824


MCKESSON CORP: No Ruling Yet in San Francisco Suit Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has yet
to issue a ruling on the class certification in the matter San
Francisco Health Plan, et al. v. McKesson Corporation, Civil
Action No. 1:08-CV-10843-PBS, according to the company's Oct. 26,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On May 20, 2008, an action was filed by the San Francisco Health
Plan on behalf of itself and a purported class of political
subdivisions in the State of California and by the San Francisco
City Attorney on behalf of the "People of the State of California"
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against the company as the sole defendant, alleging violations of
civil RICO, the California Cartwright Act, California's false
claims act, California Business and Professions Code Section 17200
and 17500 and seeking damages, treble damages, civil penalties,
restitution, interest and attorneys' fees, all in unspecified
amounts.

On July 3, 2008, an amended complaint was filed in the San
Francisco Action adding a claim for tortious interference.  On
Jan. 13, 2009, a second amended complaint was filed in the San
Francisco Action that abandoned all previously alleged antitrust
claims.

The hearing on class certification in the San Francisco action was
held on Aug. 31, 2010, but the court has not yet issued its
ruling.

McKesson Corporation -- http://http://www.mckesson.com/-- is a
healthcare services and information technology company dedicated
to helping its customers deliver high-quality healthcare by
reducing costs, streamlining processes, and improving the quality
and safety of patient care.  Over the course of its 177-year
history, McKesson has grown by providing pharmaceutical and
medical-surgical supply management across the spectrum of care;
healthcare information technology for hospitals, physicians,
homecare and payors; hospital and retail pharmacy automation; and
services for manufacturers and payors designed to improve outcomes
for patients.


MCKESSON CORP: Still No Ruling in "Kansas" Suit Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has yet
to issue a ruling on the class certification in the matter Board
of County Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas v. McKesson
Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-11349-PBS, according
to the company's Oct. 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On Aug. 7, 2008, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts by the Board of County
Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas on behalf of itself and a
purported national class of state, local and territorial
governmental entities against the company and FDB alleging
violations of civil RICO and federal antitrust laws and seeking
damages and treble damages, as well as injunctive relief,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified
amounts.

Separate class actions based on essentially the same factual
allegations were subsequently filed against the company and FDB in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by:

     -- the city of Panama, Florida, on Aug. 18, 2008;
     -- the state of Oklahoma, on Oct. 15, 2008;
     -- the county of Anoka, Minnesota, on Nov. 3, 2008;
     -- Baltimore, Maryland, on Nov. 7, 2008;
     -- Columbia, South Carolina, on Dec. 12, 2008; and
     -- Goldsboro, North Carolina, on Dec. 15, 2008,

in each case on behalf of the filing entity and a class of state
and local governmental entities within the same state, alleging
violations of civil RICO, federal and state antitrust laws and
various state consumer protection and deceptive and unfair trade
practices statutes and seeking damages and treble damages, civil
penalties, as well as injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts.

On Dec. 24, 2008, an amended and consolidated class action
complaint was filed in the Douglas County, Kansas Action.  The
amended complaint added the named plaintiffs from the Florida,
Oklahoma, Minnesota, Maryland, South Carolina and North Carolina
Actions and abandoned the previously alleged antitrust claims.
On Jan. 9, 2009, the Florida, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Maryland, South
Carolina and North Carolina Actions were voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice.

On March 3, 2009, a second amended and consolidated class action
complaint was filed in the Douglas County, Kansas Action, adding
the state of Montana as a plaintiff, adding Montana state law
claims and adding a claim for tortious interference.

On Feb. 10, 2009, plaintiffs in the Douglas County, Kansas Action
filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice of defendant FDB.
On April 2, 2009, the company filed answers to the pending
complaint denying the core factual allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses. On April 9, 2009, the Company filed
a demand for a jury in each of the action.

The hearing on class certification in the Douglas County, Kansas
action was held on Aug. 31, 2010, but the court has not yet issued
its ruling.

On Aug. 5, 2010, the court set a trial date of Jan. 24, 2011 for
the claims asserted by the State of Oklahoma on behalf of its
Medicaid program in the Douglas County, Kansas case, or, in the
alternative, the claims asserted by the State of Montana on behalf
of its Medicaid program in the Douglas County, Kansas case if the
Oklahoma Medicaid claims are resolved before the final pretrial
conference scheduled for Jan. 19, 2011.

McKesson Corporation -- http://http://www.mckesson.com/-- is a
healthcare services and information technology company dedicated
to helping its customers deliver high-quality healthcare by
reducing costs, streamlining processes, and improving the quality
and safety of patient care.  Over the course of its 177-year
history, McKesson has grown by providing pharmaceutical and
medical-surgical supply management across the spectrum of care;
healthcare information technology for hospitals, physicians,
homecare and payors; hospital and retail pharmacy automation; and
services for manufacturers and payors designed to improve outcomes
for patients.


MCKESSON CORP: Settles Connecticut Action for $26 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation has executed an agreement to settle the
matter State of Connecticut v. McKesson Corporation, Civil Action
No. 1:08-CV-10900-PBS, for $26 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.

On May 28, 2008, an action was filed by the State of Connecticut
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against the company, as the sole defendant, alleging violations of
civil RICO, the Sherman Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act and seeking damages, treble damages, restitution,
interest and attorneys' fees, all in unspecified amounts.

On Jan. 13, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the
Connecticut Action abandoning all previously alleged antitrust
claims.

On Oct. 15, 2010, the company executed an agreement to settle the
Connecticut Action for $26 million.  The settlement, which is not
subject to court approval, includes an express denial of liability
and a release by the State of Connecticut of the company as to all
matters alleged or which could have been alleged in the action.
As a result, during the second quarter of 2011, the company
recorded an additional $24 million pre-tax charge for this
settlement.

McKesson Corporation -- http://http://www.mckesson.com/-- is a
healthcare services and information technology company dedicated
to helping its customers deliver high-quality healthcare by
reducing costs, streamlining processes, and improving the quality
and safety of patient care.  Over the course of its 177-year
history, McKesson has grown by providing pharmaceutical and
medical-surgical supply management across the spectrum of care;
healthcare information technology for hospitals, physicians,
homecare and payors; hospital and retail pharmacy automation; and
services for manufacturers and payors designed to improve outcomes
for patients.


MCKESSON CORP: Defends "Rodriguez" Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation defends the matter Rodriguez et al. vs.
Etreby Computer Company et al., Civ. No. BC435303, filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, according to the company's Oct. 26, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On April 7, 2010, an action was filed against, among others, the
company, its indirect subsidiary, NDCHealth Corporation and "Relay
Health," a trade name under which NDC conducts business.

Rodriguez et al. vs. Etreby Computer Company et al., (Civ. No.
BC435303).

The plaintiffs in Rodriguez purport to represent a class of
California residents whose individual confidential medical
information was allegedly illegally released and used by
defendants, and plaintiffs also purport to bring their claims as a
private Attorney General action.  The claims asserted in the
complaint against the company defendants include negligence,
statutory violations and violation of California Business and
Professions Code, Sections 17200 et seq. covering unfair, unlawful
and fraudulent business acts and practices.

The statutory violations alleged by plaintiffs purport to arise
out of California Civil Code, Sections 56 through 56.37, also
known as the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.  The
complaint seeks compensatory and statutory damages under the CMIA,
equitable and injunctive relief, as well as interest and
attorneys' fees and costs, all in unspecified amounts.

The complaint was served on April 14, 2010.

McKesson Corporation -- http://http://www.mckesson.com/-- is a
healthcare services and information technology company dedicated
to helping its customers deliver high-quality healthcare by
reducing costs, streamlining processes, and improving the quality
and safety of patient care.  Over the course of its 177-year
history, McKesson has grown by providing pharmaceutical and
medical-surgical supply management across the spectrum of care;
healthcare information technology for hospitals, physicians,
homecare and payors; hospital and retail pharmacy automation; and
services for manufacturers and payors designed to improve outcomes
for patients.


PFIZER INC: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------
Tracy Bentson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Pfizer, Inc., Case No. 2010-CH-47464 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty. November 2, 2010), accuses the pharmaceutical company
of misclassifying its salaried pharmaceutical representatives as
exempt from the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and failing to pay them
the requisite overtime premium for time worked in excess of 40
hours per week.

Plaintiff Tracy Bentson is a resident of Illinois and worked for
the Defendant as a salaried pharmaceutical representative in the
State of Illinois, during the applicable stature of limitations
period.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sued in California for False Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Procter & Gamble pushes its
pricey Gillette brand Fusion Power and Fusion Glide razors and
blades with false claims, a class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Edmundson v. The Procter & Gamble
Company, Case No. 10-cv-02256 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/04/Razors.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
         Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
         Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
         BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
         600 B Street, Suite 1550
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: 619-338-1101
         E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                 lhurst@bholaw.com
                 toreardon@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311
          Telephone: 602-274-1100
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
                  eryan@bffb.com
                  psyverson@bffb.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-756-7095
          E-mail: tcarpenter@bffb.com

               - and -

          Patrick Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS
          60 State Street, 7th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: 617-573-5118
          E-mail: psheehan@wdklaw.com


ST. JOE: Barroway Corrects Release on Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the news release, Shareholder Class Action Filed Against The
St. Joe Company by the Law Firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer
& Check, LLP, issued 03-Nov-2010 by Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer
& Check, LLP over PR Newswire, the law firm is advised by the
company that the date in the last paragraph, first sentence,
should read " January 3, 2011" rather than "January 2, 2011" as
originally issued inadvertently.  The complete, corrected release
follows:

Shareholder Class Action Filed Against The St. Joe Company by the
Law Firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP

The following statement was issued on Wednesday by the law firm of
Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Florida on behalf of purchasers of the securities of The St. Joe
Company ("St. Joe" or the "Company"), who purchased or otherwise
acquired St. Joe securities between February 19, 2008 and October
12, 2010, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including purchasers of
the Company's securities pursuant or traceable to the Company's
public offering of common stock on or about February 27, 2008.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or David M. Promisloff, Esq.)
toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at
info@btkmc.com

The Complaint charges St. Joe, certain of its officers and
directors, its underwriter and auditors with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
St. Joe is one of the largest real estate development companies in
Florida and is engaged in town and resort development, commercial
and industrial development and rural land sales.  More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:
(1) as the Florida real estate market was in decline, St. Joe was
failing to take adequate and required impairments and accounting
write-downs on many of its Florida based property developments;
(2) as a result, St. Joe's financial statements materially
overvalued the Company's Florida based property developments; (3)
the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (4) the Company
lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 13, 2010, St. Joe's investors were shocked as
Greenlight Capital's David Einhorn detailed at the Value Investing
Congress how St. Joe needed to take "substantial impairments" and
accounting writedowns on many of its properties, and that further
building by the Company "will drive the stock price to zero."
Mr. Einhorn's presentation, entitled "Field of Schemes: If You
Build It, They Won't Come," noted that St. Joe's "development
plans have fallen flat, leaving it with 'ghost towns' and
inevitable writedowns."  For example, Mr. Einhorn said he would
"generously" place a value of $17.8 million on the remaining
residential development at St. Joe's Windmark Beach property while
the company is carrying the property at $164.5 million on its
balance sheet.  Mr. Einhorn also stated that the Company "was
'stuck' after making an aggressive bet on beachfront developments
that have gone nowhere, and that it was overvaluing the real
estate holdings on its books."

On this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $2.38 per share,
or 9.7 percent, to close on October 13, 2010 at $22.16 per share,
on unusually heavy trading volume.  The following day the
Company's shares declined an additional $2.42 per share, or 10.9
percent, to close on October 14, 2010 at $19.74 per share, again
on heavy trading volume.  Cumulatively, over these two days
St. Joe's shares declined a total of $4.80 per share, or over 19.5
percent.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal
courts throughout the country.  Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and
has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.

For more information about Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check,
or for additional information about participating in this action,
please visit http://www.btkmc.com/

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not
later than January 3, 2011, move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the class, if you so choose.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to
share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the
purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

CONTACT:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          David M. Promisloff, Esq.
          BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
          E-mail: info@btkmc.com


TARGET CORP: Wins Mislabeling Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
Thad Rueter, writing for Internet Retailer, reports a California
appeals court has ruled against a man who claimed Target Corp.
committed fraud when it sold through its Web site running shorts
and a necktie mislabeled as made in the United States.

Raymundo Sevidal had sought class action certification for the
suit, which stemmed from purchases made in 2007.  Late last month,
the Fourth District Court of Appeals in San Diego upheld a lower
court's decision to deny the certification.

In a decision written by Associate Judge Judith Haller, the court
said other class members could not be reasonably identified by
records or other methods.  "We also determine the (lower) court
properly found the class was overbroad because the evidence shows
the vast majority of absent class members never saw the web page
containing the alleged misrepresentation and thus were never
exposed to the alleged wrongful conduct," Judge Haller writes.

After the apparel was delivered to Mr. Sevidal three years ago, he
found that the items had not been made in the United States.
Mr. Sevidal, who says he served with the U.S. military in Iraq,
said he did not want to buy imported goods because he wanted to
"repay the support that the American people have given me and my
family."  He told the court that his class included "thousands of
persons," according to court documents.

Mr. Sevidal sued Target for fraud, false advertising, unfair
competition and unjust enrichment.  He argued that a 2009
California Supreme Court decision enabled a class action
certification even if other plaintiffs did not rely on the "Made
in the USA" label before making purchases.

"We are pleased the court agrees with Target's opposition to this
class certification motion and with its interpretation of the
Supreme Court's language," says David McDowell, a partner at
Morrison & Foerster LLP who was Target's lead attorney.

Mr. Sevidal's attorneys did not immediately return requests for
comment.

Target is No. 21 in the Internet Retailer Top 500 Guide.


WB/STELLAR IP: Accused of Wrongfully Charging Market Rate Rents
---------------------------------------------------------------
Filippi Sky, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
WB/Stellar IP Owner, LLC, and Independence Plaza Associates, LLC,
Case No. 114174/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. October 28,
2010), is a class action brought on behalf of current and former
tenants of Independence Plaza North whose apartments, as alleged,
were illegally deregulated in contravention of New York's Rent
Stabilization Laws after the owners of IPN lost their J-51 real
estate tax benefits in March 2006.  Mr. Sky contends that he and
the other Class Members were and continue to be wrongfully charged
market rate rents for their apartments though they were and are
legally entitled to pay considerable lower rent stabilized rents.

Mr. Sky entered into a "free market" lease agreement with
WB/Stellar On April 14, 2008.  The lease covered the period from
April 15, 2008, to May 31, 2009, at $3,600 per month, which was
subsequently renewed for two one-year periods, until May 31, 2010,
and May 31, 2011, respectively, both at $3,600 per month.

IPN, a complex of 1,331 residential units, was constructed after
January 1, 1974, and was rent regulated under the Mitchell Lama
program, pursuant to Article 2 of the New York Private Housing
Finance Law.  In 1998, while IPN was rent regulated under the
PHFL, it began to receive a J-51 tax abatement on qualifying major
capital improvement.

On June 28, 2004, IPN exercised its option to dissolve and exit
the Mitchell Lama program.  IPN continued J-51 tax benefits after
the Exit Date.  In March 2006, however, the Department of Housing
Preservation and Development terminated  IPN's J-51 benefits
affective as of the Exit Date.

On June 30, 2005, Independence Plaza Associates transferred IPN to
WB/Stellar.

Mr. Sky relates that on August 30, 2010, Supreme Court Justice
Marcy S. Friedman granted summary judgment to several tenants
against IPN in cases pending under Index No. 113831/04 and
117673/05.  In that decision, Justice Friedman held that tenants
at IPN as of the Exit Date remain subject to the Rent
Stabilization Law until the vacancy of that apartment by the
tenant of that apartment, and that tenants who entered into
possession of apartments at IPN, under "free market" leases, after
the Exit Date were subject to the Rent Stabilization Law and would
remain subject to the Rent Stabilization Law until the vacancy of
that apartment by the tenant of that apartment.

Justice Friedman's decision, however, did not address the issue
regarding the status of tenants who entered into possession of
apartments at IPN, under "free market" leases, after March 2006.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall S. Newman, Esq.
          RANDALL S. NEWMAN, P.C.
          40 Wall Street,61st Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 797-3737


ZYNGA GAME: Faces Fifth Suit for Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------
Zena Carmel-Jessup, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Facebook, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-04930 (N.D.
Calif. October 29, 2010), asserts claims for violations of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Stored Communications Act,
California Computer Crime Law, California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, California Unfair Competition Law, breach of contract, breach
of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and negligent
misrepresentation.

Ms. Carmel-Jessup says Facebook, a social networking Web site, and
Zynga Game Network, Inc., a third party developer of a number of
the most popular online games used by Facebook users, including
Farmville and Mafia Wars, transferred, without consent, her
personal, indentifying information to its advertisers, developers
and other third parties, in violation of Federal and State law as
well as defendants' own private policies.

Ms. Carmel-Jessup is a resident of Silver Spring, Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Kristen Simplicio, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Telephone: (415) 336-6545

Coverage of Graf v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04680
(N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Tues.,
October 26, 2010; coverage of Albini v. Zynga Game Network, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-04732 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class
Action Reporter on Wednesday, October 27, 2010; coverage of Gudac
v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04793 (N.D. Calif.),
appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Friday, October 29, 2010;
and coverage of Schreiber v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., Case No.
10-cv-04794 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter
on Friday, October 29, 2010.


ZYNGA GAME: Faces Sixth Suit for Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------
Iris Phee and William J. O'Hara, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Facebook, Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-04935 (N.D. Calif. November 1, 2010), says Facebook, the
largest social networking Web site service in the United States,
and Zynga, a developer of browser-based interacting games that
work on social network platforms such as Facebook, including
FarmVille and Mafia Wars, intentionally and knowingly transmitted
users' personal information to Internet tracking companies and
other third parties without the users' knowledge or consent, in
violation of federal and state laws and in breach of Facebook and
Zynga's respective agreements with its users.

Plaintiffs Iris Phee, a resident of Daly City, in California, and
William J. O'Hara, a resident of Boston, in Massachusetts, are
both users of Facebook's social networking website.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
          Sabrina S. Kim, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One California Plaza
          300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 617-1200
          E-mail: jwesterman@milberg.com
                  skim@milberg.com

               - and -

          Peter E. Seidman, Esq.
          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: pseidman@milberg.com
                  arado@milberg.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          Kim Richman, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN LLP
          875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 579-4625
          E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com

Coverage of Graf v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04680
(N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Tues.,
October 26, 2010; coverage of Albini v. Zynga Game Network, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-04732 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class
Action Reporter on Wednesday, October 27, 2010; coverage of Gudac
v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04793 (N.D. Calif.),
appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Friday, October 29, 2010;
coverage of Schreiber v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., Case No.
10-cv-04794 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter
on Friday, October 29, 2010, and coverage of Carmel-Jessup v.
Facebook, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-04930, appears in today's
edition of the Class Action Reporter.


ZURICH FINANCIAL: Profit Down 22% After Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Bandel and Warren Giles, writing for Bloomberg News,
report Zurich Financial Services AG, Switzerland's largest
insurer, said third-quarter profit dropped 22% after the firm
settled a U.S. class action lawsuit.

Net income fell to $751 million from a restated $968 million a
year earlier, the Zurich-based company said Thursday in a
statement.  That missed the $777 million average estimate of 10
analysts surveyed by Bloomberg.

Zurich Financial last month said the settlement of the lawsuit,
related to its Farmers Group unit, would cut net income by $295
million in the third quarter.  When the company holds an investor
day on Dec. 2, general insurance head Mario Greco must explain his
strategy for boosting earnings after the unit's quarterly profit
declined by 26 percent, said Stefan Schuermann, an analyst at
Vontobel Holding AG.

"Mario Greco's challenge will be to elaborate on their non-life
strategy and give us an insight about how they'll keep improving
the combined ratio toward the target of 3 to 4 percentage points
better than their peers," said Mr. Schuermann, who has a "buy"
rating on the stock.

The combined ratio, or spending on claims and costs as a
percentage of premiums in the general insurance business, improved
to 97.4% in the three months from 98.1% a year earlier.  A ratio
under 100 indicates an underwriting profit.  The measure is the
main target for Zurich's biggest business, Chief Executive Officer
Martin Senn said in a June 22 presentation.

'Disappointing'

Allianz SE, Europe's biggest insurer, reported a combined ratio of
96.3% for its property and casualty business in the second quarter
while second-ranked AXA SA had a first-half ratio of 98.1%.

The unit wrote down $104 million of goodwill from an automobile
business in Russia where car sales aren't recovering and "profit
margins are under pressure," Chief Financial Officer Dieter Wemmer
said.

Zurich Financial fell 1.5% to 238.2 Swiss francs in Swiss trading.
That pared this year's gain to 5.2% and cut the company's market
value to 34.9 billion francs ($36.3 billion).

"I am absolutely aware that we are disappointing you today, which
is why we have described it as a mixed performance," Mr. Wemmer
told analysts Thursday on a conference call.

Operating profit at the general insurance unit dropped to $584
million.  The insurer is reviewing about 200 jobs at the unit
following price wars in Europe and will announce further details
Dec. 2, Mr. Wemmer said.

'Below Expectations'

Operating profit at the global life unit fell 27 percent in the
quarter to $378 million.  Profit by that measure at the U.S.-
based Farmers business increased 10% to $450 million in the
period.

Zurich Financial restated profit in March after a change in
accounting procedures at its U.S. life business.

"While Zurich reported below expectations and the full-year
forecasts might come down somewhat, in general the company is
doing the right thing by looking at underwriting profitability,"
said Christian Muschick, an analyst at Silvia Quandt & Cie., who
has a "neutral" rating on the stock.

The insurer is "in the process of exiting" a joint venture with
Caixa d'Estalvis de Sabadell after Spain's real-estate crisis,
Mr. Wemmer said.  Zurich Financial will focus on its business with
Banco Sabadell in the country, he said.


* Class Actions with Huge Payouts Come with Heavy Costs
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Legg, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports class
actions with huge payouts can also have heavy costs.

The latest showdown between sheriff and bounty hunter has been
through the recent Multiplex securities class action settlement,
in which the plaintiffs lawyers retained by the funder have been
crowing about their recovery of a $110 million settlement --
compared with ASIC's $32 million enforceable undertaking from
Multiplex.

Securities and cartel class actions have been advocated on the
basis that the class action promoter seeks contraventions and
makes private litigation economically viable through funding and
combining claims to extract maximum compensation.  Further, as
contraventions are more likely to result in litigation and its
related costs, including payment of compensation and reputational
effects, corporations and corporate officers will take greater
care not to contravene the law.  Compensation, deterrence and
compliance are promoted.

However, there is a concern, as raised by Justice Callinan in
Mobil Oil Pty Ltd v Victoria in 2002, that class actions
undesirably substitute private for public law enforcement.

The Multiplex results need to be more closely analyzed.  The
comparison does not factor in the different scope of the
complaints contained in the two matters -- both in terms of the
time period relating to the Wembley project but also the addition
of alleged contraventions about other projects.  It also fails to
consider the litigation risks associated with the class action.

Settled in July, the Multiplex class action was almost toppled by
the full Federal Court's decision that the funding arrangements
amounted to an unregistered managed investment scheme.  From a
compensation perspective it also ignores that 30% to 50% of the
class action recovery goes to the litigation funder.

Litigation funding agreements usually provide for the payment of a
higher percentage the longer the case runs and for an additional
increase for each appeal.  The Multiplex case lasted four years
and the full Federal Court delivered judgments on the closed class
and public interest immunity in addition to managed investment
schemes.

More significantly, the comparison does not consider Australian
Securities and Investments Commission's regulatory role, which
involves a greater purview than simply seeking compensation.

Nor is there consideration of the impact of class actions on the
now widely accepted approach to enforcement of "responsive
regulation", more widely known as the enforcement pyramid.
Responsive regulation is based on the premise that a corporate
actor's determination as to whether to comply with the law may be
driven by whether it is economically rational to do so, but also
because they are concerned to do what is right because of their
desire to be-law abiding corporate citizens.

Consequently the regulator adopts an enforcement strategy that
seeks to use both persuasion and punishment.  A strategy based
totally on persuasion will be exploited by those corporations who
are making decisions based on economic rationality.  Equally, a
strategy based mostly on punishment will undermine the goodwill of
those actors who are motivated to comply because they desire to be
responsible, law-abiding corporate citizens.

The need for persuasion, education, and rewarding co-operation as
part of a larger regulatory scheme that adopts an enforcement
pyramid approach may involve compromises that do not seek to
maximize the amount of compensation.  The regulator may seek less
or no compensation to encourage co-operation with a change to
business practices or because the additional costs of having to
litigate do not achieve more meaningful levels of education about
the operation of a particular law.  The expenditure of public
funds must be justified.

In the case of Multiplex the enforceable undertaking did not just
include a compensation fund of $32 million but also requirements
that Multiplex seek to procure a majority of independent directors
on its board and engage an external consultant to review
Multiplex's policies and procedures for ensuring a culture of
compliance for continuous disclosure and the Corporations Act's
whistleblower regime.

Rather than just extracting a one-off financial payment, the
enforceable undertaking sought to improve corporate governance.

In contrast, private enforcement can undermine the enforcement
pyramid by always seeking the most damages possible.

The roles of the sheriff and bounty hunter, as well as how they
should interact in seeking to right wrongs, are matters of public
interest that require more detailed consideration.


* Four Australian Banks May Face Fee-Gouging Class Action Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Dunlevy, writing for The Australian, reports all four of
Australia's big banks could face class actions for fee-gouging by
Christmas, with the ANZ's case the first off the rank.

The class action brought against ANZ by law firm Maurice Blackburn
on behalf of 30,000 customers alleges the bank has charged about
$50 million in excessive fees since 2006, including dishonor fees
on bank accounts, overdrawn fees and late payment fees on credit
cards.

At a directions hearing in the Federal Court in Melbourne on
Thursday, judge Ray Finkelstein said he was likely to set a trial
date at the next directions hearing next month, telling the
parties to pick their best witnesses and try the case on those
witnesses' cause of action.  "One case, one calculation, one fee
-- then hang your case on the result of that on the basis if you
lose your best case, then you lose the lot," Justice Finkelstein
said.

Maurice Blackburn barrister Michael Lee said the judge's idea was
sound, but ANZ's counsel, Alan Archibald QC, said the complexity
of the bank's systems made it an "enormous and difficult" case.
Mr. Archibald said ANZ in general operated 66 different systems,
and 101 for credit cards.  "Even if you focus on one account, the
task seems to be very, very large," he said.

The average claim is $1500 per account holder, with amounts
claimed ranging from hundreds of dollars to more than $35,000.
The action does not involve ATM or monthly account fees.  With
30,000 members and growing, it is Australia's largest class
action.

Other lending institutions targeted by Maurice Blackburn include
the CBA, NAB and Westpac, as well as smaller institutions such as
Suncorp, St George, HSBC and CitiBank.

                             *********

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  * * *