---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, November 10, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 222

                             Headlines

ANB BANCSHARE: Former Employees' Suit Gets Class Action Status
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suits Over Mortgage-Backed Securities
BAXTER INT'L: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
BRAZILIAN BLOWOUT: Girard Gibbs Files Class Action Lawsuit
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Securities Class Action Dismissed

DISH NETWORK: Sued for Failing to Deliver Fox Sports Program
DUOYUAN GLOBAL: November 22 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
ELDERS LTD: Slater & Gordon's Probe Into Class Action Continues
FERDINAND MARCOS: Estate to Settle Class Action for $10MM
HUNTER SAFETY: Recalls 16,000 Carabiners

ITT EDUCATIONAL: Sued for Misrepresenting Student Loan Practices
MEDIEVAL TIMES: Accused in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
MEMBERWORKS INC: 9th Circuit Affirms Judgment Favoring Firm
MICROTUNE INC: Defends Amended Goldstein Complaint in Delaware
MICROTUNE INC: In Discussions to Settle Merger-Related Lawsuits

MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Class Action Over Wrongful Foreclosures
NOKIA INC: Calif. Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of "La" Suit
NUFARM LIMITED: Shareholder Class Action Looms
OCCAM NETWORKS: Defends Three Suit Over Planned Calix Merger
OCCAM NETWORKS: Faces "Steinhart" Suit in Delaware

PHILADELPHIA: Sued Over Unconstitutional "Stop and Frisks"
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: VMFP Joins Class Action Lawsuit
RECONTRUST: Sued Over Non-Judicial Foreclosure Sales
RINGLEADER DIGITAL: Accused of Hacking Customers' Mobile Phones
RPS INC: Leonard Carder-Patten Fee Dispute Sent Back to Lower Ct.

SOLUTIA INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Contamination
SOLUTIA INC: Seventh Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment
SOLUTIA INC: Flexsys Unit Defends Suit Over Dioxin Exposure
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Virginia Galura's Claim Remains Pending
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Wants Arbitrator's Certification Award Vacated

STURM RUGER: Oral Arguments in Motion to Dismiss on November 22
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Drivers' Suit Gets Class Action Status
TFT-LCD LITIGATION: $17 Mil. for Chunghwa & Epson Classes
TYSON FOODS: Food Bank Benefits From Class Action Settlement
WASHINGTON POST: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action

WILLIAMS COS: Plaintiffs in Royalties Suit Appeal Judgment
WILLIAMS COS: Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration Denied


                             *********

ANB BANCSHARE: Former Employees' Suit Gets Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. District Court judge has granted a group of former ANB
Bancshare employees class action status in their suit against the
failed bank holding company and seven of its former directors.
The defendants include its former chairman and founder of the
bank, Dan Dykema.

District Judge Robert T. Dawson signed the order on Thursday, 14
business days after a recommendation from U.S. Magistrate Judge
Erin L. Setser.

The directors also served as ANB's employee stock ownership
committee.  Jan Taylor, Carla Crosswhite and Laura Godsey allege
the group breached its fiduciary duty to the plan and failed to
disclose information necessary for employees to protect their
retirement savings.  Mismanagement of the bank led to a loss of
more than $50 million in the bank's stock value, the suit claims.

Other directors named in the suit are Harry Brown, Gregory Landis,
Debra Jackson, Eric Brown, Blake Evans and Vic Evans.

Don Kendall, partner with the Kendall Drewyor Law Firm in Rogers,
is the local firm representing Ms. Taylor.  He said there are
about 250 class members to be notified, which will be done in the
near future.

Discovery and depositions in the case are ongoing, Mr. Kendall
said.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suits Over Mortgage-Backed Securities
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Rauch, writing for Reuters, reports Bank of America Corp said
it is fighting various lawsuits involving roughly $54 billion in
mortgage-backed securities, where investors allege it
misrepresented the quality of the underlying home loans.

The largest U.S. bank by assets had put the figure at more than
$375 billion in a securities filing issued earlier on Friday, but
later issued a statement slashing the figure in light of a
Thursday court ruling in California.

The cases are part of a growing legal push by investors to force
U.S. banks to rebuy billions in delinquent mortgages.

The California court ruled on Thursday to limit the number of
mortgage-backed securities offerings at issue in a proposed class
action case from $352 billion to $31 billion.

Investors have been asking courts to certify class-action cases,
alleging banks made material misstatements and cut corners in
creating the mortgages.

The suits seek unspecific compensatory damages and, in some cases,
a repurchase of the mortgage by the bank, Bank of America said in
its filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The investors are asking for the loans to be repurchased at their
initial value, with the lenders' eating the loss.

The actual amount in dispute in BofA's litigation is likely to be
lower than the initial value of the securities, due to mortgage
repayments, collateral held against the loans and borrowers who
have partially paid off their mortgages.

Separately, the bank it expects its foreclosure costs to rise in
fourth quarter 2010 and 2011, in part because of new standards
imposed in the wake of a public outcry over so-called "robo-
signers," who signed thousands of foreclosure documents without
fully reviewing the cases.

In October, BofA halted foreclosures in all 50 states, as it
reviewed its processes for any faults that could have caused
improper foreclosures.

The bank has made changes to its systems, and since resumed filing
102,000 foreclosure affidavits in 23 states, while the halt is
still in effect in 27 others.

A coalition of all 50 U.S. state attorneys general is probing the
industry's practices, along with various other U.S. regulatory and
congressional probes of the matter.

Bank of America said in Friday's filing that the changes to its
foreclosure system will result in higher noninterest and legal
expenses, and increased servicing costs.

The bank said it may also become the subject of added regulatory
and legal scrutiny over foreclosures it has already completed, in
addition to the probe of on-going seizures.


BAXTER INT'L: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP has filed a class action suit against
Baxter International, Inc., that alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of Baxter
securities during the period September 16, 2009 through May 3,
2010, inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  A copy of the Complaint may be
obtained from Kaplan Fox or the Court.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
represented that demand for Baxter's products was strong and the
Company was "well-positioned" for growth; but, in fact, the
Company was losing business to lower priced products offered by
competitors, its relationships with its customers was materially
deteriorating and the Company was losing material market share;
further, defendants failed to disclose that Baxter was not
complying with the terms of a June 2006 consent decree it had
entered into with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to
remediate material defects with the Company's Colleague infusion
pump.

It is further alleged that on April 22, 2010, the Company reported
its first quarter 2010 financial results and lowered its revenue
and earnings outlook for 2010, and Baxter further disclosed that,
due to continuing pressures in its critical plasma-derivative
products business, including a loss in market share, as well as
the impact of healthcare reform legislation, it was reducing its
revenue guidance for 2010 to revenue growth in the range of 1% to
3%, down from a previous range of 5% to 7%.  The complaint alleges
that the Company further disclosed it was reducing its revenue
guidance for its plasma products from growth in the mid-to-high
single-digit range to a decline in the mid-single-digit range and
it was reducing its revenue guidance for its antibody therapy
products from growth in the mid-single-digit range to a decline in
the 10% to 15% range.

The Complaint further alleges that on May 3, 2010, after the close
of trading, Baxter announced that the FDA had ordered the Company
to recall its Colleague pumps pursuant to its June 2006 consent
decree and the FDA issued its own release concerning Baxter's
recall, indicating the action was necessary due to the Company's
"longstanding failure to correct many serious problems with the
pumps."  On this news, Baxter's stock further declined $2.42 per
share to close at $45.08 per share on May 4, 2010, a one-day
decline of approximately 5%, on high volume.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than November 22, 2010 to serve as a lead plaintiff for
the Class.  You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order
to share in any possible recovery.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class and is
represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.  Our firm, with
offices in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New
Jersey, has many years of experience in prosecuting investor class
actions and actions involving financial fraud.  For more
information about Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, or to review a copy
of the complaint filed in this action, you may visit our Web site
at http://www.kaplanfox.com/

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, please contact:

          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, New York 10022
          Telephone: (800) 290-1952
                     (212) 687-1980
          E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

               - or -

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com


BRAZILIAN BLOWOUT: Girard Gibbs Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP has filed a class action lawsuit
against the manufacturers and distributors of the Brazilian
Blowout hair straightening treatment.

The class action complaint alleges that Brazilian Blowout violated
California consumer laws by falsely advertising that the Brazilian
Blowout hair straightening product is formaldehyde-free.  The
Canadian government and Oregon OHSA have reported that their
testing has shown Brazilian Blowout products contain between 6%
and 12% formaldehyde.  California and federal regulations require
disclosure when formaldehyde content exceeds 0.1%.

"Without knowing the truth about the formaldehyde in Brazilian
Blowout, consumers have been deprived of the opportunity to make a
meaningful decision about the products they were purchasing and
using on their bodies," said A.J. De Bartolomeo, a lawyer who
represents the plaintiffs, "Brazilian Blowout has misled its
customers about the harmful chemicals contained in its product."

If you have had a Brazilian Blowout hair straightening treatment
or are a salon owner or stylist and wish to discuss the Brazilian
Blowout lawsuit or have any questions concerning your rights,
please contact Girard Gibbs LLP --
http://www.GirardGibbs.com/BrazilianBlowout.asp-- or call 866-
981-4800.

Girard Gibbs LLP -- http://www.GirardGibbs.com/-- is one of the
nation's leading firms in prosecuting class actions and other
lawsuits on behalf of consumers.

Contact:

          A.J. De Bartolomeo, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          Telephone: 415-981-4800


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Securities Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation Friday disclosed that on November 4,
2010, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California granted Countrywide Financial Corporation's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in the putative securities class
action entitled Maine State Retirement System v. Countrywide
Financial Corporation, et al.  The complaint was dismissed in its
entirety, with leave to amend.

On November 14, 2007, a putative class action complaint was filed
in California state court entitled Luther v. Countrywide Home
Loans Servicing LP, et al., which asserted alleged violations of
the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with certain offerings of
mortgage-backed securities issued by affiliates of Countrywide.
The Luther complaint later was amended to include additional
offerings.  On January 6, 2010, the state court granted
Countrywide's motion to dismiss the Luther action with prejudice
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the Maine State case
was filed in federal court on January 14, 2010. Like the amended
Luther complaint, the amended Maine State complaint alleges
violations of the federal securities laws in regard to more than
420 mortgage-backed securities offerings issued by Countrywide
affiliates and names Countrywide and other entities and
individuals as defendants.

In its November 4, 2010 order, the federal court ruled that the
named plaintiffs in Maine State have standing to sue only over
offerings of mortgage-backed securities in which they actually
purchased, and that the statute of limitations would be tolled
only for offerings in which the named plaintiffs in the Luther
state court action, on which the Maine State plaintiffs rely for
tolling purposes, had also purchased.  The Maine State plaintiffs
were given thirty days to file a second amended complaint
consistent with the Court's November 4 order.  The Court also said
that it will address Countrywide's other arguments for dismissal
not addressed in its November 4 order when it considers any new
complaint that is filed.  Bank of America Corporation expects that
the Court's ruling will result in a substantial reduction in the
number of offerings at issue in the Maine State case, from 427
offerings (which had a total notional amount at issuance of
approximately $352 billion) to no more than approximately 22
offerings (which had a total notional amount at issuance of
approximately $31 billion).


DISH NETWORK: Sued for Failing to Deliver Fox Sports Program
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Dish Network charged full
rates for October though it didn't deliver Fox Sports program that
month, customers say in a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Boyd, et al. v. Dish Network, LLC, Case
No. 10-mi-99999 (N.D. Ga.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/05/DishNet.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roger W. Orlando, Esq.
          THE ORLANDO FIRM, PC
          315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 400
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 373-1800

               - and -

          W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 First Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326-3336


DUOYUAN GLOBAL: November 22 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Duoyuan Global Water, Inc. are reminded of the
securities class action that was filed against Duoyuan Global
Water, Inc. (NYSE:DGW).  Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of
its top officials.  The class action was filed on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Duoyuan
Global Water securities during the period from November 9, 2009
through September 13, 2010, inclusive.

Duoyuan Global Water engages in the manufacture and sale of water
treatment equipments in the People's Republic of China.  The
Company, primarily through its chairman, chief executive officer
and controlling shareholder, Wenhua Guo, maintains a substantial
interconnection with Duoyuan Printing, Inc. (NYSE:DYP), a Beijing
based manufacturer of commercial offset printing presses, which
shares the same headquarters as Duoyuan Global Water.  Wenhua Guo
also served as chairman of Duoyuan Printing during the Class
Period and is the beneficial owner of 100% of the equity interest
in Duoyuan Global Water's majority shareholder, Duoyuan
Investments Limited.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements
concerning Duoyuan Global Water's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading.  Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose, among other things, that: (1) due to the substantial
interconnection between Duoyuan Global Water and Duoyuan Printing,
the existence of accounting improprieties and ineffective internal
controls at Duoyuan Printing could negatively impact Duoyuan
Global Water; and (2), as a result, during the Class Period the
defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their statements about
Duoyuan Global Water, its business, operations, prospects and
growth.

On September 13, 2010, Duoyuan Printing announced a series of
alarming management changes -- including the resignation of its
CEO, its chief financial officer, and at least four members of its
board of directors -- and the dismissal of its independent
registered public accounting firm, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA
Ltd.  As a result of this news, shares of Duoyuan Global Water
declined $8.60 per share, or more than 41%, to close on September
13, 2010, at $12.10 per share.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Duoyuan Global Water
securities during the Class Period, you have until November 22,
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.


ELDERS LTD: Slater & Gordon's Probe Into Class Action Continues
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New Lawyer reports law firm Slater & Gordon has confirmed it
is continuing an investigation into a shareholder class action
against Elders.

Slater & Gordon practice group leader, Ben Phi, confirmed the
class action against Elders Limited, following the company's
profit downgrade on June 22 this year.

The law firm has based its case on Elders' announcement to the
market on that day that it expected its 2010 financial year
results would be significantly lower than what it had forecast in
its September 2009 Prospectus.

On July 5, 2010, Elders disclosed to the ASX that ASIC was
conducting enquiries in relation to the company's compliance with
its continuous disclosure obligations following the profit
downgrade.  On November 5, 2010, Elders disclosed to the ASX that
". . . ASIC had concluded its enquiries in relation to Elders'
profit downgrade of June 22, 2010" and did not propose to take
further action in respect of the matter.

In July, Elders confirmed ASIC had been sniffing around.  It said:
"ASIC has specifically confirmed with the company that its
inquiries should not be construed as an indication by ASIC that a
contravention of the law has occurred, and nor should it be
considered a reflection upon any person or entity," the Sydney
Morning Herald reported at the time.

Elders' chief executive Malcolm Jackman confirmed to media that a
letter had been received in July, prompting the agribusiness group
to seek legal advice.

"We took a view that when ASIC is making inquiries around your
continuous disclosure, it's a sensible thing to disclose that,"
Mr. Jackman said of his decision to advise the market.  He said
the company believed it had complied fully with its continuous
disclosure obligations.

Slater & Gordon's Phi said the firm was not privy to the nature
and extent of ASIC's investigations in this area, nor had the law
firm seen ASIC's full response to Elders.

According to Slater & Gordon's Phi: "It is our opinion, based on
our independent investigations, that there is a reasonable basis
to allege that Elders breached its continuous disclosure
obligations by failing to disclose to the market prior to June 22,
2010 that it was increasingly unlikely to meet its profit forecast
for the 2010 financial year.

"Furthermore, there are reasonable grounds to allege that Elders
did not have a reasonable basis for making the forecast in its
prospectus on September 4, 2009."

"The claim against Elders is at an advanced stage and, as is our
customary practice, we will offer the company the opportunity to
respond to our allegations prior to the commencement of
proceedings," he said.


FERDINAND MARCOS: Estate to Settle Class Action for $10MM
---------------------------------------------------------
Ninotchka Rosca, writing for Philippine Daily Inquirer, reports a
settlement agreement to be considered by the Court of the Northern
District of Texas on November 16 may bring one episode of the
24-year saga of the Hilao versus Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos
case to an end.

The agreement would put $10 million into a Class Action Settlement
Fund administered by the Hawaii federal court for 9,537 plaintiffs
in a class suit case.

The Hawaii court has ruled against the late Marcos and ordered him
and his estate to pay $1.964 billion to the complainants, who were
imprisoned, tortured or killed during the martial law years.

In 1986, fisherman Maximo Hilao and others filed the suit against
Marcos for human rights abuses during his regime.

Four of Mr. Hilao's nine children had been arrested for being
anti-Marcos activists and one of them, Liliosa, a campus
journalist, was raped and murdered.  She was described as a
"student leader about to graduate summa cum laude when she was
arrested."

Marie Hilao-Enriquez, national chairperson of the human rights
group Karapatan, is a daughter of Maximo Hilao and is a younger
sister of torture victim Liliosa.

Defense claim

Negotiated by counsel Robert A. Swift, the Texas settlement will
end class claims made upon 1,829.179 hectares of land held by
eight U.S. corporations based in Texas and Colorado.

In a 2005 lawsuit, the class action plaintiffs contended that the
land was purchased with Marcos funds, through Jose Yao Campos Sr.,
who was characterized as "a close confidant and financial adviser"
of the late dictator.  The property was therefore part of the
Marcos estate and subject to confiscation under the Hawaii 1995
court judgment and should be transferred to the settlement fund.

The defendant-corporations argued that the land had been bought
with their own assets and that the Hawaii judgment had already
expired.

It was only in April 2010 that the validity of the Hawaii judgment
was reinstated, opening the door to the pursuance of the class
action suit.

Ballooning judgment

The settlement fund has $287,000 currently on deposit -- a paltry
sum compared to the initial judgment against the Marcos estate
which, with interests and penalties, has ballooned to
approximately $4.5 billion.

The costs of the 24-year pursuit of justice for the victims have
been borne by Mr. Swift and his office, for the most part.  He has
received neither lawyers' fees nor reimbursement of expenses, even
though he has continued to file lawsuits in countries where
Mr. Marcos' assets may be hidden.

With this settlement, Mr. Swift intends to ask the Hawaii court
for interim lawyer fees and reimbursement of expenses, not to
exceed 25% of the total amount of the fund.

Direct to claimants

The Hawaii court will directly distribute the funds to the
claimants, who are strictly defined as those who "submitted claim
forms" to the Hawaii Federal Court in 1993 and 1999, and are
eligible to receive payment from the fund.

The notice of proposed settlement stressed that "the Hawaii
Federal Court will make distributions to individual Class members
directly, not through intermediaries.  Consistent with its prior
Orders, the Hawaii Federal Court will not recognize the validity
of special powers of attorney solicited by certain persons and
groups."

Following the court judgment of $2 billion, there were efforts to
name other lawyers as legal representatives of the claimants but
the move did not prosper.  Mr. Swift has been counsel of record
for the case since 1986.


HUNTER SAFETY: Recalls 16,000 Carabiners
----------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hunter Safety System of Danville, Ala., announced a voluntary
recall of about 16,000 Carabiners.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The pins in the carabiners can detach, causing a climbing strap to
break free from the safety harness.  This can result in the
climber falling.

The company is aware of two reports of the carabiner pins
detaching.  No falls or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the 2010 Year HSS Ultra-Lite carabiners were
supplied with the HSS-300 Ultra-Lite full body climbing safety
harness.  The carabiners are black with a pin sticking out of the
gate.  They have "CB20101" stamped on the side opposite the gate.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11029.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
outdoor hunting retailers and directly from the company via
telephone and the company's Web site at
http://www.huntersafetysystem.com/from June 2010 through
September 2010 for about $100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the carabiners and return
them to the company for a free replacement.  For additional
information, contact Hunter Safety System toll-free at (877) 296-
3528 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Central Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.hssvest.com/


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Sued for Misrepresenting Student Loan Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that ITT Educational Services is
the latest operator of chain colleges accused of inflating its
share price by misrepresenting its business and student loan
practices, in a federal class action.


MEDIEVAL TIMES: Accused in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Medieval Times stiffs workers
for overtime and violates other labor laws, a class action claims
in Orange County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Ramirez v. Medieval Times U.S.A., Inc.,
et al., Case No. 30-2010-00421199 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.)
(Velasquez, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/05/MedievalTimes.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MEMBERWORKS INC: 9th Circuit Affirms Judgment Favoring Firm
-----------------------------------------------------------
On March 28, 2002, Patricia Sanford filed a putative class action
against MemberWORKS, Inc., asserting a claim for violation of the
federal Unordered Merchandise Statute, 39 U.S.C. Section 3009, as
well as state-law claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, and
fraud. The district court granted MWI's motion to compel
arbitration of Ms. Sanford's individual claims and dismissed the
class claims as moot. After the arbitrator found for MWI on all
claims except for Ms. Sanford's claim for restitution under the
Unordered Merchandise Statute, the district court granted MWI's
motion to confirm the arbitration award and denied Preston Smith
and Rita Smith's motion to intervene as alternative named
plaintiffs.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated
the district court's orders and remanded in Sanford v.
MemberWorks, Inc.,483 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2007).

On remand, MWI abandoned its efforts to go to arbitration.  Ms.
Sanford filed a First Amended Complaint, which added the Smiths as
named plaintiffs and added a claim for violation of the Electronic
Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1693 et seq.  MWI filed a
motion to dismiss, but before the district court ruled on the
motion, Ms. Sanford and the Smiths moved for leave to file a
Second Amended Complaint on the ground that certain "ministerial"
revisions were required to effectuate a settlement in a state
court action Ms. Sanford had filed against West Corporation.
Although the district court granted leave to amend the complaint
to avoid any impediment to the settlement, it dismissed the
federal claims with prejudice and the state-law claims without
prejudice but without leave to amend.

Plaintiffs then filed an ex parte application for leave to file a
motion for reconsideration. For the first time, they asserted that
"the facts alleged demonstrate that the fraudulent telemarketing
practices at issue support a claim of RICO [Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act] violations." Although the district
court expressed doubt as to whether the facts supported a RICO
claim, it granted the motion in part, allowing Plaintiffs to file
a motion for leave to amend their complaint that "should
demonstrate on its face why amendment would not be futile."
Plaintiffs filed a proposed Third Amended Complaint, which not
only included new RICO claims, but also added two new plaintiffs
and re-alleged claims that had been dismissed with prejudice. MWI
moved ex parte to dismiss or, in the alternative, to strike the
re-alleged claims and new plaintiffs.

The district court granted the motion to strike and held that it
would assess only the new RICO claims in the proposed Third
Amended Complaint. As to those claims, the district court denied
leave to amend, holding that amendment would be futile and that
Ms. Sanford no longer had standing because she had settled all of
her claims in the state-court action. The district court entered
judgment in favor of MWI, and an appeal was filed.

The Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's judgment.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's decision is available at
http://is.gd/gHpp8from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs are represented, among others, by:

          Eric A. Isaacson, Esq.
          ROBBINS, GELLER, RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058 or (800) 449-4900
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: erici@rgrdlaw.com

The defendants are represented, among others, by:

          Darrel J. Hieber, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 687-5220
          Facsimile: (213) 621-5220
          E-mail: darrel.hieber@skadden.com


MICROTUNE INC: Defends Amended Goldstein Complaint in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
Microtune, Inc., is defending against an amended complaint pending
in the Delaware Chancery Court, according to its Oct. 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On Sept. 7, 2010, Microtune entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Zoran and Maple Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Zoran.

On Sept. 9, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas by
Steven Goldstein, an alleged stockholder of Microtune (Goldstein
v. Fontaine, et al., C.A. No. 4:10-cv-00458).

On Sept. 17, 2010, Mr. Goldstein also filed a substantially
identical complaint in Delaware Chancery Court (Goldstein v.
Fontaine, et al., Case No. 5825) (the Goldstein Delaware Action).

On Sept. 25, 2010, Mr. Goldstein voluntarily dismissed the action
he filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas after Microtune moved to dismiss the lawsuit.

On Oct. 7, 2010, Mr. Goldstein filed an amended complaint in the
Goldstein Delaware Action.

The amended complaint adds Maple Acquisition Corp. as a defendant
and purports to allege that Microtune's preliminary proxy does not
adequately disclose certain facts relating to the Merger.  Mr.
Goldstein purports to allege an additional claim of breach of
fiduciary duty based on the supposed disclosure issues.

Microtune, Inc. -- http://www.microtune.com/-- is a receiver
solutions company that designs and markets advanced radio
frequency (RF) and demodulator electronics for worldwide
customers.  Its products, targeted to the cable, digital
television and automotive entertainment markets, are engineered to
deliver high-performance and reliable video, voice and data
signals across a diverse range of end products, from HDTVs, set-
top boxes and cable modems to car radios.  Microtune is
headquartered in Plano, Texas, with key design and sales centers
located around the world.


MICROTUNE INC: In Discussions to Settle Merger-Related Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microtune, Inc., is currently in settlement discussions to resolve
six lawsuits filed in connection with its planned merger with
Zoran Corp., according to the company's Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On Sept. 7, 2010, Microtune, entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, by and between the company, Zoran and Maple Acquisition
Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Zoran.

Six purported class action lawsuits were filed in Collin County,
Texas on Sept. 9, 2010, Sept. 13, 2010, Sept. 14, 2010, and
Sept. 22, 2010 by six different alleged stockholders of Microtune:

     1. Raymond Mancini (Mancini v. Microtune, Inc. et al.
        C.A. No. 219-03731-2010);

     2. Edward Walbridge (Walbridge v. Microtune, Inc., et al.,
        C.A. 219-03729-2010);

     3. Ralph Ardito (Ardito v. Fontaine et al.,
        C.A. 429-03787-2010);

     4. Thomas Dunn (Dunn v. Fontaine et al.,
        C.A. 401-03816-2010);

     5. Eugene Dobry (Dobry v. Microtune, Inc. et al,
        C.A. 219-3929-2010); and

     6. Timm Rahmberg (Rahmberg v. Microtune, Inc. et al.,
        C.A. 219-3930-2010).

Each lawsuit named as defendants Microtune, Zoran, and each member
of the company's Board of Directors.

The Mancini, Walbridge, Dobry and Rahmberg lawsuits also named as
a defendant Justin M. Chapman, the Chief Financial Officer of
Microtune.  In addition, all six of the state court lawsuits filed
in Texas named Maple Acquisition as a defendant.

On Sept. 28, 2010, the six actions filed in Texas were
consolidated into a single action (In re Microtune Litigation,
Lead Cause No. 219-03729-2010), and on Sept. 29, 2010, Mr.
Walbridge withdrew as a named plaintiff.

The various lawsuits purport to allege the following: (i) the
Microtune Board of Directors and certain officers breached
fiduciary duties they assertedly owed to the Company's
stockholders in connection with the Merger; (ii) that Microtune
and Zoran (and Maple Acquisition Corp. in the case of the Mancini,
Walbridge, Dobry and Rahmberg lawsuits) have aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty; and (iii) that the merger
consideration is unfair and inadequate.

In addition, the state court lawsuits filed in Texas purport to
allege that the individual defendants engaged in self-dealing by
negotiating a vesting of their stock options upon the completion
of the Merger.  The lawsuits seek, among other things, an
injunction against the consummation of the Merger and rescission
of the Merger Agreement to the extent already implemented.

Microtune is currently in settlement discussions with the various
law firms representing the various purported stockholder
plaintiffs.

Microtune, Inc. -- http://www.microtune.com/-- is a receiver
solutions company that designs and markets advanced radio
frequency (RF) and demodulator electronics for worldwide
customers.  Its products, targeted to the cable, digital
television and automotive entertainment markets, are engineered to
deliver high-performance and reliable video, voice and data
signals across a diverse range of end products, from HDTVs, set-
top boxes and cable modems to car radios.  Microtune is
headquartered in Plano, Texas, with key design and sales centers
located around the world.


MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Class Action Over Wrongful Foreclosures
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing New Jersey Law Journal, reports a
putative class action in federal court in Newark accuses Morgan
Stanley & Co. of disregarding procedural safeguards for borrowers
when it bundled home mortgages into securities for resale to other
institutions.

The plaintiffs, in Valentin v. Morgan Stanley & Co. et al.,
alleges that Morgan Stanley and its servicers in New Jersey
routinely brought foreclosure proceedings without holding the
necessary rights as mortgagee or assignee.

They also failed to properly review documentation submitted or
relied on in connection with foreclosure actions, placing
plaintiffs in danger of losing their homes and damaging their
credit scores, the complaint says.

The suit, on behalf of all individuals and entities that have been
or will be defendants in foreclosure actions initiated by Morgan
Stanley or one of its named servicers in New Jersey, raises counts
of breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, breach of implied contract, quantum meruit, fraud
and violations of the state Consumer Fraud Act and state Fair
Foreclosure Act.

It also seeks dismissal of the foreclosures of class members, a
declaration that their mortgages are void and unenforceable,
declaratory and injunctive relief rescinding or reforming the
mortgages to conform to class members' reasonable expectations,
actual and punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The named plaintiffs are a married couple, Julio Valentin and
Bianca Sosa, who bought a house in Sparta for $474,050 in May 2007
and obtained a mortgage from American Brokers Conduit, a now-
defunct company.

Their lawyer, Lawrence Friscia, head of a Newark firm that
counsels distressed homeowners, says the couple had an automatic-
debit arrangement and never missed a payment, but nonetheless,
Wilmington Trust Co. of Wilmington, Del., filed a foreclosure
complaint against them.  Wilmington Trust holds the mortgage as a
trustee for Morgan Stanley, presumably in the capacity of
servicer, says Mr. Friscia.

In its haste to acquire and repackage mortgages for sale, Morgan
Stanley ignored collateral damage of its carelessness, says Mr.
Friscia.  He says the bank is guilty of "a fundamental
institutional breakdown, the manifestations of which are different
case by case."

Morgan Stanley did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

Mr. Friscia filed a similar suit on behalf of foreclosed
homeowners against the Bank of America on Oct. 20.  His co-counsel
in the present action are Cuneo, Gilbert & Laduca of Washington,
D.C., and Liddle & Robinson of New York.

The complaint charges that institutions such as the defendants
executed loans in a negligent and reckless manner because they
"knew they would never hold the mortgage for any extended period
of time."  They then packaged those mortgages into derivatives or
mortgage-backed securities, "which in turn they sold to other
financial institutions, reaping millions of dollars in fees and
profits to conduct such transactions, with utter disregard of the
soundness of such transactions."

The complaint also charges the defendants used Troubled Asset
Relief Program funds "to pay themselves obscenely large bonuses,
while ordinary American suffered the ripple effect of these
institutions' dubious lending practices, including, but not
limited to, skyrocketing unemployment."

On the complaint for foreclosure of the couple's house, U.S. Bank
was named as plaintiff, but that bank's name was crossed out and
Wilmington Trust's name was written in manually, says Mr. Friscia.
The suit names U.S. Bank because it may still have a claim against
the couple's house, says Mr. Friscia.

Steve Dale, a senior vice president at U.S. Bank, says that as
trustee, his bank does not act as servicer of the loan and has
nothing to do with the foreclosure process.


NOKIA INC: Calif. Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of "La" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Henry La bought a Nokia cellular phone with an allegedly defective
display screen that faded or went blank, making it difficult to
read phone numbers or text messages.  He brought a putative class
action against Nokia based on its conduct in concealing the screen
defect, which he alleges was a known defect at the time he bought
the phone.  Mr. La lost the allegedly defective phone but contends
the phone is not necessary to pursue a class action for violation
of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA; Civ. Code, Section 1750
et seq.); breach of express warranty; violation of the Song-
Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the Song-Beverly Act; Civ. Code,
Section 1790 et seq.); and violation of the Unfair Competition Law
(UCL; Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200 et seq.). The trial court
disagreed, sanctioned Mr. La for failure to preserve the defective
phone, and terminated the CLRA, express warranty, and Song-Beverly
Act causes of action.  Since Mr. La lost his phone, the trial
court also concluded he could not plead "injury in fact" to meet
the UCL standing requirements post-Proposition 64 and granted
judgment on the pleadings.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, delayed
resolving the appeal while the California Supreme Court clarified
the requisite standing requirements for a UCL class action. (See
In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298.) Based upon Tobacco
II, the California Court of Appeals concludes that Mr. La cannot
allege an "injury in fact" to meet the standing requirements to
pursue a UCL representative action because he lost the allegedly
defective phone. The loss of the phone deprived Nokia of an
opportunity to present a defense, and the California Court of
Appeals finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing the terminating discovery sanction, which led to the
dismissal of the remaining causes of action.  The California Court
of Appeals affirms the judgment.

A copy of the court's decision in LA v. NOKIA, INC., No. B183735,
is available at: http://is.gd/gPfMDfrom Leagle.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Patrick DeBlase, Esq.
          KIESEL, BOUCHER & LARSON LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444
          Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
          E-mail: kiesel@kbla.com
                  deblase@kbla.com

               - and -

          Oren S. Giskan, Esq.
          GISKAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON & STEWART LLP
          11 Broadway, Suite 2150
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 847-8315
          Facsimile: (646) 520-3237
          E-mail: ogiskan@gslawny.com

Representing the defendant are:

          Thomas R. Freeman, Esq.
          Terry W. Bird, Esq.
          Sharon Ben-Shahar, Esq.
          BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, DROOKS &
             LINCENBERG PC
          1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
          Telephone: (310) 201-2100
          Facsimile: (310) 201-2110
          E-mail: trf@birdmarella.com
                  twb@birdmarella.com
                  sbs@birdmarella.com

               - and -

          Randall L. Allen, Esq.
          Peter Kontio, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD
          One Atlantic Center
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3449
          Telephone: 404-881-7172
          Facsimile: 404-253-8690
          E-mail: randall.allen@alston.com
                  peter.kontio@alston.com


NUFARM LIMITED: Shareholder Class Action Looms
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Mole, writing for Weekly Times Now, reports national law
firm Slater & Gordon says it is almost ready to begin action
against Nufarm Limited.

The action has been delayed because of its decision to expand the
claim period in its shareholder class action following Nufarm's
disclosure of higher-than-forecast net debt on September 1.

Slater & Gordon Practice Group Leader Ben Phi said he expected to
formally approach the company in two or three weeks.

"If that discussion is unsatisfactory, we would then launch legal
proceedings," Mr. Phi said.

Slater & Gordon originally announced legal action would be brought
on behalf of shareholders who had acquired Nufarm shares between
March 2 and July 14.

In March, Nufarm took on Sumitomo as a 20 per cent shareholder at
$14 per share and paid down $250 million in debt through an equity
capital raising.

In July, it announced a significant blowout in its debt forecast,
which exploded to $620 million on September 1.

"We were first approached by concerned shareholders after Nufarm
halved its forecast operating profit and increased its forecast
net debt from $350 million to $450 million on July 14," Mr. Phi
said.

"With Nufarm's financial year ending a fortnight later we started
our investigations without any expectation the company would have
further surprises in store," he said.

"However, on September 1 not only was this much higher than
previous estimates, it also placed Nufarm in breach of a banking
covenant.

"This disclosure was followed by another major fall in Nufarm's
share price and required us to expand the scope of our
investigations."

The class action against Nufarm is being funded by Comprehensive
Legal Funding LLC.

A spokesman for Nufarm said the company had complied with its
legal obligations with respect to disclosure.

"We have not received any direct communication from plaintiff law
firms in respect of the speculated class action," he said.


OCCAM NETWORKS: Defends Three Suit Over Planned Calix Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Occam Networks, Inc., is defending three purported class action
complaints in California in connection with its planned merger
with Calix, Inc., according to the company's Oct. 28, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On Sept. 16, 2010, the company announced that it had entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger, with Calix.  The Merger agreement
provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set
forth therein, Calix will acquire Occam and as a result, Occam
will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Calix.

On Sept. 17, 20, and 21, 2010, three purported class action
complaints were filed in the California Superior Court for Santa
Barbara County:

     (1) Kardosh v. Occam Networks, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 1371748;

     (2) Kennedy v. Occam Networks, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 1371762; and

     (3) Moghaddam v. Occam Networks, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 1371802.

Each of the California Complaints names Occam, the members of the
Occam board, and Calix as defendants.  The Kennedy Complaint also
names Calix's merger subsidiaries (Ocean Sub I, Inc. and Ocean Sub
II, LLC) as defendants.  The California Complaints generally
allege that the members of the Occam board breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed acquisition of
Occam by Calix, by, among other things, engaging in an allegedly
unfair process and agreeing to an allegedly unfair price for the
proposed merger transaction.  The California Complaints further
allege that Occam and the other entity defendants aided and
abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

The plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including an order
certifying a class of Occam shareholders and a preliminary and
permanent injunction of the proposed merger.

Occam Networks, Inc. -- http://www.occamnetworks.com/-- develops,
markets and supports broadband access products designed to enable
telecom service providers to offer bundled voice, video and high
speed Internet, or Triple Play, services over both copper and
fiber optic networks.  The company's core product line is the
Broadband Loop Carrier (BLC), an integrated hardware and software
platform that uses Internet Protocol (IP) and Ethernet
technologies to increase the capacity of local access networks,
enabling the delivery of advanced Triple Play services.  The
company also offers a family of optical network terminals (ONTs)
for fiber optic networks, remote terminal cabinets and
professional services.  The company markets its products through a
combination of direct and indirect channels. Its direct sales
efforts are focused on the North American independent operating
company (IOC) segment of the telecom service provider market.


OCCAM NETWORKS: Faces "Steinhart" Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------
Occam Networks, Inc., is facing a purported class action complaint
captioned  Steinhart, et al. v. Howard-Anderson, et al., Case No.
5878-VCL, according to the company's Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On Sept. 16, 2010, the company announced that it had entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger, with Calix.  The Merger agreement
provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set
forth therein, Calix will acquire Occam and as a result, Occam
will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Calix.

On Oct. 6, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware:

Like the complaints filed in the California Superior Court for
Santa Barbara County, the Delaware Complaint names the members of
Occam's board as defendants and generally alleges that the members
of the Occam board breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the proposed acquisition of Occam by Calix, by, among other
things, engaging in an allegedly unfair process and agreeing to an
allegedly unfair price for the proposed merger transaction.

Also, like the plaintiffs who filed the California Complaint, the
plaintiffs who filed the Delaware Complaint seek various forms of
relief, including an order certifying a class of Occam
shareholders and a preliminary and permanent injunction of the
proposed merger.

Occam Networks, Inc. -- http://www.occamnetworks.com/-- develops,
markets and supports broadband access products designed to enable
telecom service providers to offer bundled voice, video and high
speed Internet, or Triple Play, services over both copper and
fiber optic networks.  The company's core product line is the
Broadband Loop Carrier (BLC), an integrated hardware and software
platform that uses Internet Protocol (IP) and Ethernet
technologies to increase the capacity of local access networks,
enabling the delivery of advanced Triple Play services.  The
company also offers a family of optical network terminals (ONTs)
for fiber optic networks, remote terminal cabinets and
professional services.  The company markets its products through a
combination of direct and indirect channels. Its direct sales
efforts are focused on the North American independent operating
company (IOC) segment of the telecom service provider market.


PHILADELPHIA: Sued Over Unconstitutional "Stop and Frisks"
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Philadelphia police single out black and Latino men for
unconstitutional "stop and frisks."  More than 72% of those
stopped and frisked in 2009 were black, though they make up only
44% of the city's population, according to the city's own
statistics.

A copy of the Complaint in Bailey, et al. v. City of Philadelphia,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-05952 (E.D. Pa.) (Surrick, J.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/05/Frisks.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul Messing, Esq.
          David Rudovsky, Esq.
          KAIRYS, RUDOVSKY, MESSING & FEINBERG, LLP
          718 Arch Street, Suite 501S
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 925-4400

               - and -

          Mary Catherine Roper, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          125 South 9th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1513

               - and -

          Seth Kreimer, Esq.
          3400 Chestnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19104


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: VMFP Joins Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Veterans and Military Families for Progress has agreed to serve as
the organizational plaintiff in an action being brought against
Prudential Insurance Company of America and Prudential Financial.
Inc. due to the company's handling of life insurance proceeds for
fallen military service members and veterans.  The law firm of
Scott+Scott filed the complaint on November 3 in United States
District Court, District of New Jersey.

The preliminary statement in the filing states: "This case arises
out of the predatory and unconscionable insurance practices
Prudential uses to misappropriate hundreds of millions of dollars
worth of life insurance proceeds that are properly due to the
beneficiaries of fallen military service members and veterans."

This action seeks disgorgement of Prudential's ill-gotten gains,
restitution, damages, treble damages, exemplary damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and declaratory and injunctive relief
against Prudential.

Securities Class Action Services 50 calls Scott+Scott LLP ". . .
one of the top 20 plaintiff's law firms in the United States."
The firm is based in Colchester, CT, with offices in California,
New York, and Ohio.

VMFP -- http://www.vmfp.org/-- is an organization dedicated to
ensuring that the rights and needs of veterans, active-duty
service members and their families are understood by the American
public, endorsed by elected officials, and protected by
legislation, regulation, and public policy initiatives.


RECONTRUST: Sued Over Non-Judicial Foreclosure Sales
----------------------------------------------------
Morgan Skinner, writing for KCSG News, reports ReconTrust and Bank
of America (NYSE: "BAC"), along with Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems ("MERS"), Countrywide Home Loans, HSBC Bank
(NYSE: "HSBC"), Wells Fargo Bank (NYSE: "WFC"), U.S. Bank (NYSE:
"USB"), Bank of New York/Mellon (NYSE: "BK"), KeyBank (NYSE:
"KEY"), and others that may have used ReconTrust as a trustee,
have been named in a class action lawsuit filed in Utah federal
court Friday alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act, Utah Pattern of Unlawful Activity Act (FDCPA),
Unlawful Foreclosures, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress.  The case number is 2:10-cv-01099-TC, and the case has
been assigned to Chief Justice Tena Campbell.

The action filed in Utah District federal court by attorneys E.
Craig Smay and John Christian Barlow says ReconTrust has violated
the FDCPA by proceeding with non-judicial foreclosure sales.
Because ReconTrust lacks the power of sale, its actions are within
the definition of debt collection.  ReconTrust has used the mail,
internet, and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce to
attempt to collect the debt.  ReconTrust has engaged in this
pattern of activity repeatedly over the course of many years, and
as a result of this activity, each foreclosure is wrongful.  The
complaint also claims that the intentional and unlawful activity
of ReconTrust caused widespread loss of property and intentional
infliction of emotional distress.

Mr. Barlow said "We hope that homeowners and government officials
will work to see that illegitimate corporations such as ReconTrust
are not allowed to trample on the well crafted laws of the State
of Utah."

Messrs. Barlow and Smay may be the legal professional's "Tea Party
Express" using their professional skills and knowledge of the law
to protect the rights of Utah citizens and homeowners asking the
courts to make the financial giants to adhere to Utah law which
requires that all foreign corporations must register to do
business in the State of Utah, and only members of the Utah State
Bar and Utah Title Insurance companies are allowed to perform non-
judicial foreclosures.  The class action complaint is based upon
four separate cases in which the Bank of America through their
foreclosure agent, ReconTrust Company has illegally foreclosed on
homes in Utah, according to the complaint.


RINGLEADER DIGITAL: Accused of Hacking Customers' Mobile Phones
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that Ringleader
Digital, an advertising company "hacked the mobile phones of
millions of consumers" to create a database of customers'
demographic information for the benefit of major media networks
such as Fox News and CNN, according to a federal class action.

Delaware-based Ringleader "stamped" a "Unique Device Identifier"
into customers' cell phones, compatible with iPhone, iPad, iTouch
and PDAs and other devices, the complaint states.

Once entered into their phones, the class claims, say the code
sent their private information to a database that Ringleader
shared with AccuWeather, CNN, ESPN, FOX News, Go2 Media, Merriam-
Webster, Travel Channel, and WhitePages, all of them named as
defendants.

"Essentially, defendants hacked the mobile phones of millions of
consumers . . . by embedding a tracking code in each user's mobile
device database to circumvent users' browser controls for managing
web privacy and security," the complaint states.

The class claims the database collected information about "gender,
age, race, number of children, education level, geographic
location, and household income."

In addition, the database monitored "what the web user looked at
and what he/she bought, the materials he/she read, details about
his/her financial situation, his/her sexual preference, his/her
name, home address, e-mail address and telephone number, and even
more specific information like health conditions," according to
the complaint.

The class claims that Ringleader kept them under "systematic and
continuous surveillance," and even promoted its product to clients
by advertising that, "Utilizing the advances in GPS technology,
marketers can now determine the precise location of mobile users
-- within three feet."

Since one of the class members is 12 years old, his surveillance
violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, the class
claims.

The class claims that Ringleader CEO Bob Walczak told a panel,
"The whole focus has been on layering GPS in virtually any type of
content, and taking that location awareness down to the content
level."

The complaint states: "The company's ad servers act like decision
engines, figuring out when and what advertising messages to send
to individuals based on ad category, time of day, the user's
GPS-derived location and search query keywords they may have
entered."

When they learned about the invasion of their privacy, some
customers tried to delete the code, but it was programmed for
"perpetual re-spawning, creating in effect: 'Zombie Databases,'"
the complaint states.

The class seeks millions of dollars in punitive damages against
Ringleader and its media partners for violations of the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, New
York General Business Law, and trespass.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David A. Stampley, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          100 Wall Street 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 920-3072


RPS INC: Leonard Carder-Patten Fee Dispute Sent Back to Lower Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, reversed a
trial court judgment denying a declaratory relief action filed by
Leonard Carder, LLP, against Patten, Faith & Sandford regarding
distribution of attorney fees awarded in a stipulated judgment in
a class action lawsuit.

The trial court entered a judgment denying all relief to Leonard
Carder on the basis the complaint did not present a case or
controversy and that jurisdiction had been reserved with the judge
who approved the class action settlement.  Leonard Carder
challenged both aspects of the trial court's ruling.

The California Appeals Court reversed, holding that the complaint
did articulate a justiciable case or controversy, the class action
court specifically declined to retain exclusive jurisdiction over
the distribution of attorney fees, and entry of judgment against
Leonard Carder without transfer to the class action court was an
abuse of discretion.

However, the appellate court emphasized that reversal of the
judgment in the appeal is not intended to indicate an opinion
regarding the merits of the declaratory relief action, or any
action that might otherwise be taken to resolve the dispute
between Leonard Carder and Patten.

A copy of the court's decision dated Oct. 12 is available at
http://is.gd/g7Tsvfrom Leagle.com.

Leonard Carder and Patten were appointed class counsel in an
action tried in 2004 before the Honorable Howard J. Schwab, with
the bulk of the work on behalf of the plaintiff class performed by
Leonard Carder.  A judgment including attorney fees was reversed
in part on appeal, and the action was remanded for determination
of damages and attorney fees.  Judge Schwab was disqualified after
the cause was remanded to the trial court. After further
proceedings, the plaintiff class was determined to be entitled to
an award of approximately $14.4 million.

A tentative agreement as to an award to class members and attorney
fees was reached. Class members received a total of $14,377,881.10
in damages. Leonard Carder filed a motion for court approval of an
award of attorney fees.  Patten did not file a written objection
to Leonard Carder's attorney fees motion, which was heard before
the Honorable William Highberger on December 23, 2008. An attorney
from Patten appeared at the hearing and indicated a preference
that the total attorney fee award be paid to both law firms and
the firms could resolve the issue of distribution.  After the
parties disputed disposition of the attorney fees award, the court
took a recess.  When the case was recalled, the attorneys
indicated there was an agreement that the funds would be payable
to Leonard Carder as trustees for all counsel. Judge Highberger
signed the parties' stipulation to reasonable attorney fees and
costs in the total amount of $12,475,000 to be paid within 45 days
to Leonard Carder "as trustees for distribution to all counsel in
accordance with the approved stipulation."

The underlying class action lawsuit is Estrada, et al. v. RPS,
Inc., Case No. BC210130 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.).


SOLUTIA INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------
Solutia, Inc., continues to defend a purported class action
lawsuit alleging contamination in St. Clair County, Illinois.

In February 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois against Solutia,
Pharmacia, Monsanto and two other unrelated defendants alleging
the contamination of their property from PCBs, dioxins, furans,
and other alleged hazardous substances emanating from the
defendants' facilities in Sauget, Illinois (including its W.G.
Krummrich site in Sauget, Illinois).

The proposed class is comprised of residents who live within a
two-mile radius of the Sauget facilities.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for medical monitoring and the
costs associated with remediation and removal of alleged
contaminants from their property.

In addition to the purported class action lawsuit, 20 additional
individual lawsuits have been filed since February 2009 against
the same defendants (including Solutia) comprised of claims from
over one thousand individual residents of Illinois who claim they
suffered illnesses and/or injuries as well as property damages as
a result of the same PCB's, dioxins, furans, and other alleged
hazardous substances allegedly emanating from the defendants'
facilities in Sauget.  Moreover, two additional individual
lawsuits comprised of claims from eight plaintiffs have been filed
in Madison County, Illinois, alleging the plaintiffs suffered
illnesses resulting from exposure to benzene, PCBs, dioxins,
furans and other hazardous substances.

Upon assessment of the terms of the Monsanto Settlement Agreement
and other defenses available to the company, the company believes
the probability of an unfavorable outcome to the company on the
Putnam County, West Virginia, Escambia County, Florida, and St.
Clair and Madison Counties, Illinois litigation against the
company is remote and, accordingly, the company has not recorded a
loss contingency.

No further developments were reported in the company's Oct. 28,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Solutia Inc. -- http://www.Solutia.com/-- is a market-leading
performance materials and specialty chemicals company.  The
company focuses on providing solutions for a better life through a
range of products, including: Saflex(R) interlayer for laminated
glass; CPFilms(R) aftermarket window films sold under the
LLumar(R) brand and others; and technical specialties including
the Flexsys(R) family of chemicals for the rubber industry,
Skydrol(R) aviation hydraulic fluid and Therminol(R) heat transfer
fluid.  Solutia's businesses are world leaders in each of their
market segments.  With its headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri,
USA, the company operates globally with approximately 3,100
employees in more than 50 locations.


SOLUTIA INC: Seventh Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the summary
judgment in favor of Solutia Inc. on the sole claim against the
company's U.S. Employees' Pension Plan, according to the company's
Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Starting in October 2005, separate purported class action lawsuits
were filed by current or former participants in the company's U.S.
pension plan, which were ultimately consolidated in September 2006
into a single case.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged three separate
causes of action against the U.S. Plan:

     (1) the U.S. Plan violates ERISA by terminating interest
         credits on prior plan accounts at the age of 55;

     (2) the U.S. Plan is improperly backloaded in violation of
         ERISA; and

     (3) the U.S. Plan is discriminatory on the basis of age.

In September 2007, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' second and
third claims, and by consent of the parties, certified a class
action against the U.S. Plan only with respect to plaintiffs'
claim that the U.S. Plan violates ERISA by allegedly terminating
interest credits on prior plan accounts at the age of 55.

On June 11, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois entered a summary judgment in favor of the
U.S. Plan on the sole remaining claim against the U.S. Plan.

The district court entered its final appealable judgment in the
case on Sept. 29, 2009, and plaintiffs have appealed the decision
to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Seventh Circuit held oral argument on the appeal in April
2010, and affirmed the decision of the district court in favor of
the defendants in July 2010.

Solutia Inc. -- http://www.Solutia.com/-- is a market-leading
performance materials and specialty chemicals company.  The
company focuses on providing solutions for a better life through a
range of products, including: Saflex(R) interlayer for laminated
glass; CPFilms(R) aftermarket window films sold under the
LLumar(R) brand and others; and technical specialties including
the Flexsys(R) family of chemicals for the rubber industry,
Skydrol(R) aviation hydraulic fluid and Therminol(R) heat transfer
fluid.  Solutia's businesses are world leaders in each of their
market segments.  With its headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri,
USA, the company operates globally with approximately 3,100
employees in more than 50 locations.


SOLUTIA INC: Flexsys Unit Defends Suit Over Dioxin Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Flexsys, Solutia Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend a purported
class action lawsuit alleging exposure to dioxin from Flexsys'
Nitro, West Virginia facility.

In December 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia against Flexsys,
Pharmacia, Monsanto and Akzo Nobel (Solutia is not a named
defendant) alleging exposure to dioxin from Flexsys' Nitro, West
Virginia facility, which is now closed.  The relevant production
activities at the facility occurred during Pharmacia's ownership
and operation of the facility and well prior to the creation of
the Flexsys joint venture between Pharmacia (whose interest was
subsequently transferred to the Company in the Solutia Spinoff)
and Akzo Nobel.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for loss of property value,
medical monitoring and other equitable relief.

Beginning in February 2008, Flexsys, Monsanto, Pharmacia, Akzo
Nobel and another third party were named as defendants in
approximately seventy-five individual lawsuits, and Solutia was
named in two individual lawsuits, filed in various state court
jurisdictions by residents or former residents of Putnam County,
West Virginia.  The largely identical complaints allege that the
residents were exposed to potentially harmful levels of dioxin
particles from the Nitro facility.  Plaintiffs did not specify the
amount of their alleged damages in their complaints.  In 2009,
over fifty additional nearly identical complaints were filed by
individual plaintiffs in the Putnam County area, which named
Solutia and Flexsys as defendants.

The claims in this matter concern alleged conduct occurring while
Flexsys was a joint venture of Solutia and Akzo Nobel, and any
potential damages in these cases would be evenly apportioned
between Solutia and Akzo Nobel.

No further developements were reported in the company's Oct. 28,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Solutia Inc. -- http://www.Solutia.com/-- is a market-leading
performance materials and specialty chemicals company.  The
company focuses on providing solutions for a better life through a
range of products, including: Saflex(R) interlayer for laminated
glass; CPFilms(R) aftermarket window films sold under the
LLumar(R) brand and others; and technical specialties including
the Flexsys(R) family of chemicals for the rubber industry,
Skydrol(R) aviation hydraulic fluid and Therminol(R) heat transfer
fluid.  Solutia's businesses are world leaders in each of their
market segments.  With its headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri,
USA, the company operates globally with approximately 3,100
employees in more than 50 locations.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Virginia Galura's Claim Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Galura's claim in the matter Galura, et al. v. Sonic
Automotive, Inc., filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough
County, Florida, remains pending.

In this action, originally filed on December 30, 2002, the
plaintiffs allege that the company and its Florida dealerships
sold an antitheft protection product in a deceptive or otherwise
illegal manner, and further sought representation on behalf of any
customer of any of the company's Florida dealerships who purchased
the antitheft protection product since Dec. 30, 1998.

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief
on behalf of this class of customers.

In June 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of the requested class of customers, but the court
has made no finding to date regarding actual liability in this
lawsuit.

The company subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the court's
class certification ruling with the Florida Court of Appeals.

In April 2007, the Florida Court of Appeals affirmed a portion of
the trial court's class certification, and overruled a portion of
the trial court's class certification.

In November 2009, the Florida trial court granted Summary Judgment
in the company's favor against Plaintiff Enrique Galura, and his
claim has been dismissed.

Virginia Galura's claim is still pending.

No updates were reported 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.

Sonic Automotive, Inc. -- http://www.sonicautomotive.com/--
operates as an automotive retailer in the U.S.  Each of Sonic's
dealerships provides services, including sales of both new and
used cars and light trucks; sales of replacement parts and
performance of vehicle maintenance, warranty, paint and repair
services, and arrangement of extended service contracts, financing
and insurance and other aftermarket products for its automotive
customers.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Wants Arbitrator's Certification Award Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Automotive, Inc., has filed a Petition to Vacate the
Arbitrator's Partial Final Award on Class Certification which
certified a class which includes all customers who, on or after
Nov. 15, 2000, purchased or leased from a Sonic dealership a
vehicle with the Etch product as part of the transaction.
Customers who purchased or leased such vehicles from a Sonic
dealership in Florida however were not included, according to the
company's Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Several private civil actions have been filed against Sonic
Automotive, Inc. and several of the company's dealership
subsidiaries that purport to represent classes of customers as
potential plaintiffs and make allegations that certain products
sold in the finance and insurance departments were done so in a
deceptive or otherwise illegal manner.

One of these private civil actions has been filed in South
Carolina state court against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and 10 of the
company's South Carolina subsidiaries.  This group of plaintiffs'
attorneys has filed another private civil class action lawsuit in
state court in North Carolina seeking certification of a multi-
state class of plaintiffs.  The South Carolina state court action
and the North Carolina state court action have since been
consolidated into a single proceeding in private arbitration.

On Nov. 12, 2008, claimants in the consolidated arbitration filed
a Motion for Class Certification as a national class action
including all of the states in which the company operates
dealerships.

Claimants are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of this class of customers.

The parties have briefed and argued the issue of class
certification.

On July 19, 2010, the Arbitrator issued a Partial Final Award on
Class Certification, certifying a class which includes all
customers who, on or after Nov. 15, 2000, purchased or leased from
a Sonic dealership a vehicle with the Etch product as part of the
transaction, but not including customers who purchased or leased
such vehicles from a Sonic dealership in Florida. The Partial
Final Award on Class Certification is not a final decision on the
merits of the action.  The merits of Claimants' assertions and
potential damages will still have to be proven through the
remainder of the arbitration.

The Arbitrator stayed the Arbitration for thirty days to allow
either party to petition a court of competent jurisdiction to
confirm or vacate the award.

Sonic says it will seek review of the class certification ruling
by a court of competent jurisdiction and will continue to press
its argument that this action is not suitable for a class-based
arbitration.  On July 22, 2010, the plaintiffs in this
consolidated arbitration filed a Motion to Confirm the
Arbitrator's Partial Final Award on Class Certification in state
court in North Carolina, Lincoln County Superior Court.

On August 17, 2010, Sonic filed to remove this North Carolina
state court action to federal court, and simultaneously filed a
Petition to Vacate the Arbitrator's Partial Final Award on Class
Certification, with both filings made in the United Stated
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

Sonic Automotive, Inc. -- http://www.sonicautomotive.com/--
operates as an automotive retailer in the U.S.  Each of Sonic's
dealerships provides services, including sales of both new and
used cars and light trucks; sales of replacement parts and
performance of vehicle maintenance, warranty, paint and repair
services, and arrangement of extended service contracts, financing
and insurance and other aftermarket products for its automotive
customers.


STURM RUGER: Oral Arguments in Motion to Dismiss on November 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments on Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
a consolidated amended complaint is scheduled for Nov. 22, 2010,
according to the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Oct. 2, 2010.

On Aug. 18, 2009, the company was served with a complaint
captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund, on Behalf of Itself
and All Others Similarly Situated v. Sturm, Ruger &  Co. Inc., et
al. pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages for alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is a
purported class action on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock between April 23, 2007 and Oct. 29, 2007.

On Oct. 9, 2009, the company waived service of a complaint
captioned Alan R. Herrett, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., et al.,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.  This matter is based upon the same facts and basic
allegations set forth in the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund
litigation.

On Oct. 12, 2009, a motion to consolidate the two actions was
filed by counsel for the Steamfitters.

On Jan. 11, 2010, the court entered an order consolidating the two
matters.  A consolidated amended complaint was filed on March 11,
2010.

The defendants, including the company, filed a motion to dismiss
on April 26, 2010 and plaintiffs filed a response on June 18,
2010.

Defendants then filed a reply in support of the motion on July 19,
2010.  Oral argument is scheduled for Nov. 22, 2010.

Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. -- http://www.ruger.com/-- was
founded in 1949 and is one of the nation's leading manufacturers
of high-quality firearms for the commercial sporting market.
Sturm, Ruger is headquartered in Southport, CT, with manufacturing
facilities located in Newport, NH and Prescott, AZ.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Drivers' Suit Gets Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------
A Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled Thursday that a
lawsuit accusing Swift Transportation Corp. of routinely shorting
its drivers in pay will move forward as a class action after a
long and circuitous route through the Arizona court system.

The lawsuit was first filed against Swift Transportation in early
2004, but the motion to certify it as a class action was initially
denied by a Maricopa County Superior Court judge.  The judge's
decision was appealed by plaintiffs' attorneys at Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, and the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the
lower court's decision.

The appellate court's decision to certify the suit against Swift
Transportation as a class action, however, was then overturned by
the Arizona Supreme Court on procedural grounds.  The Arizona
Supreme Court held that the appellate court lacked the
jurisdiction to review the decision by the trial court not to
certify the suit as a class action.

The case was sent back to the Maricopa County Superior Court where
attorneys for lead plaintiff Leonel Garza and the class filed a
renewed motion to have it certified as a class action.  The court
granted that motion Thursday.

"It's been a long and difficult road to get to this moment, but
we're happy that the court ruled in our favor," said Hagens Berman
attorney Rob Carey.  "We've heard from numerous Swift drivers that
the company's mileage calculation method cheats them out of honest
and hard-earned compensation.  These drivers deserve their day in
court, and now they'll get it."

The case claims that rather than paying drivers on actual miles
driven, the company calculates mileage using a software program.
The suit claims that in doing so, the program, on average,
underpays drivers by 7% to 10%.  According to court documents,
Swift Transportation's manager of contract finance from 1998 until
2002 admitted the software consistently underreported the mileage
that drivers actually log by an average of 6%.

The lawsuit alleges breach of contract for not paying the correct
amount and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing based on Swift Transportation's adoption of a system that
underpays drivers.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge J. Richard Gama ruled
Thursday that the class for the case against Swift Transportation
encompasses "all persons in the United States, including those who
were employed by Swift as employee drivers on or after Jan. 30,
1998 or contracted with Swift as owner-operator drivers on or
after Jan. 30, 1998, who were compensated by Swift by reference to
miles driven."

The court also certified a subclass, defined as "all persons who
contracted with Swift Transportation with a Contractor Agreement
East Coast" as of Dec. 14, 2001.  In addition, the court certified
Garza as the lead plaintiff to represent the class.

                       About Hagens Berman

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com/-- represents whistleblowers, investors
and consumers in complex litigation.  The firm has offices in
Boston, Chicago, Colorado Springs, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San
Francisco and Washington, D.C. Founded in 1993, HBSS continues to
successfully fight for investor rights in large, complex
litigation.


TFT-LCD LITIGATION: $17 Mil. for Chunghwa & Epson Classes
---------------------------------------------------------

  If You Bought a TFT-LCD Panel or a TFT-LCD Product,
    You May Be Affected by Class Action Litigation
                  and Settlements in
   In Re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation,
    Case No. 07-01827 (N.D. Calif.) (Illston, J.).
                   ______________

    TFT-LCD products include TVs, computer monitors
  and notebook computers that contain TFT-LCD panels.
                    ______________

This notice is to alert you to a class action lawsuit involving
TFT-LCD panels and TFT-LCD products.  Thin film transistor-liquid
crystal display is a display technology used in products such as
flatpanel TVs, computer monitors, notebook computers and other
electronic products.  The lawsuit was brought by, and on behalf
of, direct purchasers of TFT-LCD panels and certain TFT-LCD
products.  "Direct" means that you bought a TFT-LCD panel or
product directly from a Defendant, a co-conspirator, or a
subsidiary or affiliate of a Defendant rather than from an
intermediary such as a retail store.

The Court has certified two Litigation Classes in the lawsuit.
Settlements have been reached with Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd.,
Epson Imaging Devices Corp., and Epson Electronics America, Inc.
(together called the "Settling Defendants").  The litigation is
continuing against the remaining Non-Settling Defendants,
including: AU Optronics Corp.; Chi Mei Corp.; HannStar Display
Corp.; Hitachi, Ltd.; LG Display Co. Ltd.; Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan),
Ltd.; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Sharp Corp.; Sanyo Consumer
Electronics Co., Ltd.; Toshiba Corp.; and certain subsidiaries.

This is a Summary Notice.

Visit http://www.TFTLCDClassAction.com/for more information.

What is the lawsuit about?

The lawsuit claims that the Defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain or stabilize prices of TFT-LCD panels and certain TFTLCD
products, resulting in overcharges to people and companies who
bought TFT-LCD panels and products containing TFT-LCD panels.  The
Defendants deny that they did anything wrong.

The Litigation Class

Who's included in the Direct Purchaser Litigation Classes?

Any person or business who, between 1999 and 2006, purchased a
TFTLCD panel, or a TV, computer monitor or notebook computer in
the United States containing a TFT-LCD panel, directly from a
Defendant, co-conspirator, or affiliate or subsidiary of a
Defendant.  A list of the specific Defendants, co-conspirators,
affiliates, and
subsidiaries is at http://www.TFTLCDClassAction.com/

What are my rights as a member of the Litigation Classes?

  * If you wish to remain in the Litigation Classes, you do not
need to take any action at this time.

  * If you wish to preserve your right to sue the Non-Settling
Defendants about the claims in this case and avoid being bound by
any judgment in this case, you must exclude yourself by January 4,
2011.  Instructions for excluding yourself from the Litigation
Classes are at http://www.TFTLCDClassAction.com/

The Settlement Classes

Who's included in the Direct Purchaser Settlement Classes?

The Chunghwa Settlement Class includes:

    Any person or business who purchased a TFT-LCD panel
    or any product containing a TFT-LCD panel in the
    United States -- not limited to TVs, computer monitors
    or laptops -- directly from a Defendant, affiliate or
    co-conspirator between January 1, 1996, and December
    11, 2006.

The Epson Settlement Class includes:

    Any person or business who purchased a TFT-LCD panel
    or TV, computer monitor, or notebook computer
    containing a TFT-LCD panel in the United States
    directly from a Defendant, affiliate or coconspirator
    between 1999 and December 31, 2006.

What do the Settlements provide?

The Settling Defendants will collectively pay the two Direct
Purchaser Settlement Classes $17 million.  No money will be
distributed to Class Members yet.

The Court has appointed attorneys to represent the Direct
Purchaser Litigation Class:

         Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
         PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNY LLP
         44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         E-mail: bsimon@pswplaw.com

              - and -

         Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
         LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
         275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com

These attorneys will pursue the lawsuit against the Non-Settling
Defendants.  To reduce expenses, money made available as a result
of any future settlements or judgments will be distributed with
the funds from the Settlements described here.

What are my rights as a member of the Settlement Classes?

  * If you wish to remain in the Settlement Classes, you do not
need to take any action at this time.

  * If you wish to keep your right to sue a Settling Defendant
over the claims in this case, you must exclude yourself from the
appropriate Settlement Class by January 4, 2011.

  * If you stay in a Settlement Class, you can object to it by
January 4, 2011.

The Settlement Agreements, along with details on how to object to
them or to exclude yourself from the Settlement Classes, are
available at http://www.TFTLCDClassAction.com/

The Court will hold a hearing on February 17, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. to
consider whether to approve the Settlements.  You or your lawyer
may ask to appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense.
If you wish to appear, you must file a Notice of Appearance by
January 4, 2011.

For More Information: Call 1-877-888-3757 or visit
http://www.TFTLCDClassAction.com/or write to:

         LCD Class Action
         c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
         P.O. Box 24659
         West Palm Beach, FL 33416

Chunghwa is represented by:

         Joel S. Sanders, Esq.
         GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
         555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         E-mail: jsanders@gibsondunn.com

Epson is represented by:

         Melvin R. Goldman, Esq.
         MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
         425 Market Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         E-mail: mgoldman@mofo.com


TYSON FOODS: Food Bank Benefits From Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Patti S. Borda, writing for The Frederick News-Post Online,
reports chicken -- 40,000 pounds of it -- is coming to the freezer
of the Frederick Community Action Agency food bank as part of a
court award, said Sarah McAleavy, the agency's coordinator of food
and nutrition.

The first of four 10,000-pound shipments arrived last month, she
said.

The total amounts to about a year's supply for the agency food
bank, she said.

The award was part of a $5 million class-action settlement from
Tyson Foods Inc. Friends for Neighborhood Progress, which supports
McAleavy's agency, signed on to be a recipient of part of the
award.

Earlier this year the court issued a final order in the class-
action suit over promotional claims about antibiotics in the
chicken products Tyson sells, said James P. Ulwick, an attorney
for the plaintiffs.

Mr. Ulwick said Friday by telephone that Friends for Neighborhood
Progress was designated by the court as one of the food banks that
would receive either chicken or money from the settlement after
Tyson paid individual claimants and attorney fees.

"We're perfectly happy with 40,000 pounds of chicken,"
Ms. McAleavy said Friday from her office.

The agency got on the list thanks to Scott Borison of the Legg Law
Firm in Frederick, she said.

"He is one of those great citizens we have in Frederick,"
Ms. McAleavy said.

Mr. Borison contacted Friends for Neighborhood Progress about the
opportunity to sign on to the lawsuit, Ms. McAleavy said.  Then
Borison and John Sica, a lawyer and Friends board member, went to
court together.

The settlement covered anyone who purchased Tyson chicken or
chicken products sold in the United States that were labeled as
either "Raised Without Antibiotics" or "Raised Without Antibiotics
That Impact Antibiotic Resistance in Humans" between June 19,
2007, and April 30, 2009, according to court documents.  The claim
period for the settlement closed in July.

Friends for Neighborhood Progress enables the Community Action
Agency to do all the work it does, said Rick Weldon, a Friends
board member and executive assistant to Mayor Randy McClement.
The Community Action Agency shelters the homeless, renovates
houses, provides low-cost medical care and feeds the hungry
through its soup kitchen and food bank.

Friends is a 501(c)(3) that is able to apply for private
foundation money and leverage other funds that a public entity
like the city could not, Weldon said.

The city and county both used to contribute to the agency, but the
county did not contribute an anticipated $114,000 this year.  The
city, foundations and grants continue to fund the agency, which
has a 2011 budget of $3.3 million.


WASHINGTON POST: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein Thompson LLP is investigating potential securities
fraud claims against The Washington Post Company relating to
allegations of deceptive recruiting and financial aid practices,
and a class action complaint has been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia against Washington
Post.  The Complaint alleges claims on behalf of shareholders in
the Company who bought their shares between July 31, 2009 and
August 13, 2010, inclusive.  Finkelstein Thompson LLP is a
District of Columbia-based law firm investigating similar claims
and welcomes inquiries from shareholders concerning their rights
and interests in this matter.

The allegations in the Complaint relate to the Washington Post's
fully owned subsidiary Kaplan, Inc., which is a for-profit
educational institution.  The Complaint alleges the Company issued
materially false and misleading statements by failing to disclose
that it had engaged in deceptive recruiting and financial aid
practices and that its programs were in jeopardy of losing their
eligibility for federal financial aid.  According to the
Complaint, these alleged misrepresentations rendered many of the
Company's statements regarding financial performance and expected
earnings false and misleading and lacking a reasonable basis when
made.

The Complaint goes on to allege that, when the true facts were
revealed, the Company's share price fell from $343.48 to $315.65
-- a drop of $27.83.

If you are interested in discussing your rights as a Washington
Post shareholder, or have information relating to this
investigation, please contact Finkelstein Thompson's Washington,
DC offices at (877) 337-1050 or by e-mail at
contact@finkelsteinthompson.com


WILLIAMS COS: Plaintiffs in Royalties Suit Appeal Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class-action suit in Colorado against
The Williams Companies, Inc., are appealing the summary judgment
ruled in favor of the company.

In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County,
Colorado, filed a class action suit in Colorado state court
alleging that the company improperly calculated oil and gas
royalty payments, failed to account for the proceeds that the
company received from the sale of gas and extracted products,
improperly charged certain expenses, and failed to refund amounts
withheld in excess of ad valorem tax obligations.

The company reached a final partial settlement agreement for an
amount that was previously accrued.

The company received a favorable ruling on its motion for summary
judgment on one claim now on appeal by plaintiffs.

The company says it does not anticipate trial on the other
remaining issue related to royalty payment calculation and
obligations under specific lease provisions before 2011, according
to the company's Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

The Williams Companies, Inc., is an energy company based in Tulsa,
Oklahoma.  Its core business is natural gas exploration,
production, processing, and transportation, with additional
petroleum and electricity generation assets.


WILLIAMS COS: Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the denial of class
certification in a nationwide class action lawsuit where The
Williams Companies, Inc.'s two Midstream subsidiaries are
defendants, has been denied, according to the company's Oct. 28,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

In 2001, fourteen of the company's entities were named as
defendants in a nationwide class action lawsuit in Kansas state
court that had been pending against other defendants, generally
pipeline and gathering companies, since 2000.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have engaged in
mismeasurement techniques that distort the heating content of
natural gas, resulting in an alleged underpayment of royalties to
the class of producer plaintiffs and sought an unspecified amount
of damages.

The fourth amended petition, which was filed in 2003, deleted all
of the company's defendant entities except two Midstream
subsidiaries.  All remaining defendants opposed class
certification and on Sept. 18, 2009, the court denied plaintiffs'
most recent motion to certify the class.

On Oct. 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
of the denial.

On October 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the denial.  On March 31, 2010, the court
entered an order denying plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration
and as a result, there are no class action allegations remaining
in the case.

The Williams Companies, Inc., is an energy company based in Tulsa,
Oklahoma.  Its core business is natural gas exploration,
production, processing, and transportation, with additional
petroleum and electricity generation assets.

                             *********

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  * * *