CAR_Public/101222.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, December 22, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 252

                             Headlines

ADC TELECOM: Court Sets Feb. 10 Fairness Hearing on Settlement
AKZO NOBEL: Faces Class Action Over Bleaching Agent Cartel
ALBERTO-CULVER: Faces 9 Class Suits Over Unilever Transaction
ARVINMERITOR INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Filters in Ill.
ARVINMERITOR INC: Appeal From Injunction Still Pending in UAW Suit

BECTON DICKINSON: Appeal for Review of Settlement Denial Pending
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Expects Suit Resolution by End of Fiscal Year
CAPITAL ONE: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
CSL LTD: Sued Over Plasma-Derivative Protein Price-Fixing
DIONEX CORP: Being Sold for Too Little, California Suit Claims

DIRECTV INC: Consumer Group to File Class Action
DOLLAR GENERAL: All SEC Fair Fund Claims Due by April 2, 2011
FAIR ISAAC: Appeals From Braun IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
GAMESTOP INC: Sued in Calif. Over Failure to Pay Wages on Demand
GRINNELL CORP: Class Action Settlement Fund Distribution Okayed

HEB GROCERY: Accused in California Suit of Not Paying Overtime
HILLENBRAND INC: Legal Costs in Antitrust Suit Reach $27.5 Million
MELA SCIENCES: Faces Securities Class Action Over MelaFind Product
MERCK SHARP: Faces Class Action Over Sales Rep Overtime
MICHAELS STORES: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Suit in Calif.

MICHAELS STORES: California Supreme Court Stays "Carson" Suit
NATIONAL COAL: Settles "Sofie" Suit Over Ranger Merger
NOVA SCOTIA: Judge Reserves Decision on Class Action Boundaries
SIGNET JEWELERS: Unit Still Defending Gender Discrimination Suit
SOUTH CAROLINA: May Face Class Action Over Freeway Speed Camera

SYNGENTA CROP: Has Until Jan. 17 to Reply to Motion to Dismiss
TLC LASER: Faces Class Action & Medical Malpractice Lawsuits
TOYOTA AUTO: TMCC Seeks Dismissal of California Securities Lawsuit
WAKE COUNTY: Drivers Mull Class Action Over Red-Light Cameras
WAL-MART STORES: Class Action Ruling to Carry Big Implications

WASHOE COUNTY: 9th Cir. Rejects Class Action Over Property Taxes
* Class Action Defendants Can File Motion to Strike to Cut Cost
* Restaurants Face Class Actions Over Wage & Hour Violations



                             *********

ADC TELECOM: Court Sets Feb. 10 Fairness Hearing on Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A court in Minnesota has set a hearing for February 10, 2011, to
consider the adequacy of a settlement that ADC Telecommunications,
Inc., and plaintiffs of a lawsuit entered into, according to the
Company's Nov. 23, 2010 Form 10-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010.

Beginning on July 14, 2010, a number of putative shareholder class
action lawsuits were filed in the District Court of Hennepin
County, Minnesota, Fourth Judicial District and three lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota against various combinations of Tyco Electronics and one
of its subsidiaries, ADC, the individual members of ADC's board of
directors, and one of its non-director officers with respect to
the merger transaction with Tyco Electronics, Ltd.

On August 4, 2010, plaintiffs in the state actions filed a
consolidated shareholder derivative and class action complaint.
The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
members of ADC's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties owed to the public shareholders of ADC by entering into the
merger agreement, approving the tender offer contemplated thereby
and the proposed merger and failing to take steps to maximize the
value of ADC to its public shareholders.  The consolidated
complaint further alleges that ADC and its board of directors
violated their fiduciary duties owed to the public shareholders of
ADC by filing with the SEC a Schedule 14D-9 that is materially
misleading or omissive.  The consolidated complaint further
alleges that Tyco Electronics Ltd. and Tyco Electronics Minnesota,
Inc., aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.  The
consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory and
injunctive relief concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches,
injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from consummating the
merger and other forms of equitable relief.

On August 9, 2010, the court entered an order consolidating the
state actions under the caption In re ADC Telecommunications, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation. The complaints filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota allege, among other
things, that the members of ADC's board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties owed to the public shareholders of ADC by
entering into the merger agreement, approving the tender offer
contemplated thereby and the proposed merger and failing to take
steps to maximize the value of ADC to its public shareholders, and
that ADC, Tyco Electronics Ltd. and Tyco Electronics Minnesota,
Inc., aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.
The complaints further allege that ADC and members of its board of
directors violated Section 14(d)(4) and Section 14(e) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by filing with the
SEC a Schedule 14D-9 that is materially misleading or omissive.
The complaints generally seek, among other things, declaratory and
injunctive relief concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches and
alleged violations of the Exchange Act, injunctive relief
prohibiting the defendants from consummating the merger and other
forms of equitable relief.

On September 23, 2010, the parties to the state and federal
actions executed a stipulation of settlement, which sets forth the
terms and conditions of the proposed settlement.  Pursuant to the
Stipulation, the consolidated state action will be dismissed with
prejudice on the merits, the plaintiffs in the federal actions
have voluntarily dismissed those actions, and all defendants will
be released from any and all claims relating to, among other
things, the merger agreement, the merger, the tender offer and any
disclosures made in connection therewith.  The Stipulation is
subject to customary conditions, including completion of the
merger, completion of certain confirmatory discovery, class
certification and final approval by the District Court of Hennepin
County, Minnesota, Fourth Judicial District, following notice to
ADC shareholders. In connection with the settlement, ADC agreed to
pay to plaintiffs' counsel fees and expenses not to exceed
$925,000, subject to court approval.

On October 14, 2010, the District Court of Hennepin County,
Minnesota, Fourth Judicial District entered an order preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement and setting forth the schedule
and procedures for notice to its shareholders and the court's
final review of the settlement.  The court scheduled a hearing for
February 10, 2011, at which the court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement, the proposed final
certification of the class, and an application by plaintiffs'
counsel for fees and expenses.


AKZO NOBEL: Faces Class Action Over Bleaching Agent Cartel
----------------------------------------------------------
Karin Matussek, writing for Bloomberg News, reports Akzo Nobel NV,
FMC Corp. and Solvay SA are among the targets in a lawsuit that
could increase private efforts to enforce antitrust rules in
Europe by using a variation on a U.S. class action.

The suit bundles claims of companies across the continent that say
they were victims of a bleaching-agent cartel.  Arkema SA and
Kemira Oyj were also sued in the case that had its first hearing
on Thursday at a court in Dortmund, Germany.

"The case tests new grounds, and we're curious to see to what
extent the court will allow it to proceed," said Florian Bien, who
teaches antitrust law at Germany's Tuebingen University.  "It's
trying to establish a sort of de facto class action in a legal
culture that has traditionally been skeptical about that sort of
suit."

European Union and national regulators have encouraged cartel
victims to sue antitrust violators.  Germany in 2005 introduced
new rules to make private lawsuits against cartels easier to
pursue.  While the EU has been considering group suits for years,
it is trying to avoid risks of abusive litigation that it said are
built into U.S. law.

The lawyer behind the Dortmund case is Ulrich Classen, who
formerly worked for Germany's antitrust regulator.  Mr. Classen
founded Brussels-based Cartel Damages Claims Group, which bought
claims from 32 pulp and paper makers that say they were victims of
a cartel that fixed prices of hydrogen peroxide, used to bleach
paper products and textiles, between 1994 and 2000.

388 Million Euros

The cartel was fined 388 million euros ($516 million) by the EU in
2006.  CDC estimated last year that its claim could be worth 645
million euros in damages and interest.  It hasn't yet provided a
specific figure in court filings and instead asked the judges to
first order the defendants to produce information needed to
determine the damages.

"Among the victims are big players of the paper industry; some
have sales of more than 10 billion euros," Mr. Classen said before
the hearing.  He declined to identify the companies.

CDC agreed to give the papermakers 75% of the value their claims
produce in the lawsuit, including a fixed amount already paid.
Mr. Classen said his company will keep the remaining 25%.  He
declined to say how CDC finances its model.

CDC's use of existing procedural rules to pool claims doesn't come
close to U.S.-style class actions, according to Gerhard Wagner, a
professor of European civil procedure in Bonn.

'An Efficient Way'

"It's just an efficient way to enforce antitrust rules with a
minimum of judicial resources," said Mr. Wagner, who's currently a
visiting professor at the University of Chicago Law School.
"That's something we all should welcome."

Brussels-based Solvay is challenging the 2006 fine in court and
won't comment further, spokesman Erik De Leye said.  FMC is
"vigorously defending" itself, said James Fitzwater, a spokesman
for the Philadelphia-based company.

Amsterdam-based Akzo Nobel considers the claims against it without
merit, spokesman Oskar Bosson said.  Helsinki-based Kemira has
told the court that CDC's suit is inadmissible for procedural
reasons and without merit, company lawyer Juha Nokkanen said.
Arkema will "contest the validity of the proceeding," the
Colombes, France-based company said in an e-mailed statement.

Determining the damage caused requires showing how prices would
have developed if there were no cartel.  Plaintiffs need to rely
on calculation models and huge amounts of data that are usually in
the hands of their opponents.  And they can't get those through
U.S.-style pre-trial discovery.

German Courts

German courts will only grant access to such data if they deem it
necessary for the plaintiff to make his case and not unreasonably
burdensome for the defendant to provide it, Allen & Overy LLP
antitrust lawyer Ellen Braun said.  The way judges handle the
issue may be crucial in deciding the role German courts will play
in such cases, she said.

"The competition of court venues is lurking behind all of this and
the big question is who will come out on top in the next five
years," said Ms. Braun, who isn't involved in the CDC case.
"Italy and Poland have their own class-action plans and the U.K.
of course wants to have these cases in London and offers pre-trial
discovery as a selling point."

By acting as an intermediary, CDC removes some hurdles to pursuing
civil antitrust cases in Europe, Tuebingen's Mr. Bien said.

'Reluctant to Sue'

"Managers here sometimes are reluctant to sue their suppliers,
because it may cause a bad atmosphere in a relationship that needs
to continue," said Mr. Bien.  "The culture is different from the
U.S., where private antitrust suits play a much bigger role."

Nevertheless, the model still needs to prove it will work,
according to Mr. Bien.  Evidence gathering in the so-called
discovery phase before trial isn't the only problem.

Another risk for CDC is whether the judges will accept a special-
purpose vehicle accumulating claims for a suit.  In its first
case, CDC won a ruling from Germany's top court saying its suit
was admissible.  A trial court must still clear the claim purchase
as valid in the case, which regards a cement cartel and is
currently pending in Dusseldorf.

While the cement cartel was limited to Germany, the hydrogen
peroxide case also covers claims that Italian, French and Finnish
paper makers may have against non-German companies.  CDC's
opponents argue each claim has to be judged individually by
respective national rules, which would complicate proceedings and
could deter judges trained in German law.

'Seems Reasonable'

The court on Thursday said in its preliminary discussion of the
case that CDC's model isn't necessarily inadmissible.  The court
has jurisdiction under EU rules and the sale of claims is likely
valid, Presiding Judge Marlies Bons-Kuensebeck said.  That view is
preliminary and may change during arguments, she said.

"I don't think it's illicit to choose a court you may think works
best for you and that has experience in cartel damage suits," she
said.  "The defendants haven't yet shown why you shouldn't be able
to bundle the claims.  It seems reasonable."

The defendants dispute whether a German court should hear the case
at all.  Evonik Industries AG's Degussa unit, the only German
company in the cartel, settled the private suit and is no longer a
defendant.  The company won't comment on the terms of that
agreement, Evonik spokesman Ruben Thiel said.

Evonik, Edison Spa and Chemoxal SA, which were all found to have
participated in the cartel by the EU, attended Thursday's hearing
in support of the defendants.

Court's Assumption

European rules allow bringing the whole case in Dortmund because
all the claims are related and Evonik was initially part of it,
according to Bonn University's Wagner.

Since part of the anticompetitive behavior happened in Germany,
the court will likely assume it can hear the case, Ms. Bons-
Kuensebeck said.  She said it would probably apply one law, which
could be German law or that of another European country involved,
to all the claims.

CDC's request for information may not be admissible if the court
concludes it could have gotten the information from Evonik as part
of the settlement, the judge said.  CDC asked the court to order
the defendants to provide the full 2006 EU decision, which
potentially has more information about the cartel's scope.  The
defendants say the EU ordered them not to provide it.

"The commission blacked out surprisingly large parts of the
published version of its decision," Ms. Bons-Kuensebeck said.  "We
may order parties to hand it over or request it from the
commission.  Whether we will get it is another question."

Whether the court will grant the information request will also
depend on whether company business secrets would be disclosed, the
judge said.  Defendants can't argue the cartel didn't influence
prices, since prices didn't rise at the time it allegedly took
place, Ms. Bons-Kuensebeck said.

"This court will apply the rule of experience that cartels are
influencing the prices.  That's what they are for" she said.  The
cartel was allegedly founded to prevent price drops.

CDC so far hasn't done enough to calculate prices, she said.  The
plaintiff relied on average price, where instead it must show for
each claim what the actual price was at the time, and how much was
overcharged, the judge said.


ALBERTO-CULVER: Faces 9 Class Suits Over Unilever Transaction
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto-Culver Company is facing nine class action lawsuits
pending in Delaware and Illinois over its definitive agreement
with Unilever, according to its Nov. 23, 2010 Form 10-K filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2010.

On September 27, 2010, Alberto Culver Company entered into a
definitive agreement with Unilever N.V., Unilever PLC and other
related companies, pursuant to which Unilever will acquire all of
the outstanding shares of Alberto Culver Company common stock in
exchange for $37.50 per share in cash, without interest

                        Delaware Actions

On or about October 5, 2010, Laborers Local 235 Benefit Funds, an
Alberto Culver stockholder, filed a purported class action
complaint on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of Alberto Culver in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, captioned Laborers Local 235 Benefit Funds v.
Leonard H. Lavin, et al., Case No. 5873. The lawsuit names as
defendants Alberto Culver, Alberto Culver's directors, Unilever
N.V. and certain other Unilever entities.

Shortly thereafter, four more Alberto Culver stockholders filed
complaints in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of the same
purported class of Alberto Culver stockholders and against the
same defendants as the first case, under the captions: City of
Riviera Beach General Employees Retirement System v. Leonard H.
Lavin, et al., Case No. 5876 (filed on October 6, 2010); Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Leonard H. Lavin, et
al., Case No. 5879 (filed on October 7, 2010); KBC Asset
Management NV v. Leonard H. Lavin, et al., Case No. 5898 (filed on
October 13, 2010); and Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority v. Carol Lavin Bernick, et al., Case No. 5905.

On or about October 11, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Laborers
Local, City of Riviera Beach and Oklahoma Firefighters cases
jointly served Alberto Culver's directors with discovery requests.

On October 27, 2010, plaintiffs in the Delaware Actions filed a
motion to consolidate and to appoint lead plaintiffs.  On that
same day, the plaintiffs in the Delaware Actions served joint
discovery requests upon the Unilever defendants.  The Delaware
Court of Chancery, by order dated October 29, 2010, set an agreed
schedule for expedited discovery and scheduled a preliminary
injunction hearing for November 30, 2010.  The preliminary
injunction hearing was rescheduled for December 6, 2010.

                          Illinois Actions

On or about October 13, 2010, Dolores Joyce, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated Alberto Culver stockholders,
filed a sixth purported class action complaint in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery
Division against the same defendants as the first case, captioned
Dolores Joyce v. Leonard H. Lavin, et al., Case No. 10CH44626.

On or about October 18, 2010, Inter-Local Pension Fund of the
Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, filed a seventh purported class action on behalf of
the same class, in the same court and against the same defendants
as in the sixth case, captioned Inter-Local Pension Fund of the
Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters v. Leonard H. Lavin et al., Case No. 10CH5419.

The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois consolidated the
Illinois Actions by order of the court on October 27, 2010.  On
October 29, 2010, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Illinois Actions.  Before the court ruled on the Defendants'
motion, it granted plaintiffs' leave to voluntarily dismiss the
Illinois Actions on November 3, 2010.

                          Federal Actions

On or about October 22, 2010, David Jaroslawicz, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of Alberto
Culver, filed an eighth purported class action in the District
Court of the Northern District of Illinois, captioned David
Jaroslawicz v. Leonard H. Lavin, et al., Case No. 1:10-CV-6815.

On or about November 8, 2010, Dolores Joyce filed a ninth
purported class action on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated Alberto Culver stockholders in the District
Court of the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Dolores
Joyce v. Leonard H. Lavin, et al.

All nine lawsuits allege, among other things, that Alberto
Culver's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the negotiation, consideration and approval of the Unilever
Transaction agreement by, among other things, agreeing to sell
Alberto Culver for inadequate consideration and on otherwise
inappropriate terms. The complaints allege that the Unilever
defendants aided and abetted, and the complaints filed in the
Illinois Actions also allege that Alberto Culver aided and
abetted, the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Alberto
Culver directors. The complaint in the Joyce Federal Court Action
also alleges that the preliminary proxy statement contains
material misrepresentations or omissions in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. Based on these
allegations, the lawsuits, among other relief, seek certain
injunctive relief, including the enjoining of the Unilever
Transaction, and damages. They also purport to seek recovery of
the costs of the actions, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

Based on the facts known to date, the Alberto Culver defendants
believe that the claims asserted in the lawsuits are without
merit, and they intend to defend themselves vigorously.


ARVINMERITOR INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Filters in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc., continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits filed by purchasers of auto filters, according to
the company's Nov. 24, 2010 Form 10-K filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 3, 2010.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed
suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that twelve filter manufacturers, including a prior
subsidiary of the company, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices,
rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket automotive
filters.  This suit is a purported class action on behalf of
direct purchasers of filters from the defendants.

Several parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of
indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other
plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States and
Canada.

The cases have been consolidated into a multi-district litigation
proceeding in federal court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On April 16, 2009, the Attorney General of the State of Florida
filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois based on these same allegations.  On May 25,
2010, the Office of the Attorney General for the State of
Washington informed the company that it also was investigating the
allegations raised in these suits.

On August 9, 2010, the County of Suffolk, New York, filed a
complaint in the Eastern District of New York based on the same
allegations.  The case has been transferred to the multi-district
litigation proceeding in Illinois.

ArvinMeritor, Inc. -- http://www.arvinmeritor.com/-- supplies
integrated systems, modules and components to the motor vehicle
industry.  The Company celebrated its centennial anniversary in
2009.  The company serves commercial truck, trailer and specialty
original equipment manufacturers and certain aftermarkets, and
light vehicle manufacturers.


ARVINMERITOR INC: Appeal From Injunction Still Pending in UAW Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s appeal from an order enjoining the company
from implementing changes to its retiree health benefits remains
pending, according to the company's Nov. 24, 2010 Form 10-K filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended October 3, 2010.

The company approved amendments to certain retiree medical plans
in fiscal years 2002 and 2004. The cumulative effect of these
amendments was a reduction in the accumulated postretirement
benefit obligation (APBO) of $293 million, which was being
amortized as a reduction of retiree medical expense over the
average remaining service period of approximately 12 years. These
plan amendments have been challenged in three separate class
action lawsuits that have been filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (District Court). The
lawsuits allege that the changes breach the terms of various
collective bargaining agreements entered into with the United Auto
Workers (the UAW lawsuit) and the United Steel Workers (the USW
lawsuit) at facilities that have either been closed or sold. The
complaints also allege a companion claim under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) essentially
restating the alleged collective bargaining breach claims and
seeking to bring them under ERISA. Plaintiffs sought injunctive
relief requiring the company to provide lifetime retiree health
care benefits under the applicable collective bargaining
agreements.

On December 22, 2005, the District Court issued an order granting
a motion by the UAW for a preliminary injunction. The order
enjoined the company from implementing the changes to retiree
health benefits that had been scheduled to become effective on
January 1, 2006, and ordered the company to reinstate and resume
paying the full cost of health benefits for the UAW retirees at
the levels existing prior to the changes approved in 2002 and
2004.

On August 17, 2006, the District Court denied a motion by the
company and the other defendants for summary judgment; granted a
motion by the UAW for summary judgment; and granted the UAW's
request to make the terms of the preliminary injunction permanent
(the injunction). Due to the uncertainty related to the ongoing
lawsuits and because the injunction has the impact of at least
temporarily changing the benefits provided under the existing
postretirement medical plans, the company has accounted for the
injunction as a rescission of the 2002 and 2004 plan amendments
that modified UAW retiree healthcare benefits.

The company recalculated the APBO as of December 22, 2005, which
resulted in an increase in the APBO of $168 million. The increase
in APBO will offset the remaining unamortized negative prior
service cost of the 2002 and 2004 plan amendments and will
increase retiree medical expense over the average remaining
service period associated with the original plan amendments of
approximately 10 years. In addition, the increase in APBO resulted
in higher interest cost, a component of retiree medical expense.
The company began recording the impact of the injunction in March
2006.

In addition, the injunction ordered the defendants to reimburse
the plaintiffs for out-of-pocket expenses incurred since the date
of the earlier benefit modifications. The company has recorded a
$5 million reserve at September 30, 2010 and 2009 as the best
estimate of its liability for these retroactive benefits. The
company continues to believe it has meritorious defenses to these
actions and has appealed the District Court's order to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The ultimate outcome of
the UAW lawsuit may result in future plan amendments. The impact
of any future plan amendments cannot be currently estimated.

ArvinMeritor, Inc. -- http://www.arvinmeritor.com/-- supplies
integrated systems, modules and components to the motor vehicle
industry.  The Company celebrated its centennial anniversary in
2009.  The company serves commercial truck, trailer and specialty
original equipment manufacturers and certain aftermarkets, and
light vehicle manufacturers.


BECTON DICKINSON: Appeal for Review of Settlement Denial Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal filed by certain plaintiffs of a lawsuit filed against
Becton, Dickinson and Co., from a ruling that they can't pursue
claims against the company remains pending, according to Becton,
Dickinson and Co.'s Nov. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2010.

The company is named as a defendant in these purported class
action suits brought on behalf of direct purchasers of the
company's products, such as distributors, alleging that the
company violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging
of higher prices for the company's products to the plaintiff and
other purported class members.

The suits are:

     (1) Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc., et al. vs.
         Becton Dickinson and Company (filed in the U.S.
         District Court, Newark, New Jersey, on March 25, 2005);

     (2) SAJ Distributors, Inc. et al. vs. Becton Dickinson &
         Co. (filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District
         of Pennsylvania on Sept. 6, 2005);

     (3) Dik Drug Company, et al. vs. Becton, Dickinson and
         Company (filed in the U.S. District Court, Newark, New
         Jersey, Sept. 12, 2005);

     (4) American Sales Company, Inc. et al. vs. Becton,
         Dickinson & Co. (filed in the U.S. District Court,
         Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 3, 2005); and

     (5) Park Surgical Co. Inc. et al. vs. Becton, Dickinson
         and Company (filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern
         District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 26, 2005).

The actions have been consolidated under the caption In re
Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation.

The Company is also named as a defendant in the following
purported class action suits brought on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's products, such as hospitals, alleging that the
Company violated federal and state antitrust laws, resulting in
the charging of higher prices for the Company's products to the
plaintiffs and other purported class members:

     (1) Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc., et al. vs. Becton Dickinson and
         Company (filed in the U.S. District Court, Greenville,
         Tennessee, on June 7, 2005);

     (2) Drug Mart Tallman, Inc., et al. vs. Becton Dickinson and
         Company (filed in the U.S. District Court, Newark, New
         Jersey, on January 17, 2006);

     (3) Medstar vs. Becton Dickinson (filed in the U.S. District
         Court, Newark, New Jersey, on May 18, 2006); and

     (4) The Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale vs. Becton
         Dickinson and Company (filed in the U.S. District Court,
         Southern District of New York, on March 28, 2007).

The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class action lawsuits seek
monetary damages.  All of the antitrust class action lawsuits have
been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) in Federal court in New Jersey.

On April 27, 2009, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the Distributor Plaintiffs in these actions.  The settlement
agreement provided for, among other things, the payment by the
Company of $45,000 in exchange for a release by all potential
class members of the direct purchaser claims under federal
antitrust laws related to the products and acts enumerated in the
complaint, and a dismissal of the case with prejudice, insofar as
it relates to direct purchaser claims.  The release would not
cover potential class members that affirmatively opt out of the
settlement.

On September 30, 2010, the court issued an order denying a motion
to approve the settlement agreement, ruling that the Hospital
Plaintiffs, and not the Distributor Plaintiffs, are the direct
purchasers entitled to pursue damages under the federal antitrust
laws for certain sales of BD products.

The settlement agreement currently remains in effect, subject to
certain termination provisions, and the Distributor Plaintiffs are
seeking appellate review of the court's order.


BJ'S WHOLESALE: Expects Suit Resolution by End of Fiscal Year
-------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., said in a Nov. 24, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 30, 2010 that it expects a final resolution
of a purported class action by the end of the fiscal year.

In November 2008, BJ's was sued in a purported class action
brought on behalf of "current and former department and other
assistant managers," in which plaintiffs principally alleged that
they had not been compensated for overtime work as required under
federal and Massachusetts law. (Caissie v. BJ's Wholesale Club.,
Case No. 3:08-cv-30220.)

In the third quarter of 2009, the company recorded a pretax charge
of $11.7 million in connection with a proposal to settle this
claim and related payments.

Under the settlement, approved by the court on June 24, 2010,
certain current and former mid-level managers are eligible to
receive payments to compensate them for particular hours worked in
prior years.  The settlement of the lawsuit is not an admission by
BJ's of any wrongdoing. In this year's first nine months, the
Company paid $10.7 million in settlements and other expenses
related to this matter and have $1.0 million reserved for future
payments.

By the end of the fiscal year, the Company expects a final
resolution of the matter and the related costs.

BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. -- http://www.bjs.com/-- is a warehouse
club operator in the eastern United States.  BJ's revenues are
derived from the sale of a range of food and general merchandise
items, the sale of gasoline and from membership fees.


CAPITAL ONE: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge approved a
settlement of a class action against Capital One Bank for imposing
new and increased "miscellaneous account fees" without notifying
customers after buying North Fork Bank.

Lead plaintiff Eric Gunther had sued the bank in July 2009 for
$5 million in compensatory damages.

The settlement figure is not mentioned in the order from U.S.
District Judge Arthur Spatt, except for an award of $750,000 for
attorney's fees and a $7,500 class representative incentive award.

A copy of the Final Order and Judgment Approving Settlement in
Gunther v. Capital One, Case No. 09-cv-02966 (E.D.N.Y.), is
available at http://is.gd/iSp80


CSL LTD: Sued Over Plasma-Derivative Protein Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action,
San Mateo County claims CSL Ltd., CSL Behring, CSL Plasma, Baxter
International, and Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association have
conspired to fix the price of plasma-derivative protein therapies
since 2003 in 30 states.

A copy of the Complaint in County of San Mateo v. CSL Limited, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-05686 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/16/DrugAntitrust.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          Stuart G. Gross, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY
          San Francisco Airport Office Center
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                  swilliams@cpmlegal.com
                  sgross@cpmlegal.com

               - and -
          Michael P. Murphy, Esq.
          John C. Beiers, Esq.
          SAN MATEO COUNTY COUNSEL
          Hall of Justice and Records
          400 County Center, Sixth Floor
          Redwood City, CA 94063-1662
          Telephone: (650) 363-4250


DIONEX CORP: Being Sold for Too Little, California Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Dionex Corp. is selling
itself too cheaply to Thermo Fisher Scientific, for $2.1 billion
or $118.50 a share, shareholders say in Santa Clara County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Weisberg v. Dionex Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 1-10-CV-189577 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/16/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
          David A. Knotts, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-231-1058

               - and -

          Debra S. Goodman, Esq.
          1301 Skippack Pike, Suite 7A#133
          Blue Bell, PA 19422
          Telephone: 610-277-6057


DIRECTV INC: Consumer Group to File Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Deborah Crowe, writing for Los Angeles Business Journal, reports
DirecTV Inc. said that it has settled a consumer protection
dispute with state attorneys general in 50 states concerning how
it deals with satellite TV customers over cancellation fees and
other terms.  But a local consumer group said the deal won't stop
it from proceeding with a class action suit against the company.

The El Segundo company, which is the nation's largest satellite TV
provider, announced on Dec. 14 that it would pay $14.25 million to
the states to cover legal and investigation costs and fund
consumer protection programs.  DirecTV has more than 18 million
subscribers nationwide with more than one million in California.

Pertaining to its notification policies, DirecTV said it would
make it clear to customers that they must pay a $20-per-month fee
for any time remaining on a 24-month contract if they cancel.  It
also will follow a specific policy on informing consumers about
fees they must pay if they don't return leased equipment, and
agreed to a dispute process that could lead to arbitration if
consumers complain about issues that have not yet been resolved.

On Dec. 15, Santa Monica consumer group Consumer Watchdog said it
will proceed with its 2008 class action lawsuit against DirecTV,
and criticized the settlement as being negotiated "in secret" and
too lenient on the company.

"The claims process proposed by the settlement is confusing and
vague and gives DirecTV far too much control over how consumers'
claims for refunds of illegal overcharges and other improper
actions are resolved," the group said.

DirecTV has not commented on the Consumer Watchdog's announcement,
but said earlier that the settlement was the result of long
negotiations with the state prosecutors.  The company "has worked
hand-in-hand with the attorneys general to formalize many of the
customer improvements we have made over the past few years and are
pleased to have come to this agreement," Chief Executive Mike
White said in a statement.

California's outgoing attorney general, Jerry Brown, said his
office is reviewing 1,136 complaints it has received about the
company to determine which customers are entitled to restitution.
"DirecTV won customers by offering special deals with hidden
costs, and also extended customers' contracts without telling
them," Mr. Brown said in a statement.  "With this settlement,
DirecTV will reimburse customers and change its sales and
advertising practices to comply with the law."

DirecTV shares closed down 60 cents, or 1.5%, to $39.65 on the
Nasdaq.


DOLLAR GENERAL: All SEC Fair Fund Claims Due by April 2, 2011
-------------------------------------------------------------

                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
              FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

   Securities and Exchange Commission   )
                                        ) Civil Case No.
         v.                             ) 3:05 0283 (WJH)
                                        )
   Dollar General Corporation, et al.   )

             SUMMARY DISTRIBUTION PLAN NOTICE OF
          SEC FAIR FUND TO DOLLAR GENERAL INVESTORS

If you purchased Dollar General Securities (as defined below) or
sold put options on Dollar General Securities between June 16,
1998 and January 14, 2002 inclusive, you may be eligible for
compensation.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.

YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR RECOVERY FROM THE SEC FAIR FUND.  THIS
NOTICE CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS

                   What this Case is About
                   -----------------------
    On April 7, 2005, the SEC filed its Complaint in this action
alleging that from June 16, 1998 through January 14, 2002, Dollar
General Corporation, Inc. ("Dollar General"), Hurley Calister
Turner, Jr., Brian M. Burr, Randy S. Sanderson, and Bobby R.
Carpenter (collectively, the "Defendants") defrauded investors by
engaging in a scheme to overstate Dollar General's earnings by
millions of dollars in violation of the federal securities laws.

    Without admitting or denying the allegations in the
Commission's Complaint, the Defendants consented to Final
Judgments entered by the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee (the "Court") on April 14, 2005 and
April 11, 2006 (the "Final Judgments").  As required by those
Final Judgments, the Defendants together paid to the Clerk of the
Court disgorgement and prejudgment interest of $877,786.17 and
civil penalties totaling $11,740,824 (together, the "Dollar
General Settlement Funds.").  Pursuant to the Final Judgments, the
Clerk of the Court deposited the Dollar General Settlement Funds
into an interest-bearing account with the Court Registry
Investment System ("CRIS").  In addition, on June 29, 2007, the
Court ordered the Clerk of the Court to accept and deposit with
the Dollar General Settlement Funds, $7,000,000 in funds from
International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") undertaken in
a related administrative action.

    The Final Judgments provided that the Commission may propose a
plan to distribute the Dollar General Settlement Funds pursuant to
the Fair Fund provisions of Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002.  On June 29, 2009, the Commission submitted its
Motion for Creation of a Fair Fund and Appointment of a
Distribution Agent, pursuant to the Fair Fund provisions of
Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  On July 2,
2009, the Court granted the Commission's motion and entered an
Order Authorizing the Creation of a Fair Fund and Appointing a
Distribution Agent (the "Order"). The SEC Fair Fund includes all
of the funds the Defendants and IBM paid to the Clerk of the Court
pursuant to the Final Judgments, plus accrued interest. The Order
also appointed The Garden City Group, Inc. ("GCG") as Distribution
Agent to prepare, in consultation with the staff of the SEC, a
plan of distribution for the SEC Fair Fund pursuant to which
monies in it will be distributed to investors harmed by the
violations alleged in the Complaint. The Order also authorizes the
Distribution Agent to implement the distribution of the SEC Fair
Fund to approved claimants in coordination with the staff of the
SEC, pursuant to the Plan of Distribution, subject to oversight by
the Court.

    The Court approved the Distribution Plan on October 20, 2010.

                  Who is Eligible for Compensation
                  --------------------------------
If you purchased Dollar General Securities or sold put options on
Dollar General Securities between June 16, 1998 and January 14,
2002 inclusive, you may be eligible for full or partial recovery
of losses you incurred.

                     How to Obtain Compensation
                     --------------------------
If you submitted a proof of claim form in the class action
settlement of In re Dollar General Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 3:01-0388 (M.D. Tenn) (WJH) (the "Dollar General
Class Action") and your claim was approved for a recovery, you do
not need to submit an additional Proof of Claim form to be
eligible to participate in the SEC Fair Fund.  However, if you
made additional purchases of Dollar General Securities and/or sold
put options on Dollar General Securities during the Recovery
Period or did not submit a Proof of Claim that was approved in the
Dollar General Class Action, you must submit a completed Proof of
Claim form with the necessary documentation by April 2, 2011 to be
Eligible to recover from the SEC Fair Fund.   In addition, you may
download and print the Proof of Claim Form from the SEC Fair
Fund's Web site at:

    http://www.dollargeneralsecsettlement.com/

and you may file your claim directly through the Web site and
following the instructions for online claims filing.  You may also
request copies of Proof of Claim forms by calling the SEC Fair
Fund's toll-free hotline at 1(866) 291-4517 in the United States
or by email at Questions@dollargeneralsecsettlement.com

Submit completed Proof of Claim Forms either directly through the
SEC Fair Fund's Web site at
http://www.dollargeneralsecsettlement.com/or to:

         SEC/Dollar General Fair Fund
         c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
         P.O. Box 9513
         Dublin, OH 43017-4813
         Telephone: 1-866-291-4517

If you have any questions, you may call 1 (866) 291-4517 in the
United States, send an email to
Questions@dollargeneralsecsettlement.com or visit
http://www.dollargeneralsecsettlement.com/


FAIR ISAAC: Appeals From Braun IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals remain pending as to the order approving a settlement of
class actions against certain issuers, including Braun Consulting,
Inc., which Fair Isaac Corporation acquired in November 2004,
according to Fair Isaac's Nov. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2010.

Braun was a defendant in a lawsuit filed on November 26, 2001, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (Case No. 01 CV 10629) that alleges violations of federal
securities laws in connection with Braun's initial public offering
in August 1999.  This lawsuit is among approximately 300
coordinated putative class actions against certain issuers, their
officers and directors, and underwriters with respect to such
issuers' initial public offerings.

As successor-in-interest to Braun, Fair Isaac entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement along with most of the
other defendant issuers in this coordinated litigation, where such
issuers and their officers and directors would be dismissed with
prejudice, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions,
including approval of the Court. Under the terms of this
Agreement, Fair Isaac would not pay any amount of the settlement.
However, since December 2006, certain procedural matters
concerning the class status have been decided in the district and
appellate courts of the Second Circuit, ultimately determining
that no class status exists for the plaintiffs. Since there is no
class status, there could be no agreement, thus the District Court
entered an order formally denying the motion for final approval of
the settlement agreement.

On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement
between the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter
defendants was submitted to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York for preliminary approval.  This
settlement requires no financial contribution from Fair Isaac.
The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval
and preliminarily certified the settlement classes on June 10,
2009. The settlement "fairness" hearing was held on September 10,
2009. The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for final approval
of the settlement and certified the settlement classes on
October 5, 2009.  The Court determined that the settlement is fair
to the class members, approved the settlement and dismissed, with
prejudice, the case against the Company and its individual
defendants.
Notices of appeal of the opinion granting final approval have been
filed. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation and because
the settlement remains subject to appeal, the ultimate outcome of
the matter is uncertain.


GAMESTOP INC: Sued in Calif. Over Failure to Pay Wages on Demand
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Gamestop workers can't get
their pay without using a "Comdata paycard," which charges them a
fee for it, a class action claims in Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Church v. Gamestop, Inc., et al., Case
No. 10024116 (Calif. Super. Ct., Riverside Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/16/GameStop.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq.
          Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
          Alex P. Katofsky, Esq.
          GAINES & GAINES, APLC
          21550 Oxnar Street, Suite 980
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 703-8985


GRINNELL CORP: Class Action Settlement Fund Distribution Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Chief Judge Loretta A. Preska has signed an order approving a plan
submitted by class counsel and The New York Bar Foundation for a
cy pres distribution of residual class action settlement funds
of approximately $850,000 in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp.
(68-cv-4026, 4027, 4028 LAP).  The funds are being distributed to
The New York Bar Foundation under the cy pres doctrine, which will
provide funding through its grantmaking program for projects
conducted by the University of Pennsylvania Law School's Center
for Technology, Innovation and Competition and Syracuse
University's Entrepreneurship Bootcamp for Veterans with
Disabilities.

Lesley F. Rosenthal, Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary
of Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, and Foundation Board
director and chair of its Cy Pres and Restricted Gifts Committee,
and Class Counsel Howard L. Shecter, Esq., at Reed Smith LLP, and
Daniel Berger, Esq., at Berger & Montague PC, jointly presented
the proposal for distribution to Chief Judge Preska.

Foundation President M. Catherine Richardson, Bond Schoeneck &
King PLLC, in Syracuse, said, "The New York Bar Foundation is very
pleased to receive the cy pres fund distribution from this
important antitrust law class action.  The programs to be awarded
grants already have a reputation for excellence and involve
accomplished faculty and scholars.  We are proud to have our
Foundation collaborating with Syracuse University to benefit our
disabled military veterans and their families and Penn Law to
provide financial support for its research into technology and
innovation policy."

CTIC at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, founded in
2007, advances legal and policy research into emerging issues of
technology and innovation.  It is committed to presenting balanced
programs that include a full range of scholarly viewpoints from
various disciplines including internet technology, economics,
antitrust and intellectual property law, and medicine.  CTIC
conducts conferences, workshops and symposia, focusing its
energies on exploring the type of issues that initially arose in
the Grinnell litigation.  Over the three-year life of the new
grants, CTIC will hold additional conferences and host additional
visiting scholars and research fellows, as well as conducting
classes and summer research, taking its exploration of these
issues to another level.

Also founded in 2007, the EBV program is designed to leverage the
skills, resources and infrastructure of higher education to offer
cutting edge, experiential training in entrepreneurship and small
business management to post-9/11 U.S. military veterans with
disabilities resulting from their military service.  Based on the
success of the program, conducted at Syracuse University's Whitman
School of Management, a consortium was formed in 2008 as a
national educational initiative, and the EBV program is now
offered at five additional university campuses.  The new grants,
to be funded over three years, will enable 35 additional veterans
to attend the program free of charge.  The grant monies also will
be expended to further develop curriculum to include a business
ethics module and to develop additional tools to measure EBV
program outcomes.

The Grinnell litigation involved several national class actions
consolidated in the Southern District of New York that alleged
defendant companies violated the Sherman Act for purported price
fixing among four service providers in the market for central
station alarm services.  The defendant companies utilized
telephone voice technology to monitor burglar, fire and
residential alarm systems from a remote central location.  The
cases were settled for $10 million in 1971.  The protective
services industry, through its rudimentary use of telephone
technology, became a precursor of the information services
business, which includes information technology such as the
Internet.

The funds will be used to further the goal of increasing public
understanding of the U.S. antitrust laws and the jurisprudence and
significance of the Grinnell case in U.S. antitrust jurisprudence,
particularly as applied to the information services industry,
which the protective services industry involved in Grinnell helped
spawn.  The projects also foster the types of entrepreneurship
promoted by U.S. antitrust laws and are conducted to benefit
important groups of worthy individuals.  A cy pres fund includes
funds from a class action case that cannot be distributed to the
class members for a number of reasons.

Founded in 1950, The New York Bar Foundation --
http://www.tnybf.org/-- provides financial support, through its
grantmaking program, for law-related charitable and educational
programs that increase public understanding of the law; improve
the justice system and the law; facilitate the delivery of legal
services; and enhance professional competence and ethics.

Founded in 1876, the 77,000-member New York State Bar Association
-- http://www.nysba.org/-- is the official statewide organization
of lawyers in New York and the largest voluntary state bar
association in the nation.  The State Bar's programs and
activities have continuously served the public and improved the
justice system for more than 130 years.


HEB GROCERY: Accused in California Suit of Not Paying Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that HEB Grocery Co., one of
Texas' largest grocery chains, and Pastrana Produce stiffed fruit
and produce workers for overtime, paid less than minimum wage, and
retaliated against them for complaining about it by firing them,
five ex-employees say in a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Fructuoso, et al. v. HEB Grocery
Company, LP, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00951 (w.D. Tex.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/16/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Broadus A. Spivey, Esq.
          48 East Avenue
          Austin, Texas 78701
          Telephone: 512-474-6061
          E-mail: bas@spivey-law.com

               - and -

          Rhonda H. Wills, Esq.
          WILLS LAW FIRM
          2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1350
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: 713-528-4455
          E-mail: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Arturo Villarreal, Jr. Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ARTURO VILLAREAL JR., PLLC
          48 East Avenue
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: 512-474-6061
          E-mail: art@rreal-law.com


HILLENBRAND INC: Legal Costs in Antitrust Suit Reach $27.5 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillenbrand, Inc., disclosed in its Nov. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2010, that it has spent $27.5 million
defending an antitrust lawsuit.

In 2005 the Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. and a number of
individual consumer casket purchasers filed a purported class
action antitrust lawsuit on behalf of certain consumer purchasers
of Batesville(R) caskets against the Company and its former parent
company, Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., now Hill-Rom Holdings,
Inc., and three national funeral home businesses.  A similar
purported antitrust class action lawsuit was later filed by
Pioneer Valley Casket Co. and several so-called "independent
casket distributors" on behalf of casket sellers who were
unaffiliated with any licensed funeral home.  Class certification
hearings in the FCA Action and the Pioneer Valley Action were held
before a Magistrate Judge in early December 2006.

On November 24, 2008, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the
plaintiffs' motions for class certification in both cases be
denied.  On March 26, 2009, the District Judge adopted the
memoranda and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and denied
class certification in both cases.  On April 9, 2009, the
plaintiffs in the FCA case filed a petition with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for leave to file an appeal of the
Court's order denying class certification.  On June 19, 2009, a
three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit denied the FCA plaintiffs'
petition.

On July 9, 2009, the FCA plaintiffs filed a request for
reconsideration of the denial of their petition.  On July 29,
2009, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit denied the FCA
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and their alternative
motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing en banc.

The Pioneer Valley plaintiffs did not appeal the District Court's
order denying class certification, and on April 29, 2009, pursuant
to a stipulation among the parties, the District Court dismissed
the Pioneer Valley Action with prejudice.

Neither the Company nor Hill-Rom provided any payment or
consideration for the plaintiffs to dismiss this case, other than
agreeing to bear their own costs, rather than pursuing plaintiffs
for costs.

Plaintiffs in the FCA Action have generally sought monetary
damages on behalf of a class, trebling of any such damages that
may be awarded, recovery of attorneys' fees and costs, and
injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs in the FCA Action filed a
report indicating that they were seeking damages ranging from
approximately $947.0 million to approximately $1.46 billion before
trebling on behalf of the purported class of consumers they seek
to represent, based on approximately one million casket purchases
by the purported class members.  Because Batesville continues to
adhere to its long-standing policy of selling Batesville caskets
only to licensed funeral homes, a policy that it continues to
believe is appropriate and lawful, if the case goes to trial the
plaintiffs are likely to claim additional alleged damages for
periods between their reports and the time of trial.

At this point, it is not possible to estimate the amount of any
additional alleged damage claims that they may make.  The
defendants are vigorously contesting both liability and the
plaintiffs' damages theories.

Despite the July 29, 2009 ruling denying class certification, the
FCA plaintiffs continued to pursue their individual injunctive and
damages claims.  Their individual damages claims are limited to
the alleged overcharges on the plaintiffs' individual casket
purchases, which would be trebled, plus reasonable attorneys fees
and costs.

In June 2010, co-defendant Stewart Enterprises, Inc., announced a
settlement with the plaintiffs.  On July 16, 2010, the District
Court granted the defendants' remaining motion for leave to file a
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  On
August 2, 2010, the District Court heard argument on the
defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. The Court ordered full dismissal of the lawsuit on
September 24, 2010, concluding that "plaintiffs shall take nothing
by their suit."  In light of this decision, defendants filed a
motion requesting that the Court order plaintiffs to pay costs
incurred by Batesville and SCI in the approximate amount of $0.7
million.  The Court denied this motion on October 22, 2010.

Plaintiffs had 30 days to declare their intent to appeal the
dismissal of their lawsuit, and they did so by way of a Notice of
Appeal filed on October 19, 2010. Plaintiffs' Notice indicates
that they intend to appeal both the Court's final judgment of
dismissal entered on September 24, 2010 and the Court's order
denying class certification entered on March 26, 2009.  The appeal
will be to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Over the next several months, the record will be compiled for
appeal and extensive briefing will occur.  Plaintiffs' brief
appealing the denial of the two orders must be filed within 40
days after the District Court record is certified.  Although firm
dates are not yet known, the plaintiffs' brief will likely be due
sometime in January 2011, with defendants' brief due in February
2011, and a reply brief from plaintiffs due in March 2011.  Once
all briefs are submitted, the Court of Appeals may hear oral
argument by the parties' attorneys and then issue its ruling as to
whether or not the District Court's decisions should be reversed
or affirmed.  It should be noted, however, that the above
appellate schedule is only approximate and is subject to change
dependent upon a number of factors, including the granting of any
extensions of time and the relative congestion of the docket of
the Court of Appeals.

If plaintiffs succeed in overturning the judgment, reversing the
District Court order denying class certification, and a class is
subsequently certified in the FCA Action filed against Hill-Rom
and Batesville, and if the plaintiffs prevail at a trial of the
class action, the damages awarded to the plaintiffs, which would
be trebled as a matter of law, could have a significant material
adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition
and/or liquidity.  In antitrust actions such as the FCA Action the
plaintiffs may elect to enforce any judgment against any or all of
the codefendants, who have no statutory contribution rights
against each other.  The company and Hill-Rom have entered into a
judgment sharing agreement that apportions the costs and any
potential liabilities associated with this litigation between the
company and Hill-Rom.

As of October, 2010, the Company has incurred approximately $27.5
million in cumulative legal and related costs associated with the
FCA matter, since its inception.


MELA SCIENCES: Faces Securities Class Action Over MelaFind Product
------------------------------------------------------------------
MELA Sciences, Inc., is defending itself from a securities lawsuit
filed by stockholders, according to its Nov. 23, 2010, Form 8-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission

On November 19, 2010, a complaint was filed for a purported
securities class action lawsuit naming as defendants the Company
and certain of its officers and directors.  The lawsuit asserts
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges
among other things that misstatements were made by the Company
about its product, MelaFind.  The complaint is allegedly filed on
behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock
during the period from February 13, 2009 through November 16,
2010.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to vigorously defend against the lawsuit.


MERCK SHARP: Faces Class Action Over Sales Rep Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
The California employment law lawyers of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug
& Bhowmik filed a class action complaint against Merck on
December 10, 2010, alleging that the pharmaceutical giant violated
state wage and hour laws by failing to pay drug sales reps
overtime compensation.  The sales rep overtime lawsuit was filed
in Orange County Superior Court and is entitled Frudakis vs. Merck
Sharp & Dohme Corp., Case No. 30-2010-00431914-CU-OE-CXC.

The sales rep overtime lawsuit filed by the California employment
law lawyers of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik could not have
come at a more heated and controversial time in labor law.  On
July 6, 2010 the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit decided
that drug sales representatives were entitled to overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act in a case entitled
Novartis Wage and Hour Litigation, Case No. 09-0437-cv.  Relying
on the momentum in the favorable decision in Novartis, an appeal
was recently filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entitled
Christoper v. SmithKline Beecham, Case No. 10-15257, arguing that
the drug salespersons were improperly denied overtime pay.  The
issue has become so controversial that the Obama Administration
weighed in on the SmithKline Beecham overtime lawsuit in the Ninth
Circuit by filing a A)-8-10-2010.htm">brief arguing that the sales
reps should be paid overtime compensation.

In the recently filed Orange County overtime lawsuit, Frudakis v.
Merck, the main issue portends to be whether pharmaceutical sales
representatives meet the requirements of the outside salesperson
exemption from overtime pay.  Outside salespersons are exempt from
overtime pay only if they spend more than half (50%) of their
working time away from the employer's principal place of business
or away from their home office "making sales."  The complaint
alleges that the sales reps were not "making sales" because at
most they could obtain non-binding promises from physicians to
prescribe certain drugs as appropriate.

For more information about overtime laws and workplace rights with
respect to sales representatives, contact an employment lawyer at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik by visiting
http://www.bamlawca.com/or calling 800-537-5738.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California employment
discrimination law firm dedicated to representing employees who
are victims of wage and hour laws, discrimination, employer
retaliation or other illegal and unfair workplace treatment.


MICHAELS STORES: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action lawsuit filed by Aaron Brothers
employees alleging wage violations in California, according to the
Company's Nov. 23, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 30, 2010.

On February 12, 2010, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed
on May 7, 2009 by Jose Tijero, a former assistant manager for
Aaron Brothers as a purported class action proceeding on behalf of
himself and all current and former hourly retail employees
employed by Aaron Brothers in California.

On July 12, 2010,  the Company was served with a lawsuit filed on
July 9, 2010 by Amanda Godfrey, a former Aaron Brothers' hourly
employee alleging similar allegations as in the Tijero suit.

On October 15, 2010, the cases were consolidated and refiled in
the United States District Court-Northern District of California.
These suits allege that Aaron Brothers failed to pay all wages and
overtime, failed to provide its hourly employees with adequate
meal and rest breaks, failed to timely pay final wages, unlawfully
withheld wages and failed to provide accurate wage statements and
further alleges that the foregoing conduct was in breach of
various law including California's unfair competition law.  The
plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, meal and
rest break penalties, waiting time penalties, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.


MICHAELS STORES: California Supreme Court Stays "Carson" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc., disclosed in its Nov. 23, 2010 Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended October 30, 2010, that proceedings in a consumer class
action lawsuit pending with the California Supreme Court for
review is currently stayed.

On August 15, 2008, Linda Carson, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc., in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, on behalf of
herself and all similarly-situated California consumers.  The
Carson suit alleges that Michaels unlawfully requested and
recorded personally identifiable information as part of a credit
card transaction.  The plaintiff sought statutory penalties,
costs, interest, and attorneys' fees.

The Company contested certification of this claim as a class
action and filed a motion to dismiss the claim.  On March 9, 2009,
the Court dismissed the case with prejudice.  The plaintiff
appealed this decision to the California Court of Appeal for the
Fourth District, San Diego.

On July 22, 2010, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the
case.  The plaintiff appealed this decision to the Supreme Court
of California.  On September 29, 2010, the Supreme Court granted
the plaintiff's petition for review, however, it stayed any
further proceedings in the case until another similar zip code
case pending before the court, Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, is
decided.


NATIONAL COAL: Settles "Sofie" Suit Over Ranger Merger
------------------------------------------------------
National Coal Corp., in a Form 8-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 24, 2010, that it has entered into a
settlement with plaintiffs of a lawsuit alleging breach of
fiduciary duties.

On October 26, 2010, National Coal Corp. filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission a definitive proxy statement in connection
with its proposed merger with and into Ranger Coal Holdings, LLC,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ranger Energy Investments, LLC,
pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
as of September 27, 2010, that the company entered into with
Ranger Energy and Merger Sub.

On November 2, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed
by Harold Sofie against the Company and each of its directors in
the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for
Hillsborough County, Florida, purportedly on behalf of the
Company's public stockholders.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's public stockholders by, among other
things, failing to disclose material information in the
preliminary proxy statement the Company filed on October 13, 2010
relating to the solicitation of proxies for the special meeting of
shareholders to be held for the purpose of considering the
approval and adoption of the merger and the merger agreement.
Among other things, the complaint seeks class action status, a
court order enjoining the completion of the transaction, a court
order directing the company to disclose additional information
regarding the merger and merger agreement, and the payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses.

On November 24, 2010, the parties to the litigation entered into a
stipulation providing for settlement of the litigation, subject to
certain conditions precedent, including approval of the settlement
by the Circuit Court.  As part of the settlement, the defendants
deny all allegations of wrongdoing and deny that the disclosures
in the proxy statement were inadequate, but have agreed to provide
the supplemental disclosures.  The settlement will not affect the
timing of the merger or the amount of merger consideration to be
paid in the merger.


NOVA SCOTIA: Judge Reserves Decision on Class Action Boundaries
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy King, writing for The Cape Breton Post, reports a Nova
Scotia Supreme Court justice has reserved decision on a motion to
redefine the proposed boundaries for a class-action lawsuit
related to contamination associated with the operation of the
Sydney steel plant and coke ovens.

Following a full day of arguments by lawyers representing the
plaintiffs and the provincial and federal auditor generals,
Justice John Murphy said he will call them back together sometime
in the new year.

He's been asked by the representative plaintiffs to redefine the
class from being based on distance from an epicenter in Whitney
Pier to being based on medium to high contamination of lead.  The
residential class would have had to live in Sydney for at least
seven years.

The plaintiffs are relying on studies conducted by Dr. Tim
Lambert.

The hearing was held in Halifax, but was broadcast over the
Internet by the provincial court's Web site.

Angela Green, representing the federal government, said the
setting of the boundary is critical.  She told Justice Murphy
there were two fundamental problems with the new proposed Justice
boundaries -- she said they are not rationally connected to the
common issue and aren't based on evidence.  She argued that if the
new boundaries are transposed over the old, they don't match the
plumes, other studies or the evidence of the representative
plaintiffs.

"Obviously there's nothing in the record aside from (Lambert's
most recent) affidavit that lead stands for all contaminants at
play here," Ms. Green said.

She questioned Mr. Lambert's credibility and the reliability of
his work, saying his approach is not that of an objective and
independent scientist.

The plaintiffs' lawyer Scott Richie argued that Mr. Lambert's
studies have all been peer reviewed.

Agnes MacNeil, representing Nova Scotia, questioned why the
concentration of lead was being used as a proxy for other
contaminants to determine the new boundaries.  She noted
Justice Murphy ruled the class action can proceed on a number of
causes of action and said it's not surprising a single class
boundary doesn't connect to them all.

Ms. MacNeil added the defendants were not the only parties who
emitted contaminants in Sydney during the years that the
steelworks and coke ovens operated.

Both Ms. Green and Ms. MacNeil said they wouldn't provide any help
in offering alternatives to the proposed boundaries.  Ms. Green
said it's Justice Murphy's role to adjudicate, it's hers to
criticize and it's up to the plaintiffs to craft the definition.

Justice Murphy said he had some issue with that attitude, noting
he has said he would certify a class action with some boundaries,
adding there is a boundary out there somewhere that will meet the
tests.

"You've asked for help.  You're apparently not going to get it,"
Mr. Richie said.

"It cannot be the case, in my respectful submission, that
difficulty in establishing a boundary means that these plaintiffs
have to go home, they cannot have their day in court, that's not
what the class proceedings act is about."

Justice Murphy reserved decision without setting a date.  He said
he had some difficulty in going from boundaries based on radius to
one based on lead contamination.

Among the options before him are to accept the definition, give
the plaintiffs a chance to redraft or to possibly decide to define
the appropriate class himself.

The detailed descriptions of the new proposed southern and
northern zone boundaries are each more than seven pages.  The new
boundaries could include approximately 6,000 households.

The lawsuit against the federal and provincial governments was
filed six years ago.  No defenses have been filed and discovery
hasn't yet taken place.  The representative plaintiffs are seeking
some financial compensation and a medical monitoring fund.

Once Justice Murphy approves boundaries, a certification order
will be filed and then they will move into discovery.  A trial
looking at the issues common to the class will follow, which could
still be several years away.  One of those issues would be the
chemical levels at which the court would order remediation.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Unit Still Defending Gender Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Signet Jewelers Limited continues to defend itself
against a class action lawsuit in New York alleging gender
discrimination, according to the Company's Nov. 23, 2010 Form 8-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In March 2008, private plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit for
an unspecified amount against Sterling Jewelers Inc., a subsidiary
of Signet, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York federal court alleging that US store-level employment
practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional
activities.

On September 23, 2008, the US Equal Employment Opportunities
Commission filed a lawsuit against Sterling in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York.  The EEOC's lawsuit
alleges that Sterling engaged in a pattern or practice of gender
discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of female retail
store employees from January 1, 2003 to the present.  The EEOC
asserts claims for unspecified monetary relief and non-monetary
relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female
employees subjected to these alleged practices.

Sterling denies the allegations from both parties and intends to
defend them vigorously.


SOUTH CAROLINA: May Face Class Action Over Freeway Speed Camera
---------------------------------------------------------------
theNewspaper.com reports class action attorneys have set their
sights on a South Carolina town that set up a freeway speed camera
in defiance of state law.  Since August, the town of Ridgeland has
allowed the private company iTraffic to operate a speed camera
system to mail tickets worth $133 to $300 each to the owners of
vehicles photographed as they pass through a tiny stretch of
Interstate 95.  The fully automated system is housed in a
recreational vehicle that is usually concealed behind a bridge.
When state legislators heard of the town's plan, they unanimously
enacted a law to prohibit the use of speed cameras.

"We have been told by some of the top legal minds in the state
that statute don't have anything to do with us, so that's why
we're continuing with the program," Ridgeland Mayor Gary W. Hodges
said at a press conference earlier this month.

Mayor Hodges did not identify the "top legal minds," but it did
not include state's chief legal authority, Attorney General Henry
McMaster, who issued two opinions finding that Ridgeland had no
authority to use speed cameras or mail citations.  As the town of
2500 has already issued around 4000 tickets worth at least
$533,000, Hodges has a significant incentive to keep the program
running for as long as possible.  He argues that having a police
officer paid by iTraffic sitting in the RV constitutes legally
permissible "operation" of a speed detection machine.  Attorney
Pete Strom is not convinced and wants to hear from ticket
recipients in anticipation of a lawsuit that would, if successful,
end the program.

"The Strom Law Firm is currently investigating the legality of
this issue," Mr. Strom wrote.  "We have issued a Freedom of
Information Act request in an effort to discover exactly what the
relationship between iTraffic and the city is and how the money is
being collected and distributed between the town of Ridgeland and
the state of South Carolina."

Another attorney, Ray Lord, has also expressed interest in filing
suit.  If Messrs. Lord and Strom are right, it could prove costly
for the town.  Last year, a federal judge ordered Minneapolis,
Minnesota to issue $2.6 million in refunds to motorists who
received tickets in the mail from a red light camera program that
lacked state legal authority.  The controversy has upset Mayor
Hodges, but he vowed to defend the iTraffic program fully.

"We're quite bitter over here," Mayor Hodges said.  "We've been
pounded over and over . . .  We're going to stand up and fight."


SYNGENTA CROP: Has Until Jan. 17 to Reply to Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
U.S. District Court Judge J. Phil Gilbert has given the parties in
a proposed federal class action suit over the weed killer atrazine
more time to prepare to argue a motion to dismiss the suit for
lack of personal jurisdiction.

Judge Gilbert entered that order Dec. 14.

In it, Judge Gilbert gives lead plaintiff, the city of Greenville,
Ill., until Dec. 17 to respond to the motion to dismiss filed by
defendants Syngenta AG and Sygenta Crop Protection Inc.

The defense then has until Jan. 17, 2011, to file its reply to the
response.

Greenville proposes to lead a class of municipalities and water
providers in Missouri, Illinois, Kansas and other states against
the two companies, claiming that atrazine runs off farm fields and
contaminates drinking water that the plaintiffs then must
remediate.

The claims are nearly identical to a series of state class actions
filed against Syngenta and the other makers of atrazine in Madison
County.

Those suits have been pending since 2004 although they are
currently in the discovery phase.

The same team of attorneys that filed the Madison County suits --
Stephen Tillery, Christie Deaton and others -- filed the
Greenville case earlier this year.

The Syngenta defendants have been actively fighting both the
Madison County and federal suit.

The Madison County suit is currently with the Fifth District
Appellate Court in Mount Vernon on issues related to a discovery
involving non-parties to the suit.

Syngenta AG, the parent company of the other Syngenta defendant,
filed its motion to dismiss the federal suit for lack of personal
jurisdiction in May.

In that motion, the Syngenta claims that because it is a company
based in Switzerland, ordering it to defend a suit in the Illinois
federal court would violate due process.

It points to its dismissal from a previous federal case on the
same grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction.

It contends that Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. has appeared and is
the more appropriate defendant to act in the federal suit.

Kurtis Reeg and others represent Syngenta in both the federal and
Madison County cases.

Mr. Tillery and his team represent the plaintiffs in the federal
case and the plaintiffs in the Madison County cases.

The original lead plaintiff in the Madison County suit is the
Holiday Shores Sanitary District.

The federal suit was filed in the Southern District of Illinois.

The federal suit case number is 10-188-JPG-PMF.

The underlying Madison County Sygnenta class action is case number
04-L-710.

The atrazine class actions still pending in Madison County are
case numbers 04-L-708 to 04-L-713.


TLC LASER: Faces Class Action & Medical Malpractice Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Keeney, writing for Newschannel 7, reports two multi-
million dollar lawsuits, naming an upstate man, claim a national
Lasik eye center chain has performed surgeries on bad candidates,
and then tried to cover it up.  A major class action suit was
filed earlier this year against TLC Laser Centers, and then a
medical malpractice suit followed just last week in Greenville.
Ben Dickerson's name is at the top of that suit.  The successful
businessman decided to have Lasik back in 1998.  "When I got my
first surgery, they had people lined up like you were going
through Mcdonald's getting a cheeseburger," says Mr. Dickerson.
"The whole room was just lined with people."

Within days, Mr. Dickerson says he noticed a difference.  "The
next day, I was seeing 20/15, and I said, this is super!"  Then,
things quickly went downhill.  "I can't see anything out of it
now," Mr. Dickerson says.  He is now legally blind in his right
eye.  His left eye is deteriorating quickly.  While he signed a
waiver to have the surgery, Mr. Dickerson later found out he had a
condition called keratoconus.  "They should have never touched my
eyes," he says.  "They knew better."

Mr. Dickerson is now the first patient in the Upstate to file for
medical malpractice against the TLC Piedmont Center in Greenville,
and doctors there.  He joins a class action suit, naming at least
30 centers nationwide.  According to attorney Stephen Lewis, with
Covington, Patrick, Stern, Hagins, and Lewis Law Firm, TLC
operated on patients with pre-existing conditions, like Dickerson.
The suit alleges those conditions made them bad candidates for
Lasik, but they were never told.  "The doctors knew there was a
problem, they knew it was a red flag, they knew it was a contra-
indication of surgery, but they chose to move forward anyway."

The fear is now that many more patients could be at risk for
losing their vision, including more than 1,000 across the country,
and potentially hundreds here in SC.  According to the lawsuit,
TLC covered up each case, to avoid being sued.  "Time is of the
essence, these people need to know they've been harmed, they need
to know they've been harmed as a result of the surgery."

For Mr. Dickerson, it is likely too late.  He's had a corneal
transplant on his right eye, takes eye drops daily, and can only
read with a magnifying glass.  But from his view, he believes his
case might help others, even if he can't see it himself.  "I think
they need to be punished for what they did."

Newschannel 7 attempted several times to get comment from TLC.
The company's local attorney in Greenville, Ron Tate, could not
comment.  Jim Rogers, general counsel at the company's corporate
office, said he had not seen the malpractice suit, and would
comment quickly.  We will let you know when we receive a response.


TOYOTA AUTO: TMCC Seeks Dismissal of California Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Auto Receivables 2010-A Owner Trust disclosed in its
November 23, 2010, Form 10-D for the monthly distribution period
from October 1 to 31, 2010, that Toyota Motor Credit Corporation
is seeking dismissal of a securities violation lawsuit.

TMCC and certain affiliates had been named as defendants in a
putative bondholder class action, Harel Pia Mutual Fund v. Toyota
Motor Corp., et al., filed in the Central District of California
on April 8, 2010, alleging violations of federal securities laws.
The plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit on
July 20, 2010.

On July 22, 2010, the same plaintiff in the federal bondholder
action refiled the case in California state court on behalf of
purchasers of TMCC bonds traded on foreign exchanges (Harel Pia
Mutual Fund v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al., Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles).  The complaint alleges
violations of California securities laws, fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty and other state law claims.  On September 15, 2010,
the defendants removed the state court action to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act and the Class
Action Fairness Act.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
October 15, 2010.

TMCC believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims and
intends to defend them vigorously.  At this time, TMCC believes
that the case will not be material to holders of any notes of
Toyota Auto Receivables 2010-A Owner Trust.


WAKE COUNTY: Drivers Mull Class Action Over Red-Light Cameras
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Siceloff, writing for NewsObserver.com, reports four Wake
County drivers have asked a judge to tear up their tickets for
running red lights in Cary, arguing that fleeting yellow lights on
traffic signals did not give them enough time to stop safely.

In a lawsuit filed Nov. 30 in Wake Superior Court, Brian
Ceccarelli of Apex and three other drivers say they received $50
tickets after Cary's red-light cameras caught them running red
lights.

The four drivers contend that Cary does not comply with state
Department of Transportation standards that set minimum duration
times for yellow lights based on traffic speed at the
intersection.

A spokeswoman said Cary will contest the lawsuit.

"We're very familiar with the assertions in the lawsuit, disagree
with them, and look forward to the court's review," said Susan
Moran, the town's public information officer.

The yellow signal is a warning that drivers should prepare to stop
for a red light.  Cary, Raleigh and other cities cite traffic
safety as the reason for using cameras to catch red-light
violators at some intersections.

The drivers also seek to turn their case into a class-action
lawsuit on behalf of other drivers who have been caught by Cary's
red-light cameras.

WAL-MART STORES: Class Action Ruling to Carry Big Implications
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Woodward, writing for OneNewsNow, reports an attorney at a
public policy organization is warning that the Supreme Court's
decision to hear a sexual discrimination case involving Wal-Mart
could affect everything from Wal-Mart and other businesses to
individual 401(k) plans.

In the case of Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the U.S. Supreme Court will
decide whether the sexual discrimination complaints of six
employees can be made into a class-action lawsuit that would
represent between 500,000 and 1.5 million female employees.
Wal-Mart appealed to the Supreme Court after the Ninth U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the case could go forward.

Hans Bader, senior attorney at the Competitive Enterprise
Institute (CEI), explains in his report that the plaintiffs' claim
is weak and contradictory, but the Supreme Court's decision will
carry big implications for businesses and individuals.

"If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court's decision, trial
lawyers will be able to sue nationwide businesses based on
statistical imbalances in things like pay or hiring, without
pointing to any particular discriminatory policy [that is] clearly
defined," he explains.

According to the attorney, that means trial lawyers would be able
to bring multi-billion-dollar class-action lawsuits against
companies based on nebulous claims that the business did something
discriminatory to result in, for example, more white workers than
blacks, or more men than women having a particular job or pay
level.

If Wal-Mart ends up paying money, Mr. Bader says that will only
hurt the company and individual 401(k) plans because many mutual
funds involved in such plans hold Wal-Mart stock.

Still, he points out that two-thirds of the time, the Supreme
Court generally reverses cases in which it grants review, and
decisions out of the Ninth Circuit are slightly more likely to be
reversed.  Based on that history, the CEI senior attorney believes
the Supreme Court will rule this class-action was improperly
certified by the lower court.


WASHOE COUNTY: 9th Cir. Rejects Class Action Over Property Taxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Dornan, writing for North Lake Tahoe Bonanza, reports the
9th Circuit Court has rejected a class action suit by Incline
Village tax protesters who claim Washoe County unconstitutionally
overcharged them in setting their property taxes.

The group led by Todd and Janet Lowe argued the system Washoe
County used to calculate their taxes violated both the Nevada
Constitution and due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.
They filed the suit as a class action representing some 9,000
Incline Village and Crystal Bay property owners.

The property owners had argued that state court remedies were
inadequate because they can't file as a class action in state
court.  The appellate court concluded that doesn't render the
state system inadequate constitutionally.

"The previous success of numerous taxpayers in challenging such
valuations further persuades us that individual taxpayers have
access to a plain, speedy, and efficient state court remedy," the
opinion states.

That is a reference to the fact Incline Village and Crystal Bay
taxpayers have won several cases in state courts ruling the
methods used by the Washoe Assessor's Office unequal and,
therefore, unconstitutional.

The opinion doesn't impact the ongoing state lawsuits filed by
those North Lake Tahoe property owners.  In two of those cases,
the Nevada Supreme Court has ordered the county to pay back the
property taxes collected through invalid assessment methodologies.
Cases involving three more years of assessments -- all based on
the same appraisal cycle -- are working their way through Nevada's
courts.

But in 2007, the entire area was reappraised, setting the baseline
for a new five-year cycle.

The opinion states that, while the assessor's 2002 appraisal
methodology was ruled invalid, "the assessor's new, separate 2007
appraisal has never been declared invalid by a Nevada Court."


* Class Action Defendants Can File Motion to Strike to Cut Cost
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article by Steven M. Levy and Mary L. Mills,
posted at Law.com's Corporate Counsel section, the unbalanced
nature of class action litigation often forces defendants to pay
dearly to respond to allegations which cost the plaintiff very
little to make.

However, within the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is a
mechanism by which class action defendants can attempt to minimize
this cost by seeking to strike the class allegations either at the
outset of the litigation or any time prior to a full-scale class
certification hearing.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d)(1)(D) allows a defendant to
file a motion to strike class action allegations and enables the
court to issue an order "requir[ing] that the pleadings be amended
to eliminate therefrom allegations as to representation of absent
persons."  A motion to strike class allegations may be made at any
point during litigation of a class action, and can therefore be
filed even before the plaintiff has formally moved for class
certification.

Indeed, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a court to
determine whether an action should be certified as a class "at an
early practicable time after a person sues or is sued."  There are
also analogous state laws and various common law precedents which
allow for such relief in the state courts.

A motion to strike class allegations provides class action
defendants with the unique opportunity to quash a class action
lawsuit without being forced to pay the enormous costs associated
with discovery or settle the claim to avoid expensive and
prolonged litigation.  Indeed, our firm has repeatedly achieved
successful results with such motions over the years.  Hence, a
class action defendant should always consider whether there is a
possibility of getting the class allegations stricken from the
complaint.

In some cases, a court will not grant a class action defendant's
motion to strike class allegations when the court feels additional
discovery is needed to accurately determine the viability of the
class. See, e.g., Bearden v. Honeywell.  This type of ruling,
however, should by no means dissuade a class action defendant from
moving to strike the class action allegations early in the
litigation.

Several class action defendants have been successful in convincing
the court to strike class allegations from the complaint by
showing that the proposed class does not meet the predominance
requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) due to the presence of
individualized questions of fact or law.

While the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) is similar to
the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2), the predominance
standard is more difficult for plaintiffs to meet than the
standard for commonality.  Therefore, while defendants may
certainly challenge a plaintiff's ability to show that the
proposed class meets the commonality requirement to maintain a
class action, defendants often focus instead on the more exacting
predominance requirement.

For example, as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, several
class action lawsuits were initiated against insurers regarding
alleged improper adjustment of claims.

In response, many of the insurers filed motions to strike the
class allegations from these complaints due to a lack of
predominance of class-wide questions of fact.  Because of to the
individualized determinations required for insurance recoveries,
many of these defendants succeeded in having class action
allegations eliminated.  See, e.g., Spiers v. Liberty Mutual Fire
Insurance Co.

Courts have also stricken or dismissed class action allegations in
other contexts based on lack of predominance.

For example, numerous courts have found class action allegations
facially deficient in cases where the plaintiffs have alleged the
defendant insurers improperly used a third-party computerized bill
review tool to assist in adjusting claims for medical payments or
personal injury protection benefits.

In one such case, the court denied the plaintiff leave to amend
the complaint to allege a class action, as any amendment would be
"futile and frivolous" as a matter of law, because there were too
many individualized issues in a case of this nature, relating to
the specifics of treatment, for a class action ever to be
appropriate (Lucido v. Deerbrook Insurance Co.).

While it is more common for courts to strike class allegations
based on a lack of predominance of class-wide questions of fact or
law, there have been instances where the class allegations in the
complaint were stricken due to lack of commonality of questions of
law or fact for all class members under Rule 23(a)(2).

For instance, in Ross-Randolph v. Allstate Insurance Co.,
plaintiffs who purchased motor vehicle liability insurance from
the defendant insurer claimed that it fraudulently induced them
into not waiving personal injury protection coverage within the
policy, and then did not pay the claims after plaintiffs were
injured.  The court found that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy
the class requirements of commonality and predominance, and thus
granted the insurer's motion to strike the class allegations.

Defendants have also successfully had class allegations stricken
from a complaint based on the plaintiff's failure to show that a
putative nationwide or multistate class met the predominance
requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).  When the defendant can show that
there is a variation in the applicable state law such that
application of a single body of substantive law to all class
members is not possible, a court may strike the class allegations
from the complaint.

For example, in Chilton Water Authority v. Shell Oil Co., the
plaintiffs sought to certify a nationwide class action against
Shell Oil Company, alleging claims of fraud, strict liability and
negligence.  The court struck the class allegations, explaining
that "resolution of this matter on a class basis would require the
court to apply multiple variations of state law to several claims
and innumerable claimants," and therefore plaintiffs had not
satisfied the predominance requirement to maintain a class.

In fact, courts routinely strike nationwide and multistate class
action allegations based on variations in state law, and
defendants can and should consider bringing such motions to limit
the scope of the proposed class. See, e.g., Castano v. Am. Tobacco
Co.

Defendants have also been able to convince courts to strike class
allegations from a complaint based on the plaintiff's inability to
show that the proposed class meets the numerosity requirements of
Rule 23(a)(1), which provides that class treatment is appropriate
only when "the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable." See, e.g., Miller v. Motorola.

Some courts have recognized the validity of motions to strike
class allegations during the pleading stage, but have held that
upon such motion the burden of proof will shift to the defendant
to show that class treatment is inappropriate under the standard
of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.

However, many courts have held that the party seeking class
certification bears the burden of showing that all of the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b) are met, even in the event of a
defendant's motion to strike class allegations.  The latter view
appears to be more widely accepted.

Overall, courts seem most likely to grant motions to strike class
allegations in cases where the proposed class on the face of the
complaint does not meet the stringent predominance requirements of
Rule 23(b)(3) and additional discovery would be unlikely to
produce evidence that the class should be maintained.

Ultimately, getting class allegations stricken from the complaint
will turn on the defendant's ability to persuade the court of the
deficiencies of the proposed class as well as the court's level of
comfort in determining that class treatment is inappropriate prior
to full discovery.

Accordingly, when a defendant is served with a class action
complaint, it should review the complaint allegations to: (a)
determine whether the plaintiff has in fact alleged all the class
action prerequisites; (b) assess whether the plaintiff's claims
raise individualized inquiries that defeat Rule 23(b)(3)'s
predominance and manageability requirements; and (c) in the event
of a purported multistate class, determine whether state law
variations exist such that application of a single body of
substantive law to all putative class members is not possible.

If these types of deficiencies are identified, the defendant
should consider moving to strike or dismiss the class allegations,
or moving for a summary denial of class certification.

Steven M. Levy is a Litigation Partner in SNR Denton's Chicago
office with extensive experience in commercial litigation.  He has
a particular concentration in insurance and complex class action
litigation.  Mr. Levy can be reached at steven.levy@snrdenton.com

Mary L. Mills is an Associate in SNR Denton's Litigation practice
focusing on class action litigation and insurance matters.  Ms.
Mills can be reached at mary.mills@snrdenton.com


* Restaurants Face Class Actions Over Wage & Hour Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at The Am Law Daily by Ross Todd,
on Dec. 14, New York's most famous restaurant-rating couple, Tim
and Nina Zagat, weighed in on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times
with an essay decrying what they clearly see as a scourge plaguing
the city's finer eateries: a bevy of class action lawsuits in
which restaurant servers claim they are being shortchanged in
various ways by management.

The news peg for the Zagats' opinion piece was the New York
Department of Labor's new "Proposed Hospitality Wage Order," which
was published for public comment in October and is due to take
effect January 1.  The regulation would, among other things,
change the rules governing the practice of tip-pooling by
restaurants.

While D. Maimon Kirschenbaum's name was nowhere to be found in the
Zagats' piece -- which did allow for the possibility that
restaurateurs do sometimes give those who work the front of the
house less then their due -- his presence was barely hidden to
anyone who knows the territory.

That's because, just five years out of Fordham Law School, the 31-
year-old name partner at employment plaintiffs firm Joseph,
Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum has carved out a speciality
practice suing some of New York's most famous restaurants on
behalf of employees in wage and hour disputes.

Just this summer Mr. Kirschenbaum filed suit against Mario Batali
and Masaharu Morimoto, adding the two celebrity chefs to a long
list of bold-faced defendants that includes Jean-Georges
Vongerichten, Keith McNally, Laurent Tourondel, and Drew
Nieporent.

There are, of course, other plaintiffs lawyers pressing cases for
workers against New York restaurants, but Mr. Kirschenbaum sticks
out to members of the employment defense bar.  "I have not seen
somebody rise as quickly as Kirschenbaum as far as building a
practice and a name for himself," says Fox Rothschild employment
litigation partner Carolyn Richmond, who has squared off in
litigation against Kirshenbaum about ten times.

Indeed, in the past five years, Kirschenbaum and his colleagues
have filed about 100 suits against restaurants and banquet halls
on behalf of servers and other tipped employees.  "He found a
niche.  He dug in his heels and certainly found a little area,"
Ms. Richmond says.

But with regulations changing to clarify who can share tips and
with eatery owners increasingly concerned with the need to adopt
so-called best practices when it comes to labor matters, Richmond
says she's unsure how long Mr. Kirschenbaum's niche will be
around.

The suits Mr. Kirschenbaum brings, largely on behalf of putative
classes of servers, allege claims of wage and hour violations and
inappropriate sharing of tips. (Mr. Kirschenbaum's team also
brings the occasional employment discrimination or individual
employment case as well.)  While those claims might sound like
small potatoes, so to speak, restaurant defendants face potential
penalties under both New York state and federal labor law.

"What makes the litigation so darned expensive for employers is
there are penalties under both state and federal law which are
multipliers," says Jackson Lewis partner Felice Ekelman, who has
faced Mr. Kirschenbaum in multiple cases.  "Why isn't anybody
helping these employers?"

Many restaurants pay tipped employees at a rate lower than minimum
wage.  With New York's six-year statute of limitations, a
restaurant found to have wrongly included an inappropriate person
in a tip pool could not only have to disgorge underpaid tips but
also the difference between the tipped minimum wage and the actual
minimum--a multiplier that can take possible damages into the
multimillions for any restaurant with significant staff. (That's
not to mention that if plaintiffs prevail on any of multiple
claims, restaurant defendants could be responsible for picking up
the tab for plaintiffs attorneys fees.)

So even in cases where restaurants staunchly deny any wrongdoing,
Mr. Kirschenbaum and his team have gotten settlements of $2.5
million from Nobu, $1.785 million from Jean-Georges Vongerichten,
and nearly $1.5 million from Keith McNally of Pastis and
Balthazar.  "One reason that many restaurants are motivated to
settle is because it's too uncertain to fight," says Jackson
Lewis's Ms. Ekelman.

Ms. Richmond says Mr. Kirschenbaum's rise mirrors the rise of
celebrity food culture.  In fact, for a lawyer, he enjoys a
certain level of celebrity on the food blogs.  In addition to the
sobriquet bestowed on him by New York Magazine's Grub Street
("patron saint of stiffed waiters"), he also earned the attention
of foodie blog Eater, which has called him a "thorn in the
restaurant industry's side" and a "notorious suer of
restaurateurs."

Mr. Kirschenbaum's says his firm had handled plenty of wage and
hour cases before he arrived, but that it wasn't until he came
aboard that the restaurant-related docket began to swell.

"The area was relatively untapped," he says.  "We took out an ad
on some Web site called ShamelessRestaurants.com, and it was
really miraculous the way that people started just piling in."

It wasn't long before big-labor defense shops from Fox Rothschild
and Jackson Lewis to Littler Mendelson, Seyfarth Shaw, and
Proskauer Rose began showing up on the other side of the table.
"It was a big deal in the beginning," Ms. Kirschenbaum says, "but
as time passes on we continue to prevail against all of them, so
it's not really that daunting of an experience."

One thing working in favor of Ms. Kirschenbaum and his clients
until now: "For the most part the restaurants don't work on the
same budget as Citibank and they're not really interested in
hiring 300 lawyers to work on a case," he says.  "We've kept sort
of an open door for people to come in, and we really didn't
discriminate in terms of big-money cases or small-money cases.
Basically if there were cases against restaurants for withholding
of tips, we brought them as long as claims were good."

Given the new regulations, the question now for Ms. Kirschenbaum
is how many people will walk through that door--and whether the
number will be big enough to cover a full meal or just a light
bite.


                             *********

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.  Leah
Felisilda, Neil U. Lim, 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  * * *