---

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

            Monday, December 27, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 254

                             Headlines

AMERICAN CORRECTIVE: Damages in Bad Check Class Action Rejected
BROOKLAND GREENS: Class Action Over Gas Leak Could Face Delay
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Class Actions Over Network Malfunction
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Class Action Settlement Under Advisement
DE BEERS: Feb. 23 Hearing Set for $295MM Class Action Settlement

DELL INC: Appeals From Consolidated Suit Settlement Pending
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Attorney Explains Hip Implant Failure Issues
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Sued in Tenn. Over Misleading Sales Tactics
DYNAMEX INC: Tentative Trial Date for Class Suit Set for April 4
DYNAMEX INC: Says Claims in Merger-Related Lawsuit Have No Merit

EI DUPONT: January 12 Hearing Set for Injury Lawsuits
ELCO CHEVROLET: Settles Class Action for $2 Million
EXPRESS INC: Continues to Defend Wage Suit in California
FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Approval of Beacon Ad Class Suit Settlement
GOOGLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Street View Class Action

HURON CONSULTING: Awaits Court Approval of Illinois Class Suit
ILLINOIS CENTRAL: Seeks $1-Mil. Reimbursement in Fraud Suit
INSIGHT COMMS: Customers Can Pursue Class Suit, Ky. Sup. Ct. Rules
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Plea to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint Pending
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Motion to Dismiss Amended Nevada Suit Pending

INTERNATIONAL GAME: Continues to Defend Atlantic Lotteries Suit
JAMDAT MOBILE: Asks Ill. Ct. to Summon Marco to Produce Documents
JOS. A. BANK: No Longer Faces Class Suit in Maryland
KARSTENSEN ELECTRICAL: Sued for Unpaid Wages and Overtime
KRISPY KREME: Obtains Final Okay of Calif. Wage Suit Settlement

LIMITED BRANDS: Motion to Dismiss IBEW Suit in Ohio Still Pending
MACY'S INC: Ohio Litigation Over 401(k) Plan Remains Ongoing
MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Class Action Over Investment Advisory Fees
NATIONAL EDUCATION: 9th Cir. Junks Class Action Over Annuities
NEWALLIANCE BANCSHARES: Awaits Court Approval of Suits Settlement

NORDSTROM INC: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime to Workers
OSTEOTECH INC: Defends Consolidated Suit Over Medtronic Merger
PET FOOD MANUFACTURERS: 3rd Cir. Rejects $24MM Class Settlement
RHODE ISLAND: Mediation Ordered in Truancy Program Class Action
ROBOMODO HOLDINGS: Sued for Violations of Ill. "WARN" Act

SCHERING-PLOUGH: Faces Class Action Over Sales Reps' Overtime
SCICLONE PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties Dismiss Consolidated Suit
SERACARE LIFE: Records $0.9MM Refund From Class Suit Settlement
SHIPPING COMPANIES: Feb. 2 Class Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Continues to Defend Suit in New York

SUNCOR ENERGY: Judge Blocks Gas Franchisees' Class Action
SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
SYNGENTA CROP: Motion to Quash Discovery Subpoena Moved
TCF FINANCIAL: Minnesota Court Stays Suit Over Posting Practices
TORONTO COMMUNITY: Fire Victims File $80 Million Class Action

ULTA SALON: Awaits Court Approval of Settlement Agreement
ULTA SALON: Still Defending Wage Violations Suit in California
UTI WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in New York
VIVENDI SA: King & Spalding Sues Over Unpaid Legal Fees
WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Defend Gender Discrimination Suit

WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Defend Wage-and-Hour Class Actions
WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Defend Suits Over Exempt Status
ZUMIEZ INC: Paid $1.38 Million in "Johnson" Suit Settlement
ZUMIEZ INC: Awaits Court Approval of $2.1 Million Suit Settlement

* Dutch & UK Pension Funds Aim to Recoup EUR3.9BB in Class Suits


                             *********

AMERICAN CORRECTIVE: Damages in Bad Check Class Action Rejected
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Mintz, writing for San Jose Mercury News, reports a federal
jury in San Jose has for the most part rejected a bid to recover
tens of millions of dollars in damages for thousands of state
residents who have waged a legal battle for the past decade over a
private program used by district attorneys across California to
collect on bad checks.

Jurors effectively refused to award damages in a class-action
lawsuit that claims people were regularly charged illegal fees by
a now-bankrupt private company hired by district attorneys to
chase down money for merchants who were given bad checks.

Although lawyers for the plaintiffs sought at least $30 million,
the jury found no actual damages for the three individual
plaintiffs who spearheaded the lawsuit.  The jury awarded $12,000
to an estimated 670,000 class members -- about 55 cents per person
-- because of a judge's prior ruling that there had been
violations of federal debt collection laws

The trial stemmed from a long-running legal feud over the actions
of a company called American Corrective Counseling, which
contracted with more than two dozen California district attorneys,
including Santa Clara County's, to collect on bad checks.  The
lawsuit alleged that the company strong-armed people facing bad-
check allegations into paying exorbitant fees to settle their
cases, using the threat of prosecution and jail time as leverage.

District attorneys in San Mateo, Contra Costa and Alameda counties
also used the company.

American Corrective declared bankruptcy last year, but the case
proceeded to trial against other defendants, including the
company's former CEO, Donald Mealing.  Defense lawyers had told
the jury they should not award money to thousands of people who
broke the law by floating bad checks.

"We interpret what the jury did as basically a complete victory
for us," said John Higginbotham, one of Mr. Mealing's lawyers.

Paul Arons, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, expressed
disappointment that the jury didn't award damages despite the
trial judge's finding earlier in the case that the collection
practices violated fair debt collection laws.  But Mr. Arons
stressed that another phase of the case will give him an
opportunity to urge the judge to award restitution for other years
when illegal fees were imposed.

District attorneys in Santa Clara and elsewhere continue to use a
successor company, National Corrective Group, to collect on bad
checks.  That company is now the target of similar lawsuits in
California.


BROOKLAND GREENS: Class Action Over Gas Leak Could Face Delay
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Herald Sun reports residents affected by the Cranbourne
landfill methane gas debacle may have to wait years for
compensation.

A Supreme Court judge has set down a trial date for a class action
on behalf of the residents of 800 affected properties at Brookland
Greens.

Justice Robert Osborn said the trial would start in July 2011 but
it could be well into 2012, or four years after the leak was
detected, before the legal action is finalized.

A lawyer for the residents said they were angry at the delays and
at the refusal of their council, the Environmental Protection
Authority or any other defendants to accept responsibility.

Manisha Blencowe, Esq., at Slater and Gordon, said the delays had
put a huge financial and emotional strain on residents.

Lawyers are pursuing damages for diminished property value and
loss of use and enjoyment.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Class Actions Over Network Malfunction
------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. disclosed that following its previous report
dated December 2, 2010 regarding a major network malfunction and
December 7 and 9, 2010 regarding purported class action lawsuits
filed against the Company in that regard, two additional purported
class action lawsuits were filed against the Company as follows:

   1. In the District Court of Central Region, by a plaintiff
alleging to be a subscriber of the Company, in connection with
allegations that the Company unlawfully and in violation of its
license and its agreement with its subscribers, failed to provide
service to its subscribers during the network malfunction.  The
total amount claimed, if the lawsuit is certified as a class
action, is estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS 1.32 billion.

   2. In the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa, by two plaintiffs
alleging to be subscribers of the Company, claiming refund of
payments for services during the network malfunction and
compensation for mental anguish, in connection with allegations
that the Company unlawfully and in violation of its agreement with
its subscribers, failed to provide service to its subscribers
during the malfunction.  The total amount claimed, if the lawsuit
is certified as a class action, is estimated by the plaintiffs to
be at least NIS 200 million.

At this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the
lawsuits' chances of success.

Cellcom Israel Ltd. (NYSE: CEL) (TASE: CEL), established in 1994,
-- http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is an Israeli cellular provider.
It provides its approximately 3.376 million subscribers (as at
September 30, 2010) with a broad range of value added services
including cellular and landline telephony, roaming services for
tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and additional
services in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc.


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Class Action Settlement Under Advisement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge has taken under
advisement a disputed claim allegedly worth more than $500,000 in
a 2005 Preferred Provider Organization discount class action
brought by chiropractor Frank Bemis.

Judge Mudge heard arguments on the matter on Dec. 17.

The dispute arises out of a settlement approved last September
between Bemis and a class of approximately 32,000 health care
providers and the Cincinnati Insurance Company and Cincinnati
Casualty Company.

Mr. Bemis led the class, claiming the insurers wrongfully took PPO
discounts from workers' compensations bills.

The settlement was reached and approved last year.

The defendants agreed to pay out 90 percent of the discounted
bills up to $3.5 million.

The class attorneys, including Bradley Lakin, Robert Schmieder III
and others, took home more than $700,000 in fees.

Mr. Bemis, as lead plaintiff, took home an award of $5,000.

Cincinnati paid out about $57,000 of a $485,000 claim that
Illinois Bone and Joint Institute (IBJI) submitted, denying the
bulk due to what it claimed was insufficient documentation
required under the settlement.

Cincinnati further contends that IBJI did not cure the claim's
defect in the 10 days given under the settlement and that it is
not under any obligation to pay out the undocumented claims or to
have granted an extension.

The amount later rose after a vendor compiled added claims that
IBJI argues were wrongfully discounted, bringing the amount to
more than $500,000.

Of that, according to arguments on Dec. 17, IBJI had further
documentation detailing about $260,000 of the more than $500,000
total claim.

The claim was denied in March.

Mr. Schmieder III argued over documentation examples found in the
claims form.

"I think Cincinnati is reading a little too much into the
examples," Mr. Schmieder III said on Dec. 17.

Cincinnati's attorney Omar Odland told Judge Mudge that the
settlement agreement specifically said supporting claims documents
had to come from Cincinnati.

He pointed out that the spreadsheets IBJI sent in did not come
from his clients.

"These spreadsheets are not prepared by Cincinnati," Mr. Odland
said.

Because of that, his clients couldn't verify them, how they were
generated and whether the PPO discounts claimed were real.

"This is a substantial claim in a class action," Mr. Odland added.
"Fifty-seven thousand dollars is not junk change."

Mr. Odland also argued that his client had followed the right
procedures set out by the settlement for paying the claims and was
not obliged to grant any extension to IBJI when it sent out the
cure letter for the claim's defects last year.

Judge Mudge told the parties he would take the issue under
advisement and anything else they wanted to submit was welcome.

"I think I ought to take a little closer look at the settlement,"
Judge Mudge said.

The settlement was approved last year by Madison County Circuit
Judge Barbara Crowder.

The case was then transferred to former Madison County Circuit
Judge Daniel Stack's docket when Crowder took over his role
overseeing the asbestos docket in August.

The case then was supposed to go to Judge Mudge but was still
shown as under Judge Crowder's watch as of Dec. 16, according to
the court's schedule.

Mr. Bemis has been lead plaintiff in several PPO class actions
filed by the former partnership of the Lakin Law Firm and the
Chicago firm of Freed and Weiss.

That partnership dissolved in 2007.

Freed & Weiss withdrew from the Cincinnati suit in 2008.

The case is Madison case number 05-L-178.


DE BEERS: Feb. 23 Hearing Set for $295MM Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Star Tribune reports that 13 years after her husband overpaid
for her diamond ring, a Plymouth woman contacted Whistleblower to
find out why he still hadn't gotten a refund from De Beers, the
multinational diamond conglomerate.  It turns out she's not the
only one waiting for a piece of the rock.

In 2008, a federal judge approved a $295 million settlement of a
class-action lawsuit that accused De Beers of illegally fixing the
price of diamonds.  Anyone who bought diamonds or diamond jewelry
between 1994 and 2006 was invited to file a claim by May 2008 that
could earn them a refund ranging from 6 percent to 59% of what
they originally paid.

Rust Consulting, a Minneapolis company, is handling the
De Beers settlement, details of which are available at
diamondsclassaction.com.  But nearly three years after the deal
was struck, not one penny has been paid out.  The objections of a
single consumer prompted an appeals court to put the settlement on
hold.

One San Francisco lawyer who represents plaintiffs sounds none too
happy about the delay.  The settlement "is being held up on appeal
by a bunch of self-interested lawyers who are disrupting somebody
else's case for their own financial gain," attorney Eric Fastiff
said.

On Feb. 23, a federal appellate court in Philadelphia will hold a
hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement.  So those
with diamond claims have at least a few more months to wait.


DELL INC: Appeals From Consolidated Suit Settlement Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the final approval of a settlement agreement
resolving a consolidated securities class action lawsuit is
pending with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to
Dell, Inc.'s Dec. 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 29,
2010.

Four putative securities class actions filed between Sept. 13,
2006, and Jan. 31, 2007, in the Western District of Texas, Austin
Division, against Dell and certain of its current and former
directors and officers were consolidated as In re Dell Securities
Litigation, and a lead plaintiff was appointed by the court.  The
lead plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a),
and 20A of the Exchange Act based on alleged false and misleading
disclosures or omissions regarding Dell's financial statements,
governmental investigations, internal controls, known battery
problems and business model, and based on insiders' sales of Dell
securities.  This action also included Dell's independent
registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, as
a defendant.

On Oct. 6, 2008, the court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims
with prejudice and without leave to amend.

On Nov. 3, 2008, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of Dell and
the officer defendants to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
appeal was fully briefed, and oral argument on the appeal was
heard by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 1, 2009.

On November 20, 2009, the parties to the appeal entered into a
written settlement agreement whereby Dell would pay $40 million to
the proposed class and the plaintiff would dismiss the pending
litigation.  The settlement was preliminarily approved by the
District Court on Dec. 21, 2009.  The settlement was subject to
certain conditions, including opt-outs from the proposed class not
exceeding a specified percentage and final approval by the
District Court.  During the first quarter of Fiscal 2011, the
original opt-out period in the notice approved by the District
Court expired without the specified percentage being exceeded.
The District Court subsequently granted final approval of the
settlement and entered a final judgment on July 20, 2010.  Dell
paid $40 million into an escrow account to satisfy this settlement
and discharged the liability during the second quarter of Fiscal
2011.

Certain objectors to the settlement have filed notices of appeal
to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals with regard to approval of
the settlement.  While there can be no assurances with respect to
litigation, the company believes it is unlikely that the
settlement will be overturned on appeal.


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Attorney Explains Hip Implant Failure Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
In an article on Dec. 16, New York Times reporter Barry Meier
wrote that the high failure rate and recall of the implant "points
to a medical implant system that is piecemeal and broken on many
fronts, critics say.  Unlike new drugs, many of which go through a
series of clinical trials before receiving approval from the Food
and Drug Administration, critical implants can be sold without
such testing if a device, like an artificial hip, resembles an
implant already approved and used on patients."

Attorney Wendy R. Fleishman of plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, commented, "The New York Times is on
target in describing the U.S. system for ensuring the safety and
quality of medical devices as broken.  However, the civil justice
system does permit patients the opportunity to hold manufacturers
of faulty medical devices accountable."

Lawsuits filed by patients represented by Lieff Cabraser allege
the DePuy ASR implant is defective and fails due to certain design
flaws.  The ASR implant is a metal-on-metal implant which may wear
or loosen prematurely, and release toxic metals into the body.

"Two failure issues have emerged with metal-on-metal implants:
one, the devices slip or the shell does not sit properly in place
in the hip and it resists bone growth; and, two, the friction of
metal-on-metal wear causes microscopic metal shavings to be
released into the surrounding blood and tissue," explained
attorney Ms. Fleishman.  "This release of metal can cause elevated
blood levels of cobalt and chromium, which can cause 'metallosis,'
or an inflammatory reaction to the elevated metals in the tissue
and the blood."

Ms. Fleishman has released a short video that explains further why
the DePuy ASR implants are failing and why DePuy is liable.  It
can be seen at http://lieffcabraser.com/videos.php?VideoID=680

About the http://www.lieffcabraser.com/cases.php?CaseID=338>DePuy
Hip Implant Recall

More than 93,000 hip implants were sold worldwide before DePuy
stopped production in 2009.  Approximately 40,000 were implanted
in the U.S. from sometime before the FDA approval in August 2005
through August 2010, the date of the recall.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP represents persons across
America injured by defective medical devices, including the DePuy
ASR artificial hip implant.  Of note, in 2001, Lieff Cabraser
helped hundreds of people who were forced to undergo revision
surgery to remove defective hip and knee implants manufactured by
Sulzer Orthopedics.  We played a significant role in negotiating a
settlement with Sulzer valued at more than $1 billion.  In May
2002, the Court granted final approval to the revised settlement.

In addition, for the last eight years, The National Law Journal
has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs' law
firms in the nation.

If you would like to learn more about your legal rights please
visit our DePuy hip recall page at
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/cases.php?CaseID=338or call us toll-
free at 1-800-541-7358 and ask to speak to attorney Heather
Foster.  There is no charge or obligation for our review of your
case.

Ms. Fleishman may be reached at:

          Wendy R. Fleishman, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY  10013-1413
          Telephone: 212-355-9500
          Facsimile: 212-355-9592
          E-mail: wfleishman@lchb.com


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Sued in Tenn. Over Misleading Sales Tactics
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Discover Financial Services
uses "confusing and misleading sales tactics to surreptitiously
enroll unwitting individuals" in a costly "Payment Protection
Plan," a class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Sack v. DFS Services LLC, et al., Case
No. 10-cv-02906 (W.D. Tenn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/20/Discover.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B.J. Wade., Esq.
          John R. Holton, Esq.
          DEAL, COOPER & HOLTON, PLLC
          296 Washington Avenue
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 523-2222
          E-mail: bwade@dchlaw.com


DYNAMEX INC: Tentative Trial Date for Class Suit Set for April 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative trial date of April 4, 2011, has been set for the
class action lawsuit filed by an independent contractor in
California, Dynamex, Inc., disclosed in its December 2, 2010, Form
10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 31, 2010.

On April 15, 2005, a putative class action was filed against the
company by a former independent contractor in the Superior Court
of California, Los Angeles County, alleging that the company
unlawfully misclassified its California drivers as independent
contractors, rather than employees, and asserting, as a
consequence, entitlement on behalf of the purported class
claimants to overtime compensation and other benefits under
California wage and hour laws, reimbursement of certain operating
expenses, and various insurance and other benefits and the
obligation of the Company to pay employer payroll taxes under
federal and state law.

In early February 2009, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint,
which among other matters, added an additional named Plaintiff.

Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification in June 2009,
seeking the certification of a Class with four Subclasses, each
dependent on the type of service rendered by the independent
contractor and the weight of the vehicle provided by the
independent contractor.  On July 28, 2009, the Court granted the
Motion.

The four subclasses were each subject to between four and eight
exclusions.

In January 2010, the Parties agreed to a process whereby the Court
modified its earlier Order granting certification of a Class to
clarify that the earlier Order "conditionally" granted
Certification.  The Order initiated a process whereby a
questionnaire was to be sent by an impartial Class Administrator
to each potential member of the Class to gather information.

As a part of the process, the Court would dismiss from the Class
those individuals who failed to respond to the questionnaire
within the allotted time.  Incomplete or deficient questionnaires
could be cured through written or telephonic inquiry by the Class
Administrator.  Approximately 260 questionnaires were timely
returned.

Further clarification and additional information has been
requested from approximately 120 of the individuals returning the
questionnaires with a due date of Aug. 12, 2010.

A further certification hearing was held on October 25, 2010,
during which the Court considered Motions for clarification from
each Party.  The Court denied both Motions, ruling that
insufficient "meet and confer" practice had occurred between the
Parties.  A tentative trial date has been set for April 4, 2011

The Company believes that its independent contractors are properly
classified as independent contractors is vigorously defending this
litigation. Given the nature and preliminary status of the claims,
however, the Company cannot yet determine the amount or a
reasonable range of potential loss in these matters, if any.

Dynamex, Inc. -- http://www.dynamex.com/-- is a provider of same-
day delivery and logistics services in the U.S. and Canada.
Through its network of business centers, the company provides
same-day, on-demand, door-to-door delivery services utilizing its
ground couriers.


DYNAMEX INC: Says Claims in Merger-Related Lawsuit Have No Merit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamex, Inc., contends in its December 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 31, 2010, that claims asserted in a class action lawsuit
relating to its merger with DashNow Holding Corp. are without
merit.

On October 1, 2010, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger, by and among DashNow Holding Corp., DashNow Acquisition
Corp. and the Company, as amended by Amendment No. 1 dated
November 30, 2010, providing for the acquisition of the Company by
DashNow Holding Corp., an affiliate of Greenbriar Equity Group
LLC.  At a special meeting, stockholders will be asked to consider
and vote upon a proposal to adopt the merger agreement.  If the
merger contemplated by the merger agreement is completed,
stockholders will be entitled to receive $24.00 in cash, without
interest, less any applicable withholding taxes, for each share of
the Company's common stock owned by stockholders (unless a
stockholder has properly exercised appraisal rights with respect
to their shares).

On October 19, 2010, a putative class action complaint was
commenced against Dynamex, its directors, DashNow Holding Corp.,
and affiliate of Greenbriar Equity Group LLC, and DashNow
Acquisition Corp., an affiliate of Greenbriar, in the District
Court of Dallas County, Texas.  In this action, styled Kaner v.
Welch et al., No. 10-13845 (298th Judicial District Court), the
plaintiff purports to bring the action on behalf of the public
stockholders of the Company, and seeks, among other things,
equitable relief, to enjoin the consummation of the merger, and
awarding the plaintiff fees and costs.  The plaintiff alleges in
the complaint that the company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to engage in an
honest and fair sale process.  The complaint further alleges that
the Company, DashNow Holding Corp. and DashNow Acquisition Corp.
aided and abetted the directors' purported breaches.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Kaner action
are without merit.

Dynamex, Inc. -- http://www.dynamex.com/-- is a provider of same-
day delivery and logistics services in the U.S. and Canada.
Through its network of business centers, the company provides
same-day, on-demand, door-to-door delivery services utilizing its
ground couriers.


EI DUPONT: January 12 Hearing Set for Injury Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------
WDTV reports several injury lawsuits could end up being combined
in the Dupont Spelter Smelter case.

15 Spelter families have filed lawsuits against Dupont so far.  In
the suit they blame cancer and other illnesses they are suffering
from on long term exposure to chemicals from the plant.

Harrison County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Bedell scheduled a
hearing for January 12.  The Spelter families recently won a Class
Action Lawsuit over the pollution, but in these new cases they ask
for compensation for their medical expenses.


ELCO CHEVROLET: Settles Class Action for $2 Million
---------------------------------------------------
Cathy Kingsley, writing for Missouri Lawyers Weekly, reports Elco
Chevrolet in St. Louis County settled a class action lawsuit for
$2 million with customers who were charged document preparation
fees.  The class included about 17,113 individuals.


EXPRESS INC: Continues to Defend Wage Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Express, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the California labor laws,
according to the company's Dec. 3, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 30,
2010.

Express is named as a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit alleging various California state labor law violations.
The complaint was originally filed on February 18, 2009, and an
amended complaint was filed on March 18, 2009.  The amended
complaint contains six counts: (1) failure to provide required
meal breaks to the class members and failure to pay the class
members for missed meal breaks, including premium payments
required by California law; (2) failure to provide required rest
breaks to the class members and failure to pay the class members
for missed rest breaks, including premium payments required by
California law; (3) failure to pay wages in a timely manner to
employees who were terminated or quit; (4) failure to pay overtime
or premium payments in a timely manner; (5) failure to provide
accurate wage statements; and (6) violations of Section 17200 of
the California Business and Professions Code.

The Company estimated that the potential exposure for losses
related to the lawsuit ranges from approximately $1,900 to $3,400
and has accrued an amount on the Consolidated Balance sheet as of
October 30, 2010, to reflect its best estimate of the risk.  As
the situation develops and more information becomes available, the
amount of the reserve may increase or decrease accordingly.  The
amount of any change may be material to the Company's results of
operations or financial condition.


FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Approval of Beacon Ad Class Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost News, reports Facebook has
asked an appellate court to dismiss a privacy activist's challenge
to the company's $9.5 million settlement of a class-action privacy
lawsuit stemming from the Beacon ad program.

The trial judge "correctly found the settlement to be fair,
reasonable and adequate," Facebook argues in papers filed with the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The settlement stems from Facebook's now defunct Beacon ad program
-- a controversial marketing platform launched in November of 2007
that informed members about their friends' e-commerce activity on
outside sites.

At launch the program operated by default, so that people who
didn't opt out ended up sharing information about their purchases
with all of their Facebook friends.  The feature program caused an
immediate backlash, and approximately three weeks after launching
Beacon, Facebook said it would stop blasting notifications about
users' retail activity without their explicit permission. (Shortly
after that, Facebook offered users a way to permanently opt out.)

The program also sparked a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf
of 19 Facebook users.  They reached a settlement with Facebook
last year, but privacy activist Ginger McCall and a handful of
others opposed that deal.

The settlement calls for Facebook to launch a new privacy
foundation, which will be directed by a three-person board that
includes Facebook's Director of Public Policy, Tim Sparapani.  The
deal also requires Facebook to permanently shutter Beacon, but
doesn't require the company to compensate users except for the 19
consumers who filed suit.  Members of that group stand to receive
amounts varying from $1,000 to $15,000.

Mr. McCall, herself both a Facebook user and an attorney with the
Electronic Privacy Information Center, argued that the settlement
should be rejected because Facebook will wield too much influence
over the new foundation.  In October, she asked the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals to vacate U.S. District Court Judge Richard
Seeborg's decision to approve the deal.

Facebook disputes that it will control the new foundation, arguing
that Mr. Sparapani won't have vote power over which projects will
be funded by the new organization.  "Although Mr. Sparapani may
reasonably be expected to exercise his influence against any
actions that could clearly and directly harm Facebook, the notion
that the Foundation will be under Facebook's control is baseless
conjecture," the company argues.

Ms. McCall also alleges that the deal's benefit is "illusory"
because the company had already effectively shuttered Beacon, but
Facebook denies this claim.  "Although Beacon was altered before
the settlement, it remained in existence," the company argues.

Lawyers for the 19 class-action plaintiffs also assert that
Facebook's initial position in settlement talks was that the
company wanted to keep Beacon operational.  However, the lawyers
contend, Facebook was unable to configure the program to make the
opt-in feature work properly.

Ms. McCall's court papers back up the claim that the opt-in never
functioned as expected.  She alleges that Facebook broadcast her
activity at Blockbuster.com to her friends in February of 2008
without her consent -- even though Beacon was supposed to be opt-
in at that point.

Ms. McCall is represented by outside attorneys including Public
Citizen.


GOOGLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Street View Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost News, reports that, arguing
that it broke no laws, Google is asking a judge to dismiss a
potential class-action lawsuit stemming from the company's
collection of data sent over WiFi networks.

"It is not unlawful under the Wiretap Act to receive information
from networks that are configured so that communications sent over
them are "readily accessible to the general public," Google says
in papers filed with the U.S. District Court James Ware in San
Jose, Calif.

The lawsuit stems from Google's admission earlier this year that
its Street View cars collected payload data -- including URLs,
passwords and emails -- sent over unencrypted WiFi networks.
Google apologized for the interception and said it intended to
destroy the data.  Nonetheless, the company's acknowledgment
triggered investigations abroad and in the U.S. about whether
Google violated privacy laws, including the federal wiretap law.

Google's statements also resulted in more than a dozen potential
class-action lawsuits, which were consolidated into one case now
pending in federal court in San Jose.  The lawsuits allege that
Google violated various laws, including the federal wiretap, by
collecting the payload data.

The federal wiretap law generally makes it unlawful to collect
data from networks that are not password protected, but contains
some exceptions for open networks -- including one for broadcasts
transmitted by common carrier.  Google argues that exception
doesn't apply because Internet service providers aren't regulated
as common carriers by the Federal Communications Commission.

In a related development, Connecticut Attorney General Richard
Blumenthal reportedly said Dec. 17 that Google had refused to
comply with a subpoena to disclose the data it collected.
Blumenthal is heading a multi-state investigation into whether
Google violated any laws by intercepting WiFi data.


HURON CONSULTING: Awaits Court Approval of Illinois Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 6, 2010, Huron Consulting Group, Inc.,
disclosed that it has reached an agreement in principle with the
lead plaintiffs in the pending securities class action lawsuit
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The Class Action, which was filed on behalf of certain purchasers
of the Company's common stock, alleges that the Company and the
individual defendants issued false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial results and compliance with
GAAP.

Under the terms of the Agreement in Principle, the Plaintiffs will
receive total consideration of approximately $38.0 million,
comprised of $27.0 million in cash and the issuance by the Company
of 474,547 shares of its common stock with an aggregate value of
approximately $11.0 million, based on the closing market price of
the Company's common stock of $23.18 per share on November 24,
2010.  The lead counsel will have the discretion to sell the
Settlement Shares and to place the proceeds from the sale of the
Settlement Shares into an escrow account for the benefit of and
distribution to the class members.

The cash portion of the consideration will be funded by the
Company's insurance carriers.  Following such payment, the Company
will not receive any further contributions from its insurance
carriers for the reimbursement of legal fees expended on the
finalization of the Class Action settlement or any amounts related
to the derivative suits filed in connection with the restatement
or the pending SEC investigation with respect to the restatement
and the allocation of time within a certain practice group.

In connection with the proposed settlement, the Company expects to
record a non-cash charge to earnings in the fourth quarter of 2010
in the amount of approximately $11.0 million, representing the
fair value of the Settlement Shares.  The Company will adjust the
amount of the non-cash charge to reflect changes in the fair value
of the Settlement Shares until and including the date of issuance,
which may result in either additional non-cash charges or non-cash
gains. The Company will issue the Settlement Shares following
final court approval of the proposed settlement, which the Company
anticipates will occur in the first half of 2011.  The Company
will also record a receivable from its insurance carriers in the
amount of $27.0 million, as well as a liability in the amount of
$38.0 million, representing the approximate aggregate value of the
Settlement Shares and the cash to be paid by the insurers.

The proposed settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing.  The
Company has always maintained and continues to believe that it did
not engage in any wrongdoing or otherwise commit any violation of
federal or state securities laws or other laws.  However, given
the potential cost and burden of continued litigation, the Company
believes that the proposed settlement is in its best interests and
in the best interests of its stakeholders.

The proposed settlement is subject to the completion of final
documentation, preliminary and final court approval, funding of
the $27.0 million in cash by the Company's insurance carriers, and
issuance of the Settlement Shares. Further, the Company has the
right to terminate the settlement if class members representing
more than a specified amount of alleged securities losses elect to
opt out of the settlement.


ILLINOIS CENTRAL: Seeks $1-Mil. Reimbursement in Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma News reported in a December 19 article that in March
2010, federal jury found William Guy and Thomas Brock had guilty
of fraud in a suit filed by Illinois Central [Railroad] of Chicago
in 2006.  The suit alleged that the two attorneys, who'd led an
asbestos class action against the company, intentionally concealed
the involvement of two clients in a prior asbestos class action.
Messrs. Guy and Brock have been ordered to return $210,000 in
settlements from their class action suit and to pay another
$210,000 in punitive damages.

The Lloyds' Asbestos Reporter published a story on the jury ruling
on March 19, 2010.

Illinois Central also wants reimbursement for the almost
$1 million it spent in attorneys fees over the course of the four-
year battle.  U.S. District Judge David Bramlette has ordered an
accounting of legal fees from both sides, and if he declines to
award fees to Illinois Central, the company will have spent more
than twice as much as it has recovered.  Should Illinois Central
win the second part of this battle, it may send a message to
attorneys to think twice before filing frivolous suits.


INSIGHT COMMS: Customers Can Pursue Class Suit, Ky. Sup. Ct. Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Howington, writing for The Courier-Journal, reports
Insight customers who lost Internet service for up to several days
during a 2006 upgrade may be able to pursue claims through a class
action suit because of a Kentucky Supreme Court ruling.

The court overturned two lower courts that said customers must
pursue their claims individually through arbitration or small-
claims suits.

Those rulings said customers were bound by a clause in their
contracts with Insight that forbids customers from banding
together.

But the high court sided with four Insight customers who argued
that a class action is the only practical way for a large number
of customers to pursue claims that, on average, might be about $40
-- far too little to justify hiring a lawyer.

A class action "is often the only economically viable legal
procedure" to address a large volume of very small claims, the
court said in an opinion issued Dec. 16.

For that reason, it said, a ban on class actions like the one in
Insight's contract "may effectively shield a company from
liability for unlawful activity."

The Internet disruptions, which caused many customers to lose
important e-mails, occurred as Insight switched from an AT&T
network to its own system.  The cable provider had partnered with
AT&T for several years.

Insight said about one-third of its 500,000 Internet customers in
four states, including about 100,000 in the Louisville area,
reported "significant" disruptions during the changeover.

Insight gave about 2,600 customers credits for their lost Internet
time, but the company determined the amounts.

The Supreme Court ordered the suit sent back to Jefferson Circuit
Court, where customers now may be able to bring their claims as a
group.

The court also voided a provision in Insight's contract saying
customers who pursue claims in arbitration can't disclose the
results.

Public Justice, a national public-interest legal organization that
argued for Insight customers in the case, said the decision could
provide a basis for consumers to pursue class actions against
other corporations.

Insight spokesman Jason Keller said the company is reviewing the
decision and hasn't decided whether to appeal.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Plea to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit against
International Game Technology over its employee pension plans is
still pending in Nevada, according to International Game
Technology's Dec. 1, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
October 2, 2010.

On October 2, 2009, two putative class action lawsuits were filed
on behalf of participants in the Company's employee pension
plans, naming as defendants the Company, the IGT Profit Sharing
Plan Committee, and several current and former officers and
directors.  The complaints (which seek unspecified damages)
allege breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C Sections 1109 and 1132. The
complaints allege similar facts as the securities class action
lawsuit.  The complaints further allege that the defendants
breached fiduciary duties to Plan Participants by failing to
disclose material facts to Plan Participants, failing to exercise
their fiduciary duties solely in the interest of the
Participants, failing to properly manage Plan assets, failing to
diversify Plan assets, and permitting Participants to elect to
invest in Company stock.

The actions, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada, are captioned Carr et al. v. International Game
Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00584, and Jordan et al. v.
International Game Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00585.

In October 2009, plaintiffs moved for consolidation of the two
actions which motion was granted.  On April 9, 2010, defendants
moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

International Game Technology -- https://www.igt.com/ -- is a
global gaming company specializing in the design, manufacture,
and marketing of electronic gaming equipment and systems
products.  IGT maintains an array of entertainment-inspired
gaming product lines. In addition to its United States production
facilities in Nevada, it manufactures gaming products in the
United Kingdom, and through third-party manufacturers in Japan
and China.  The company derives its revenues from the
distribution of electronic gaming equipment, systems, services
and licensing.  It operates in two segments: North America and
International. North America consists of its operations in the
United States and Canada, comprising 77% of consolidated revenues
during the fiscal year ended October 3, 2009 (fiscal 2009).
International consists of its operations in all other
jurisdictions worldwide, comprising 23% of consolidated revenues
during fiscal 2009.  In January 2009, it acquired Progressive
Gaming International Corporation.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Motion to Dismiss Amended Nevada Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
International Game Technology's motion to dismiss a securities
class action lawsuit filed by a labor union is still pending in
Nevada, according to the company's Dec. 1, 2010, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Oct. 2, 2010.

On July 30, 2009, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Local 697 filed a putative securities fraud class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging causes of
action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act against IGT and certain of its officers, one of whom is a
director.  The complaint alleges that between November 1, 2007 and
October 30, 2008, the defendants inflated IGT's stock price
through a series of materially false and misleading statements or
omissions regarding IGT's business, operations, and prospects.

The Court has appointed a lead plaintiff.  The plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on April 26, 2010 and the defendants moved to
dismiss that complaint on June 17, 2010.

International Game Technology -- https://www.igt.com/ -- is a
global gaming company specializing in the design, manufacture,
and marketing of electronic gaming equipment and systems
products.  IGT maintains an array of entertainment-inspired
gaming product lines. In addition to its United States production
facilities in Nevada, it manufactures gaming products in the
United Kingdom, and through third-party manufacturers in Japan
and China.  The company derives its revenues from the
distribution of electronic gaming equipment, systems, services
and licensing.  It operates in two segments: North America and
International. North America consists of its operations in the
United States and Canada, comprising 77% of consolidated revenues
during the fiscal year ended October 3, 2009 (fiscal 2009).
International consists of its operations in all other
jurisdictions worldwide, comprising 23% of consolidated revenues
during fiscal 2009.  In January 2009, it acquired Progressive
Gaming International Corporation.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Continues to Defend Atlantic Lotteries Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Game Technology continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit filed by Atlantic Lotteries in Canada,
according to the company's Dec. 1, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Oct. 2, 2010.

In May 2010, Atlantic Lotteries commenced an action against
International Game Technology, VLC, Inc., and IGT-Canada, wholly-
owned subsidiaries of International Game Technology, and other
manufacturers of video lottery machines in the Supreme Court of
New Foundland and Labrador seeking indemnification for any damages
that may be awarded against Atlantic Lotteries in a class action
suit also filed in the Supreme Court of New Foundland and
Labrador. A motion to certify the putative class is pending.

International Game Technology -- https://www.igt.com/ -- is a
global gaming company specializing in the design, manufacture,
and marketing of electronic gaming equipment and systems
products.  IGT maintains an array of entertainment-inspired
gaming product lines. In addition to its United States production
facilities in Nevada, it manufactures gaming products in the
United Kingdom, and through third-party manufacturers in Japan
and China.  The company derives its revenues from the
distribution of electronic gaming equipment, systems, services
and licensing.  It operates in two segments: North America and
International. North America consists of its operations in the
United States and Canada, comprising 77% of consolidated revenues
during the fiscal year ended October 3, 2009 (fiscal 2009).
International consists of its operations in all other
jurisdictions worldwide, comprising 23% of consolidated revenues
during fiscal 2009.  In January 2009, it acquired Progressive
Gaming International Corporation.


JAMDAT MOBILE: Asks Ill. Ct. to Summon Marco to Produce Documents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott M. Fox, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, and plaintiff in intervention NECA-IBEW Pension Fund
(The Decatur Plan) v. JAMDAT Mobile, Inc., et al. Case No.
BC344364 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.), was filed on
December 10, 2010.  The plaintiff accuses JAMDAT and its directors
of breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company's public
shareholders in connection with the sale of the Company to
Electronic Arts Inc., via an unfair process and for the unfair
price of $27 per share.  Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that
defendants "impermissibly" favored their own interests and those
of certain JAMDAT insiders to the detriment of the Company's
public shareholders.

On December 14, 2010, pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule
204(b), defendants petitioned the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois to issue a subpoena duces tecum to Marco Consulting
Group, and to compel the production of records in connection with
the subpoena.  The Clerk assigned Case No. 2010-CH-52814 to the
proceeding.

In the petition, defendants state that they have reason to believe
that Marco, which NECA has identified as its proxy agent for
voting on all of its JAMDAT shares, located within Cook County,
Illinois, are the custodians of records relevant to the
plaintiff's allegations.

The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Aneles, has issued a Commission authorizing the issuance of a
subpoena duces tecum to Marco in Illinois.  This Commission was
issued under California law, which permits a party to take the
deposition of a non-party deponent out of state to be used in an
action pending in California.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Todd C. Jacobs, Esq.
          Claudia M. Rustad, Esq.
          Thomas J. Dammrich, Esq.
          GRIPPO & ELDEN LLC
          111 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 704-7700

               - and -

          Kevin P. Muck, Esq.
          Christine A. Vogelei, Esq.
          FENWICK & WEST LLP
          555 California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 875-2300

               - and -

          Felix S Lee, Esq.
          FENWICK & WEST LLLP
          801 California Street
          Mountain View. CA 94041
          Telephone: (650) 988-8500


JOS. A. BANK: No Longer Faces Class Suit in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland had dismissed
a consolidated class action complaint against Jos. A. Bank
Clothiers, Inc., following approval of a settlement agreement,
according to the company's Dec. 1, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 30, 2010.

Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund was the lead plaintiff in a
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland against the Company, Robert N. Wildrick, R.
Neal Black and David E. Ullman (Roy T. Lefkoe v. Jos. A. Bank
Clothiers, Inc., et al., Civil Action Number 1:06-cv-01892-WMN).
The Class Action was initially instituted on July 24, 2006.  On
behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between December 5,
2005 and June 7, 2006, the Class Action purported to make claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, based on the Company's disclosures during
the Class Period.  The Class Action sought unspecified damages,
costs and attorneys' fees.

In late October 2009, the Company and MLAF agreed to settle the
Class Action for an amount that was within the limits of the
Company's insurance coverage.  The settlement did not have any
impact on the Company's financial statements.  The Stipulation of
Settlement entered into by the Company and MLAF included a
statement that, at the time of the settlement, the substantial
discovery completed did not substantiate any of the claims
asserted against the individual defendants.

By Order dated July 8, 2010 and filed on July 20, 2010, the court
approved the settlement of the Class Action in accordance with the
Stipulation and dismissed the Class Action with prejudice.

JoS. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. -- http://www.josbank.com/--
designs, manufactures and sells men's classically-styled tailored
and casual clothing, sportswear, footwear and accessories.  The
company sells its full product line through 473 stores in 42
states and the District of Columbia, a nationwide catalog and an
e-commerce Web site.


KARSTENSEN ELECTRICAL: Sued for Unpaid Wages and Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Steven Wroughton, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Karstensen Electrical Construction, Inc., Case No.
2010-CH-53015 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. December 15, 2010), brings
claims against Karstensen for unpaid wages and overtime, in direct
violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Mr. Wroughton was an electrician employed by Defendant in the
State of Illinois from 2002 through September of 2009.  According
to Mr. Wroughton, defendant requires its electricians, on average,
to work at least 60 and as much as 72 hours a week, without paying
them overtime wages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terrence Buehler, Esq.
          TOUHY, TOUHY, BUEHLER & WILLIAMS, LLP
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 372-2209


KRISPY KREME: Obtains Final Okay of Calif. Wage Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc., disclosed in its Dec. 1, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended October 31, 2010, that it is no longer
facing a wage and hour lawsuit in California.

The Company was a defendant in a wage and hour suit pending in the
Superior Court of Alameda County, California, in which the
plaintiffs seek class action status and unspecified damages on
behalf of a putative class of approximately 35 persons. In January
2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the
litigation and the Company recorded a provision of $950,000 for
the settlement of this matter, which is included in Company Stores
direct operating expenses and accrued liabilities in the
accompanying balance sheet.

On October 1, 2010, the Alameda, California County Superior Court
concluded this litigation by issuing a final order approving the
class-action settlement and entering judgment consistent with the
settlement in principle. The Company paid $950,000 previously
recorded in January 2010 for settlement of this matter.


LIMITED BRANDS: Motion to Dismiss IBEW Suit in Ohio Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Limited Brands, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action filed by
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 697 Pension
Fund against the Company remains pending, according to the
Company's Dec. 3, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 30, 2010.

On November 6, 2009, a class action (International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers Local 697 Pension Fund v. Limited Brands, Inc.
et al.) was filed against the Company and certain of its officers
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on behalf of a purported class of all persons who purchased
or acquired shares of Limited Brands common stock between
August 22, 2007 and February 28, 2008.

On April 5, 2010, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
and liaison counsel.  On June 25, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed
an amended complaint.  On August 24, 2010, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss.  The Company believes the complaint is without
merit and that the Company has substantial factual and legal
defenses to the claims at issue.

Limited Brands, Inc. -- http://www.limitedbrands.com/-- is a
specialty retailer of women's intimate and other apparel, beauty
and personal care products and accessories under various trade
names.  The company sells its merchandise through the retail
stores in the United States and Canada, which are primarily mall-
based, and through its Websites and catalogues.


MACY'S INC: Ohio Litigation Over 401(k) Plan Remains Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Macy's, Inc., continues to defend itself against a purported
class-action suit filed by Ebrahim Shanehchian, an alleged
participant in the company's Profit Sharing 401(k) Investment
Plan.

On Oct. 3, 2007, Mr. Shanehchian filed a purported class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on behalf of persons who participated in the 401(k) Plan and
The May Department Stores Company Profit Sharing Plan between
February 27, 2005, and the present.  The complaint charges the
company, as well as certain current and former members of its
board of directors and certain current and former members of
management, with breach of fiduciary duties owed under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to participants in
the 401(k) Plan and the May Plan, alleging that the defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the company's
business, operations and prospects in relation to the integration
of the acquired May operations, resulting in supposed "artificial
inflation" of the company's stock price between Aug. 30, 2005 and
May 15, 2007.  The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and costs.

No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 6, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended October 30, 2010.

Macy's, Inc. -- http://www.macysinc.com/-- with corporate offices
in Cincinnati and New York, is one of the nation's premier
retailers, with fiscal 2009 sales of $23.5 billion.  The company
operates about 850 department stores in 45 states, the District of
Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico under the names of Macy's and
Bloomingdale's.  The company also operates http://macys.com/and
http://bloomingdales.com/


MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Class Action Over Investment Advisory Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Morgan Stanley & Co. charged fees for acting as an investment
adviser, while simultaneously denying it is an investment adviser,
to duck its responsibilities under the Investment Advisors Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Bruck v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-12199 (D. Mass.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/20/MorganStanley.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Lagorio, Esq.
          Lynda Carey Paris, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. LAGORIO
          63 Atlantic Avenue
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: 617-367-4200


NATIONAL EDUCATION: 9th Cir. Junks Class Action Over Annuities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Dec. 20 dismissed a
class action that accused the National Education Association of
tricking teachers into buying expensive retirement annuities in
exchange for millions of dollars in annual royalties.

The federal appeals panel in Seattle ruled that the lead
plaintiffs -- two public school teachers in California and
Washington -- had failed to state a claim under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) because the annuities at
issue do not qualify as employee pension benefit plans.

"Plaintiffs have only themselves to blame for trying to fit the
square peg of defendants' alleged misconduct into the round hole
of an ERISA suit," Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote for the court.

Jerre Daniels-Hall and David Hamblen claimed on behalf of a
purported class of 57,000 members of the educators' union that
they were duped into purchasing so-called Valuebuilder annuities
offered by Nationwide Life Insurance and Security Benefit Life
Insurance.

The teachers argued that since the 1990s the union had convinced
its members to purchase more than $1 billion in annuities by
"creating an atmosphere of trust and confidence that was exploited
by defendants for their financial gain," according to the
plaintiffs' complaint, quoted in the ruling.

That "financial gain" amounted to about $2 million per year in
royalty income, which the NEA did not disclose to its members, the
plaintiffs alleged.  The insurance companies also took on the
salaries of 110 NEA representatives and contributed to NEA
charitable foundations, according to the ruling.

The teachers accused the union of breaching its fiduciary duty by
pushing the annuities despite the much higher fees that Nationwide
and Security Benefit charged in comparison to other firms.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton dismissed the case over
jurisdiction, finding that the teachers' ERISA lawsuit could not
stand because the Valuebuilder annuities were not covered by
ERISA.

The three-judge appeals panel affirmed but found that satisfying
ERISA requirements is a matter of the case's merits, not
jurisdiction.

"It is clear from the NEA's website and the prospectuses offered
by Nationwide and Security Benefit that these annuities were not
established or maintained by either plaintiffs' school district
employers or by the NEA," Judge O'Scannlain wrote.  "The NEA's
website explains that the 'NEA Valuebuilder Variable Annuity is a
flexible purchase payment deferred variable annuity issued by
Security Benefit Life Insurance Company and distributed by
Security Distributors, Inc."

Since the NEA is not registered to sell securities, it cannot
establish or maintain annuity contracts for its members,
Judge O'Scannlain added.

"The annuities at issue in this case are not regulated by ERISA,
but by the securities laws," he wrote.  "And the companies issuing
these securities are regulated by the Securities and Exchange
Commission and various state insurance regulators, not the
Department of Labor."

A copy of the Opinion in Hall v. National Education Association,
et al., No. 08-35531 (9th Cir.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/j79eC

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Karin B. Swope, Esq.
          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Tana Lin, Esq.
          Ian J. Mensher, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          Suite 3200
          1201 Third Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900

               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Engerman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY C. ENGERMAN, PC
          11901 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone:  (310) 207-7777

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Julia Penny Clark, Esq.
          BREDHOFF & KAISER, PLLC,
          805 Fifteenth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005-2207
          Telephone: (202) 842-2600

Defendant-Appellee NEA is represented by:

          Julia Penny Clark, Esq.
          Douglas L. Greenfield, Esq.
          Abigail V. Carter, Esq.
          BREDHOFF & KAISER, PLLC,
          805 Fifteenth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005-2207
          Telephone: (202) 842-2600

NEA MBC and the individual defendants are represented by:

          Jonathan Hacker, Esq.
          Bob Eccles, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383-5300

Defendants-Appellees, Security Benefit Life Insurance Company,
Security Distributors, Inc., Security Benefit Corporation, and
Security Benefit Group, Inc., are represented by:

          Nicholas T. Christakos, Esq.
          Steuart H. Thomsen, Esq.
          W. Mark Smith, Esq.
          Phillip E. Stano, Esq.
          SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP
          1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-2415
          Telephone: (202) 383-0100

Defendant-Appellee Nationwide Life Insurance Company is
represented by:

          David J. Burman, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800
          Seattle, WA 98101-3099
          Telephone: (206) 359-8000

               - and -

          Charles Platt, Esq.
          Emily Meyers, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          399 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 230-8800

               - and -

          David Bowker, Esq.
          Mark Bieter, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 663-6000

The Secretary of Labor, as amicus curiae in support of the
Defendants-Appellees, is represented by.

          Melissa Bowman, Esq.
          Nathaniel I. Spiller, Esq.
          Timothy D. Hauser, Esq.
          Carol A. De Deo, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
          Frances Perkins Building
          200 Constitution Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20210
          Telephone: 1-866-4-USA-DOL (1-866-487-2365)


NEWALLIANCE BANCSHARES: Awaits Court Approval of Suits Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Newalliance Bancshares, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its
agreement in principle with plaintiffs of class action lawsuits
challenging a proposed merger among the Company, First Niagara
Financial Group, Inc., and FNFG Merger Sub, Inc., according to a
Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Dec. 6, 2010.

In August and September 2010, ten putative stockholder class
action complaints were filed against NewAlliance, First Niagara,
Merger Sub and/or the NewAlliance directors and certain officers
of NewAlliance challenging the proposed merger.  Seven of the
lawsuits were filed in the Connecticut Superior Court and the
remainder were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.

On September 28, 2010, the three Delaware actions were
consolidated into In re NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation (No. 5785-VCP), and the plaintiffs in the consolidated
action filed an amended complaint against NewAlliance, First
Niagara, Merger Sub, and the NewAlliance directors.  The amended
complaint added allegations challenging the accuracy of
disclosures in the preliminary Form S-4.

On October 19, 2010, the seven Connecticut actions were
transferred to the complex litigation docket in the Judicial
District of Stamford. The cases were consolidated on October 20
and, on October 22, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
against NewAlliance, First Niagara, and the NewAlliance directors.
The amended complaint added allegations challenging the accuracy
of disclosure in the preliminary Form S-4.

On October 18 and 19, 2010, the defendants filed motions in the
Connecticut Action and the Delaware Action requesting that the
courts direct the plaintiffs in both actions to confer and agree
on a single forum in which to litigate their claims, or if the
plaintiffs are unable to agree, that the courts confer and
designate a single forum, and that the cases in the other forum be
stayed.

On December 6, 2010, the parties to the Connecticut Action and the
Delaware Action reached an agreement in principle to resolve the
Connecticut Action and the Delaware Action.  The settlement
contemplated by the agreement will be submitted to the Connecticut
court for approval.  Immediately following final approval by the
Connecticut court of the settlement, the parties to the Delaware
Actions shall dismiss those actions with prejudice.  As part of
the settlement, the defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing
and deny that the disclosures in the joint proxy/statement
prospectus were inadequate but have agreed to provide supplemental
disclosures.  The settlement will not affect the timing of the
merger or the amount of consideration to be paid in the merger.


NORDSTROM INC: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime to Workers
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Nordstrom stiffs workers for
overtime, a class action claims in Superior Court.


OSTEOTECH INC: Defends Consolidated Suit Over Medtronic Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Osteotech, Inc., continues to defend itself against a consolidated
class action lawsuit filed by certain stockholders against the
Company's proposed merger with Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor
Danek, Inc., and England Merger Corporation, according to
Osteotech's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In August 2010, four class action complaints were filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, concerning the
Merger.

The first class action was instituted by certain individual
stockholders, individually and on behalf of all public
stockholders of the Company, against the Company, its board of
directors, presidents, and chief executive officer, as well as
Medtronic, MSD, and Merger Sub.  The complaint alleges breach of
fiduciary duty by the members of the board of directors arising
out of the attempt to sell the Company by means of an allegedly
unfair process with preclusive deal protection devices and at an
unfair price of $6.50 in cash for each share of Common Stock.  The
complaint also alleges that Medtronic aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the other defendants.

The other three class action complaints filed with respect to the
proposed Merger are substantially the same as the first action
filed.  The lawsuits have all been transferred to Chancery Court
of New Jersey, Monmouth County and consolidated.

An amended complaint was filed and has been designated as the
operative complaint in this consolidated action.  In addition to
the allegations, the amended complaint makes additional
allegations that the Company's proxy statement relative to the
special meeting of stockholders to be held on November 9, 2010 was
deficient because it did not disclose certain information about
the proposed Merger and the financial analysis performed by
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., the Company's financial advisor in
connection with the proposed merger.  The plaintiff also alleges
that the Company violated the corporate law of Delaware when it
canceled its annual stockholder meeting scheduled for August 23,
2010.

The parties have conducted limited discovery and the plaintiff has
filed a motion with the court for a temporary restraining order
to, among other things, delay the stockholder vote.  On Nov. 8,
2010, the Chancery Court of New Jersey denied the plaintiff's
motion for a temporary restraining order.

The Company believes the claims made against it in these cases are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in these
actions.


PET FOOD MANUFACTURERS: 3rd Cir. Rejects $24MM Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected the
$24 million settlement of a class action lawsuit over the largest
pet food recall to date.

A New Jersey federal court consolidated more than 100 class
actions over adulterated pet food and treats, and approved a
$24 million settlement in 2008.  Some pet owners also won
$8 million by certain pet food manufacturers or their insurers
through reimbursement claims programs.

The Philadelphia-based federal appeals court said it only took
issue with one aspect of the settlement, but that issue was enough
to vacate the settlement and remand back to the lower court.

Some members of the class objected to the settlement on several
grounds, including that the $250,000 allocated for purchase claims
was inadequate, rendering the settlement unfair and unreasonable.

"Objectors pointed out that no sales information for the recalled
food had been presented to the court and that there was no
information in the record that would allow the court to evaluate
whether $250,000 was a reasonable settlement for the purchase
claims," the 62-page ruling states.

The federal court approved the allocation because the recall
involved a defined number of products manufactured over roughly
four months and because many pet owners already received
compensation outside of the settlement.

In the 3rd Circuit's majority opinion, Judge Anthony Scirica wrote
that the refunds did not necessarily make the $250,000 allocation
fair and adequate.

"Under this set of facts -- where funds available for some claims
are capped while others are not -- the settling parties should
have provided the court with more detailed information about why
they settled on the $250,000 cap," Judge Scirica wrote.

The court ordered the settling parties to either produce relevant
information, or explain why it cannot make such production, on
remand.

In a separate opinion, Joseph Weis concurred with his colleagues'
findings, but added that he would have also directed the lower
court to reconsider attorneys' fees -- $7.44 million, or 31% of
the settlement -- and how to dispose of any remaining funds on
remand.

After administration of the settlement and payment of all valid
claims, the settlement agreement provides for any funds remaining
to be distributed to animal welfare groups in the United States
and Canada.  Judge Weis said the funds should instead go to the
government because such awards should only be applied in
charitable actions.

"There are no individuals whose wishes need be considered and
there is no intent to benefit charitable purposes that can be
attributed to the class members or the lawyers who established the
fund," Judge Weis wrote.  "Distribution to the class members who
have not received complete compensation should be considered
first.  If such payments are not feasible or are unduly difficult,
the fund should escheat to the government."

More than 60 million packages of pet food were recalled in
connection to contaminated ingredients from China that ChemNutra
and Wilbur Ellis supplied to multiple pet food manufacturers.

The pet food and treats were adulterated with melamine and
cyanuric acid, a deadly combination for small animals.

Menu Foods, an Ontario-based pet food manufacturer, announced a
recall of dozens of brands of wet pet food in March 2007 after the
food was linked to the deaths of several cats and dogs.  Four
other pet food manufacturers -- Hill's Pet Nutrition, Nestle
Purina Pet Care Company, Del Monte Pet Products and Sunshine Mills
-- followed suit.  By the end of 2007, about 180 brands of pet
food and treats produced by twelve different manufacturers were
recalled.

A copy of the Opinion of the Court in In Re: Pet Foods Products
Liability Litigation, Nos. 08-4741 & 08-4779 (3rd Cir.), is
available at:

     http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/084741p.pdf

Appellants, Jim W. Johnson and Dustin Turner, are represented by:

          D. J. Powers, Esq.
          301 Park Lane
          Austin, TX 78704

               - and -

          Robert E. Margulies, Esq.
          MARGULIES WIND
          Harborside Plaza 10
          3 Second Street, Suite 1201
          Jersey City, NJ 07311

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Weinstein, Esq.
          518 East Tyler Street
          Athens, TX 75751

Appellants, Margaret Picus and Daniel Kaffer, are represented by:

          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL & NORDREHAUG
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037

               - and -

          Daniel I. Ward, Esq.
          118 White Horse Road West
          Voorhees, NJ 08043

Appellees, Pet Owner Class Plaintiffs, are represented by:

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE
          55 West Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60603

               - and -

          Jeniphr Breckenridge, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101

               - and -

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432

               - and -

          Russell D. Paul, Esq.
          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103

               - and -

          Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq.
          TRUJILLO, RODRIGUEZ & RICHARDS
          258 Kings Highway East
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033

               - and -

          Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE
          455 Capitol Mall, Suite 231
          Sacramento, CA 95814

Appellees, Menu Foods Defendants, are represented by:

          Mary E. Gately, Esq.
          Cristen S. Rose, Esq.
          DLA PIPER
          500 8th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004

Appellees, PETCO Animal Supplies Stores, Inc.,
PetSmart, Inc., Target Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., are
represented by:

          Mark C. Goodman, Esq.
          SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY
          One Maritime Plaza, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94111

               - and -

          Joseph C. Weinstein, Esq.
          SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY
          4900 Key Tower
          127 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114

               - and -

          Evan S. Nadel, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG
          153 Townsend Street, 8th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94107

Appellee The Iams Company is represented by:

          D. Jeffrey Ireland, Esq.
          Brian D. Wright, Esq.
          FARUKI, IRELAND & COX
          10 North Ludlow Street
          500 Courthouse Plaza, S.W.
          Dayton, OH 45402

Appellee ChemNutra, Inc. is represented by:

          Anthony G. Brazil, Esq.
          MORRIS, POLICH & PURDY
          1055 West Seventh Street, 24th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017

Appellee Del Monte Foods Co. is represented by:

          Richard Fama, Esq.
          Russell G. Wheeler, Esq.
          COZEN & O'CONNOR
          45 Broadway Atrium, Suite 1600
          New York, NY 10006

Appellee Nestle Purina PetCare Company is represented by:

          Craig A. Hoover, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US
          Columbia Square
          555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20009

Appellee Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. is represented by:

          James D. Arden, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019

               - and -

          Steven A. Karg, Esq.
          NORRIS, MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS
          721 Route 202-206
          P.O. Box 5933
          Bridgewater, NJ 08807

Appellee Nutro Products, Inc. is represented by:

          Gary L. Justice, Esq.
          Gail E. Lees, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Pennington, Esq.
          William E. Wegner, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071

               - and -

          Mark Whitburn, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
          2100 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75201

Appellee Wilbur Ellis Company is represented by:

          Gary A. Bryant, Esq.
          WILLCOX & SAVAGE
          1800 Bank of America Center
          One Commercial Place
          Norfolk, VA 23510

Appellee Natural Balance Pet Foods, Inc. is represented by:

          Thomas P. Bracaglia, Esq.
          MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN
          1845 Walnut Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103


RHODE ISLAND: Mediation Ordered in Truancy Program Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
NECN reports the Rhode Island Supreme Court has ordered mediation
to resolve a class-action lawsuit over the state Family Court's
truancy program.

The American Civil Liberties Union and its Rhode Island affiliate
filed the lawsuit last March.  They say the truancy program
operates in secrecy and violates the rights of children and their
parents.

The Supreme Court has ordered mediation to begin Jan. 12, with
retired Chief Justice Joseph Weisberger as the mediator.

The Family Court's new chief judge issued an order in September
outlining the program's rules, including a requirement to record
all truancy proceedings.  But the ACLU says the order's provisions
still fall short of resolving its concerns.


ROBOMODO HOLDINGS: Sued for Violations of Ill. "WARN" Act
---------------------------------------------------------
Charles Christopher Johnson, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Robomodo Holdings, Inc. (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty. December 16, 2010), accuses Robomodo, in connection with the
mass layoff of between 39 and 60 of defendant's employees on
October 12, 2010, of failing to provide written advance notice, as
required by the Illinois Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act,
820 ILCS 65/1, et seq.

Mr. Johnson says he and the other Class members were not
terminated or laid off for cause of due to voluntary departure or
retirement.

Defendant Robomodo operates a video game development studio which
employed 75 or more full-time workers, including the plaintiff,
during the relevant time period covered by the Complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. Doherty, Esq.
          James M. Smith, Esq.
          Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH, LLC
          134 North La Salle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Faces Class Action Over Sales Reps' Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
The California employment law lawyers of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik filed a class action overtime lawsuit against Schering-
Plough, alleging that the pharmaceutical sales reps working for
Schering-Plough were mistreated as exempt from overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California
Labor Code.

Schering Plough was recently acquired by Merck, another large
pharmaceutical company.  The wage and hour lawsuit alleges, among
other things, that the sales reps working for Schering Plough were
not paid overtime compensation for working more than 40 hours in a
workweek.  The complaint contends that the sales reps are entitled
to overtime pay because they are not actually "making sales" which
is the threshold requirement for the outside salesperson exemption
from overtime pay.


SCICLONE PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties Dismiss Consolidated Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Parties to a consolidated class action lawsuit against SciClone
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., have agreed to voluntarily dismiss the
complaint, according to a Form 8-K filed by the Company on Dec. 1,
2010, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Two federal securities class actions had been filed in the
Northern District of California naming SciClone Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., and certain officers as defendants and the lawsuits had been
consolidated under the caption In re SciClone Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 10-03584-JW.

On November 24, 2010, all parties stipulated to the voluntary
dismissal of the consolidated class action lawsuit.  The dismissal
is without prejudice and the plaintiffs could re-file the
complaint at a later date.


SERACARE LIFE: Records $0.9MM Refund From Class Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc., recorded a $0.9 million refund in
November because monies reserved to cover legal expenses relating
to a class action lawsuit were not entirely used, according to the
company's Dec. 1, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30,
2010.

On March 22, 2006, the Company filed voluntary petitions for
relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California.
The Company emerged from bankruptcy protection under the Joint
Plan of Reorganization which was confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court
on February 21, 2007 and after each of the conditions precedent to
the consummation was satisfied or waived, became effective May 17,
2007.

As part of the Joint Plan of Reorganization, on September 4, 2007,
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California approved the motion for final settlement of a
previously filed shareholders' class action lawsuit and entered an
order of settlement and final judgment dismissing with prejudice
the claims. There were no objections to the final settlement.
Shareholders owning a nonmaterial number of shares opted out of
the final settlement. Pursuant to the settlement, $4.4 million was
provided pursuant to the Company's insurance policy with Carolina
Casualty, of which $3.0 million was awarded to the plaintiffs,
$0.5 million was reserved to cover ongoing legal expenses for
directors and officers related to a Securities and Exchange
Commission and Department of Justice investigation and the
remaining $0.9 million was reserved to cover the defendants'
previously incurred legal expenses.

During November 2010, the Company was informed that the monies
reserved to cover legal expenses were not entirely used and the
Company was refunded $0.9 million. The Company recorded the $0.9
million refund in November 2010.


SHIPPING COMPANIES: Feb. 2 Class Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Szakonyi, writing for Jacksonville Business Journal, reports
three shipping companies that operate between Jacksonville and
Puerto Rico have until Feb. 2 to decide whether to back out of a
$52.2 million settlement to an antitrust class action suit,
according to the Journal of Commerce.

U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Dominguez of San Juan said that
enough plaintiffs had rejected the settlement from Jacksonville-
based Crowley Maritime Corp. and Sea Star Line LLC, and Charlotte,
N.C.-based Horizon Lines Inc. to allow the companies to rescind
their offer, according to the logistics and trade magazine.  About
230 of the 1,470 plaintiffs involved in the lawsuits have opted
out of the settlement.

The settlement offer comes after three Horizon executives and two
Sea Star executives pleaded guilty last year to either antitrust
violations between 2002 and 2008, or concealing evidence regarding
the investigation.

The lawsuit accuses the companies of illegally fixing prices with
their competitors for transportation between Jacksonville and
Puerto Rico.  The trade lane is the Port of Jacksonville's most
entrenched route and more than 75 percent of the goods transported
between the mainland and the island come through Jacksonville.

The shipping companies denied overcharging customers and agreed to
a settlement to "avoid the costs and risks of a trial," according
to the settlement.  Some of the companies have dropped out because
about half of the settlement will go toward attorney fees, while
others opted out because they said they didn't know if they were
getting as much compensation as they deserved.


SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Continues to Defend Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, in its Dec. 2, 2010, Form 20-F filed
with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2010, disclosed that a securities class action
was filed in December 2009 against Siemens AG with the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York seeking
damages for alleged violations of U.S. securities laws. The
Company is defending itself against the action.

No further updates were reported in the company's latest Form
20-F.


SUNCOR ENERGY: Judge Blocks Gas Franchisees' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Drew Hasselback, writing for Postmedia News, reports an Ontario
judge has blocked efforts by gas station owners to launch a
$200-million class action law suit against Suncor Energy Products
Inc.

In a ruling issued Dec. 17, Judge Paul Perell of the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice held that the franchise agreement
between Suncor and 241 gas station owners doesn't trigger the
provisions of Ontario law that would have paved the way for the
suit to proceed as a class action.

The case flows from the merger between Suncor and Petro-Canada,
which took effect on Aug. 1, 2009.  The deal brought some
significant changes to independent gas stations operating under
the Sunoco brand.  Canada's competition regulator required that
Suncor and PetroCan divest almost 200 gas stations in Ontario.

Several of Suncor's Ontario gas station franchisees received word
their franchise agreements would be terminated.  The gas station
owners, therefore, launched a class action against Suncor in
January 2010.  They argued Suncor's actions violated an Ontario
franchise law called the Arthur Wishart Act.

The ensuing litigation came to a head this month.  The key moment
in class actions lawsuits is usually the hearing at which
plaintiffs' lawyers ask a judge to "certify" the proceeding.  In
this case, however, lawyers for both Suncor and the gas station
owners agreed to delay that hearing.  Instead, they argued motions
for summary judgment, with each side asking the judge to apply the
Arthur Wishart Act to the facts and determine who should win.

Judge Perell ruled in Suncor's favor, though in his written
decision he notes it is "inevitable" his judgment will be
appealed.

Larry Lowenstein, litigation partner with Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt
LLP in Toronto, argued the case for Suncor.  While he realizes the
matter will likely be appealed, he said it is notable to have a
judge rule on a $200-million lawsuit within a year of its
launching.  Earlier this year, Ontario changed its Rules of Civil
Procedure to make it easier to bring matters to a decision using
motions for summary judgment.

"This is high stakes, winner-takes-all litigation, and so far, so
good, as far as our client is concerned," Mr. Lowenstein said in
an interview.  "It's a melding of the summary judgment rule plus
the class actions proceeding which so successful here.  Going
forward, I make no secret of the fact that this is going to be
part of the defense lawyers' arsenal."


SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sycamore Networks, Inc., had until December 17, 2010, to answer
appeals from court approval of a settlement resolving coordinated
class action lawsuits related to its initial public offering,
according to the Company's December 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 30, 2010.

Beginning on July 2, 2001, several purported class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company and several of
its officers and directors and the underwriters for the Company's
initial public offering on October 21, 1999.  Some of the
complaints also include the underwriters for the Company's follow-
on offering on March 14, 2000.  An amended complaint, which is the
operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002 on behalf of
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between October
21, 1999 and December 6, 2000.  The amended complaint alleges
claims against the Company, several of the Individual Defendants
and the underwriters for violations under Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, primarily based on the
assertion that the Company's lead underwriters, the Company and
several of the Individual Defendants made material false and
misleading statements in the Company's Registration Statements and
Prospectuses filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or
the SEC, in October 1999 and March 2000 because of the failure to
disclose (a) the alleged solicitation and receipt of excessive and
undisclosed commissions by the underwriters in connection with the
allocation of shares of common stock to certain investors in the
Company's public offerings and (b) that certain of the
underwriters allegedly had entered into agreements with investors
whereby underwriters agreed to allocate the public offering shares
in exchange for which the investors agreed to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.
It also alleges claims against the Company, the Individual
Defendants and the underwriters under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, primarily based
on the assertion that the Company's lead underwriters, the Company
and the Individual Defendants defrauded investors by participating
in a fraudulent scheme and by making materially false and
misleading statements and omissions of material fact during the
period in question. The amended complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount.

The action against the Company is being coordinated with
approximately three hundred other nearly identical actions filed
against other companies. Due to the large number of nearly
identical actions, the court has ordered the parties to select up
to twenty "test" cases.  The Company's case has been selected as
one such test case.  As a result, among other things, the Company
will be subject to broader discovery obligations and expenses in
the litigation than non-test case issuer defendants.

On October 9, 2002, the court dismissed the Individual Defendants
from the case without prejudice.  This dismissal disposed of the
Section 15 and Section 20(a) claims without prejudice, because
these claims were asserted only against the Individual Defendants.
On October 13, 2004, the court denied the certification of a class
in the action against the Company with respect to the Section 11
claims alleging that the defendants made material false and
misleading statements in the Company's Registration Statement and
Prospectuses. The certification was denied because no class
representative purchased shares between the date of the IPO and
January 19, 2000 (the date unregistered shares entered the
market), and thereafter suffered a loss on the sale of those
shares.  The court certified a class in the action against the
Company with respect to the Section 10(b) claims alleging that the
Company and the Individual Defendants defrauded investors by
participating in a fraudulent scheme and by making materially
false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact
during the period in question.  On December 5, 2006, the Second
Circuit vacated the district court's class certification decision.
On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit panel denied a petition for
rehearing filed by the plaintiffs, but noted that the plaintiffs
could ask the district court to certify a more narrow class than
the one that was rejected.

On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class
Action complaint against the Company.  The Company and the
underwriters filed separate motions to dismiss the amended
complaint on November 14, 2007.  On March 26, 2008, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims but
dismissed certain Section 11 claims against the Company.  On
June 5, 2008, the Court dismissed the remaining Section 11 claims
against the Company in response to a motion for partial
reconsideration.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
the Company's case, reached a settlement.  The insurers for the
issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will make the
settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including the
Company.  On October 5, 2009, the Court granted final approval of
the settlement.

Two appeals by two objectors to the settlement are proceeding
before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  Appellees were
required to file answering briefs on December 17, 2010.
Additional objectors who filed notices of appeal have withdrawn
those appeals.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company
cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter.  If
the settlement does not survive appeal, the litigation continues,
and the Company is found liable, the Company is unable to estimate
or predict the potential damages that might be awarded, whether
such damages would be greater than the Company's insurance
coverage, and whether such damages would have a material impact on
its results of operations or financial condition in any future
period.

Sycamore Networks, Inc., engages in developing and marketing
intelligent bandwidth management solutions for fixed line and
mobile network operators worldwide. The Company is based in
Chelmsford, Mass.


SYNGENTA CROP: Motion to Quash Discovery Subpoena Moved
-------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
the parties in one of a series of proposed class action suits over
alleged water contamination by the weed killer atrazine have
pushed back a hearing on a move to quash a discovery request.

Attorneys for lead plaintiff Holiday Shores Sanitary District,
defendant Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. and non-party Du-Con
took the order to Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge on
Dec. 17.

That motion pushed back a Dec. 17 hearing on Syngenta's show cause
motion and Du-Con's motion to quash Syngenta's discovery subpoena
to Jan. 14 at 9 a.m.

Holiday Shores proposes to lead a class of Illinois municipalities
and water providers against Syngenta and the other makers and
distributors of atrazine.

The plaintiffs claim that atrazine runs off farm fields and
contaminates drinking water that they must then remediate.

The plaintiffs also contend that atrazine in amounts lower than a
three parts per billion limit set by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency can cause human health problems.

The suit is one of six proposed atrazine class actions filed in
2004 that are ongoing in Madison County.

None have been certified as yet.

Syngenta and the other defendants deny the claims.

Syngenta has tried unsuccessfully to have the Madison County case
dismissed.

The suit is currently at the Fifth District Appellate Court in
Mount Vernon due to issues related to an order covering third
party discovery signed by then presiding judge Madison County
Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder in September.

Additionally, Holiday Shores' attorneys, Stephen Tillery, Christie
Deaton and others, filed a nearly identical federal class action
over alleged atrazine contamination in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois.

That suit, headed by lead plaintiff the City of Greenville, Ill.,
includes a potential class of water providers in Missouri, Kansas,
Ohio and other states.

Plaintiffs from Indiana were thrown out of the federal suit
earlier this year when U.S. District Court Judge J. Phil Gilbert
found that Indiana law did not give them remedy.

Du-Con filed to quash a discovery subpoena issued by Syngenta Nov.
16.

In its filing, Du-Con claims that the documents the defendant
seeks are in the hands of Holiday Shores and that an employee
Syngenta wishes to depose works at the sanitary district, not at
Du-Con's sites.

According to the Dec. 17 order, Du-Con attorney Bob Perica asked
for a continuance.

The other parties agreed.

The hearing was also set to take up a defense motion for rule to
show cause.

Mr. Tillery and his team represent the plaintiffs in all of the
atrazine cases.

Kurtis Reeg, Paul Knobbe, Timothy McGuire and others represent
Syngenta.

The Syngenta case is Madison case number 04-L-710.

The atrazine cases are case numbers 04-L-708 to 04-L-713.


TCF FINANCIAL: Minnesota Court Stays Suit Over Posting Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
As reported by the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 17, 2010, TCF
Financial Corporation was named in a putative class action
filed in August 2010, challenging TCF's checking account posting
practices as a breach of contract and as a violation of state
consumer fraud statutes.  The plaintiffs seek damages and other
relief, including restitution.  TCF's account agreement with the
customer contains an arbitration provision under which the named
plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate disputes such as this in an
individual (as opposed to class action) arbitration.  TCF is
seeking to enforce the arbitration agreement in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota, and the plaintiffs
have sought to stay arbitration pending a possible transfer of the
case to multi-district litigation in the Southern District of
Florida, in which numerous other putative class actions against
financial institutions asserting similar claims are pending.  TCF
believes its arbitration provision is valid and enforceable and
that in any event it has meritorious defenses to the claims
brought by the plaintiffs.

In a Dec. 1, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, TCF disclosed that on November 24, 2010, the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted
TCF's motion to compel individual arbitration of all claims by
plaintiffs and stayed further proceedings in the legal action.


TORONTO COMMUNITY: Fire Victims File $80 Million Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Alcoba, writing for National Post, reports Jo-Anne Blair
has filed a class action lawsuit against Toronto Community
Housing.

Ms. Blair has a hard time sleeping at night.  She constantly
checks to see that her smoke alarm is working.  The wail of a fire
truck sends her into a fit of panic and she smells things burning
even when nothing is.

It has been nearly three months since a fire ripped through a
high-rise building on Wellesley Street and forced some 1,500
people to flee their homes.  Most have been able to return, but
not Ms. Blair, who lived across the hall from the purported
epicenter of the blaze.  She was marooned on her balcony for six
hours before firefighters gave her a thumbs-up through the sliding
door and escorted her out through water that came up past their
ankles.

A week later, Toronto Community Housing had relocated her to a
townhouse near Main and Danforth, where she's had to "beg, borrow
and steal to get some furniture to sit on."  Grateful for her
share of the donations collected from across the city, she longs
to return home.  "You can sit at your table in the morning and can
have your coffee.  You go to bed at night and you have your own
pillow," said Ms. Blair, a former bookkeeper who lived at 200
Wellesley since 1984.  "When you get up in the morning, do you
look at your children's pictures [or] your personals that belong
to you?"

She is spearheading a lawsuit against Toronto Community Housing
Corporation, which owns the complex, and Greenwin Property
Management, which looked after it, alleging they breached their
duty of care.  She is suing both parties for $80-million, with the
intent that the proceedings are certified as a class-action.

In a statement of claim filed with the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, Ms. Blair alleges that she, "on several occasions,"
alerted Greenwin to the potential fire hazard caused by a
neighbor's "hoarding" of stacks of paper and other material.

Fire officials initially said a lot of combustible material in a
unit on the 24th floor appeared to be fuelling the flames, but the
cause remains unknown.  The Office of the Ontario Fire Marshall is
investigating.

"Notwithstanding these warnings, Greenwin failed to make any, or
did make inadequate attempts, if any, to remedy the problem,"
according to the statement of claim.  It alleges the defendants
failed to keep the building up to fire, or safety codes (her fire
alarm did not go off) and didn't help occupants obtain adequate
shelter, food or medicine in the aftermath of the crisis.

"It's not about being uncaring, because I don't think TCHC is
uncaring.  I think they care, they're in the social housing
business," said Brian Shell, Esq., Ms. Blair's lawyer.  "I think
it's about the inability to effectively reach out to the community
at a moment of high stress and tension.  It may be an issue of
expertise, or it may be just an issue of lack of creativity.  Too
many things going on.  They are focused on how to figure out how
to dry off the building, but they've forgotten they have hundreds
of people spread out across the city."

A spokesman for Greenwin said it was "prudent" not to comment on a
matter that is before the courts.  Mitzie Hunter, chief
administrator for the housing authority, similarly would not
discuss allegations made in the suit.

She said TCH has done everything in its power to help.

"We've provided alternative housing, food vouchers, transit
passes.  Immediately following, there was assistance through the
Canadian Red Cross, the Salvation Army, all of the agencies
throughout the city.  So we certainly want to ensure that tenants
have the support they need," said Ms. Hunter.  Toronto public
health has been on scene, she said, there is an onsite information
desk, a 24-hour hotline and frequent newsletter updates.

In recent weeks, TCH has also offered tenants a voluntary
compensation package, while admitting no liability.  Tenants who
live in a bachelor apartment are eligible to receive $3,300; a two
bedroom gets $5,300, plus additional amounts for each occupant for
the unit.  They have until Jan. 21 to sign up for a check.  In
exchange, tenants give up their right to participate in the class-
action suit, which lawyers say is unlikely to be certified before
the Jan. 21 deadline.

"We've offered to help on a compassionate basis so that tenants
can return to their normal lives as soon as possible," said
Ms. Hunter, who noted that former Chief Justice of Ontario Roy
McMurtry, Senior Counsel for TCH solicitors Gowlings, has endorsed
the plan over what could be an otherwise lengthy legal battle.

Ms. Blair may very well be reliving the day for much longer.

"To this day I will never ever be placed in another apartment.  I
don't trust anybody with anything.  I'm constantly having
nightmares like I'm trapped and I can't get out."


ULTA SALON: Awaits Court Approval of Settlement Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------
The approval of a settlement agreement resolving a putative
employment class action lawsuit against Ulta Salon, Cosmetics &
Fragrance, Inc., remains pending, according to the company's
Dec. 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 30, 2010.

In July 2009, a putative employment class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain unnamed defendants in State Court
in California.  The suit alleges that Ulta misclassified its store
General Managers and Salon Managers as exempt from the Fair Labor
Standards Act and California Labor Code.  The suit seeks to
recover damages and penalties as a result of this alleged
misclassification.

On Aug. 27, 2009, the company filed its answer to the lawsuit, and
on Aug. 31, 2009 the company moved the action to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.  On Nov. 2, 2009,
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding another named
plaintiff.  On May 26, 2010, the company and plaintiffs engaged in
a voluntary mediation.

The company relates that although it continues to deny plaintiffs'
allegations, in the interest of putting the Salon Manager claims
behind it, the company agreed in principle to settle all claims of
the putative Salon Manager class.  The settlement, which is not an
admission of liability, is subject to final documentation and
Court approval.  Counsel for the plaintiffs has agreed to dismiss
without prejudice the claims of the General Managers.

Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. -- http://www.ulta.com/--
is a beauty retailer that that provides one-stop shopping for
prestige, mass and salon products and salon services in the United
States.


ULTA SALON: Still Defending Wage Violations Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., is still defending a
putative employment class action lawsuit alleging violations of
the California labor laws, according to the company's Dec. 2,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 30, 2010.

In May, 2010, a putative employment class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain unnamed defendants in State Court
in California.  The plaintiff and members of the proposed class
are alleged to be (or have been) nonexempt hourly employees.  The
suit alleges that Ulta violated various provisions of the
California labor laws and failed to provide plaintiff and members
of the proposed class with full meal periods, paid rest breaks,
certain wages, overtime compensation and premium pay.  The suit
seeks to recover damages and penalties as a result of these
alleged practices.

On June 21, 2010, the company filed its answer to the lawsuit.
Although the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to
the claims made in the putative class action and the Company
intends to contest the lawsuit vigorously, an adverse resolution
could have a material adverse effect on its financial position and
results of operations in the period in which the lawsuit is
resolved. The Company is not presently able to reasonably estimate
potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit.

Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. -- http://www.ulta.com/--
is a beauty retailer that that provides one-stop shopping for
prestige, mass and salon products and salon services in the United
States.


UTI WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide, Inc., disclosed in its Dec. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 31, 2010, that it continues to defend itself
against a federal antitrust class action lawsuit pending in New
York.

The Company (along with several other global logistics providers)
has been named as a defendant in a federal antitrust class action
lawsuit filed on January 3, 2008, in the United States District
Court of the Eastern District of New York (Precision Associates,
Inc., et. al. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd., et.
al.).  The lawsuit alleges that the defendants engaged in various
forms of anti-competitive practices and seeks an unspecified
amount of treble monetary damages and injunctive relief under U.S.
antitrust laws.

The Company has incurred, and expects to continue to incur,
significant legal fees and other costs in connection with the
governmental investigations and lawsuits.  If the U.S. Department
of Justice, the European Commission, or any other regulatory body
concludes that the Company has engaged in anti-competitive
behavior, the Company could incur significant additional legal
fees and other costs, which could include fines and penalties,
which may be material to the Company's consolidated financial
statements.


VIVENDI SA: King & Spalding Sues Over Unpaid Legal Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for New York Law Journal, reports King &
Spalding is suing Vivendi S.A. over its failure to pay legal fees
billed for the defense of its ex-CEO following a jury verdict in a
rare securities class action trial that resulted in a verdict
against the Paris-based telecommunication and entertainment
company.

In a lawsuit filed two weeks ago in Manhattan Supreme Court, King
& Spalding said Vivendi had not paid nearly $866,000 in fees
billed in the defense of Jean-Marie Messier, the former CEO who
was cleared of liability at the trial in January.  King &
Spalding, which continues to represent Mr. Messier post-trial and
in other lawsuits, sought damages for those fees and an order
directing Vivendi to pay all of his fees going forward.

A spokeswoman for Vivendi declined comment.  Michael J. Malone,
Messier's lawyer at King & Spalding and the one who filed the
suit, did not return a call seeking comment.

In its complaint, King & Spalding said it had represented Messier
in various legal actions since 2002, initially to represent him in
an arbitration over Vivendi's refusal to honor his severance.  An
arbitration panel in 2003 awarded Mr. Messier $23.4 million, which
he later agreed to surrender as part of a settlement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission over securities fraud charges.

King & Spalding represented Messier in various lawsuits alleging
fraud.   Mr. Messier's fees were initially paid for out of
insurance, but that became "severely depleted" by 2007, the
complaint said.  Vivendi agreed in writing to pay King &
Spalding's fees going forward.

The first of the suits went to trial in 2009, resulting in a
verdict that plaintiffs lawyers have said could result in $9.3
billion in damages against Vivendi.  The jury found Mr. Messier
not liable, but he continued to need legal counsel during post-
trial briefing and for what will certainly be an appeal.  King &
Spalding said possibly because of that result, Vivendi stopped
paying Mr. Messier's fees, which the firm called "unjustified and
wrongful."  Mr. Messier assigned the law firm his right and
interest in the amounts due, the complaint said.


WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Defend Gender Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit alleging gender discrimination, according to the
Company's Dec. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2010.

The Company is a defendant in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a
class-action lawsuit commenced in June 2001 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
complaint alleges that the Company has engaged in a pattern and
practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training and job assignments.  The complaint seeks, among other
things, injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages
and attorneys' fees.

On June 21, 2004, the district court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The class, which was certified by the district
court for purposes of liability, injunctive and declaratory
relief, punitive damages and lost pay, subject to certain
exceptions, includes all women employed at any Walmart domestic
retail store at any time since December 26, 1998, who have been or
may be subjected to the pay and management track promotions
policies and practices challenged by the plaintiffs.

On August 31, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit granted the Company's petition for discretionary
review of the ruling.  On February 6, 2007, a divided three-judge
panel of the court of appeals issued a decision affirming the
district court's certification order.  On February 20, 2007, the
Company filed a petition asking that the decision be reconsidered
by a larger panel of the court.  On December 11, 2007, the three-
judge panel withdrew its opinion of February 6, 2007, and issued a
revised opinion.  As a result, the Company's Petition for
Rehearing En Banc was denied as moot.

The Company filed a new Petition for Rehearing En Banc on
January 8, 2008.  On February 13, 2009, the court of appeals
issued an Order granting the Petition. On April 26, 2010, the
Ninth Circuit issued a divided (6-5) opinion affirming certain
portions of the district court's ruling and reversing other
portions.  On August 25, 2010, the Company filed a petition for a
writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, seeking
review of the Ninth Circuit's decision.

On September 17, 2010, the district court judge extended the stay
of proceedings in the district court until the earlier of (1)
thirty days after the Supreme Court's ruling on the Company's
petition, or (2) December 30, 2010.

If the Company is not successful in its appeal of class
certification, or an appellate court issues a ruling that allows
for the certification of a class or classes with a different size
or scope, and if there is a subsequent adverse verdict on the
merits from which there is no successful appeal, or in the event
of a negotiated settlement of the litigation, the resulting
liability could be material to the Company's financial condition
or results of operations. The plaintiffs also seek punitive
damages which, if awarded, could result in the payment of
additional amounts material to the Company's financial condition
or results of operations. However, because of the uncertainty of
the outcome of the appeal, because of the uncertainty of the
balance of the proceedings contemplated by the district court, and
because the Company's liability, if any, arising from the
litigation, including the size of any damages awarded if
plaintiffs are successful in the litigation or any negotiated
settlement, could vary widely, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from
the litigation.


WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Defend Wage-and-Hour Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits alleging wage-and-hour violations, according to
the Company's Dec. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2010.

The Company is a defendant in various cases containing class-
action allegations in which the plaintiffs are current and former
hourly associates who allege that the Company committed wage-and-
hour violations by failing to provide rest breaks, meal periods,
or other benefits, or otherwise by failing to pay them correctly.
The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages,
injunctive relief, or both. The Company cannot reasonably estimate
the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from these
lawsuits, except where the lawsuit has been settled or otherwise.

In one of the wage-and-hour lawsuits, Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., a trial was commenced in September 2006, in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs allege that the Company
failed to pay class members for all hours worked and prevented
class members from taking their full meal and rest breaks. On
October 13, 2006, the jury awarded back-pay damages to the
plaintiffs of approximately $78 million on their claims for off-
the-clock work and missed rest breaks. The jury found in favor of
the Company on the plaintiffs' meal-period claims. On November 14,
2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in the approximate
amount of $188 million, which included the jury's back-pay award
plus statutory penalties, prejudgment interest and attorneys'
fees. The Company believes it has substantial factual and legal
defenses to the claims at issue, and on December 7, 2007, the
Company filed its Notice of Appeal.


WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Defend Suits Over Exempt Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits wherein plaintiffs are challenging their exempt
status, according to the Company's Dec. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 31, 2010.

The Company is a defendant in several cases in which the
plaintiffs seek class or collective certification of various
groups of salaried managers, and challenge their exempt status
under state and federal laws.

In one of those cases (Sepulveda v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.), class
certification was denied by the trial court on May 5, 2006.  On
April 25, 2008, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's ruling in
part and reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  On May 16, 2008, the Company filed a petition
seeking review of that ruling by a larger panel of the court. On
October 10, 2008, the court entered an Order staying all
proceedings in the Sepulveda appeal pending the final disposition
of the appeal in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.  Class
certification has not been addressed in the other cases. The
Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss that may arise from these lawsuits.


ZUMIEZ INC: Paid $1.38 Million in "Johnson" Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zumiez Inc. paid out on August 10, 2010, $1.38 million pursuant to
a settlement of a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
California Labor Code, according to the company's Dec. 2, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Oct. 30, 2010.

On March 5, 2008, a former employee commenced an action against
the Company in California state court (Evan Johnson v. Zumiez,
Inc., et al., Case No. RG08374968, Alameda County Superior Court,
filed March 5, 2008) alleging that the company failed to pay all
overtime wages owing to him and other employees in California,
failed to provide meal breaks as required by California law,
failed to provide employees with proper itemized wage statements
(pay stubs) as required by California law, and failed to pay
terminated employees waiting time penalties under California Labor
Code section 203.

The court granted preliminary approval of a settlement on
March 16, 2010, and issued an order granting final approval on
July 23, 2010. No class members objected to the settlement and
only four class members opted out of the settlement. The total
amount of the negotiated settlement is $1.38 million. This entire
amount was paid out in settlement awards to the class members,
attorneys' fees and costs, claims administration fees and other
payments required by the settlement, with no reversion of
unclaimed funds to the Company. This accrued charge was recorded
in selling, general and administrative expenses on the condensed
consolidated statement of operations for the three months ended
August 1, 2009, and was paid out on August 10, 2010.

Zumiez Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is a leading specialty
retailer of action sports related apparel, footwear, equipment and
accessories.  The company's stores cater to young men and women
between ages 12-24, focusing on skateboarding, surfing,
snowboarding, motocross and BMX.  As of Aug. 28, 2010 the company
operates 396 stores, which are primarily located in shopping
malls.


ZUMIEZ INC: Awaits Court Approval of $2.1 Million Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zumiez Inc. is awaiting court approval of its settlement agreement
resolving a putative class action captioned Chandra Berg et al. v.
Zumiez Inc., for $2.1 million, according to the company's Dec. 2,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 30, 2010.

A putative class action was filed against the company in the Los
Angeles Superior Court under case number BC408410 on Feb. 25,
2009.  The Complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay
overtime wages to present and former store managers in California,
failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks to store managers,
failure to reimburse retail employees for clothing required by the
company's dress code, failure to reimburse retail employees for
business expenses, failure to provide store managers with accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to pay terminated store managers
all wages due at the time of termination, unfair business
practices and declaratory relief.

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on April 2, 2010, which
added an additional plaintiff and class representative and a new
cause of action for penalties for alleged Labor Code violations
under the Private Attorneys General Act.  The company filed an
answer to the First Amended Complaint and conducted discovery.

On Feb. 8, 2010, the company attended a mediation wherein no
settlement was reached.

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, and the
company filed its opposition to class certification.  Plaintiffs'
reply papers were filed on Aug. 2, 2010.

On Sept. 1, 2010, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement to settle.  The settlement agreement, which is subject
to documentation and court approval, is expected to cost the
company approximately $2.1 million which includes settlement
awards to class members, incentive payments to the two plaintiffs,
attorneys' fees and costs, and claims administration costs.  This
accrued charge was recorded in selling, general and administrative
expenses in the condensed consolidated statement of operations for
the three months ended July 31, 2010.

Zumiez Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is a leading specialty
retailer of action sports related apparel, footwear, equipment and
accessories.  The company's stores cater to young men and women
between ages 12-24, focusing on skateboarding, surfing,
snowboarding, motocross and BMX.  As of Aug. 28, 2010 the company
operates 396 stores, which are primarily located in shopping
malls.


* Dutch & UK Pension Funds Aim to Recoup EUR3.9BB in Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Clancy, writing for Investment International, reports Northern
European pension funds are set to try to recuperate EUR3.9 billion
in class action law suits connected to losses suffered at the peak
of the financial markets crisis in 2008, according to a new
report.

The funds from Germany, the UK, Ireland, France and the
Netherlands have lost more than EUR450 billion on their
investments in 2008.  More than EUR60 billion of these losses
originated from their US investments, says the report from GOAL
Group, the leading global class action services specialist.

Dutch pension funds suffered the most colossal losses of EUR28
billion, followed closely by the UK pension funds at EUR26
billion, considerably ahead of the losses seen in France, Ireland
and Germany at EUR3.4 billion, EUR2.4 billion and EUR485 million
respectively.

The report also highlights that if class action participation
rates do not improve, a number of Northern European pension funds
will effectively forego their right to recoup in total
approximately EUR1 billion of recoverable funds.  This is a wake-
up call to pension funds that are currently missing out on their
legal right to claim damages through the US courts.

If investors and fund managers are to recoup a proportion of their
losses through class action litigation, either in US or European
courts, now is the time to become actively involved in the filing
and participation process, the report added.

The losses experienced by Northern European pension funds in 2008
have been on such a large scale that only a fraction has so far
been recouped.  While some cases are resolved within two years of
being filed, many, as effectively demonstrated by the high profile
case against Enron, will take several years before reaching
resolution or settlement.

A study by Nera Consulting showed that at the end of 2009, over
four fifths of filings related to the financial markets crisis
were still unresolved.  For cases filed in 2008 and 2009, median
investor losses rose by two fifths compared to previous years, to
over $500 million.

Securities class actions experienced a surge in the second quarter
of 2010, with the annual number of filings set to be more than
experienced in 2008, yet fewer than in 2009.

However, total settlement amounts in the first half of 2010 fell
in comparison to 2009 levels.  Once these credit crunch related
cases come to resolution, the number and the size of settlements
are likely to increase, as quantified by GOAL's research.

Whilst pressure exerted on pension funds by the economic downturn
appears to be easing, there is nevertheless a pressing duty of
care for institutional investors and fund managers to act now if
they are to recoup significant losses suffered at the peak of the
financial markets crisis.

The recent abundance of high profile cases in the UK and
throughout Northern Europe has helped raise awareness of the
opportunities to claim.  In March 2009, Merseyside and North
Yorkshire pension funds filed a motion to become lead plaintiffs
in a US securities class action against Royal Bank of Scotland.
Similarly, Avon Pension Fund, was granted lead plaintiff status in
a case against UK listed GlaxoSmithKline, Other examples include
Lothian Pension Fund and the Northern Ireland Local Government
Officer Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC) which were both granted
co-lead plaintiff status in August 2008 against Lehman Bros over
their mortgage backed securities.

"Our research shows that aside from employing class actions to
fulfill corporate governance responsibilities, there is a growing
need for pension funds within the Northern European region to plug
the escalating pensions gap, particularly as a result of losses
suffered during the financial markets crisis," said Stephen
Everard, Managing Director, GOAL Group.

"As credit crisis borne cases continue to be brought through 2010,
filings are likely to give way to Ponzi scheme allegation cases
and standard securities actions.  Fund managers should therefore
be proactively filing and participating in class actions now, if
they are to be included in what are likely to be the most sizeable
settlements over the next three to five years, those emerging from
the economic crisis," he added.


                             *********

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  * * *