CAR_Public/101228.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, December 28, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 255

                             Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Decertification Motion Remains Pending
APPLE AMERICAN: Faces Class Action Over Jersey Uniform Policy
AVAYA INC: Court Gives Final Approval of NJ Suit Settlement
DEFENSE CONTRACTORS: "Burn Pit" Class Action Stalls

DEL MONTE FOODS: Defends Six Merger-Related Suits in Del. & Calif.
DEL MONTE FOODS: Motion to Dismiss Labor Suit in Minnesota Pending
DEL MONTE FOODS: To Pay $0.2MM Under Settlement & Modify Labels
DEL MONTE FOODS: Remains a Defendant in Recall-Related Suits
DOCTORS & CHIROPRACTORS: Sued Over Insurance Fraud Conspiracy

EGG PRODUCERS: Giant Eagle Files Class Action Over Price-Fixing
FRAMINGHAM: May Face Class Action Over Special Education Program
HARTFORD CASUALTY: Sued Over Sewer Backup Damage Claims Policy
J. CREW GROUP: Defends 9 Stockholder Suits in Delaware & New York
LEGALZOOM.COM: Suit by Mo. Lawyers Can Proceed as Class Action

LTX-CREDENCE CORP: D&Os Sued Over Sale of Company to Verigy
MACQUARIE BANK: Faces Class Action Over Investor Losses
MARSHALL & ILSLEY: Being Sold to BMO for Too Little, Suit Claims
MEAD JOHNSON: Sued for Deceptive and Misleading Advertising
MYTRAVEL CANADA: Norovirus-Infected Vacationers Win Class Action

NAACP ATLANTA: November Elections Invalid, Suit Claims
NVIDIA CORP: Court Gives Final Approval to GPU Consumer Settlement
NVIDIA CORP: Faces 2nd Consolidated Amended Complaint in Calif.
PFIZER INC: Shareholder Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Mar. 7
PIONEER FOOD: Takes Action v. Managers Involved in Price-Fixing

TENET HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Community Health Systems Buyout
TERRE HAUTE: ACLU Seeks to Add Two Plaintiffs in Prayer Suit
TIVO INC: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
TORONTO COMMUNITY: Legal Aid Offered to Fire Victims Questioned
UNITED STATES: Cobell Class Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval

UNITED STATES: $3.4BB Cobell Class Action Settlement Challenged
WINDOWWIZARDS: On Brink of Settling Class Action
WORLD RESERVE: Sued in California Over Bait-and-Switch Scams
YOUR FRIENDS: Former Employees File Class Action to Get Wages
* U.S. Securities Class-Action Filings to Reach 239 by Year-End

* Thailand's Class Action Bill to Be Sent to Parliament



                             *********

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. has been dismissed from a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit following approval of a settlement
with plaintiffs, according to the Company's Dec. 7, 2010 Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended October 30, 2010.

On Sept. 2, 2005, a purported class action, styled Robert Ross v.
Abercrombie & Fitch Company, et al., was filed against A&F 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 A&F's Common Stock
between June 2, 2005 and August 16, 2005.

In September and October 2005, five other purported class actions
were subsequently filed against A&F and other defendants in the
same Court.

All six securities cases allege claims under the federal
securities laws related to sales of Common Stock by certain
defendants and to a decline in the price of A&F's Common Stock
during the summer of 2005, allegedly as a result of misstatements
attributable to A&F.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages.

On Nov. 1, 2005, a motion to consolidate all of these purported
class actions into the first-filed case was filed by some of the
plaintiffs.  A&F joined in that motion.

On March 22, 2006, the motions to consolidate were granted, and
these actions -- together with the federal court derivative cases
described in the following paragraph -- were consolidated for
purposes of motion practice, discovery and pretrial proceedings.

A consolidated amended securities class action complaint was filed
on Aug. 14, 2006. On Oct. 13, 2006, all defendants moved to
dismiss that Complaint.  On Aug. 9, 2007, the Court denied the
motions to dismiss.  On Sept. 14, 2007, defendants filed answers
denying the material allegations of the Complaint and asserting
affirmative defenses.  On Oct. 26, 2007, plaintiffs moved to
certify their purported class. After briefing and argument, the
motion was submitted on March 24, 2009, and granted on May 21,
2009.  On June 5, 2009, defendants petitioned the Sixth Circuit
for permission to appeal the class certification order and on
Aug. 24, 2009, the Sixth Circuit granted leave to appeal.

On May 26, 2010, after mediation which commenced on May 17, 2010,
the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
consolidated cases as a class action, subject to Court approval.

On September 24, 2010, the District Court approved the settlement
and dismissed the class action.  The dismissal has now become
final.

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. -- http://www.abercrombie.com/-- is a
specialty retailer that operates stores selling casual apparel,
such as knit shirts, graphic t-shirts, jeans, woven shirts,
shorts, as well as personal care and other accessories for men,
women and kids under the Abercrombie & Fitch, Abercrombie,
Hollister and RUEHL brands.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Decertification Motion Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' motion for decertification remains pending in the case
Lisa Hashimoto, et al., v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie
& Fitch Stores, Inc., according to the company's Dec. 7, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter period October 30, 2010.

On June 23, 2006, Lisa Hashimoto, et al., v. Abercrombie & Fitch
Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles.  Plaintiffs alleged, on behalf of a putative class
of California store managers employed in Hollister and abercrombie
kids stores, that they were entitled to receive overtime pay as
"non-exempt" employees under California wage and hour laws.  The
complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief, unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid benefits, penalties, interest and
attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants answered the complaint
on Aug. 21, 2006, denying liability.

On June 23, 2008, the defendants settled all claims of Hollister
and abercrombie kids store managers who served in stores from
June 23, 2002 through April 30, 2004, but continued to oppose the
plaintiffs' remaining claims.

On Jan. 29, 2009, the Court certified a class consisting of all
store managers who served at Hollister and abercrombie kids stores
in California from May 1, 2004 through the future date upon which
the action concludes. The parties then continued to litigate the
claims of that putative class.

On May 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice that they did not
intend to continue to pursue their claim that members of the class
did not exercise independent managerial judgment and discretion.
They also asked the Court to vacate the Aug. 9, 2010 trial date
previously set by the Court.  On July 20, 2010, the trial court
vacated the trial date and defendants then moved to decertify the
putative class.

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. -- http://www.abercrombie.com/-- is a
specialty retailer that operates stores selling casual apparel,
such as knit shirts, graphic t-shirts, jeans, woven shirts,
shorts, as well as personal care and other accessories for men,
women and kids under the Abercrombie & Fitch, Abercrombie,
Hollister and RUEHL brands.


APPLE AMERICAN: Faces Class Action Over Jersey Uniform Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Apple American Group, which
runs 49 Applebee's restaurants in California, requires its workers
to buy football jersey uniforms out of their own pockets, a class
action claims in Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Anderson v. Apple American Group LLC,
et al., Case No. 34-2010-00093705 (Calif. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/21/Applebees.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
          Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW
          75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235-7140


AVAYA INC: Court Gives Final Approval of NJ Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Avaya, Inc., disclosed in its Dec. 7, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2010, that it has obtained final approval of
its settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit pending in
New Jersey.  That lawsuit is now dismissed.

In April and May of 2005, purported class action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
against Avaya and certain of its officers, alleging violations of
the federal securities laws.  The actions purport to be filed on
behalf of purchasers of Avaya common stock during the period from
October 5, 2004 (the date of the Company's signing of the
agreement to acquire Tenovis Germany GmbH) through April 19, 2005,
when the Company's common stock was traded on the New York Stock
Exchange.  The complaints, which are substantially similar to one
another, allege, among other things, that the plaintiffs were
injured by reason of certain allegedly false and misleading
statements made by Avaya relating to the cost of the integration
of Tenovis Germany GmbH, which was acquired in December 2004, the
disruption caused by changes in the delivery of the Company's
products to the market and reductions in the demand for Avaya
products in the U.S., and that based on the foregoing Avaya had no
basis to project its stated revenue goals for fiscal 2005.  The
complaints seek compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys'
fees.

In August 2005, the court entered an order identifying a lead
plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel.  A consolidated amended
complaint was filed in October 2005.  Pursuant to a scheduling
order issued by the District Court, defendants filed their motion
to dismiss the consolidated complaint in December 2005.  In
September 2006, the District Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the case in its entirety and with prejudice, which was
appealed by the plaintiffs.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in April
2009, affirming in part and reversing in part, the District
Court's decision.  Although the appeals court's decision dismissed
most of plaintiffs' claims, a portion of the complaint alleging
that one of the defendants in March 2005 made a misleading
statement about price competition has been remanded to the
District Court for further proceeding.  The court thus limited the
class period to the time of March 3, 2005 to April 19, 2005.  The
parties have entered into a memorandum of understanding and
proposed settlement agreement to resolve this matter.

On September 27, 2010, the District Court entered a Final Judgment
and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice, approving the settlement.

Avaya, Inc. -- http://www.avaya.com/-- is a supplier of
communications systems and software for enterprise customers.


DEFENSE CONTRACTORS: "Burn Pit" Class Action Stalls
---------------------------------------------------
Renee Dudley, writing for The Post and Courier, reports a class-
action lawsuit is stalled temporarily for more than a dozen South
Carolina veterans and defense contractors who allege their
exposure to toxic fumes from burning waste dumps in Iraq and
Afghanistan made them sick.

A U.S. District judge in Maryland issued an order earlier this
month that he will wait for the outcomes of three related cases
before deciding how to proceed with the so-called "burn pit"
lawsuit.

The order puts the case on hold for at least several months, said
Melissa Allan, a spokeswoman for Mount Pleasant-based Motley Rice,
one of two law firms handling the suits nationally.

The suit, filed in South Carolina in June 2009, is among 43 suits
across the country that alleges fumes from smoldering dump sites,
also called "burn pits," caused cancer, respiratory problems and
other illnesses.

Plaintiffs in the 43 cases say Texas-based defense contractors
ignored the terms of their government contracts requiring them to
safely dispose of waste, and instead burned everything from tires
to human body parts in massive pits.

The Houston contractors, KBR Inc. and Halliburton Co., which
received billions of dollars from the federal government, have
denied the allegations.

The plaintiffs have requested a jury trial and unspecified damages
and attorney's fees to compensate for allegations that include
negligence and breach of contract.


DEL MONTE FOODS: Defends Six Merger-Related Suits in Del. & Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Foods Company is defending itself against six class
action lawsuits related to its merger agreement with funds
affiliated with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., Vestar
Capital Partners and Centerview Partners, according to the
Company's Dec. 7, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2010.

On November 25, 2010, Del Monte announced that it had signed a
definitive agreement under which an investor group led by funds
affiliated with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., Vestar Capital
Partners and Centerview Partners will acquire all of the company's
outstanding stock for $19.00 per share in cash.  The company has
subsequently been named as a defendant in six putative class
actions related to the Transaction.

The company is a defendant in these cases:

   * Vivian Golombuski and all others similarly situated v. Del
     Monte, each member of the board of directors of the Company,
     and KKR, Vestar, Centerview, Blue Acquisition Group, Inc.,
     and Blue Merger Sub, Inc. -- Buyers -- filed on November 30,
     2010, in Delaware Chancery Court;

   * Thomas Germanos and all others similarly situated v. Del
     Monte, the Directors, KKR, Vestar and Centerview filed on
     December 1, 2010, in Superior Court in San Francisco,
     California;

   * Libby Kaiman and all others similarly situated v. Del Monte,
     the Directors and the Buyers filed on December 1, 2010, in
     Superior Court in San Francisco, California;

   * Rena Nadoff, custodian for Michael Jaroslawicz, and all
     others similarly situated v. Del Monte, the Directors and the
     Buyers filed on December 1, 2010, in Superior Court in San
     Francisco, California;

   * Thomas Rieth and all others similarly situated v. Del Monte,
     the Directors, KKR, Vestar and Centerview filed on
     December 1, 2010, in Superior Court in San Francisco,
     California; and

   * James Sinor and all others similarly situated v. Del Monte,
     the Directors and the Buyers filed on December 1, 2010, in
     Superior Court in San Francisco, California.

The named plaintiffs in these six cases allege breach, and aiding
and abetting breach, of the Directors' fiduciary duty to the
company's stockholders. Specifically, the complaints allege that
the Directors breached their fiduciary duty to the stockholders by
agreeing to sell the Company at a price that is unfair and
inadequate and by agreeing to certain preclusive deal protection
devices in the Merger Agreement. The complaints further allege
that some or all of the Buyers and, in some instances, the
company, aided and abetted in the Directors' breach of their
fiduciary duty. The complaints seek injunctive relief, rescission
of the Merger Agreement, an accounting for all damages suffered by
class members and attorneys' fees.

The company intends to deny these allegations and to vigorously
defend itself.


DEL MONTE FOODS: Motion to Dismiss Labor Suit in Minnesota Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Foods Company's motion for partial dismissal of a class
action lawsuit alleging labor law violations is pending in
Minnesota, according to the Company's Dec. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended October 31, 2010.

On September 30, 2010, a class action complaint was served against
the Company, to be filed in Hennepin County, Minnesota, alleging
wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The
complaint was served on behalf of five named plaintiffs and all
others similarly situated at a manufacturing facility in
Minnesota.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company
violated the FLSA and state wage and hour laws by failing to
compensate plaintiffs and other similarly situated workers unpaid
overtime.  The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and statutory
damages.  Additionally, the plaintiffs are seeking class
certification.

On November 5, 2010, in connection with the Company's removal of
the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota,
the complaint was filed along with the Company's answer.  The
Company also filed a motion for partial dismissal on November 5,
2010.  The Company denies plaintiffs' allegations and plans to
vigorously defend itself.


DEL MONTE FOODS: To Pay $0.2MM Under Settlement & Modify Labels
---------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Foods Company has agreed to pay $0.2 million to settle a
class action lawsuit alleging false advertising, according to the
Company's Dec. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2010.

On October 13, 2009, Kara Moline and Debra Lowe filed a class
action complaint against the company in San Francisco Superior
Court, alleging violations of California's False Advertising Act,
Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the company engaged in
false and misleading advertising in the labeling of Nature's
Recipe Farm Stand Selects dog food. The plaintiffs sought
injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits in an undisclosed
amount, and attorneys' fees. Additionally, the plaintiffs sought
class certification.

The company denied plaintiffs' allegations.

The parties reached a settlement agreement, which was approved by
the Court on November 9, 2010. Under the settlement, the company
agreed to pay $0.2 million and to modify the labels of the
relevant products in the future.


DEL MONTE FOODS: Remains a Defendant in Recall-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Foods Company remains a defendant in class action
lawsuits related to its pet food recall in 2007, according to the
company's Dec. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2010.

Beginning with the pet food recall announced by Menu Foods, Inc.,
in March 2007, many major pet food manufacturers, including the
company, announced recalls of select products.  The company
believes there have been over 90 class actions and purported class
actions relating to these pet food recalls.  The company has been
named as a defendant in seven class actions or purported class
actions related to its pet food and pet snack recall, which the
company initiated on March 31, 2007.

The company is currently a defendant in this case:

   * Picus v. Del Monte filed on April 30, 2007 in state court in
     Las Vegas, Nevada.

The company was a defendant in these cases:

   * Carver v. Del Monte filed on April 4, 2007 in the U.S.
     District Court for the Eastern District of California;

   * Ford v. Del Monte filed on April 7, 2007 in the U.S. District
     Court for the Southern District of California;

   * Hart v. Del Monte filed on April 10, 2007 in state court in
     Los Angeles, California;

   * Schwinger v. Del Monte filed on May 15, 2007 in the U.S.
     District Court for the Western District of Missouri;

   * Tompkins v. Del Monte filed on July 13, 2007 in the U.S.
     District Court for the District of Colorado; and

   * Blaszkowski v. Del Monte filed on May 9, 2007 in the U.S.
     District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The named plaintiffs in these seven cases allege or alleged that
their pets suffered injury or death as a result of ingesting the
company's and other defendants' allegedly contaminated pet food
and pet snack products. The Picus and Blaszkowski cases also
contain or contained allegations of false and misleading
advertising by the company.

By order dated June 28, 2007, the Carver, Ford, Hart, Schwinger,
and Tompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other purported
pet food class actions under the federal rules for multi-district
litigation. The Blaszkowski and Picus cases were not consolidated.

The plaintiffs and defendants in the multi-district litigation
cases, including the five consolidated cases in which the company
was a defendant, tentatively agreed to a settlement which was
submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on
May 22, 2008. On May 30, 2008, the Court granted preliminary
approval to the settlement. Pursuant to the Court's order, notice
of the settlement was disseminated to the public by mail and
publication beginning June 16, 2008. Members of the class were
allowed to opt-out of the settlement until August 15, 2008. On
November 19, 2008, the Court entered orders approving the
settlement, certifying the class and dismissing the complaints
against the defendants, including the company. The total
settlement was $24.0 million. The portion of the company's
contribution to this settlement was $0.25 million, net of
insurance recovery. Four class members have filed objections to
the settlement, which objections have been denied by the Court. On
December 3, 2008 and December 12, 2008, these class members filed
Notices of Appeal.

The plaintiffs in the Picus case are seeking certification of a
class action as well as unspecified damages and injunctive relief
against further distribution of the allegedly defective products.
The company has denied the allegations made in the Picus case. On
October 12, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss in the
Picus case. The state court in Las Vegas, Nevada granted the
company's motion in part and denied its motion in part. On
December 14, 2007, other defendants in the case filed a motion to
deny class certification. On March 16, 2009, the Court granted the
motion to deny class certification. On March 25, 2009, the
plaintiffs filed an appeal of the Court's decision. On June 30,
2009, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' appeal.

On April 11, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Blaszkowski case filed
their fourth amended complaint. On September 12, 2008 and
October 9, 2008, plaintiffs filed stipulations of dismissal with
respect to their complaint against certain of the defendants,
including Del Monte. The U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida entered such requested dismissals on such
dates, resulting in the dismissal of all claims against the
company.


DOCTORS & CHIROPRACTORS: Sued Over Insurance Fraud Conspiracy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Green and Steve Kanigher, writing for Las Vegas Sun, report
a major insurer says it was victimized by an elaborate conspiracy
involving insurance fraud, unnecessary medical care and kickbacks,
according to a federal racketeering lawsuit filed on Dec. 20 in
Las Vegas.

Allstate Insurance Co. filed the action alleging that a network of
doctors, chiropractors, marketers, attorneys, ambulance and tow-
truck drivers fraudulently arranged for accident victims to be
treated for unnecessary care from 2004 through this year -- with
Allstate and other insurers footing the bill.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court against six individuals
and seven companies, including Richard Charette, who has been
indicted by a federal grand jury in a scandal uncovered by the Las
Vegas Sun last year in which patient data at University Medical
Center were leaked to attorneys looking for clients.

Mr. Charette and an attorney sued by Allstate on Dec. 20, Andrew
Taylor, also are defendants in a class action lawsuit filed by UMC
patients in July.

Pending in District Court in Clark County, that suit charges they
conspired with unidentified UMC trauma center employees "to obtain
money and property through the disclosure and use of confidential
health information of UMC patients." (UMC has been dropped as a
defendant in that case, and Messrs. Charette and Taylor have not
yet filed a response.)

Allstate alleges the defendants in the federal suit are
responsible for chiropractic treatments for 98 auto accident
victims that in some cases were unnecessary and based on "falsely
reported symptoms and complaints."

The defendants presented to Allstate "grossly exaggerated bills
for treatment that was either not performed, medically unnecessary
and/or inadequately performed on the claimants," the lawsuit says.

The insurer also alleges that defendants prepared or caused to be
presented to plaintiffs medical reports that falsely reported
symptoms and complaints that were either exaggerated or not
supported by the facts of the accident.  The reports, Allstate
says, included unsubstantiated findings and diagnoses that
prescribed treatment plans more consistent with creating or
exaggerating claims than patient-centered and evidence-based
treatment of patients' actual clinical conditions.

The suit also charges fraud and intentional misrepresentations and
seeks damages in excess of $1 million.  It also seeks the
imposition of a constructive trust to control funds as part of the
alleged scheme.

Douglas Cooper and Cindy Wade, executive directors of the Nevada
Board of Medical Examiners and Chiropractic Physicians' Board of
Nevada, respectively, said racketeering allegations made by an
insurer against doctors and chiropractors in this state are
unusual.

"For this board to have its licensees involved in something like
that would be rare," Mr. Cooper said.

Allstate says the scheme involved several companies, including
Accident Injury Medical Center, 2619 W. Charleston Blvd.; and
Accident Trial Lawyers, 2801 W. Charleston Blvd., which was
managed by Mr. Charette.  Mr. Taylor and another defendant in the
suit, attorney Dennis Ramsey, were associated with Accident Trial
Lawyers, Allstate alleges.

Accident Injury Medical Center was described as a practice
involving its owner Dr. Sebastian P. Balle and chiropractic
doctors Peter Mario Balle (Sebastian's son) and Arthur Rossi.
They were sued by Allstate on Dec. 20.

The suit says Accident Injury Medical Center and Accident Trial
Lawyers referred patients and clients to each other, paying
referral fees or "kickbacks" and that some patients were referred
to the defendants by unidentified doctors, tow-truck divers,
ambulance drivers and even an insurance agent -- all of whom
allegedly received kickbacks.

Allstate says Accident Injury Medical Center provided treatment
based on a "formula," or "recipe," with the "express purpose of
creating trumped up medical bills that would be used to leverage
artificially enhanced (claim) settlement values."

The treatment formula included questionable X-rays and MRIs and
referrals to other medical professionals, and some patients were
billed for treatment never provided, according to the suit.

For instance, the lawsuit alleges an Accident Injury Medical
Center employee has described a "wave procedure" in which patients
would simply call in from home or show up at Accident Injury
Medical Center "and merely wave at the receptionist and then go
home" -- a procedure that resulted in a bill for treatment.

"Accident Trial Lawyers and others would then knowingly take
advantage of Accident Injury Medical Center's inflated billing
statements to negotiate artificially enhanced settlements -- all
in an effort to perpetrate a fraud on insurance companies,
including Allstate," the lawsuit charges.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal and state Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations acts involving conspiracy and
"the unauthorized practice of law, the improper solicitation of
accident victims as patients, the illegal referral of patients to
lawyers in exchange for monetary kickbacks and the fraudulent
chiropractic and ancillary services and billings."

The RICO count further charges the defendants made false
statements about medical records to support inflated and
fraudulent settlement demands in personal injury cases and that
these involved mail and wire fraud.

Mr. Charette, who is awaiting trial on the federal charges against
him in the UMC case, couldn't be located for comment.  He was
indicted April 28 by a federal grand jury on one count of
conspiracy to illegally disclose personal health information, in
violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act, or HIPAA.

Mr. Taylor, in a statement, said: "This lawsuit was brought
without any factual basis.  The allegations are false and I will
be filing a motion to dismiss, refuting each and every claim."

Mr. Ramsey, in a statement, said: "I categorically deny all the
allegations and expect to make a counterclaim for defamation of
character."

A receptionist said Sebastian Balle was retired and could not be
located.  Peter Mario Balle, who according the suit supervises
chiropractor Arthur Rossi, said he was unaware of the lawsuit and
declined to respond to the allegations.

"I need to talk to my lawyer to see what's going on," he said.

In a statement, Allstate said the suit was filed "following an
extensive investigation by Allstate's special investigative unit."

"Allstate is aware of the economic pressures that consumers face,"
said Jim Murray, Allstate assistant vice president in charge of
the unit.  "Insurance fraud adds to the cost of the product.
Allstate is aggressively pursuing the fight against insurance
fraud to protect consumers and help keep insurance costs down."


EGG PRODUCERS: Giant Eagle Files Class Action Over Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Lord, writing Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports you can't make
a profit without making fewer eggs that, according to Giant Eagle
Inc., is the conclusion that U.S. egg producers reached in 1999,
when talks began that led to a concerted reduction in hens and
corresponding rise in prices.  In a federal civil complaint, the
region's dominant grocer charged it had been harmed by an egg
cartel that, in the guise of protecting the chickens, hatched a
price-fixing plot against consumers.

Giant Eagle's complaint against 21 egg industry firms and
organizations, which has yet to be assigned to a U.S. District
Court judge, piggybacks on a class action lawsuit in federal court
in Philadelphia targeting the industry's big trade group, the
United Egg Producers.  UEP President Gene Gregory on Monday said
the allegations were disproved by the industry's reliance on
science in making the decisions that some grocers are targeting in
lawsuits.

"We look forward to the day in court when we can argue that,
because we know we are innocent of those things," he said.

Giant Eagle's lawsuit, by attorney Bernard Marcus of Downtown law
firm Marcus & Shipira, said that an egg economist in the late
1990s recommended measures to lower, and stabilize, egg supply.
That would end the cycles that had plagued egg producers as they
boosted production to address rising prices, only to create gluts
that caused prices to plunge.

The UEP, according to the lawsuit, at one time represented
producers of some 96% of U.S. eggs. Mr. Gregory said the current
figure was around 90%.

Its plan called for increasing the amount of cage space per hen
from 48 square inches to 67 to 86 square inches, which would make
producers look like do-gooders while reducing egg counts,
according to the complaint.

Mr. Gregory said the industry saw European governments mandating
such changes.  "So we decided that if we were going to make
changes in the United States, it should be based on science.

"This animal welfare program is one that was recommended by an
independent scientific committee of poultry scientists," he said.
"Do you think that a scientific advisory committee would damage
their reputation by being involved in something that was price-
fixing?"

He said organizations representing restaurants and food marketers
approved the change.

Another lawsuit plank said UEP members were encouraged to reduce
domestic supply by exporting eggs, even if prices overseas were
lower.  Nonexporting producers would subsidize those who were
losing money by exporting.

Producers who did not play along were pressured, the complaint
said.  UEP representatives went to balky producers' customers and
pushed to have them buy only "UEP Certified" eggs.

The result of those and other measures was that prices were
"fixed, raised, maintained and/or stabilized" at above-market
levels, Giant Eagle claims.

A group of Philadelphia restaurants and food merchants sued in
2008.  A handful of egg producers settled with the plaintiffs, and
agreed to provide documentation of price-fixing.  That lawsuit
continues.

Grocers who opted out of the Philadelphia class-action lawsuit are
allowed to file their own complaints, and Giant Eagle is among a
handful of companies that has done so, said Mr. Gregory.

"Obviously when you have these kinds of things," he said, "there
are lawyers who are glad to take on additional business."


FRAMINGHAM: May Face Class Action Over Special Education Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott O'Connell, writing for The MetroWest Daily News, reports
town officials may file a class-action lawsuit against the state
for what they say is inadequate funding of the district's special
education program.

A task force reviewing Framingham structural deficit asked earlier
this month for Town Manager Julian Suso and Superintendent Steven
Hiersche to look into filing a lawsuit, Mr. Hiersche said on
Dec. 20.

"We haven't had time to talk about it," he said, adding he
expected discussions to begin in the new year.

The task force said a potential lawsuit would be in response to
the state's underfunding of the town's special education services.
Like many towns, Framingham had its special education "circuit-
breaker" reimbursement cut by the state last year, and  Mr. Suso
said Framingham historically has been underfunded in the state's
education funding formula.

"The playing field is not level," he said.

Mr. Hierche said the lawsuit also could consider other recent cuts
to local aid.

"(The Structural Deficit Review Task Force) is looking at a lot of
things the state has backed away from," he said.

Mr. Suso said the aim of the lawsuit would be to make the state's
funding formulas more equitable to Framingham, though there is no
specific figure being sought at this time.

The timetable for a suit is also uncertain.

"A lot of it is weighing on what the legal fees would be," said
Mr. Hiersche.

Though envisioned as a class-action lawsuit, the proposal so far
has only been discussed in-town by the deficit task force, he
said.  Making it a class action suit is an option because other
cities and towns had their circuit breaker money reduced.

Mr. Suso said legal action is one of several options the town is
exploring to address the state funding cuts.

"Nothing is being ruled out.  We're looking to resolve the issue
in the most expeditious manner," he said.  "It starts with a
thorough, thoughtful discussion."

Comprised of seven municipal and school officials, the Structural
Deficit Review Task Force is charged with looking at budget
deficits and the town's operating budget and incorporating its
recommendations into the spending plan.

Chief Financial Officer Mary Ellen Kelley, who serves on the task
force, so far has forecast a $6.9 million deficit for the fiscal
2012 budget.


HARTFORD CASUALTY: Sued Over Sewer Backup Damage Claims Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maple Terrace Management L.P., a limited partnership, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Hartford Casualty
Insurance Company, Case No. 2010-CH-53679 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty. December 20, 2010), brings claims for breach of insurance
contract.  Plaintiff says that insureds of Hartford can take out a
rider covering loss caused by a sewer backup, but when a loss
occurs, Hartford frequently denies the claim.

The Plaintiff is a Delaware limited partnership with its primary
business in the State of Illinois.  Hartford, an Indiana
corporation, is an insurance company with its primary place of
business in Hartford, Connecticut.

On October 22, 2009, Maple Terrace took out a "Spectrum Policy" of
insurance, issued by Harford, on its premises at 1010-50 Maple
Avenue, Lisle, Illinois from January 1, 2010, for a period of one
year.  On June 2, 2010, the Plaintiff relates, the sewer system at
the insured premises backed up causing damages to the property,
but when it made a claim for payment under the policy, Hartford
denied the claim, claiming that the backup is subject to an
exclusion for damages caused by a "flood," in violation of the
express terms of its policies.  The Plaintiff insists that
defendant is obligated under the contract to cover damages
resulting from sewer backups.

A copy of the Complaint in Maple Terrace Management L.P. v.
Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 10CH53679 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at:

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/21/HartfordInsurance.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur T. Susman, Esq.
          Matthew T. Hurst, Esq.
          SUSMAN HEFFNER & HURST LLP
          Two First National Plaza, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-3466


J. CREW GROUP: Defends 9 Stockholder Suits in Delaware & New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
J. Crew Group, Inc., is facing nine purported class action
complaints pending in Delaware and New York related to its merger
with Chinos Acquisition Corporation, according to the company's
Dec. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 30, 2010.

On November 23, 2010, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Chinos Holdings, Inc. -- Parent -- and Chinos
Acquisition Corporation -- Merger Sub -- providing for the merger
of Merger Sub with and into J. Crew Group, Inc., with J. Crew
Group, Inc., surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Parent. Parent and Merger Sub are beneficially owned by affiliates
of TPG Capital, L.P. and Leonard Green & Partners, L.P. The Merger
Agreement was approved by the Board of Directors of Group, acting
upon the unanimous recommendation of a special committee composed
of independent directors of the Board.

The Company, certain officers of the Company, the members of the
Board, TPG and Leonard Green are named as defendants in purported
class action lawsuits brought by stockholders of the Company.  The
lawsuits allege, among other things, that the members of the Board
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company's public
stockholders and seek, among other things, to enjoin the
defendants from completing the merger on the agreed-upon terms.
One of the conditions to the closing of the merger is that no
injunction, judgment or ruling by a court or other governmental
entity shall be in effect that enjoins, restrains, prevents or
prohibits consummation of the merger or that makes the
consummation of the merger illegal. As such, if the plaintiffs are
successful in obtaining an injunction prohibiting the defendants
from completing the merger on the agreed-upon terms, then such
injunction may prevent the merger from becoming effective, or from
becoming effective within the expected timeframe.

Between November 24, 2010 and December 3, 2010, nine purported
class action complaints related to the merger were filed against
some or all of the following: the Company, certain officers of the
Company, the members of the Board, Parent, Merger Sub, TPG, TPG VI
and Leonard Green.

On November 24, 2010, one of the Stockholder Actions was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned New
Orleans Employees' Retirement System v. J. Crew Group, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. 6016. The plaintiff in the NOERS Complaint alleges,
among other things, (1) that the Company and the members of the
Board breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's public
stockholders by authorizing the merger for inadequate
consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process, and (2) that
TPG and Leonard Green aided and abetted the other defendants'
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The NOERS Complaint seeks,
among other things, an order enjoining the defendants from placing
their interests ahead of those of the Company and its
stockholders, an order enjoining the defendants from initiating
any defensive measures that would inhibit the Board's ability to
maximize value for the Company's stockholders, an award of
compensatory damages and an award of fees, expenses and costs.

On November 24, 2010, one of the Stockholder Actions was filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, captioned Church v. J.
Crew Group, Inc., et al., No. 652101-2010. The plaintiff in the
Church Complaint alleges, among other things, (1) that certain
officers and the Board breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's public stockholders by authorizing the merger for
inadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process,
and (2) that the Company, TPG, and Leonard Green aided and abetted
the other defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The
Church Complaint seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the
defendants from completing the merger, an order rescinding the
merger to the extent already implemented, the imposition of a
constructive trust in favor of the plaintiff and the members of
the purported class upon any benefits received by the defendants
as a result of the allegedly wrongful conduct and an award of
fees, expenses and costs.

On November 30, 2010, two of the Stockholder Actions were filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, captioned Taki v. J.
Crew Group, Inc., et al., No. 652125-2010 and Weisenberg v. J.
Crew Group, Inc., et al., No. 10115564-2010, seeking substantially
the same relief and making substantially the same allegations as
the other Stockholder Actions. The plaintiff in the Weisenberg
Complaint additionally alleges that the members of the Board
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's public
stockholders by, among other things, failing to disclose all
material information about the merger to the Company's
stockholders.

On December 1, 2010, one of the Stockholder Actions was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, captioned Brazin v. J Crew Group, Inc., et al., No. 10 Civ.
8988, seeking substantially the same relief and making
substantially the same allegations as the other Stockholder
Actions.

On December 2, 2010, one of the Stockholder Actions was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Local
542 International Union of Operating Engineers Pension Fund of
Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware v. J. Crew Group., Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 6035 and City of Orlando Police Pension Fund v. Drexler,
et al., C.A. No. 6038, seeking substantially the same relief and
making substantially the same allegations as the other Stockholder
Actions. The Orlando Complaint additionally seeks an order
requiring the defendants to disclose all material information
relating to the merger.

On December 3, 2010, two of the Stockholder Actions were filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Casati, et
al., C.A. No. 6043, and Vogel v. J. Crew Group, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 6045, seeking substantially the same relief and making
substantially the same allegations as the other Stockholder
Actions. The plaintiff in the SEPTA Complaint additionally alleges
that certain officers of the Company will be unjustly enriched as
a consequence of the merger. The SEPTA Complaint additionally
seeks (1) an order canceling or voiding any shares or options
vested by operation of the merger agreement, and (2) an order
requiring the defendants to disclose all material information
relating to the merger. The Vogel Complaint additionally seeks an
order modifying certain provisions of the merger agreement.

The Company and the Board believe that the claims in the
Stockholder Actions are without merit and intend to defend against
them vigorously.


LEGALZOOM.COM: Suit by Mo. Lawyers Can Proceed as Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Walter, writing for Missouri Lawyers Weekly, reports a group
of Missouri lawyers who want the Los Angeles-based legal document
website LegalZoom.com to stop doing business in the state won a
victory when a federal judge in Jefferson City said the suit could
proceed as a class action.  The class of plaintiffs was
represented by lawyers from five different law firms.


LTX-CREDENCE CORP: D&Os Sued Over Sale of Company to Verigy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vondra L. Brookshire, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Roger W. Blethen, et al., Case No.  10-cv-05773 (N.D.
Calif. December 17, 2010), accuses certain of the directors and
officers of LTX-Credence Corporation, aided and abetted by Verigy
Limited and Alisier Limited -- Holdco -- of breaching their
fiduciary duties to LTXC and its public shareholders, in
connection with the proposed sale of LTXC to Verigy in which
LTXC's shareholders will receive 0.96 per share of Verigy stock or
Alisier stock for each share of LTXC stock outstanding.  The
transaction is valued at roughly $420 million.

Ms. Brookshire says the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by causing the Company to enter into a merger
that provides for the sale of the Company at an inadequate price,
and deprives its shareholders of the maximum value for their
shares.

The proposed transaction is valued at roughly $8.55 per share,
based upon Verigy's November 17, 2010 closing price of $8.91 per
share.

Immediately following the proposed transaction, former LTXC
shareholders will own roughly 44% of the outstanding ordinary
shares of either Verigy or Holdco, depending on the merger
scenario selected to complete the proposed transaction, with the
remainder owned by current Verigy shareholders.

LTX-Credence Corporation engages in the design, manufacture,
marketing, and servicing of automated test equipment solutions for
the wireless, computing, automotive, and digital consumer markets.

Defendant Verigy, headquartered in Singapore, provides advanced
semiconductor systems and solutions used by companies worldwide in
design validation, characterization, and high-volume manufacturing
test.  It sells its products and services to integrated device
manufacturers; test subcontractors, including specialty assembly,
package, and test companies; wafer foundries; and fabless design
companies.

Defendant Holdco is a corporation organized under the laws of
Singapore and was organized for the sole purpose of completing the
merger.

Ms. Brookshire explains that defendants exacerbated their breaches
of fiduciary duty by agreeing to lock up the proposed transaction
through deal protection devices intended to favor Verigy,
including: (i) a no-solicitation provision; (ii) a matching rights
provision; and (iii) a termination fee of $15,000,000 payable to
Verigy.  Ms. Brookshire relates that the individual defendants
further breached their fiduciary duties when they failed to obtain
a collar to combat any fluctuation in the price of LTXC and Verigy
stock that would negatively affect LTXC's shareholders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          Peter D. Bull, Esq.
          BULL & LIFSHITZ, LLP
          18 East 41st Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 213-6222
          E-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com


MACQUARIE BANK: Faces Class Action Over Investor Losses
-------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Trenwith, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
a second major bank is facing a class action over the Storm
Financial collapse despite the corporate regulator today
announcing its own legal action.

Proceedings against Macquarie Bank was set to be issued on Dec. 23
on behalf of about 150 former Storm clients, Levitt Lawyers senior
associate Stephanie Carmichael said.

The claim was similar to that against the Commonwealth Bank, which
was launched in July.

Ms. Carmichael said about 400 clients were involved in the cases,
with some subject to both.

Both class actions would go ahead despite the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission on Dec. 22 launching legal
action against CBA, Macquarie, Bank of Queensland and Storm's
founders, Townsville couple Emmanuel and Julie Cassimatis.

ASIC will allege the banks were involved in an unregistered
managed investment scheme.

In a second proceeding, it is seeking compensation on behalf of
two investors from BOQ, the owner of a Townsville franchisee of
the bank, and Macquarie, claiming breaches of the banking code and
the Trade Practices Act and unconscionable conduct.

Ms. Carmichael said Levitt Lawyers had discussed its proceedings
with ASIC and the class actions would not be affected.

A case conference for the CBA claim was held on Dec. 17 and the
parties were expected back in court early next year.

"We're aggressively pursuing that claim," she said.

CBA has admitted limited liability and negotiated a compensation
deal for 2000 people.

Those who accepted the CBA deal did so on the understanding they
would still benefit from any action by ASIC.

ASIC filed its claim in the Federal Court on Dec. 22 after the
banks failed to meet the Dec. 17 deadline to reach compensation
deals with about 14,000 investors caught up in the company's $3
billion collapse in early 2009.

"ASIC is bringing these actions to seek compensation for investors
who have suffered losses," chairman Tony D'Aloisio said in a
statement.

"ASIC has maintained that a commercial resolution is the preferred
approach.  Unfortunately discussions did not result in a
satisfactory outcome and it has been necessary for ASIC to bring
these proceedings."

BOQ managing director David Liddy said the bank would "vigorously"
defend the court action.

The Queensland-based financial planner had lured investors to
borrow against their homes and use margin lending to buy shares,
which collapsed during the global financial crisis.

Some investors, including many retirees, lost their homes in the
fallout.  The banks were criticized for approving the loans.


MARSHALL & ILSLEY: Being Sold to BMO for Too Little, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Marshall & Ilsley Corp.,
Wisconsin's largest bank, is selling itself too cheaply through an
unfair process to the BMO Group (Bank of Montreal), in a stock
swap, for about $4.1 billion, shareholders say in Milwaukee County
Court.

A copy of the Complain in Berens v. Marshall & Ilsey Corporation,
et al., Case No. _____ (Wis. Cir. Ct., Milwaukee Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/21/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          K. Scott Wagner, Esq.
          K. SCOTT WAGNER
          839 North Jefferson Street, Suite 400
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 278-7000
          E-mail: ksw@halewagner.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          GOLDFARB BRANHAM, LLP
          2501 North Harwood Street, Suite 1801
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 583-2233


MEAD JOHNSON: Sued for Deceptive and Misleading Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rene Ramos, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Mead Johnson and Company LLC, Case No. 10-cv-05772 (N.D. Calif.
December 17, 2010), accuses Mead Johnson, which manufactures and
sells the Enfamil(R) brand formula, which contains LIPIL(R), its
name for a blend of two lipid fatty acids found in breast milk,
docosahexaenoic acid -- DHA -- and arachidonic acid -- ARA -- of
falsely or misleadingly representing to consumers that its Enfamil
brand infant formula was the only infant formula product that
contained DHA and ARA and that the product was the only infant
formula product that was clinically proven to improve brain and
eye function in infants.

The Plaintiff says that contrary to those claims, other brands of
infant formula, including lower-priced store brands, in fact
contain DHA and ARA in amounts equal to or greater that those
contained in Mead Johnson's infant formula product and are no less
effective that Mead Johnson's product in promoting brain and eye
development in infants.

As a result of Mead Johnson's false claims, Plaintiff says he paid
more for Mead Johnson's infant formula product that he otherwise
would have.  Plaintiff Ramos is a father of two children and is a
purchaser of Enfamil Lipil(R) distributed and sold by the
defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julio J. Ramos, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JULIO J. RAMOS
          35 Grove Street, Suite 107
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 948-3015


MYTRAVEL CANADA: Norovirus-Infected Vacationers Win Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dalson Chen, writing for The Windsor Star, reports Darryl Burrows
hasn't forgotten some of the gruesome details of his encounter
with a dreaded gut virus while vacationing in the Dominican
Republic five years ago.

"People were literally soiling themselves on the planes," recalls
the 58-year-old Windsor resident.

"There were planeloads of people coming back with this stuff.
They couldn't get to the washroom fast enough.  I heard that from
the stewardesses.  It was bad.  It was really bad."

Toronto-based law firm Rochon Genova recently announced that a
$2.25 million settlement has been reached in a class-action
lawsuit against the company MyTravel Canada Holidays Inc.

The lawsuit relates to the outbreak of the norovirus -- a highly-
contagious cause of gastrointestinal illness -- at the sun-
drenched Riu resorts of Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic, in late
2004 and early 2005.

According to the law firm, MyTravel arranged vacation packages to
the resorts while the outbreak was occurring.

Rochon Genova is inviting eligible members of the public to send a
claim form and request their share of the settlement.  To qualify,
one must be a Canadian citizen (outside of Quebec) who booked a
package through MyTravel to stay at a Riu resort in the Dominican
Republic during the period of Dec. 20, 2004, to March 31, 2005.

The resorts in question include Riu Bachata, Riu Mambo and Riu
Merengue -- each part of a lush complex of resorts in Puerto
Plata.

"Eligible class members who suffered physical symptoms consistent
with norovirus will receive payments of up to $2,500," the law
firm said in an announcement.'

"Additionally, travellers who provided care to a class member who
suffered physical symptoms consistent with norovirus are eligible
to receive $250."

Al Valente, CEO of Windsor's Valente Travel, said there are
Windsor residents who may be eligible for the compensation -- Riu
Resorts is a large company, and the Dominican Republic was and
remains a popular destination among Windsorites.

"We do a lot of Riu," Mr. Valente said.

"I think that was an isolated case.  There are issues that happen
at pretty much every hotel chain.  This just happens to be one
with a class-action lawsuit."

"It's something that has been dealt with.   It's unfortunate,
obviously."

Although Mr. Burrows and his family stayed at a Riu resort in
Puerto Plata during the outbreak -- and most of them contracted
the norovirus -- he said they're not eligible: They booked their
trip through the U.S.-based company Apple Vacations.

"We were actually given compensation at the time," Burrows said.
"Riu Resorts gave us a free week down there.  We just had to pay
for our airfare."

Mr. Burrows said he and his family took advantage of the freebie
about a year after the norovirus incident.  And this time, they
chose a different location in the Dominican Republic: They went to
a Riu resort in Punta Cana.

Nonetheless, Mr. Burrows said he's glad that there's been a
settlement and some vacationers will be getting some payback.  He
believes the resorts were aware of the issue before travellers
arrived.

"My brother-in-law and I both talked to the assistant manager
. . . and she admitted, 'Yes, we know we've got this problem,'"
Burrows recalled.  "I said, 'Well, you should at least tell people
before they get on the plane.'"

Somehow, Mr. Burrows avoided falling ill himself.  But he watched
his wife and his two daughters deal with vomiting, diarrhea,
dehydration and other symptoms associated with the infection.

However, it didn't scare them off from visiting the Dominican
Republic.  Including the freebie, they vacationed in the country
twice more after their norovirus experience.

"You can't stop travelling.  You know, this could happen to you.
You have to be prepared for things like that when you go away,"
said Mr. Burrows, a pharmaceutical sales representative.

"Now, whenever I leave, I always take Cipro and Imodium and a can
of dry Gatorade."


NAACP ATLANTA: November Elections Invalid, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline J. Holness at Courthouse News Service reports that
members of the Atlanta chapter of the NAACP have taken a squabble
over the group's November elections to Fulton County Superior
Court.  The class action claims that Ed Dubose, president of the
Georgia State NAACP, and others wrongly took charge of the Atlanta
chapter's elections to ensure that the Rev. Dr. R.L. White,
president of NAACP Atlanta and pastor of Mt. Ephraim Baptist
Church, would be re-elected.

Mr. White is being investigation for alleged mismanagement and
conversion of NAACP Atlanta funds, according to the complaint.  It
states that "Defendant White has been president of defendant NAACP
Atlanta from 1997 2000 [sic] until the present.  During this time
period, defendant White allowed certain staff members to
misappropriate and embezzled over $250,000 from defendant NAACP
Atlanta.

"Upon information and belief, these individuals engaged in a
scheme or conspiracy from approximately 1999 - 2009 to convert and
use funds of defendant NAACP for personal use through the use of
facsimile signatures on check, unauthorized transfers of funds,
unauthorized use of credit cards and other means."

In September 2009, plaintiff Lonnie King filed an administrative
complaint against Mr. White and Richard Rose, former treasurer of
the Atlanta NAACP, mentioning these allegations and also alleging
failure to follow administrative polices of the national NAACP,
according to the complaint.

The complaint adds: "Defendant Dubose actively conspired with
defendant White and others to stop any investigation into
allegations of financial mismanagement by defendant white, et al."

After the administrative complaint was filed, the National NAACP
placed NAACP Atlanta into receivership, to be managed by Dr. Amos
Brown of San Francisco.  It remained in receivership until
May 2010.  In May, NAACP Atlanta was taken out of receivership to
be supervised by Mr. Dubose, according to the new complaint in
Fulton County.

This complaint states that Mr. Dubose was appointed only to
receive minutes of meetings, committee reports and financial
reports until Dec. 31, 2010.  Mr. Dubose did not have the
authority to interfere with or manage the affairs of the Atlanta
chapter, according to the complaint.

But when Mr. White's slate of candidates for the November election
were not approved, as the slate had not been submitted on time,
Mr. Dubose took over the election by determining that the Georgia
NAACP, rather than the Atlanta NAACP, would supervise the
elections, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs, who include Lonnie King, Michael Julian Bond,
Charles Black and Mamie Darlington, seek declaratory judgment that
the November election was invalid and violated NAACP bylaws and
that the slate of candidates presented in accordance with the
bylaws should be declared winners of the election.

In addition to Messrs. White and DuBose, the NAACP Georgia State
Conference and the NAACP Atlanta Branch are also named as
defendants.

A copy of the Complaint in King, et al. v. White, et al., Case No.
2010CV144579 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/21/NAACP.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Glenn A. Delk, Esq.
          LIGHTMAS & DELK
          The Peachtree, Suite 1150
          1355 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 876-3335


NVIDIA CORP: Court Gives Final Approval to GPU Consumer Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
A California court has granted final approval to a settlement
entered into between NVIDIA Corp. and plaintiffs of a consolidated
consumer class action lawsuit, according to information posted at
http://www.nvidiasettlement.com/

In September, October and November 2008, several putative consumer
class action lawsuits were filed against the company, asserting
various claims arising from a weak die/packaging material set in
certain versions of the company's previous generation products
used in notebook configurations.  Most of the lawsuits were filed
in Federal Court in the Northern District of California, but three
were filed in state court in California, in Federal Court in New
York, and in Federal Court in Texas.  Those three actions have
since been removed or transferred to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division,
where all of the actions now are currently pending.  The various
lawsuits are titled Nakash v. NVIDIA Corp., Feinstein v. NVIDIA
Corp., Inicom Networks, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc. and
Hewlett Packard, Olivos v. NVIDIA Corp., Dell, Inc. and Hewlett
Packard, Sielicki v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc., Cormier v.
NVIDIA Corp., National Business Officers Association, Inc. v.
NVIDIA Corp., and West v. NVIDIA Corp.  The First Amended
Complaint was filed on October 27, 2008, which no longer asserted
claims against Dell, Inc.  The various complaints assert claims
for, among other things, breach of warranty, violations of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Business & Professions Code sections
17200 and 17500 and other consumer protection statutes under the
laws of various jurisdictions, unjust enrichment, and strict
liability.

The District Court has entered orders deeming all of the above
cases related under the relevant local rules.  On December 11,
2008, NVIDIA filed a motion to consolidate all of the
aforementioned consumer class action cases.  On February 26, 2009,
the District Court consolidated the cases, as well as two other
cases pending against Hewlett-Packard, under the caption "The
NVIDIA GPU Litigation" and ordered the plaintiffs to file lead
counsel motions by March 2, 2009.  On March 2, 2009, several of
the parties filed motions for appointment of lead counsel and
briefs addressing certain related issues.   On April 10, 2009, the
District Court appointed Milberg LLP lead counsel.  On May 6,
2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint,
alleging claims for violations of California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of Implied Warranty under
California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of the Implied Warranty
of Merchantability under the laws of 27 other states, Breach of
Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Unjust Enrichment,
violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability
and Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

On August 19, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Consolidated Complaint, and the Court heard arguments on
that motion on October 19, 2009.  On November 19, 2009, the Court
issued an order dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs causes of
action for Breach of the Implied Warranty under the laws of 27
other states and unjust enrichment, dismissing with leave to amend
plaintiffs' causes of action for Breach of Implied Warranty under
California Civil Code Section 1792 and Breach of Warranty under
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and denying NVIDIA's motion to
dismiss as to the other causes of action.  The Court gave
plaintiffs until December 14, 2009 to file an amended complaint.
On December 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint, asserting claims for violations of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of
Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach
of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violations of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability and
Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.

The Second Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages.  On
January 19, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Breach
of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792,
Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act claims in the Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint.  In addition, on April 1, 2010,
Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class consisting of all
people who purchased computers containing certain of the company's
MCP and GPU products.  On May 3, 2010, the company filed an
opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  A
hearing on both motions was held on June 14, 2010.

On July 16, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation with the
District Court advising that, following mediation they had reached
a settlement in principle in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation.  The
settlement in principle is subject to certain approvals, including
final approval by the court.  As a result of the settlement in
principle, the other estimated settlement, and offsetting
insurance reimbursements, NVIDIA recorded a net charge of $12.7
million to sales, general and administrative expense during the
second quarter of fiscal year 2011.  In addition, a portion of the
$181.2 million of additional charges the company recorded against
cost of revenue related to the weak die/packaging set during the
second quarter of fiscal year 2011, relates to estimated
additional repair and replacement costs related to the
implementation of these settlements.

On July 19, 2010, the District Court entered an order setting a
Preliminary Approval hearing for August 30, 2010, and a Final
Approval hearing for November 22, 2010, and removing the pending
motions from its calendar.  On August 12, 2010, the parties
executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and Release. On
September 15, 2010, the Court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement and providing for notice to the
potential class members.  The Court has rescheduled the Final
Approval hearing for December 20, 2010, according to NVIDIA's
Dec. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2010.

nvidiasettlement.com disclosed that the Final Hearing did occur on
Monday, December 20, 2010, and that the Court has approved the
settlement, and the Claims Phase will begin shortly.


NVIDIA CORP: Faces 2nd Consolidated Amended Complaint in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corp. is facing a second consolidated amended complaint
filed earlier this month by co-lead plaintiffs in California,
according to the Company's Dec. 7, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 31, 2010.

In September 2008, three putative securities class actions, or the
Actions, were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California arising out of the company's
announcements on July 2, 2008, that the company would take a
charge against cost of revenue to cover anticipated costs and
expenses arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain
versions of the company's previous generation MCP and GPU products
and that the company was revising financial guidance for the
company's second quarter of fiscal year 2009. The Actions purport
to be brought on behalf of purchasers of NVIDIA stock and assert
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On October 30, 2008, the Actions were consolidated under the
caption In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 08-CV-04260-JW (HRL). Lead Plaintiffs and Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel were appointed on December 23, 2008. On
February 6, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus with
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the designation of
co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel.

On February 19, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed with the District
Court, a motion to stay the District Court proceedings pending
resolution of the Writ of Mandamus by the Ninth Circuit. On
February 24, 2009, Judge Ware granted the stay. On November 5,
2009, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the
District Court's appointment of one of the lead plaintiffs'
counsel, and remanding the matter for further proceedings.   On
December 8, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP and
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as co-lead counsel.

On January 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws,
asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act.  The consolidated complaint sought unspecified
compensatory damages.  The company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint in March 2010 and a hearing was held on
June 24, 2010 before Judge Seeborg.  On October 19, 2010, Judge
Seeborg granted the company's motion to dismiss with leave to
amend.  On December 2, 2010, co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a second
consolidated amended complaint.


PFIZER INC: Shareholder Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Mar. 7
------------------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 14, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted preliminary approval of a proposed
settlement of the shareholder derivative action previously
disclosed in Pfizer's periodic SEC reports entitled In re Pfizer
Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. 09 Civ. 7822
(JSR).  The proposed settlement is subject to final court approval
at a hearing scheduled for March 7, 2011.  The terms of the
proposed settlement are described in the Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Shareholder Derivative Litigation dated
December 14, 2010, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/jdrzfat no charge.

The Shareholder Plaintiff Class is represented by:

         Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
         BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
         1285 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: 1-800-380-8496
         E-mail: markl@blbglaw.com

The Director Defendants are represented by:

         Dennis J. Block, Esq.
         CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP
         One World Financial Center
         New York, NY 10281

The Executive Defendants are represented by:

         James P. Rouhandeh, Esq.
         DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
         450 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10017

Pfizer is represented by:

         John Dougherty, Esq.
         DLA PIPER LLP (U.S.)
         6225 Smith Avenue
         Baltimore, MD 21209


PIONEER FOOD: Takes Action v. Managers Involved in Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article at Moneyweb.co.za, food giant Pioneer Food
Group (JSE:PFG) -- which faces a class action despite paying a
R500 million fine in exchange for having investigations against it
related to unfair competitive practices dropped, resulting in
full-year profits falling 62%, and an agreement to reduce its
gross profit by R160 million over a defined period for a selection
of wheaten flour and bread products -- has taken harsh action
against managers.

In a Sens statement it said the board of Pioneer Foods has
"disciplined management responsible for the transgressions of the
Competition Act 89 of 1998.

"Disciplinary action was taken against 41 employees, of which one
was found not guilty by an external independent presiding officer,
38 admitted to guilt and received written warnings, while action
against two employees is still in process.

"In addition to the above, executive management did not receive
any incentive bonuses for the year, executive directors did not
receive any increases for 2011 and the majority of the executive
management team were not allocated new share appreciation rights
for 2011.

"Pioneer Foods has strengthened its governance and compliance
protocols, appointed a compliance and risk officer, approved a
revised code of ethics and implemented online compliance training
to approximately 1 900 relevant employees".


TENET HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Community Health Systems Buyout
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say in a class
action that Tenet Healthcare directors refused to consider a
buyout from Community Health Systems, for $2.9 billion or $6 a
share, a 40% premium, for selfish motives: i.e., their desire to
remain on the board.

A copy of the Complaint in Katz v. Fetter, et al., Case No. 10-
08884 (Dallas Cty. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/21/Tenet.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
          Mazin A. Sbaiti, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: 214-521-3605

               - and -

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Kira German, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: 201-567-7377

               - and -

          Harold B. Obstfeld, Esq.
          HAROLD B. OBSTFELD, P.C.
          100 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-696-1212


TERRE HAUTE: ACLU Seeks to Add Two Plaintiffs in Prayer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports two more Muslim inmates are trying to
join American-born Taliban fighter John Walker Lindh and another
prisoner in a federal lawsuit asking for them to be allowed to
hold daily group prayers in their highly restricted cell block.

A federal judge on Dec. 20 gave the American Civil Liberties Union
until Jan. 17 to respond to objections from the Bureau of Prisons.

The push to add individual plaintiffs comes after U.S. District
Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson denied the case class action status last
month.

Mr. Lindh, 29, and Brian Carr, 43, claim the prison's policy
restricting group prayer in the Communications Management Unit at
the federal prison in Terre Haute violates their religious rights.
The government contends that restrictions at the CMU are necessary
for security and don't violate inmates' rights.  Both sides hope
Judge Magnus-Stinson will rule the facts are in their favor,
avoiding a trial.

Mr. Carr, who is serving a 20-year sentence for a bank robbery in
Washington, joined the lawsuit in September after another inmate
involved in it was released from prison, ACLU attorney Ken Falk
said.

Earlier this month, the ACLU filed a motion in federal court in
Indianapolis seeking to add two other inmates -- Ali Asad Chandia,
34, and Rafil Dhafir, 62 -- to the prayer suit.  The Bureau of
Prisons, however, opposed Mr. Dhafir joining the suit, saying he
has not exhausted administrative remedies.

"The allegations are identical, they're all raising the same
issue," Mr. Falk said.

Mr. Lindh and the others argue that their religion requires them
to pray five times a day, preferably in a group.  But group
prayers at the prison are generally limited to once a week except
during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, court documents said.

Terre Haute associate warden Harvey Church testified in a
deposition given in January that 24 of the 41 CMU inmates were
Muslim.  The government says in court documents that there is no
evidence that Muslims were confined to the CMU because of their
religion and that most Muslims don't adhere to the requirement of
five daily prayers.

Mr. Chandia, a former Maryland teacher, was one of roughly a dozen
men from the Washington area convicted as part what prosecutors
called a "Virginia jihad network" that used paintball games in
2000 and 2001 to train for holy war around the globe.  He was
sentenced in 2006 to 15 years in prison.

Mr. Dhafir, a Muslim doctor from Syracuse, N.Y., is serving a 22-
year prison sentence after his conviction in February 2005 on 59
criminal counts, including money laundering and conspiracy to
violate U.S. sanctions against Iraq.  He was found guilty of
misusing $2 million that donors gave to his unlicensed charity,
Help the Needy, and spending $544,000 for his own purposes.


TIVO INC: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
TiVo, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors were
originally named as defendants in a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. This action, which is captioned
Wercberger v. TiVo et al., also names several of the underwriters
involved in the Company's initial public offering as defendants.
This class action is brought on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from the time of the
Company's IPO (October 31, 1999) through December 6, 2000. The
central allegation in this action is that the underwriters in the
Company's IPO solicited and received undisclosed commissions from,
and entered into undisclosed arrangements with, certain investors
who purchased the Company's stock in the IPO and the after-market,
and that the TiVo defendants violated the federal securities laws
by failing to disclose in the IPO prospectus that the underwriters
had engaged in these allegedly undisclosed arrangements. More than
300 issuers have been named in similar lawsuits. In February 2003,
after the issuer defendants (including the TiVo defendants) filed
an omnibus motion to dismiss, the Court dismissed the Section
10(b) claim as to the Company, but denied the motion to dismiss
the Section 11 claim as to the Company and virtually all of the
other issuer-defendants. On October 8, 2002, the Company's
executive officers who were named as defendants in this action
were dismissed without prejudice.

On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs in the suit announced a proposed
settlement with the Company and the other issuer defendants. This
proposed settlement was terminated on June 25, 2007, following the
ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit on December 5, 2006, reversing the District Court's
granting of class certification in the six focus cases currently
being litigated in this proceeding. The proposed settlement had
provided that the insurers of all settling issuers would guarantee
that the plaintiffs recover $1 billion from non-settling
defendants, including the investment banks who acted as
underwriters in those offerings. The maximum amount that could be
charged to the Company's insurance policy under the proposed
settlement in the event that the plaintiffs recovered nothing from
the investment banks would have been approximately $3.9 million.
On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed Amended Master
Allegations. On September 27, 2007, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion
for Class Certification, which was subsequently withdrawn without
prejudice by the plaintiffs. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
the focus cases on November 9, 2007.

On March 26, 2008, the Court ruled on the Motion to Dismiss,
holding that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded their Section
10(b) claims against the Issuer Defendants and the Underwriter
Defendants in the focus cases. As to the Section 11 claim, the
Court dismissed the claims brought by those plaintiffs who sold
their securities for a price in excess of the initial offering
price, on the grounds that they could not show cognizable damages,
and by those who purchased outside the previously certified class
period, on the grounds that those claims were time barred. This
ruling, while not binding on the Company's case, provides guidance
to all of the parties involved in this litigation.

On April 2, 2009, the parties lodged with the Court a motion for
preliminary approval of a proposed settlement between all parties
to the consolidated action, including the Company and its former
officers and directors, as well as numerous other companies and
their officers and directors. The proposed settlement provides the
plaintiffs with $586 million in recoveries from all defendants,
with $100 million being paid on behalf of the Issuer Defendants
and their officers and directors by the Issuers' insurers.
Accordingly, any direct financial impact of the proposed
settlement is expected to be borne by the Company's insurers. The
proposed settlement also provides for full releases for the
defendants, including the Company and its former officers and
directors. On June 12, 2009, the Federal District Court granted
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. On September 10,
2009, the Federal District Court held the fairness hearing for
final approval of the settlement. On October 6, 2009, the District
Court issued an order granting class certification and final
approval of the settlement.

Several individuals or groups of individuals have filed petitions
to appeal and/or notices of appeal with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit Court of
Appeals has not yet addressed any of the pending petitions to
appeal or notices of appeal. Therefore, the District Court's order
granting class certification and final approval of the settlement
may still be subject to appellate review by the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals. There can be no assurance that the District
Court's approval will not be overturned by the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals. The Company may incur expenses in connection
with this litigation that may become material in the future.  No
loss is considered probable or estimable at this time, the Company
disclosed in its Dec. 7, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31,
2010.


TORONTO COMMUNITY: Legal Aid Offered to Fire Victims Questioned
---------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Alcoba, writing for National Post, reports the lawyers for
a woman suing the city's social housing provider over the
Wellesley Street fire are raising questions about the independence
of legal advice offered to victims of the blaze.

Toronto Community Housing Corporation partnered with Neighbourhood
Legal Services, Pro Bono Law Ontario and The Advocates Society to
recruit volunteer lawyers to the "Independent Legal Advice
Project."

The partners participated in an orientation session to give
volunteers "all the background and substantive legal knowledge
they need to competently provide ILA [independent legal advice]"
on a compensation offer.

But Brian Shell and Martin Teplisky, counsel for Jo-Anne Blair who
has launched a class action lawsuit against the housing authority,
have protested TCHC's participation in the process.

"In our view, under the circumstances, neither PBLO nor NLS are
truly independent of TCHC," Mr. Shell and Mr. Teplisky wrote in a
letter to both organizations dated Dec. 14.  "We believe that it
is apparent that TCHC's interests are well served by excluding us
from the process, which it has initiated and which is designed to
sell its "low-ball" offer to tenants. How does this serve the best
interests of tenants?"

The class lawyers argue that if they don't know how much the
tenants may receive in a class-action settlement, how can
volunteer lawyers advise on whether the TCHC offer is fair?

PBLO has since pulled out of the project for unrelated reasons,
Matthew Cohen, Pro Bono's director of litigation projects, stated
in a letter dated Dec. 20.  In it, he described the criticism as
"unfortunate and unfounded in several respects."

About 1,500 tenants were forced to flee a high-rise complex at 200
Wellesley St. on Sept. 24.  Most have returned, but several
hundred are still in temporary housing because of fire damage.
Ms. Blair is also suing Greenwin Property Management, which was
looking after the building at the time.

TCHC is offering tenants $3,300 to $5,300 in compensation on a
"compassionate basis."  Tenants must obtain independent advice
before accepting the money, and in doing so forfeit their right to
participate in a class action, which class lawyers say is unlikely
to be certified before the offer's Jan. 21 deadline.

Pro Bono is an independent legal charity that links up lawyers who
want to donate their time with people who could not otherwise
afford legal advice.  It was approached by Neighbourhood Legal
Services and TCHC a few weeks ago to boost legal services to fire
victims, Mr. Cohen said in an interview.

"We have every confidence that the legal advice that the lawyers
gave was independent," said Mr. Cohen.  "TCHC was not in the
room."

The housing provider's role in the orientation session was limited
to "providing background into the compensation plan," said
Mr. Cohen.  "I don't think that's a controversial role, I think
it's a necessary role."

Volunteer lawyers were also given a letter from the class-action
team outlining their concerns, said Mr. Cohen.  "We're not side
takers here at all," said Mr. Cohen.

He acknowledged that "some may perceive it as premature for
residents to be making a decision on this, but the lawyers were in
a very good position to advise them that they don't have to make
any decisions now."

A spokesman for TCHC said it has hired lawyers at a daily rate,
instead of per client or on commission, to ensure they provide
independent legal advice that is in the best interest of the
tenant.  That means "respecting lawyer-client privilege with
respect to individual files and conversations," said Jeffrey
Ferrier, with the TCHC.


UNITED STATES: Cobell Class Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article at The Blog of Legal Times by Mike
Scarcella, a federal judge in Washington on Dec. 21 preliminarily
approved a landmark $3.4 billion settlement in a longstanding
class action litigation over the mismanagement of trust fund
assets for hundreds of thousands of Native Americans.

Lawyers for lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell and a team of Justice
and Interior Department attorneys urged Senior Judge Thomas Hogan
to approve the deal.  Judge Hogan's order kicks off a
comprehensive notice plan to inform potentially 600,000
beneficiaries of the deal between the plaintiffs and the
government.

Hogan and the opposing lawyers in court recounted what they
described as arm's-length negotiations that produced a settlement
in December 2009 to compensate individual Indians with trust
assets held by the federal government.  Ms. Cobell's suit, filed
in 1996 in Washington's federal trial court, alleged decades of
mismanagement of trust fund assets stemming from the use of land
for oil, minerals, gas, timber and other resources.

The settlement required congressional authorization.  After a year
kicking around the House and Senate, Congress approved the
settlement last month and President Barack Obama signed off on the
deal earlier this month.

Justice Department attorney Robert Kirschman Jr. called the
settlement a fair deal for the plaintiffs and for taxpayers.

A lead attorney for Ms. Cobell, Washington solo practitioner
Dennis Gingold, said it's the plaintiffs' desire to move swiftly
to implement the settlement.  "Every step is important, and this
was an important step," Mr. Gingold said after the hearing.

On Dec. 21, Judge Hogan designated J.P. Morgan as the qualifying
bank at the request of Ms. Cobell's lawyers.  The judge also
authorized $20 million to launch a notice program in January to
inform potential beneficiaries about the settlement.  A fairness
hearing is scheduled for next June.


UNITED STATES: $3.4BB Cobell Class Action Settlement Challenged
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that descendants of
slaves owned by the so-called Five Civilized Tribes challenged the
$3.4 billion class action settlement in Elouise Cobell et al. v.
Ken Salazar, in a class action of their own.  The Harvest
Institute Freedman Federation says the Cobell settlement was
racially discriminatory, with the United States paying off
descendants of treasonous Indian slave-owners who took the South's
side in the Civil War, while stiffing descendants of the Indians'
slaves.

The $3.4 billion settlement in Cobell v. Salazar, which will be
implemented under Title I of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010,
"is racially discriminatory and perpetuates past unlawful racial
discrimination," the Freedman Federation says in its own class
action.

During the Civil War, the Seminole, Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek and
Chickasaw tribes cut ties with the Union and entered into treaties
with the Confederacy.  In 1866, the tribes had to make new
treaties with the United States to regain their land and trust
beneficiary status, according to the complaint.

Part of the deal was emancipation of the tribes' slaves, the
Freedmen, and though each treaty was different, the slaves of each
tribe were to be accepted into the tribe and given various amounts
of land in order for the tribes to be given their trust benefits,
the class says.

The Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes were reluctant to take the deal;
the Choctaw never gave its freedmen the land they were owed and
the Chickasaw never adopted them into the tribe, the complaint
states.

The Claims Resolution Act will give the descendents of these
tribes assets while denying trust benefits to the freed slaves
that were "swindled" of their land.

The Cobell case challenged the government's mishandling of Indian
trust assets.  The "settlement reaffirms the existence of a trust
relationship between the United States and Native Americans dating
back to 1887," according to the Freedmen's complaint.

But the class adds, "by reason of racism and misfeasance members
of the putative plaintiff class were excluded from the receipt of
proceeds of these land transactions and therefore did not have
individual money accounts established, although under the treaties
with the defendants establishment of these accounts for Freedmen
was mandatory."

The Harvest Institute has lost before on this issue, in a Federal
Court ruling that placed a 6-year statute of limitations on its
claims, under the Tucker Act.

But the class claims that that ruling, which was upheld on appeal,
is wrong under the repudiation rule, because the government has
not repudiated its responsibility to the Indians.

"It is unlawful racial discrimination for the United States to now
decide that it will acknowledge and redress its breach of trust
responsibility to the Native Americans, but deny it as to the
Freedman," the class claims.

The class representatives are the Harvest Institute Freedman
Federation and Leatrice Tanner-Brown.  It demands an injunction
preventing the United States from enacting Title I of the Claims
Resolution Act, a declaration that the law is unconstitutional,
and equitable relief.

A copy of the Complaint in Harvest Institute Freedman Federation,
LLC, et al. v. The United States of America, et al., Case No. 10-
cv-01131 (S.D. Ohio) (Sargus, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/21/Freedmen.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Percy Squire, Esq.
          PERCY SQUIRE CO., LLC
          514 S. High Street
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: 614-224-6528
          E-mail: psquire@sp-lawfirm.com


WINDOWWIZARDS: On Brink of Settling Class Action
------------------------------------------------
myfoxphilly.com reports there have been a lot of headlines lately
about WindowWizards -- the window replacement company -- about how
it is in trouble, including it's recent closing and re-opening.

Now, it appears, the window giant and one of it's manufacturers
are on the brink of settling a huge class-action lawsuit.

The suit grew directly out of a Fox 29 investigation report from
2009.  The report raised questions about the amount of foam
insulation in a popular WindowWizards product.


WORLD RESERVE: Sued in California Over Bait-and-Switch Scams
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that World Reserve Monetary
Exchange, Universal Media Syndicate, and Arthur Middleton Capital
Holdings "have already been shut down in several states" for bait-
and-switch scams that offer "free" products, then charge hundreds
of dollars in "fees," according to a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Pfizer v. World Reserve Monetary
Exchange, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01935 (C.D. Calif.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/21/BaitSwitch.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferell, Esq.
          James B. Hardin, Esq.
          Michael E. Velarde, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
          610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464


YOUR FRIENDS: Former Employees File Class Action to Get Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ellie Bogue, writing for The News-Sentinel, reports Allen County
Circuit Court has ordered the Allen County Sheriff's Department to
seize and or freeze property of Your Friends & Neighbors.

Your Friends & Neighbors, a Fort Wayne-based company that ran
group homes for people with developmental disabilities, closed for
business in October, according to published reports and the
company's website.

A class-action lawsuit on behalf of 29 former employees of the
company was filed in Allen Circuit Court by Burt, Blee, Dixon,
Sutton & Bloom against Your Friends & Neighbors Inc., Rosewater
Inc., Pejus Inc. and Grabill Bank for failure to pay wages earned,
vacation pay and overtime, which were otherwise due and payable
before or upon separation in October.

A letter dated Dec. 13 from the Indiana attorney general's office
gave permission to the attorneys to pursue the plaintiffs' claims.
On Dec. 17, according to court documents, a summons was issued to
all the defendants, stating that they or their attorneys have 23
days to reply to the summons and that a hearing has been set for
Jan. 20.

Also on Dec. 17, the order to seize the properties and assets of
the defendants related to the former company was issued to the
Allen County Sheriff's Department.  The documents stated, "There
was probable cause to believe that the following property is in
immediate and threatened danger of being removed for the State of
Indiana, or being sold, conveyed or otherwise disposed of, with
the fraudulent intent to cheat, hinder or delay the Defendants
YFN's creditors."

The agency, which had been around for 25 years had been under a
cloud since May, when former CEO Ernest M. Beal Jr., 57, was
sentenced to two years in prison for Class D felony theft in
connection with $75,000 in missing patient trust funds. Beal was
convicted by a jury in April.  In June, the state's Family and
Social Services Administration said it was attempting to have Your
Friends & Neighbors' Medicaid license revoked and was seeking
authority to remove residents and relocate them.  Your Friends &
Neighbors, under new CEO Justin Beal -- Ernest Beal's son --
challenged that action in court; their position was ruled valid by
an administrative law judge.

However, that ruling was appealed by the FSSA, and another ruling
said the administrative law judge "made an erroneous decision" in
finding the FSSA could not revoke the Medicaid license without
cause, saying the FSSA actually had such a right because its
agreement with Your Friends & Neighbors included a provision that
allows a termination of license with a 60-day notice.


* U.S. Securities Class-Action Filings to Reach 239 by Year-End
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Klein Aguilar, writing for Compliance Week, reports the
expected post-Morrison decline in federal securities class-action
filings hasn't yet materialized.  Thanks to a second half jolt,
the pace of U.S. filings is on track to exceed last year's total,
according to the latest study by NERA Economic Consulting.

Following a slowdown during the first half of the year, NERA
projects federal securities class-action filings will reach 239
cases by year's end, well above the 220 class-action cases filed
in 2009, according to the firm's 2010 Year-End Update.  The report
is based on filings and dismissals through Nov. 30 and settlements
through Dec. 31.

The rate of class-actions filings stemming from the global credit
crisis continues to fall.  Only 31 such cases had been filed
through the end of November, compared to 57 in 2009 and 103 in
2008.

Those cases have been offset by a resurgence in other types of
filings, including undisclosed product and operational defects,
breach of fiduciary duties, and accounting improprieties,
according to authors Jordan Milev, Robert Patton, and Svetlana
Starykh.

Undisclosed product and operational defects, including alleged
defects relating to both financial and non-financial products, and
breach of fiduciary duty (generally relating to mergers and
acquisitions) were among the most frequent allegations in cases
filed in 2010.

Financial institutions remain a major target.  Those companies
were named as the primary defendant and/or codefendant in 90
cases, or about 41% of securities class actions filed.  More than
half of the filings against those companies appear unrelated to
the credit crisis, according to the report.

Breaking a pattern of the past several years, the Ninth Circuit
led the number of filings in 2010.  The Second Circuit had the
most filings in each year from 2006 to 2009.  As of November 2010,
the Ninth Circuit had 62 filings, 26% more filings than the Second
Circuit.

The median settlement value exceeded $10 million for the first
time ever, climbing more than 30% to $11.1 million in 2010. That
was driven by a record high in the median value of investor
losses, a variable that serves as a proxy for the size of a case
and correlates highly with the settlement amount, according to
NERA.  Median investor losses for cases settled in 2010 reached a
record $604 million, more than 50% higher than in any year since
the 1995 enactment of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act.

Meanwhile, median investor losses for cases filed in 2010 are down
to pre-credit crisis levels and well below recent highs in 2008
and 2009.  Looking ahead, the authors say that may suggest a
decline in the size of the median settlement once the wave of
credit crisis litigation is resolved.


* Thailand's Class Action Bill to Be Sent to Parliament
-------------------------------------------------------
Chaiporn Supvoranid and Timothy Brier of Baker & McKenzie report
the ways the public can seek redress for damages have been changed
by recent developments in the Thai legal system, including the
introduction of the Consumer Proceedings Act.  The new law
provides consumers with a more efficient channel to initiate
lawsuits and empowers the court to award a broader range of
damages, such as punitive damages, as well as remedies, such as
product replacements and compulsory recalls.

Another chapter is now being written with the introduction of the
"class action" concept.  The cabinet last month approved the Bill
on Amendment of the Civil Procedure Code, also known as the Class
Action Bill, to create a Thai class action system.  It will now be
sent to Parliament for further action.

A class action traditionally involves the bringing of a lawsuit by
representative member(s) of a large group of persons on behalf of
all members of an ascertainable group that share a common interest
in issues of law and fact.  For example, a group of villagers who
are injured from pollution emitted from a mine located along a
river, file a lawsuit on their behalf and on behalf of others who
live along the river against the mining company.  In a class
action, if the court finds that all injured persons should be
properly combined into one case, it will certify the class.  If
the class succeeds in the lawsuit, the court will award a judgment
ordering the defendant to pay damages to all injured persons in
the same class, even those members of the class who never attended
and participated in court hearings.

A class action is considered advantageous because a large number
of separate claims are brought into one representational lawsuit,
which increases the efficiency of the legal process, lowers the
cost of litigation, and ensures claimants receive an equitable
division of funds.  A driving economic force behind class actions
is the ability to combine numerous low-value claims into one large
claim that incentivizes lawyers to pursue the lawsuit.

The establishment of a class action system in Thailand was first
introduced by the Security Exchange of Thailand (SET) about 10
years ago in an attempt to protect minority shareholders in
securities fraud matters.  Later, when the bill was sent to the
Council of State for review, the Council of State recognized the
benefits of a class action system and proposed the scope be
extended to other types of litigation.

Under the current Class Action Bill, cases that can be initiated
as class actions include tort, breach of contract, consumer
protection, product liability, labor, trade competition and
environmental lawsuits.  Significant provisions include:

  -- In certifying the class, the court must satisfy itself with
the commonality of issues, the size of the group, the efficiency
of class action proceedings compared with normal civil proceedings
and the adequacy of the class representative.

  -- Once the court certifies the class, the court will give
notice to the members of the class to the extent the court is
informed of the identities of the class members and will also
notify the public of the class action in a prominent newspaper for
three consecutive days.

  -- All proceedings will bind all members of the class except
those who decide to opt out from the class, who must notify the
court within a specified period.

  -- In effecting a settlement, the court must approve the
settlement, which will bind all members of the class who have not
opted out.

  -- If the class succeeds in the lawsuit, the class will receive
100% of the awarded damages and the lawyer will be awarded, as a
separate amount on top of the award, lawyers' fees not exceeding
an amount equal to 30% of the awarded damages, which will not
diminish the damages to be paid to the class.

Undoubtedly, the introduction of class action lawsuits will be
warmly welcomed, particularly by social activists who work to
protect the benefits of less fortunate people, such as
underprivileged laborers who have been maltreated or persons whose
health is affected by pollution.

From another viewpoint, the Bill will increase the costs of doing
business in Thailand.  It is critical that all parties closely
monitor the development of this law, particularly those in the
insurance sector (in order to set premiums), banking and investors
(in order to set risk premiums), mergers and acquisitions (to
perform thorough due diligence of target companies and their
potential legal exposure), as well as company directors (to avoid
director liability) and business operators (to avoid crippling
lawsuits with massive media exposure).

With the upcoming dissolution of Parliament or the expiration of
Parliament's current term, however, it may take some time before
this bill becomes law and additional time until we see the first
class action lawsuit in Thailand.

                             *********

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  * * *