CAR_Public/101229.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, December 29, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 256

                             Headlines

BARNES & NOBLE: Appeals Pending in IPO Securities Litigation
BARNES & NOBLE: Case Management Conference to Continue Jan. 27
BB BUGGIES: Recalls 9,300 Classic Buggies
BIG LOTS: "Avitia" Plaintiffs Remove Class Allegations
BIG LOTS: Louisiana Suit Alleging FLSA Violations Still Pending

BIG LOTS: Plaintiffs' Appeal From Certification Denial Pending
BIG LOTS: Awaits Ruling on Certification Motion in "Gromek" Suit
BIG LOTS: Awaits Ruling on Remand Motion in "Sample" Matter
BIG LOTS: Discovery in New York FLSA Violations Suit Still Ongoing
BIG LOTS: Continues to Face Claims by Remaining "Caron" Plaintiff

BLUE CROSS: Sued for Denying Coverage for Mental Health Services
BOB EVANS: Awaits Final Court Approval of Mimi's Cafe Settlement
BOB EVANS: Payments Made to "Flores" Class Members, Case Dismissed
BORDERS GROUP: Discovery in General Managers' Suit Still Ongoing
CASEY'S GENERAL: Parties Agree to Dismiss Carpenters Pension Suit

CASEY'S GENERAL: OLERS Voluntarily Dismisses Lawsuit in Iowa
CASEY'S GENERAL: No Longer Facing Consolidated Shareholder Suit
CASEY'S GENERAL: Remains a Defendant in Four "Hot Fuel" Suits
CHINA EDUCATION: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
CHRYSLER GROUP: Sued in California Over Defective Jeep Liberties

CKE RESTAURANTS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Seek Dismissal of Claims
COMPELLENT TECHNOLOGIES: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
COMTECH TELECOM: Court Approves Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
COMTECH TELECOM: Dismissed as Defendant in CPI Lawsuit
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: $30MM Settlement Payment Due by May 15, 2011

CR ENGLAND: Class Action Over Lease Agreement Nears Resolution
DELL INC: Service Contract Fairness Hearing Set for March 21
DIAMOND FOODS: Continues to Defend Breach of Contract Suit
DONALDSON CO: Continues to Defend Auto Filters Suit in Illinois
DRESS BARN: Awaits Court Approval of Tween Suit Settlement

DRESS BARN: Final Settlement Hearing Held in Consolidated Suit
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Federal Judge Certifies Class Action
FINISAR CORP: Appeal on Final Judgment in Securities Suit Pending
FIRST HEALTH: Feb. 7 Status Conference Set for Class Action
FOOT LOCKER: Continues to Defend "Pereira" Suit in Pennsylvania

GERON CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in California
GREEN MOUNTAIN: Plaintiffs to File Consolidated Amended Complaint
H&R BLOCK: Appeal on Reversal of Decertification Still Pending
H&R BLOCK: Awaits Court Approval of POM Suits Settlement
H&R BLOCK: Trial in RSM McGladrey Litigation Set for May 2011

H&R BLOCK: Awaits Consolidation Order in Wage & Hour Suits
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Paid $10 Million to Create Suit Settlement Fund
HURONIA REGIONAL: Class Action Over Abuse Proceeding to Trial
KINDERMUSIK INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 7,000 Zoom Buggy Cars
LAFAYETTE INSURANCE: Supreme Court Overturns Class Certification

LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend "Brown" Suit in Illinois
MAGMA DESIGN: Continues to Defend Genesis Insurance Suit in Calif.
MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Weiss & Lurie Probes Royal DSM Acquisition
MECOX LANE: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
MEDTRONIC INC: 8th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Fidelis Suit

MEDTRONIC INC: Ontario Court Denies Further Appeal of Class Suit
MEDTRONIC INC: 8th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Kurzweil Claims
MEDTRONIC INC: Appeal to Dismiss "Brown" ERISA Suit Still Pending
MEDTRONIC INC: Motion to Dismiss "Wright" Suit Still Pending
MEDTRONIC INC: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Minn.

MEDTRONIC INC: Continues to Face Kinetic Knife Suit in Minnesota
MEDTRONIC INC: Pretrial Proceedings Still Ongoing in Ontario
MELA SCIENCES: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit
MICHAELS STORES: Recalls 8,250 Silver Tree Tealight Candle Holders

NAVISITE INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated IPO Suit
NAVISTAR INT'L: Faces Five Suits Over Engine Defects
NEIMAN MARCUS: Defends Complaint in San Francisco County
NICOR INC: D&Os Face Second Suit Over Sale of Company to AGL
NICOR INC: D&Os Face Third Suit Over Sale of Company to AGL

OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Pending
ORIENTAL TRADING: Recalls 220,000 Ceramic Piggy and Lion Banks
OVERHILL FARMS: Continues to Defend Two Employee Lawsuits
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Continues to Defend "Nelson" Suit in California
ROSS STORES: Still Facing Wage and Hour Lawsuit in California

SHOPPERS DRUG: Faces Class Suit for Breach of Franchise Agreement
SKYSERVICE AIRLINES: Ontario Ct. OKs Class Action Settlement
SMITH & WESSON: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Mass.
SYNGENTA AG: Tillery Files Pleadings Under Seal in Atrazine Suit
TELECOM PROVIDERS: Saskatchewan Class Action Nears Settlement

TORONTO COMMUNITY: Legal Aid Clinic Closes Over Unfair Offer
WYETH: Trial Lawyer Briefs Oppose Court Ruling in Consumer Suit
ZALE CORP: Defends Consolidated Suit in Northern Texas

* Alberta Opts Out as Class Action Jurisdiction



                             *********

BARNES & NOBLE: Appeals Pending in IPO Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc., disclosed in its Dec. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 30, 2010, that appeals remain pending in the
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation that one of its
former subsidiary was involved in.

The class action lawsuit In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York in April 2002 (the Action) named
over 1,000 individuals and 300 corporations, including
Fatbrain.com, LLC, a former subsidiary of Barnes & Noble.com
(Fatbrain), and its former officers and directors. The amended
complaints in the Action all allege that the initial public
offering registration statements filed by the defendant issuers
with the SEC, including the one filed by Fatbrain, were false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that the defendant
underwriters were receiving excess compensation in the form of
profit sharing with certain of its customers and that some of
those customers agreed to buy additional shares of the defendant
issuers' common stock in the aftermarket at increasing prices. The
amended complaints also allege that the foregoing constitute
violations of: (i) Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (Securities Act), by the defendant issuers, the directors
and officers signing the related registration statements, and the
related underwriters; (ii) Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act), by the
same parties; and (iii) the control person provisions of the
Securities Act and Exchange Act by certain directors and officers
of the defendant issuers. A motion to dismiss by the defendant
issuers, including Fatbrain, was denied.

After extensive negotiations among representatives of plaintiffs
and defendants, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU), outlining a proposed settlement resolving the
claims in the Action between plaintiffs and the defendant issuers.
Subsequently a settlement agreement was executed between the
defendants and plaintiffs in the Action, the terms of which are
consistent with the MOU. The settlement agreement was submitted to
the court for approval and on February 15, 2005, the judge granted
preliminary approval of the settlement.

On December 5, 2006, the federal appeals court for the Second
Circuit issued a decision reversing the District Court's class
certification decision in six focus cases. In light of that
decision, the District Court stayed all proceedings, including
consideration of the settlement. Plaintiffs then filed, in January
2007, a Petition for Rehearing En Banc before the Second Circuit,
which was denied in April 2007. On May 30, 2007, plaintiffs moved,
before the District Court, to certify a new class. On June 25,
2007, the District Court entered an order terminating the
settlement agreement. On October 2, 2008, plaintiffs agreed to
withdraw the class certification motion. On October 10, 2008, the
District Court signed an order granting the request.

A settlement agreement in principle, subject to court approval,
was negotiated among counsel for all of the issuers, plaintiffs,
insurers and underwriters and executed by Barnes & Noble. Final
court approval of the settlement was granted on October 5, 2009.
The District Court has finished entering the judgments approving
the settlement in all of the IPO cases, with the last judgment
entered on January 22, 2010. Pursuant to the settlement, no
settlement payment will be made by the Company. Since that time,
various notices of appeal have been filed by certain objectors on
an interlocutory basis. Should any of these appeals be successful
and the approval of the settlement overturned, the Company intends
to vigorously defend this lawsuit.


BARNES & NOBLE: Case Management Conference to Continue Jan. 27
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc., disclosed in its Dec. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 30, 2010, that a Case Management Conference
in the matter Minor v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., et al.,
will continue on January 27, 2011.

On May 1, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
against B&N Booksellers, Inc. (B&N Booksellers) in the Superior
Court for the State of California alleging wage payments by
instruments in a form that did not comply with the requirements of
the California Labor Code, allegedly resulting in impermissible
wage payment reductions and calling for imposition of statutory
penalties. The complaint also alleges a violation of the
California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act and seeks
restitution of such allegedly unpaid wages under California's
unfair competition law, and an injunction compelling compliance
with the California Labor Code. The complaint alleges two
subclasses of 500 and 200 employees, respectively (there may be
overlap among the subclasses), but contains no allegations
concerning the number of alleged violations or the amount of
recovery sought on behalf of the purported class.

On June 3, 2009, B&N Booksellers filed an answer denying all
claims. Discovery concerning purported class member payroll checks
and related information is ongoing. On August 19, 2010, B&N
Booksellers filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of a class
representative when the name plaintiff advised she did not wish to
continue to serve in that role. On October 15, 2010 the Court
issued an order denying B&N Bookseller's motion to dismiss. The
Court further ruled that Ms. Minor could not serve as a class
representative. The Court also granted Plaintiff's Motion to
Compel Further Responses to previously-served discovery seeking
contact information for the putative class. B&N Booksellers
provided that information on October 15, 2010.

The previously scheduled Case Management Conference has been
continued to January 27, 2011.


BB BUGGIES: Recalls 9,300 Classic Buggies
-----------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
BB Buggies Inc., which recently acquired certain assets of Bad Boy
Enterprises, LLC., announced a voluntary recall of about 9,300
Classic Buggies.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The off-road vehicles can accelerate without warning, posing a
risk of injury to the user and/or bystanders.

Since the October 2009 recall announcement, BB Buggies has
received 27 additional reports of unexpected acceleration,
including reports of arm and leg fractures.

This expanded recall involves all Bad Boy Classic model off-road
utility vehicles manufactured from early 2003 through May 2010.
Bad Boy Buggy Classic models come in camouflage patterns, hunter
green, red and black colors.  The XT model is not included in this
recall.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11079.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and
sold through authorized dealers nationwide from Spring 2003
through June 2010 for about $10,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the buggies and contact
their BB Buggies dealer to schedule a free repair.  For additional
information, contact BB Buggies toll-free at (855) 738-3711
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.badboybuggies.com/


BIG LOTS: "Avitia" Plaintiffs Remove Class Allegations
------------------------------------------------------
In April 2010, a class action complaint was filed against Big
Lots, Inc., in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County, alleging that the company violated certain California wage
and hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as
exempt employees.  The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own
behalf and on behalf of all other individuals who are similarly
situated, damages for alleged unpaid wages and overtime, untimely
paid wages at separation, improper wage statements, and attorneys'
fees and costs.  The Avitia matter is related to and overlaps
another class action.

In August 2010, the five plaintiffs named in the original
complaint filed an amended complaint that removed the class and
representative allegations and asserted only individual actions.

The company has answered the amended complaint and is in the
preliminary stages of discovery, according to the company's
Dec. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 30, 2010.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BIG LOTS: Louisiana Suit Alleging FLSA Violations Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc., continues to defend a civil collective action
complaint in Louisiana though a settlement agreement has been
conditionally approved, according to the company's Dec. 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended October 30, 2010.

In November 2004, a civil collective action complaint was filed
against the company alleging that the company violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as
exempt employees.  The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of
themselves and all other individuals who are similarly situated,
alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 5, 2005, the District Court in Louisiana issued an order
conditionally certifying a class of all then-current and former
assistant store managers who have worked for the company since
Nov. 23, 2001.  As a result of that order, notice of the lawsuit
was sent to approximately 5,500 individuals who had the right to
opt-in to the Louisiana matter.  Approximately 1,100 individuals
opted to join the Louisiana matter.

The company filed a motion to decertify the class and the motion
was denied on Aug. 24, 2007.

The trial began on May 7, 2008, and concluded on May 15, 2008.

On June 20, 2008, the District Court in Louisiana issued an order
decertifying the action and dismissed, without prejudice, the
claims of the opt-in plaintiffs.  After this ruling, four
plaintiffs remained before the District Court in Louisiana.
On Jan. 26, 2009, three of the plaintiffs presented their
respective cases before the District Court in Louisiana.  Since
then, the claims of one of the plaintiffs in the January
2009 action and the fourth plaintiff (who did not participate in
the January 2009 action) were dismissed with prejudice.
On April 2, 2009, the District Court in Louisiana awarded the two
remaining plaintiffs an aggregate amount of approximately $100,000
plus attorneys' fees and costs, which, on June 25, 2009, were
determined to be $400,000.  The company appealed both of these
decisions.

Subsequent to the Court's April 2, 2009 decision, approximately
172 of the opt-in plaintiffs filed individual actions in the
Court.  On August 13, 2009, the company filed a writ of mandamus
challenging the Court's jurisdiction to hear these cases. This
writ was denied on October 20, 2009.

On January 12, 2010, the Louisiana matter was preliminarily
settled for $4.0 million, and on June 29, 2010, the Court
conditionally approved the settlement.  Following additional
administrative processing, all settled cases will be dismissed
with prejudice.

As of August 24, 2010, the company had received executed releases
from all but one of the 172 plaintiffs.  Unless and until an
executed release is received, that plaintiff's case will not be
dismissed and the company will not pay a settlement amount to that
plaintiff.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BIG LOTS: Plaintiffs' Appeal From Certification Denial Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal from the ruling of the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County denying class certification in a
lawsuit against Big Lots, Inc., remains pending, according to the
company's Dec. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 30, 2010.

In September 2006, a class action complaint was filed against the
company n the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
alleging that the company violated certain California wage
and hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as
exempt employees.  The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own
behalf and on behalf of all other individuals who are similarly
situated, damages for alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum
wages, wages not paid upon termination, improper wage statements,
missed rest breaks, missed meal periods, reimbursement of
expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On Oct. 29, 2009, the Court denied the plaintiffs' class
certification motion, with prejudice.

On Jan. 21, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal, and the
parties will have an opportunity to brief their positions in the
coming months.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BIG LOTS: Awaits Ruling on Certification Motion in "Gromek" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc., is awaiting a court ruling on a class
certification motion filed by plaintiffs of a civil collective
action complaint, according to the company's Dec. 8, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended October 30, 2010.

In June 2010, a civil collective action complaint was filed
against the company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, alleging that it violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as
exempt employees.  The plaintiffs sought to recover, on behalf of
themselves and all other individuals who were similarly situated,
alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The company answered the plaintiffs' complaint in August 2010.

On October 15, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion requesting that
the Court 1) conditionally certify a class of then-current and
former assistant store managers employed during the prior three
years, excluding those employed in California or New York, and 2)
authorize the plaintiff to send a notice of this lawsuit to those
putative class members to allow them to join this lawsuit.

The Company have opposed the plaintiff's motion and is awaiting
the Court's ruling.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BIG LOTS: Awaits Ruling on Remand Motion in "Sample" Matter
-----------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc., is awaiting a court ruling on a motion to remand
filed by the plaintiff in a representative enforcement action,
according to the company's Dec. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 30, 2010.

In June 2010, a representative enforcement action was filed
against the company in the Superior Court of California, Alameda
County, alleging that it violated certain California wage and hour
laws for missed meal and rest periods and other wage and hour
claims -- "Sample" matter.  The plaintiff seeks to recover, on her
behalf and on behalf of a California statewide class consisting of
all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages
resulting from allegedly unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period
premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid business expenses,
non-payment of wages at termination, untimely payment of wages,
noncompliant wage statements, failure to providing seating, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

In July 2010, the company answered the plaintiff's complaint and
filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court,
Northern District of California.

On August 25, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion requesting that
the United States District Court, Northern District of California
remand this lawsuit to the Superior Court of California, Alameda
County.  The company has opposed the plaintiff's motion to remand
and it awaits a ruling from the United States District Court,
Northern District of California.  The company is in the
preliminary stages of discovery.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BIG LOTS: Discovery in New York FLSA Violations Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a civil collective action complaint against Big Lots,
Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, is
still ongoing, according to the company's Dec. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 30, 2010.

In April 2009, a civil collective action complaint was filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York, alleging that the company violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as
exempt employees.  In addition, the plaintiff seeks class action
treatment under New York law relating to those assistant store
managers working in the State of New York.  The plaintiff seeks to
recover, on behalf of himself and all other individuals who are
similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well
as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On Jan. 21, 2010, a stipulation was filed and order rendered
limiting this action to current and former assistant store
managers working in the Company's New York stores.

On March 2, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification
and class notice.  On May 14, the Company filed a memorandum in
opposition to plaintiff's motion and the company awaits the
court's ruling.

The Company is currently engaged in discovery in the New York
matter.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BIG LOTS: Continues to Face Claims by Remaining "Caron" Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The claims of one plaintiff in a consolidated class action lawsuit
against Big Lots, Inc., remain before the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, according to the company's
Dec. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 30, 2010.

In February 2008, three alleged class action complaints were filed
against the company by a California resident.  The first was filed
in the Superior Court of California, Orange County.  This action
is similar in nature to another class action lawsuit, which
enabled the company to successfully coordinate this matter
with that lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County.  The second and third matters, filed in the United
States District Court, Central District of California, and the
Superior Court of California, Riverside County, respectively,
allege that the company violated certain California wage and hour
laws for missed meal and rest periods and other wage and hour
claims.  The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and
on behalf of a California statewide class consisting of all other
individuals who are similarly situated, damages resulting from
improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods,
non-payment of wages at termination, reimbursement of expenses,
loss of unused vacation time, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company believed these two matters overlapped and successfully
consolidated the two cases before the United States District
Court, Central District of California.  The company also believes
the remaining allegations also overlap some portion of the claims
released through a class action settlement.

On Aug. 25, 2009, the Court denied, without prejudice, the
plaintiffs' class certification motion.  On April 21, 2010, the
Court granted, with prejudice, the company's motion to deny class
certification.  Accordingly, the claims of one plaintiff remain
before the Court.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer.  Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.


BLUE CROSS: Sued for Denying Coverage for Mental Health Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Blue Cross of California dba
Anthem Blue Cross denies and delays coverage for mental health
services under the same terms and conditions as other illnesses, a
class action claims in Superior Court.


BOB EVANS: Awaits Final Court Approval of Mimi's Cafe Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Evans Farms, Inc., disclosed in its Dec. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 29, 2010, that it is awaiting final court
approval of its settlement with plaintiffs of a lawsuit against
SWH Corporation d/b/a Mimi's Cafe.

On October 13, 2009, a class action complaint entitled Edder Diaz
and Rosolyn Gray, et al. vs. SWH Corporation d/b/a Mimi's Cafe was
filed in Alameda County California Superior Court.  In a March
2010 amended complaint, Mr. Diaz and Ms. Gray purport to represent
a class of servers, bartenders, front-of-house trainers, to-go
servers, shift managers, or shift manager expeditors, who are
allegedly similarly situated.

In a second amended complaint filed in October 2010, Mr. Diaz and
Ms. Gray allege that current and former nonexempt employees
working in these positions in California from July 26, 2006, to
August 31, 2010 (1) were not reimbursed for certain expenses
incurred in connection with the discharge of their duties, (2)
were denied rest breaks and meal periods as required for nonexempt
employees under California wage and hour laws, (3) were not paid
minimum wage and overtime for time spent working off-the-clock
during, or in connection with, a meal period, and (4) were
required to pay for cash shortages.  The second amended complaint
seeks unspecified damages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees
and costs.

In October 2010, the Company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Diaz class representatives and their legal
counsel to settle the lawsuit for $340,000, inclusive of payments
to class members, enhancements to the class representatives, costs
of administration, and plaintiffs' attorney fees and costs related
to the lawsuit.  The proposed settlement is subject to court
approval.  The joint motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement is pending before the Alameda County California
Superior Court, and the hearing was scheduled for December 8,
2010.

Bob Evans Farms, Inc. -- http://www.bobevans.com/-- owns and
operates full-service restaurants under the Bob Evans and Mimi's
Cafe brand names.  At the end of the first fiscal quarter
(July 30, 2010), Bob Evans owned and operated 569 family
restaurants in 18 states, primarily in the Midwest, mid-Atlantic
and Southeast regions of the United States, while Mimi's Cafe
owned and operated 145 casual restaurants located in 24 states,
primarily in California and other western states.  Bob Evans
Farms, Inc., is also a leading producer and distributor of pork
sausage and a variety of complementary homestyle convenience food
items under the Bob Evans and Owens brand names.


BOB EVANS: Payments Made to "Flores" Class Members, Case Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Evans Farms, Inc., has paid members of a class of plaintiffs
in the matter Leonard Flores, et al., v. SWH Corporation d/b/a
Mimi's Cafe, according to the company's Dec. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter period ended October 29, 2010.

The class action complaint was filed on Oct. 28, 2008, against
Mimi's Cafe. Mimi's Cafe is a registered trademark of Bob Evans
Farms.  Mr. Flores was employed as an assistant manager of Mimi's
Cafe until September 2006 and purports to represent a class of
assistant managers who are allegedly similarly situated.  Mimi's
Cafe classified its assistant managers as exempt employees until
October 2009.  The case involves claims that current and former
assistant managers working in California from October 2004 to
October 2009 were misclassified by Mimi's Cafe as exempt
employees.  As a result, the complaint alleged that these
assistant managers were deprived of overtime pay, rest breaks and
meal periods as required for nonexempt employees under California
wage and hour laws.  The complaint sought injunctive relief,
equitable relief, unpaid benefits, penalties, interest and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Although the company believes Mimi's Cafe properly classified its
assistant managers as exempt employees under California law, the
company elected to resolve the Flores lawsuit through voluntary
mediation.

The Orange County California Superior Court granted final approval
of the settlement on June 10, 2010, and the company funded the
settlement of $1,108,722 on July 14, 2010.  Payment to class
members was mailed in August and the court dismissed the case.

Bob Evans Farms, Inc. -- http://www.bobevans.com/-- owns and
operates full-service restaurants under the Bob Evans and Mimi's
Cafe brand names.  At the end of the first fiscal quarter
(July 30, 2010), Bob Evans owned and operated 569 family
restaurants in 18 states, primarily in the Midwest, mid-Atlantic
and Southeast regions of the United States, while Mimi's Cafe
owned and operated 145 casual restaurants located in 24 states,
primarily in California and other western states.  Bob Evans
Farms, Inc., is also a leading producer and distributor of pork
sausage and a variety of complementary homestyle convenience food
items under the Bob Evans and Owens brand names.


BORDERS GROUP: Discovery in General Managers' Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2009, three former employees, individually and on
behalf of a purported class consisting of all current and former
employees who work or worked as General Managers in Borders
Group, Inc., stores in the State of California at any time from
February 19, 2005 through February 19, 2009, have filed an action
against the company in the Superior Court of California for the
County of Orange. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that
the individual plaintiffs and the purported class members were
improperly classified as exempt employees and that the company
violated the California Labor Code by failing to (i) pay required
overtime and (ii) provide meal periods and rest periods, and (iii)
that those practices also violate the California Business and
Professions Code. The relief sought includes damages, restitution,
penalties, injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees
and such other relief as the court deems proper.

Borders Group, Inc., disclosed in its Dec. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended October 30, 2010, that the case is in the
early stages of discovery, and no trial date is scheduled.  The
court has not ruled on any of the allegations, or decided whether
the case may proceed as a class action.  The company has not
included any liability in its consolidated financial statements in
connection with this matter and has expensed as incurred all legal
costs to date.  The company cannot reasonably estimate the amount
or range of possible loss, if any, at this time.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Parties Agree to Dismiss Carpenters Pension Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to a class action lawsuit filed by the Kentucky State
District Council of Carpenters Pension Trust Fund agreed to
dismiss the action, according to Casey's General Stores, Inc.'s
Dec. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2010.

On July 21, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,
captioned Kentucky State District Council of Carpenters Pension
Trust Fund v. Myers, et al., Case No. 4:10-cv-00332, on behalf of
a putative class of the company's shareholders against the company
and the Board.  In the Carpenters Pension Trust Complaint, the
plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with the Offer, and seeks, among other things, a
declaration that the Board has breached its fiduciary duties to
plaintiff and the class, an injunction preventing the Board from
initializing defensive measures which may render the acquisition
of the company unduly burdensome or expensive for a potential
acquirer, an order requiring the Board to rescind or redeem the
Rights or declaring the Rights invalid and invalidating amendments
to certain employment agreements, imposition of a constructive
trust in favor of plaintiff and the class and an award of
plaintiff's costs.

On Aug. 13, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Carpenters Pension Trust Complaint.  On Aug. 20, 2010, the
plaintiffs in the Carpenters Pension Trust Complaint filed an
amended complaint.

In addition to the claims asserted and relief sought in the
initial complaint, the amended complaint asserts claims that the
Board violated Section 20(a) and Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder for allegedly making untrue
or misleading statements in the Schedule 14D-9 and the company's
2010 Proxy Statement, and includes allegations that the
recapitalization plan was in breach of the Board's fiduciary
duties.

On Aug. 25, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Carpenters Pension Trust
Complaint filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order seeking to bar the company and the Board from
enforcing Section 8.7 of the Note Agreement relating to changes of
control and also seeking an expedited trial on the matter.

On Aug. 30, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Carpenters Pension Trust
Complaint filed a motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint.  In addition to the claims asserted and relief sought
in the initial complaint and amended complaint, the purported
second amended complaint included a claim against the holders of
the 5.22% Senior Notes for aiding and abetting the breach of
fiduciary duty by the Board and sought an order declaring the
recapitalization plan invalid and in derogation of the Board's
fiduciary duties.

On September 9, 2010, the court entered an order denying
plaintiff's motion for leave to file the second amended complaint,
and on October 11, 2010, plaintiff and the Company jointly filed a
stipulation of dismissal without prejudice.  The Company made no
payment to the plaintiff in connection with the dismissal of the
action.

Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/-- operates
convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store in nine
Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.


CASEY'S GENERAL: OLERS Voluntarily Dismisses Lawsuit in Iowa
------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's General Stores, Inc., is no longer facing a class action
complaint in Iowa after the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
lawsuit, according to the Company's Dec. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended October 31, 2010.

On August 9, 2010, a purported class action and shareholder
derivative complaint was filed in the Iowa District Court in and
for Polk County, both on behalf of a putative class of the
Company's shareholders and derivatively on behalf of the Company,
against the Company and the Board. In the Oklahoma Law Enforcement
Retirement System Complaint, the plaintiff asserted claims for
breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Offer, and sought,
among other things, a declaration that the Board breached its
fiduciary duties to the class, an injunction preventing the Board
from implementing defensive measures that would impede the class'
ability to consider or accept the Offer, an order requiring the
Board to rescind or redeem the Rights or declaring the Rights
invalid, an order requiring the Board to terminate the
recapitalization plan, an order requiring corrective disclosures,
imposition of a constructive trust in favor of plaintiff and the
class and an award of plaintiff's costs.

On September 17, 2010, plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal
without prejudice.  The Company made no payment to plaintiff in
connection with the dismissal of the action.

Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/-- operates
convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store in nine
Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.


CASEY'S GENERAL: No Longer Facing Consolidated Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On April 28, 2010, a purported class action complaint -- Mercier
Complaint -- was filed in the Iowa District Court in and for Polk
County, on behalf of a putative class of Casey's General Stores,
Inc.'s shareholders against the Company and the Board. The
plaintiff in the Mercier Complaint asserted a claim for breach of
fiduciary duty in connection with the Offer and sought an order
requiring the Board to place the Company up for auction and/or to
conduct a market check and requiring the Company to make full and
fair disclosure of all material facts to the class before the
completion of an acquisition; a declaration that the Board
breached its fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the class; and an
award of fees, expenses and costs.

On June 29, 2010, a class action complaint -- Howie Complaint --
was filed in the Iowa District Court in and for Polk County, on
behalf of a putative class of the Company's shareholders against
the Company and the Board. In the Howie Complaint, the plaintiff
asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with
the Offer, and sought, among other things, an order requiring the
Board to undertake an evaluation of alternative transactions and
to redeem the Rights, an injunction preventing any material
transactions or changes to the Company's business and assets other
than under court supervision and an award of damages as well as
fees, expenses and costs.

On August 4, 2010, the Iowa District Court in and for Polk County
consolidated the Howie Complaint into the Mercier Complaint and
appointed counsel in the Mercier Complaint as lead counsel. On
August 16, 2010, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed
an amended and consolidated petition. In addition to the claims
asserted and relief sought in the original Mercier complaint, the
amended and consolidated petition asserted a derivative claim for
breach of fiduciary duty against the Board and sought, among other
things, an order requiring the Board to terminate the
recapitalization plan.

On August 23, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated action. On October 13, 2010, the plaintiffs in the
consolidated action filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
action without prejudice, and on November 19, 2010, the court
entered an order dismissing the consolidated action without
prejudice.

The Company made no payment to the plaintiffs in connection with
the dismissal of the consolidated action, according to the
Company's Dec. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2010.

Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/-- operates
convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store in nine
Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Remains a Defendant in Four "Hot Fuel" Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's General Stores, Inc., remains a defendant in four lawsuits
over its motor fuel practices, according to the company's Dec. 9,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2010.

The company is named as a defendant in four lawsuits brought in
the federal courts in Kansas and Missouri against a variety of
gasoline retailers.  The complaints generally allege that the
company, along with numerous other retailers, has misrepresented
gasoline volumes dispensed at its pumps by failing to compensate
for expansion that occurs when fuel is sold at temperatures above
60 degrees Fahrenheit.  Fuel is measured at 60 degrees Fahrenheit
in wholesale purchase transactions and computation of motor fuel
taxes in Kansas and Missouri.  The complaints all seek
certification as class actions on behalf of gasoline consumers
within those two states, and one of the complaints also seeks
certification for a class consisting of gasoline consumers in all
states.  The actions generally seek recovery for alleged
violations of state consumer protection or unfair merchandising
practices statutes, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and violation of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing; several seek injunctive relief and
punitive damages.

These actions are among a total of 45 similar lawsuits that have
been filed since November 2006 in 27 jurisdictions, including 25
states, the District of Columbia, and Guam against a wide range of
defendants that produce, refine, distribute and market gasoline
products in the United States.  On June 18, 2007, the Federal
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the
pending hot fuel cases -- officially, the "Motor Fuel Temperature
Sales Practices Litigation" -- be transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City, Kansas, for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, including
rulings on discovery matters, various pretrial motions, and class
certification.  Discovery efforts by both sides were substantially
completed during the ensuing months, and the plaintiffs filed
motions for class certification in each of the pending lawsuits.

In a Memorandum and Order entered on May 28, 2010, the Court ruled
on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in two cases
originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, American Fiber & Cabling, LLC v. BP West Coast Products,
LLC, et. al., Case No. 07-2053, and Wilson v. Ampride, Inc., et.
al., Case No. 06-2582, in which the company is a named Defendant.
The Court determined that it could not certify a class as to
claims against the company in the American Fiber & Cabling case,
having decided that the named Plaintiff had no standing to assert
such claims.  However, in the Wilson case the Court certified a
class as to the liability and injunctive aspects of the
Plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment and violation of the
Kansas Consumer Protection Act against the Company and several
other Defendants.

With respect to claims for unjust enrichment, the class certified
consists of all individuals and entities (except employees or
affiliates of the Defendants) that, at any time between Jan. 1,
2001 and the present, purchased motor fuel at retail at a
temperature greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit, in the state of
Kansas, from a gas station owned, operated, or controlled by one
or more of the Defendants.  As to claims for violation of the
KCPA, the class certified is limited to all individuals, sole
proprietors and family partnerships (excluding employees or
affiliates of Defendants) that made such purchases.

The Court also ordered the parties to show cause in writing why
the Wilson case and the American Fiber & Cabling case should not
be consolidated for all purposes.  The matter is now under
consideration by the Court.  No trial date has been set.

Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/-- operates
convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store in nine
Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.


CHINA EDUCATION: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. reminds investors of the January 31, 2011
lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action.  If you
purchased the common stock of China Education Alliance, Inc.
(NYSE: CEU) during the period from March 31, 2009 to November 29,
2010, you should contact the Rosen Law Firm for more information
about the importance of serving as a lead plaintiff. The lawsuit
is seeking to recover damages for investors from violations of
federal securities laws.

To join the China Education class action, visit the Rosen Law
Firm's Web site at http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call Laurence
Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you
may also email lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.

The Complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
against China Education Alliance and certain of its officers and
directors for misrepresenting the Company's financial performance.
The Complaint alleges that contrary to the Company's annual
reports filed with the SEC for fiscal 2008, which reported $24.9
million of revenue, an annual report for the Company's main
operating subsidiary filed with the Chinese authorities reported
less than a million of revenue for 2008.  This discrepancy, along
with other accounting inconsistencies, and contradictions about
the Company's online education and training center operating
segments, has raised red flags of fraud.  When this adverse
information was released to the market on November 29, 2010 the
price of China Education Alliance stock dropped, damaging
investors.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  Until a
class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you
retain one.  You may choose to do nothing at this point and remain
an absent class member.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 31, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM
          Toll-Free: 866-767-3653
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com/-- represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Sued in California Over Defective Jeep Liberties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Chrysler Group sold and leased defective Jeep Liberties, 2002-2007
model year, "that cannot be successfully repaired despite repeated
attempts to do so."

A copy of the Complaint in Wolfington v. Chrysler Group, LLC, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-02623 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/22/Chrysler.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter J. Bezek, Esq.
          Robert A. Curtis, Esq.
          FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS
          15 West Carillo Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 962-9495
          E-mail: pbezek@foleybezek.com
                  rcurtis@foleybezek.com

               - and -

          J. Paul Gignac, Esq.
          Helen Kim, Esq.
          ARIAS OZZELLO & GIGNAC LLP
          115 S. La Cumbre Lane, Suite 300
          Santa Barbara, CA 93105
          Telephone: (805) 683-7400
          E-mail: j.paul@aogllp.com
                  hkim@aogllp.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey s. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Todd Naylor, Esq.
          Terri Groh, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER & GROH, LPA
          35 East Seventh Street, Suite 600
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-2012
          Telephone: (513) 345-8291
          E-mail: igoldenberg@gsglegal.com
                  tnaylor@gsglegal.com
                  tgroh@gsglegal.com


CKE RESTAURANTS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Seek Dismissal of Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CKE Restaurants, Inc., is awaiting a court ruling on the request
filed by plaintiffs in a consolidated class action lawsuit for the
dismissal of their claims with prejudice, according to the
company's Dec. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 1, 2010.

Between March 1, 2010, and March 26, 2010, seven putative
stockholder class actions were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery and the Superior Court of California for the County of
Santa Barbara against the Company, each of its directors, Thomas
H. Lee Partners, LP and its affiliates alleging the directors
breached their fiduciary duties regarding a prior merger agreement
with an affiliate of THL and that THL and its affiliates aided and
abetted those breaches.  On March 26, 2010, the Superior Court of
California for the County of Santa Barbara consolidated the four
cases filed in that court as In re CKE Restaurants, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 1342245.  On March 29, 2010,
the Delaware Court consolidated the three cases filed in that
court as In re CKE Restaurants, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 5290-VCP.

On May 12, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action filed an
amended consolidated complaint against the Company, its directors,
Apollo Management and its affiliates, Parent and Merger Sub, that
dropped the challenge to the Prior Merger Agreement and instead
alleged the directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger, including that the directors had
breached their duty of disclosure in the preliminary proxy
statement, and that Apollo and its affiliates aided and abetted
those breaches.

On November 18, 2010, the Delaware Court held a hearing to
consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
settlement proposed in the Stipulation of Settlement. The Court
issued an Order and Final Judgment finally approving the
settlement, and resolving and releasing all claims in all actions
that were or could have been brought by shareholders challenging
any aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure
made in connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal
under Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law),
pursuant to terms that were disclosed in a Notice of Pendency of
Class Action, Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Settlement
Hearing and Right to Appear mailed to stockholders prior to final
approval of the settlement. While the Delaware Court's Order and
Final Judgment is final, it is subject to appeal for the next 30
days. In connection with the settlement, plaintiffs' counsel filed
a motion in the Delaware Court for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses, which the Delaware Court granted. The attorneys' fees
and expenses the Delaware Court awarded have been paid by the
Company's insurer.

In addition, on November 30, 2010, the plaintiffs in the
California Action filed a voluntary request for dismissal of their
claims with prejudice, which is pending entry by the Court.


COMPELLENT TECHNOLOGIES: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Compellent Technologies is
selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Dell, for
$27.50 a share or $815 million, shareholders claim in Chancery
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in City of Orlando Police Pension Fund v.
Soran, et al., Case No. 6087 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/22/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esq.
          P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
          Atara Hirsch, Esq.
          Philip T. Taylor, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 279-5050


COMTECH TELECOM: Court Approves Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A New York court approved the dismissal of a consolidated
securities fraud class action lawsuit against Comtech
Telecommunications Corp., according to the Company's Dec. 8, 2010
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended October 31, 2010.

Since July 2009, the Company and its CEO and CFO, were the
defendants in nearly identical purported class action lawsuits --
Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System, etc., v.
Comtech Telecommunications Corp. et al., 09 Civ. 3007 (SJF/AKT)
and Lawing v. Comtech Telecommunications Corp., 09 Civ. 3182 (JFB)
-- both of which were pending and then consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The Complaints alleged that the Company violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On November 22, 2010, the plaintiffs, by and through their
counsel, gave notice of the dismissal of the consolidated case
with prejudice as to the plaintiffs and moved for an order of the
court granting approval of the voluntary dismissal of the
consolidated action with prejudice as to the plaintiffs.

On November 29, 2010, the court dismissed the case.


COMTECH TELECOM: Dismissed as Defendant in CPI Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Comtech Telecommunications Corp. has been dismissed as a defendant
in a lawsuit filed by stockholders of CPI International, Inc., who
are against the two companies' proposed merger, according to
Comtech's Dec. 8, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2010.

In October 2010, the Company was dismissed, without prejudice, as
a defendant in a putative stockholder class action complaint that
was filed by a stockholder of CPI against CPI, its directors and
the Company in connection with Comtech's proposed merger with CPI
which was terminated in September 2010.  That lawsuit, entitled
Continuum Capital v. Michael Targoff, et al. (Case No.
110CV175940) and which was filed in the California Superior Court
for the County of Santa Clara, asserted claims alleging, among
other things, that each member of CPI's board of directors
breached his fiduciary duties by agreeing to the terms of the
proposed merger and by failing to provide stockholders with
allegedly material information related to the proposed merger, and
that Comtech aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty
allegedly committed by the members of CPI's board of directors.

In September 2010, the Company terminated the CPI transaction and
received a gross termination fee of $15,000,000 from CPI, and the
Company and CPI exchanged mutual general releases related to the
terminated transaction.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: $30MM Settlement Payment Due by May 15, 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Sept. 17, 2010, that
Comverse Technology, Inc., and certain of its current and former
officers and directors were named in these litigation relating to
the matters involved in the Comverse special committee
investigation:

     (a) a consolidated shareholder class action before the U.S.
         District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
         In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation,
         No. 06-CV-1825;

     (b) a consolidated shareholder derivative action before the
         U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
         New York, In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Derivative
         Litigation. No. 06-CV-1849; and

     (c) a consolidated shareholder derivative action before the
         Supreme Court of the State of New York, In re Comverse
         Technology, Inc. Derivative Litigation,
         No. 601272/2006.

The consolidated complaints in both the state and federal
shareholder derivative actions alleged that the defendants
breached certain duties to Comverse and that certain current and
former officers and directors of Comverse were unjustly enriched
(and, in the federal action, violated the federal securities laws)
by, among other things: (a) allowing and participating in a scheme
to backdate the grant dates of employee stock options to
improperly benefit Comverse's executives and certain directors;
(b) allowing insiders, including certain of the defendants, to
personally profit by trading Comverse's stock while in possession
of material inside information; (c) failing to properly oversee or
implement procedures to detect and prevent such improper
practices; (d) causing Comverse to issue materially false and
misleading proxy statements, as well as causing Comverse to file
other false and misleading documents with the SEC; and (e)
exposing Comverse to civil liability. The complaints sought
unspecified damages and various forms of equitable relief.

On December 16, 2009, Comverse entered into agreements, which were
subsequently amended, to settle the consolidated shareholder class
action and the consolidated shareholder derivative actions.

On June 23, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York issued orders in the shareholder class action and
federal shareholder derivative action granting final approval of
the settlement agreements in the respective actions.  The Court
later amended its order in the federal derivative action on
July 1, 2010 to incorporate ministerial changes.  The respective
orders dismissed both actions with prejudice.

In a Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Dec. 9, 2010, Comverse disclosed that it must
satisfy a $30.0 million payment obligation under a shareholder
class action settlement due by May 15, 2011.

The company also disclosed that it received $16.5 million in
insurance proceeds under its directors' and officers' insurance
policies in connection with the settlements of the previously
disclosed consolidated shareholder derivative actions and the
consolidated shareholder class action.


CR ENGLAND: Class Action Over Lease Agreement Nears Resolution
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sandi Soendker, Land Line Magazine, reports OOIDA's class action
lawsuit against a Salt-Lake City motor carrier is finally moving
toward resolution.  The case is still in the damages phase, and
the federal judge in Utah -- whose job it is to determine how much
will be awarded to the class -- is pushing for a mid-2011 wrap up.

BACKGROUND: The class action lawsuit was first filed in 2002 and
went to trial in federal court in 2006.  The takeaway for OOIDA
and trucker plaintiffs was a benchmark truth-in-leasing victory
for truckers.

A federal judge in Utah ruled that the lease agreement C.R.
England used with its owner-operators between the years 1998
through the summer of 2002 violated federal regulations in several
respects, including by failing to specify markups on charge-back
items and by forcing owner-operators to purchase administrative
services from the carrier.

U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart also held that the C.R. England's
lease violated the escrow provisions of the leasing regulations,
and specifically found that the motor carrier had improperly
managed thousands of truckers' escrow accounts.  The court ruled
that the motor carrier must provide an accounting of what happened
to those funds.

In October 2008, Judge Stewart held that individual class members
would be entitled to restitution, along with "payment of
reasonable interest," if they had positive escrow balances, after
consideration of any allowed set-offs.

Following the decision in Salt Lake City, Stewart referred the
case to U.S. Magistrate Judge David Nuffer to oversee the
disposition of individual class members' escrow claims.

CURRENT STATUS: OOIDA's Counsel David A. Cohen of The Cullen Law
Firm reported that both sides met with Judge David Nuffer on Dec.
17 to discuss moving forward with the accounting and specifically
the adjudication of C.R. England's setoffs against individual
class members.

"The judge stated that he is determined to move this case forward
in an efficient and expeditious manner," said Mr. Cohen.  "In that
regard, the parties have agreed to a joint adjudication plan that
will group similar claims together -- such as contested
refurbishment setoffs, contested maintenance charges, etc. -- so
that the case may be concluded without a thousand mini-trials."

Judge Nuffer has set aside seven days (Feb. 10-11; March 24,
May 4-6 and May 25) for hearings on contested setoff claims.
After each hearing the judge will make a ruling on the legitimacy
of the set-off in question and the ruling will be applied across
the class.

"The plan is to maximize efficiency by having the court make a
series of interim rulings that will have the effect of determining
damages/restitution for individual class members," said Mr. Cohen.
"For example, if the court rules, as we believe it should, that
the 'termination administrative fee'($500) was not a legitimate
charge, then the court's ruling will be applied to all individual
class members -- obviating the need to have a class member-by-
class member adjudication."

OOIDA does not believe the fee was legitimate because the $500
charge had no relation to C.R. England's actual costs.

Mr. Cohen said the goal is to have all setoffs adjudicated by this
summer.  Once the setoffs are disposed of, OOIDA will ask that
judgment be entered in favor of individual class members for the
unreturned escrow amounts plus any interest that is due to the
driver.

"Given the fact that the majority of class members signed a lease
containing an 18 percent interest clause, the damages/restitution
awarded will be quite substantial," he said.

Mr. Cohen said as the process moves forward, OOIDA will have a
better idea of the total damages to be awarded to the class.


DELL INC: Service Contract Fairness Hearing Set for March 21
------------------------------------------------------------

             IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
               NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
                      SAN JOSE DIVISION

  Vivian Fiori Ariza,             )
  Roggie Trujillo,                )
  Pamela Newport,                 )
  Raul Reyes, and                 )
  Robert Dean,                    )
                                  )
            PLAINTIFFS,           )
                                  )
       v.                         ) CASE NO. 09 CV 01518 JW
                                  )
  Dell Inc.; Banctec, Inc.;       )
  Worldwide TechServices, LLC;    )
  Dell Catalog Sales, L.P.;       )
  Dell Products, L.P.;            )
  Dell Marketing L.P.;            )
  Dell Marketing L.P., LLC;       )
  Dell Marketing G.P., LLC; and   )
  Dell USA, L.P.,                 )
                                  )
            DEFENDANTS.           )

                   SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED
                    CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TAKE NOTICE THAT:

    1. A settlement has been proposed in this class action lawsuit
that could affect your legal rights.  Read this publication
carefully.

    2. This class action lawsuit challenges Dell's sales
practices relating to its first year at-home service
contract charges and its next business day service
representations. Defendants deny all allegations of
wrongdoing and have agreed to settle the case for the
sole purpose of avoiding the uncertainties, expenses,
and time of further litigation. Under the settlement,
Dell agreed to pay cash benefits to eligible class
members as set forth below and change its sales
practices regarding its service contracts.

    3. If you are a consumer in California or Arizona who
purchased a Dell computer with an at-home service
contract directly from Dell between January 1, 2000, and
July 31, 2010, then you are a class member, and you
may be entitled to a $10, $8, or $4 cash benefit. To seek
payment, you must submit a Valid Claim Form by May
20, 2011, unless this date is extended. You may submit
a Claim Form online at http://www.servicecontractsettlement.com/
or request one from the Claims Administrator at the
address or telephone number listed below.

    4. To exclude yourself from or object to this
settlement and/or Class Counsel's application for
attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards for the
Class Representatives, or to move to intervene in
the case or indicate your intent to appear at the final
fairness hearing, you must follow the instructions in
the Notice described below. The deadline to opt out
of the class, submit a notice of appearance, or submit
any objections is February 22, 2011; the deadline to
move to intervene is January 27, 2011. If you opt out
of the class, you may NOT file a claim, and you will
not receive any compensation under the settlement.
If you do not opt out of the class, you will be bound
by the settlement and will release any and all claims
that you may have against the defendants about the
conduct at issue in this lawsuit. The Court will hold
a final fairness hearing to decide whether to approve
the proposed settlement on March 21, 2011, at 9:00
a.m., in Courtroom 8 of the U.S. District Court located
at 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113. This date
is subject to continuance by the Court.

    5. This is only a summary notice of the settlement.
The full and complete Notice, which provides additional
information regarding this case, this settlement,
your rights as a class member, and Class Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and costs in
the amount of $5,368,000, and incentive awards in the
amount of $5,000 for each Representative Plaintiff, is
available at http://www.servicecontractsettlement.com/or
from the Independent Claims Administrator at:

         Fiori v Dell, et al. Claims Administrator
         c/o Analytics Inc.,
         PO Box 2006
         Chanhassen, MN 55317-2006

(toll free at 1-888-735-3412).

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT WITH ANY QUESTIONS.


DIAMOND FOODS: Continues to Defend Breach of Contract Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Foods Inc. continues to defend itself against breach of
contract allegations asserted by Walnut Producers of California,
according to Diamond's Dec. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 31, 2010.

In March 2008, a former grower and an organization named Walnut
Producers of California filed suit against the company in San
Joaquin County Superior Court claiming, among other things, breach
of contract relating to alleged underpayment for walnut deliveries
for the 2005 and 2006 crop years.  The plaintiffs purport to
represent a class of walnut growers who entered into contracts
with the company.

In May 2008, the company argued a motion in front of the judge in
the case requesting, among other things, that all class action
allegations be struck from the plaintiffs' complaint.  In August
2008, the court granted the company's motion.

The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling, and in August 2010,
the Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiffs and affirmed the
trial court's decision to strike the class allegation from the
complaint.

The plaintiffs petitioned the California Supreme Court to hear the
case on appeal, and in November 2010, the court refused the
petition.  As a result of the ruling by the Court of Appeals, the
individually identified growers may only pursue their own claims,
and not seek damages on behalf of other parties as a class.
Diamond intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against
the plaintiffs' allegations.

Diamond Foods Inc. -- http://www.Diamondfoods.com/-- is a high-
growth innovative packaged food company focused on building,
acquiring and energizing brands including Kettle chips, Emerald(R)
snacks, Pop Secret(R) popcorn, and Diamond of California(R)
culinary and snack nuts.  The company's products are distributed
in a wide range of stores where snacks and culinary nuts are sold.


DONALDSON CO: Continues to Defend Auto Filters Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donaldson Company, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
lawsuit filed by S&E Quick Lube relating to aftermarket automotive
filters, according to the company's Dec. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended October 31, 2010.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a
lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that twelve filter manufacturers, including the company,
engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S.
Customers for aftermarket automotive filters.  The lawsuit seeks
various remedies, including injunctive relief and monetary damages
of an unspecified amount, and is a purported class action on
behalf of direct purchasers of automotive aftermarket filters from
the defendants.

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

The U.S cases have been consolidated into a single multi-district
litigation in the Northern District of Illinois.

In addition, on April 16, 2009, the Attorney General of the State
of Florida filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois based on these same allegations.

The Company will vigorously defend the claims raised in these
lawsuits. The Company understands that the Antitrust Division of
the Department of Justice was investigating the allegations raised
in these suits and issued subpoenas in connection with that
investigation. The Company was not contacted by the DOJ in
connection with the DOJ investigation, but public reports indicate
that the DOJ officially closed that investigation in January 2010.

In June 2010, the United States gave notice of its election to
decline intervention in a qui tam action entitled United States of
America, ex rel. William G. Burch v. Champion Laboratories, Inc.
et al., which had been filed under seal in December 2009 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma. After that notice, the matter no longer remained under
seal. In August 2010, the County of Suffolk, New York, filed a
purported class action entitled County of Suffolk, New York, v.
Champion Laboratories, et al., in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York. Both the Burch qui tam
action and the Suffolk action contain allegations similar to those
made in the multi-district litigation already pending in the
Northern District of Illinois. The Company denies any liability in
either action and intends to vigorously defend the claims raised
in these lawsuits.

In June 2010, the Attorney General of the State of Washington
served the Company with a Civil Investigative Demand inquiring
into the same issues as those raised in the complaint filed by the
State of Florida. The Company is cooperating with the Washington
investigation but has denied any wrongdoing.

Donaldson Company, Inc. -- http://www.donaldson.com/-- provides
filtration systems.


DRESS BARN: Awaits Court Approval of Tween Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Tween Brands, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its settlement
of a wage and hour lawsuit in California, according to The Dress
Barn, Inc.'s Dec. 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 30, 2010.

On January 21, 2010, The Dress Barn's subsidiary, Tween Brands,
was sued in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.  The purported class action alleges, among other
things, that Tween Brands violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by
not properly paying its employees for overtime and missed rest
breaks.

In September 2010, the parties agreed to a tentative settlement of
the wage and hour lawsuit and the company has accrued for this
settlement.  The settlement is subject to preliminary court
approval, notice to the purported class members and final court
approval.


DRESS BARN: Final Settlement Hearing Held in Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing of Tween Brands, Inc.'s settlement of a
consolidated class action lawsuit alleging credit card act
violations was held on Dec. 10, 2010, according The Dress Barn,
Inc.'s Dec. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 30, 2010.

Between November 2008 and October 2009, Tween Brands was sued in
three purported class action lawsuits alleging that Tween Brands'
telephone capture practice in California violated the Song-Beverly
Credit Card Act, which protects consumers from having to provide
personal information as a condition to a credit card transaction.
All three cases were consolidated in California state court.  The
parties settled the lawsuit in the spring of 2010.  The court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement on July 9, 2010 and
the company has accrued for this settlement.  The final court
approval hearing was scheduled for December 10, 2010.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Federal Judge Certifies Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
A federal judge certified a national class-action lawsuit against
Electronic Arts, Inc. (Nasdaq: ERTS) based on allegations that
video game consumers overpaid for popular sports titles including
Madden NFL.

The decision, ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R.
Walker on December 21, 2010, also appointed Hagens Berman to serve
as co-counsel representing consumers nationwide who purchased
National Football League (NFL), National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA), or Arena Football League branded video games
produced and released by Electronic Arts after January 1, 2005.
Eligible class members who would like more information about the
class-action lawsuit may contact attorneys at
maddenNFL@hbsslaw.com

"Consumers now have a legal standing to demand that EA refund
consumers millions of dollars it made from Madden NFL and other
sports titles through what we contend was an illegal price-gouging
scheme," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman.
"We're gratified by the ruling, and believe it underscores how
lucrative and exclusive agreements in the video game industry can
come with an inflated price tag for consumers."

The lawsuit, initially filed by Hagens Berman on behalf of
plaintiffs, claims that Delaware-company Electronic Arts violated
antitrust and consumer protection laws by holding exclusive
license agreements with NFL, NCAA, and Arena Football League.
Through these agreements, Electronic Arts developed and published
highly coveted sports titles that generated billions of dollars in
sales while allegedly restricting competition, the lawsuit states.

"We believe EA forced consumers to pay an artificial premium on
Madden NFL video games," said Mr. Berman.  "We intend to prove
that EA could inflate prices on their sports titles because these
exclusive licenses restrained trade and competition for
interactive sports software."

The lawsuit claims that the agreements may have inflated the price
of certain Electronic Arts-produced sports titles including Madden
NFL, by up to 70%.  Madden NFL is Electronic Arts biggest sports
franchise in the United States, and occupies four of the top 10
best selling games in the nation, industry reports claim.

The 67-page court order provided further explanation behind the
judge's decision, and granted the plaintiffs' request to represent
respective class members seeking punitive damages against
Electronic Arts.  The judge excluded consumers who purchased
similar games sold for mobile devices from the class action.

The judge also declined the plaintiff's request for an injunctive
relief, and will allow testimony from video game industry expert
Jill Hamburger.  Additional court documents are under seal.

Class members who wish to be notified of further development may
contact attorneys at maddenNFL@hbsslaw.com or call (206) 623-7292.
A class notice will be sent to class members in the next 60 days.

More information about this case is available at:
http://www.hbsslaw.com/maddennfl

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com/-- is a consumer-rights class-action law
firm with offices in Boston, Chicago, Colorado Springs, Los
Angeles, Phoenix, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. Founded in
1993, HBSS continues to successfully fight for consumer rights in
large, complex litigation.


FINISAR CORP: Appeal on Final Judgment in Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the final judgment in a securities class action
lawsuit against Finisar Corporation remains pending, according to
the company's Dec. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 31, 2010.

A securities class action lawsuit was filed on November 30, 2001,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock from November 17, 1999 through December 6,
2000. The complaint named as defendants the Company, Jerry S.
Rawls, its President and Chief Executive Officer, Frank H.
Levinson, its former Chairman of the Board and Chief Technical
Officer, Stephen K. Workman, its former Senior Vice President,
Corporate Development and Investor Relations and its former Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and an investment
banking firm that served as an underwriter for the Company's
initial public offering in November 1999 and a secondary offering
in April 2000. The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
on the grounds that the prospectuses incorporated in the
registration statements for the offerings failed to disclose,
among other things, that (i) the underwriter had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
investors in exchange for which the underwriter allocated to those
investors material portions of the shares of the Company's stock
sold in the offerings and (ii) the underwriter had entered into
agreements with customers whereby the underwriter agreed to
allocate shares of the Company's stock sold in the offerings to
those customers in exchange for which the customers agreed to
purchase additional shares of the Company's stock in the after
market at pre-determined prices. No specific damages are claimed.
Similar allegations have been made in lawsuits relating to more
than 300 other initial public offerings conducted in 1999 and
2000, which were consolidated for pretrial purposes.

In October 2002, all claims against the individual defendants were
dismissed without prejudice. On February 19, 2003, the Court
denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.

In February 2009, the parties reached an understanding regarding
the principal elements of a settlement, subject to formal
documentation and Court approval. Under the settlement, the
underwriter defendants will pay a total of $486 million, and the
issuer defendants and their insurers will pay a total of $100
million to settle all of the cases. On August 25, 2009, the
Company funded approximately $327,000 with respect to its pro rata
share of the issuers' contribution to the settlement and certain
costs. This amount was accrued in the Company's consolidated
financial statements during the first quarter of fiscal 2010. On
October 2, 2009, the Court granted approval of the settlement and
on November 19, 2009 the Court entered final judgment. The
judgment has been appealed by certain individual class members.


FIRST HEALTH: Feb. 7 Status Conference Set for Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports a
St. Clair County class action suit filed against First Health
Insurance Company by Swansea chiropractor Kathleen Roche, the
objector to a competing case in Madison County, is set for a
status conference on Feb. 7.

The 2007 case, nearly identical to a class action that settled in
Madison County last year, alleges First Health took wrongful
Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) discounts from the bills of
medical providers who treated workers' compensation cases.

Roche's St. Clair County case may be dead depending on a ruling
the Fifth District Appellate Court may make regarding the
settlement of the older Madison County suit led by lead plaintiffs
Richard Coy and Lawrence Shipley.

Roche is a member of the Madison County suit's class.

Roche's attorney, Richard Burke, fought his old firm mate, Robert
Schmieder III and First Health counsel Eric Brandfonbrener,
throughout 2009 alleging that the $1.25 million Madison County
settlement did not fairly compensate class members.

The bulk of the settlement is set to go to non-profits for
continuing medical education.

Mr. Schmieder III and his team walked away with about $650,000 in
fees.

Former Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack approved the
settlement over Roche's objections last year.

Roche then appealed the settlement.

Should the appellate court uphold the settlement, Roche's St.
Clair County suit may be over.

First Health has tried unsuccessfully to have the St. Clair County
suit dismissed or stayed pending the resolution of the Madison
County suit.

The original Madison County suit now before the appellate court is
Madison case number 04-L-1055.

The competing Roche St. Clair County class action against First
Health is case number 07-L-224.


FOOT LOCKER: Continues to Defend "Pereira" Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit in Pennsylvania alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, according to the company's Dec. 8, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended October 30, 2010.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are defendants in a number
of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing various
class action allegations under state wage and hour laws, including
allegations concerning unpaid overtime, meal and rest breaks, and
uniforms. In Pereira v. Foot Locker (United States District Court,
E.D. Pennsylvania), one of the class actions, plaintiff alleged
that the Company permitted unpaid off-the-clock hours in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In September 2009, the court
conditionally certified a nationwide collective action.

Management does not believe that the outcome of any of those
proceedings would have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position, liquidity, or results of
operations, taken as a whole.


GERON CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on Dec. 22 disclosed that an action has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers (the "Class") of
Geron Corporation (NASDAQ: GERN) common stock during the period
July 31, 2010 and December 6, 2010, inclusive.  The complaint
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
Geron and Geron Chief Financial Officer David Greenwood.

During the Class Period, Mr. Greenwood made several misstatements
concerning Geron's funding.  Defendant Greenwood twice stated that
Geron was funded for the "near-term," trumpeting the amount of
cash the Company had on hand, which he put at $156 million at the
end of July, 2010 and $146 million at the end of October, 2010.
Significantly, Defendant Greenwood stated that Geron had a
"running net burn number" of $48 million annualized in October,
2010, and $48 to $50 million annualized in July, 2010.
Accordingly, the Company should have been funded for 3 years.

Yet, in an about-face, only 5 weeks after Greenwood's October 2010
statement, on December 6, 2010, after the market closed,
Defendants announced an $87 million secondary public offering --
which, with the underwriters over-allotment became a $93 million
offering.  On December 7, 2010, Defendants announced the pricing
of the Offering -- at $5.00 per share, when Geron shares were
trading at $6.12 per share on December 6, 2010.

After the December 6, 2010 after-market disclosure and the
December 7, 2010 statement, Geron stock fell almost 20% in heavy
trading, from a December 6, 2010 close of $6.12 to a December 7,
2010 close of $5.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Geron during the
Class Period.  If you purchased or otherwise acquired Geron shares
during the Class Period, and either lost money on the transaction
or still hold the shares, you may wish to join in this action to
serve as lead plaintiff.  In order to do so, you must meet certain
requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate
papers no later than February 21, 2011.

A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to
be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

If you are interested in discussing your rights as a Geron
shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please
contact:

          Joseph R. Seidman, Jr., Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 779-1414
          E-mail: seidman@bernlieb.com

Bernstein Liebhard -- http://www.bernlieb.com/-- has pursued
hundreds of securities, consumer and shareholder rights cases and
recovered almost $3 billion for its clients.

You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court
for the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California or at Bernstein Liebhard's Web site.


GREEN MOUNTAIN: Plaintiffs to File Consolidated Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., disclosed in its Dec. 9,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended September 25, 2010, that
plaintiffs in five putative securities fraud class actions will be
filing a consolidated amended complaint soon.

The putative securities fraud class actions consist of the
following, all filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Vermont and pending before the Honorable William K.
Sessions, III: Dan M. Horowitz v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters,
et al., Civ. No. 2:10-cv-00227; Zane Hathaway v. Green Mountain
Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 2:10-cv-00239; Jerzy
Warchol v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al., Civ. No.
2:10-cv-00238; Russell Blank v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters,
Inc., et al., Civ. No. 2:10-cv-00267; and Paulo Sebastian Menendez
v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 2:10-cv-
00273. These actions allege violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with the Company's disclosures relating to its
revenues and its forward guidance. The complaints include counts
for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
against all defendants, and for violation of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the officer defendants. The actions seek to
represent all purchasers of the Company's securities between
July 28, 2010 and September 28, 2010 or September 29, 2010. The
actions seek class certification, compensatory damages, equitable
and/or injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and such other
relief as the court should deem just and proper.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3), plaintiffs had until November 29,
2010, to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the putative
class, following which the court will determine which plaintiff
will serve as lead plaintiff.

On November 29, 2010, the court granted a stipulated motion filed
by the parties providing for the filing of an amended consolidated
complaint 60 days after the court appoints a lead plaintiff, and
entering a briefing schedule for defendants' motions to dismiss.


H&R BLOCK: Appeal on Reversal of Decertification Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc., has been named in multiple lawsuits as defendants
in litigation regarding its refund anticipation loan program in
past years.  All of the lawsuits have been settled or otherwise
resolved, except for one.  The sole remaining case is a putative
class action styled Sandra J. Basile, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc.,
et al., April Term 1992 Civil Action No. 3246 in the Court of
Common Pleas, First Judicial District Court of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia County, instituted on April 23, 1993.  The plaintiffs
allege inadequate disclosures with respect to the RAL product and
assert claims for violation of consumer protection statutes,
negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, common law
fraud, usury, and violation of the Truth In Lending Act.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

A Pennsylvania class was certified, but later decertified by the
trial court in December 2003.  An appellate court subsequently
reversed the decertification decision.  The Company is appealing
the reversal.

No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended October 31, 2010.


H&R BLOCK: Awaits Court Approval of POM Suits Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its settlement of
two class action lawsuits regarding its Peace of Mind program,
according to the company's Dec. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 31, 2010.

The company has been named a defendant in lawsuits regarding its
Peace of Mind program, under which its applicable tax return
preparation subsidiary assumes liability for additional tax
assessments attributable to tax return preparation error. The POM
Cases are:

   * Lorie J. Marshall, et al. v. H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., et
al., Case No. 08-CV-591 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, is a putative class action case
originally filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois
on January 18, 2002. The plaintiffs allege that the sale of POM
guarantees constitutes statutory fraud, an unfair trade practice
and breach of a fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. On
September 17, 2010, the federal court denied plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. The parties subsequently reached an
agreement to settle the case, along with the Soliz case.

   * Desiri L. Soliz v. H&R Block, et al. (Cause No. 03-032-D),
was filed on January 23, 2003 in the District Court of Kleberg
County, Texas. This case involves the same plaintiffs' attorneys
that are involved in the Marshall litigation in Illinois and
contains allegations similar to those in the Marshall litigation.
The plaintiff seeks actual and treble damages, equitable relief,
attorneys' fees and costs. No class has been certified. Following
the denial of class certification in the Marshall litigation, the
parties reached an agreement to settle this case, along with the
Marshall litigation.

Settlement amounts related to the POM Cases are immaterial to the
financial statements and are accrued at October 31, 2010.


H&R BLOCK: Trial in RSM McGladrey Litigation Set for May 2011
-------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc., which has an interest in RSM McGladrey, disclosed
that trial in the class action lawsuit that RSM is involved in has
been set for May 2011, according to the company's Dec. 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended October 31, 2010.

RSM EquiCo, its parent and certain of its subsidiaries and
affiliates, are parties to a class action filed on July 11, 2006
and styled Do Right's Plant Growers, et al. v. RSM EquiCo, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 06 CC00137, in the California Superior Court,
Orange County. The complaint contains allegations relating to
business valuation services provided by RSM EquiCo, including
allegations of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages, in
addition to pre-judgment interest and attorneys' fees.

On March 17, 2009, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on all claims. The defendants filed two requests for
interlocutory review of the decision, the last of which was denied
by the Supreme Court of California on September 30, 2009.  A trial
date has been set for May 2011.

The certified class consists of RSM EquiCo's U.S. clients who
signed platform agreements and for whom RSM EquiCo did not
ultimately market their business for sale. A portion of H&R's loss
contingency accrual is related to this matter for the amount of
loss that it considers probable and estimable, although it is
possible that H&R's losses could exceed the amount it has accrued.
The fees paid to RSM EquiCo in connection with these agreements
total approximately $185 million, a number which substantially
exceeds the equity of RSM EquiCo. Plaintiffs seek to recover
restitution in an amount equal to the fees paid, in addition to
punitive damages and attorney fees. H&R believes it has
meritorious defenses to the case and intend to defend the case
vigorously. The amount claimed in this action is substantial and
could have a material adverse impact on H&R's consolidated results
of operations. There can be no assurance regarding the outcome of
this matter.


H&R BLOCK: Awaits Consolidation Order in Wage & Hour Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc., is awaiting an order consolidating several wage
and hour class action lawsuits after the parties agreed to
consolidate some of the cases into a single action because they
allege substantially identical claims, according to the company's
Dec. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2010.

H&R has been named in several wage and hour class action lawsuits
throughout the country, respectively styled Alice Williams v. H&R
Block Enterprises LLC, Case No.RG08366506 (Superior Court of
California, County of Alameda, filed January 17, 2008); Arabella
Lemus v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et al., Case No. CGC-09-489251
(United States District Court, Northern District of California,
filed June 9, 2009); Delana Ugas v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et
al., Case No. BC417700 (United States District Court, Central
District of California, filed July 13, 2009); Barbara Petroski v.
H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-00075
(United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, filed
January 25, 2010); Lance Hom v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et al.,
Case No. 10CV0476 H (United States District Court, Southern
District of California, filed March 4, 2010); and Stacy Oyer v.
H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-00387-
WMS (United States District Court, Western District of New York,
filed May 10, 2010). These cases involve a variety of legal
theories and allegations including, among other things, failure to
compensate employees for all hours worked; failure to provide
employees with meal periods; failure to provide itemized wage
statements; failure to pay wages due upon termination; failure to
compensate for mandatory off-season training; and/or
misclassification of non-exempt employees.

The parties have agreed to consolidate certain of these cases into
a single action because they allege substantially identical
claims. The plaintiffs seek actual damages, in addition to
statutory penalties, pre-judgment interest and attorneys' fees.

H&R has not concluded that a loss related to these matters is
probable nor has it accrued a loss contingency related to these
matters. Moreover, H&R is not able to estimate a possible range of
loss.  The company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
claims in these cases and intend to defend them vigorously. The
amounts claimed in these matters are substantial in some
instances, however, and the ultimate liability with respect to
these matters is difficult to predict. There can be no assurances
as to the outcome of these cases or their impact on H&R's
consolidated results of operations, individually or in the
aggregate.


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Paid $10 Million to Create Suit Settlement Fund
------------------------------------------------------------------
Herley Industries, Inc., paid $10 million in August 2010 out of
existing cash reserves to create the settlement fund pursuant to
its settlement agreement resolving the matter In re Herley
Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, Docket No. 06-cv-2596
(JRS), according to the company's Dec. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended October 31, 2010.

In July 2010, the Company reached an agreement to settle all
securities class actions originally filed in 2006, and
subsequently consolidated under the caption: In re Herley
Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, Docket No. 06-CV-2596
(JRS).

Between June 2006 and August 2006, the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors were named as defendants
in five related class actions alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.  Those cases were subsequently consolidated into
one class action on behalf of a purported class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the company's stock
during the period October 1, 2001 through June 14, 2006.

At all times during the pendency of the litigation, the Company
and the Individual Defendants steadfastly maintained that the
claims raised in the securities class action were without merit,
and vigorously contested those allegations.

As part of the settlement, the Company and the Individual
Defendants continue to deny any liability or wrongdoing under the
securities laws.  The terms of the settlement provided for, in
part, the dismissal of the litigation against the Company and all
of the Individual Defendants, and the creation by the Company of a
$10 million settlement fund. The fund will be allocated, after
deduction of court-ordered expenses, such as attorneys' fees and
expenses, settlement administration costs and any applicable
taxes, among members of the settlement class who submit valid
proofs of claim.

Upon final approval of the settlement by the Court, in August 2010
the Company paid $10 million out of existing cash reserves to
create the settlement fund.


HURONIA REGIONAL: Class Action Over Abuse Proceeding to Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allyson Snelling, writing for CottageCountryNow, reports a class
action lawsuit is proceeding to trial on behalf of former
residents of the Huronia Regional Centre, who are alleging they
suffered abuse while living at the residential facility.

The suit has been launched against the Province of Ontario, which
operated the facility in Orillia that was home to more than 3,000
developmentally delayed persons between 1876 and its closure last
year.

The lawsuit alleges the provincial government failed to properly
care for and protect the residents of Huronia and that residents
were emotionally, physically and psychologically traumatized by
their experiences at the facility.

The Province of Ontario denies the claims.

The lawsuit affects people who were Huronia residents any time
between 1945 and 2009, family members of Huronia residents between
1978 and 2009, or estate trustees for a Huronia resident between
1945 and 2009 who died after April 21, 2007.

Two representative plaintiffs, Marie Slark and Patricia Seth, and
their litigation guardians commenced the action in April 2009,
seeking to represent all former residents of Huronia and their
families.

They allege the province failed to properly care for and protect
people who lived at Huronia and are seeking $1 billion as damages
for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

In court documents, Ms. Slark alleged she was denied an education
by Huronia and the Crown due to her size.

She "repeatedly witnessed other children residing at Huronia being
physically punished for no reason and experienced staff members
instructing minor residents to physically abuse one another at the
staff's direction," documents allege.

At 16 years of age, Ms. Slark was sent by the Crown and Huronia
into an approved home off the official Huronia grounds where she
was allegedly sexually abused, court documents said.

While residing at Huronia, Ms. Seth alleges she was repeatedly and
continuously physically abused and punished for "speaking out."

In court documents, Ms. Seth alleges she was hit with a fly
swatter and was punished for not eating by being held upside down
in ice cold water.

At 16 years of age, Seth was placed into a group home operated by
Huronia where she allegedly experienced further physical and
emotional abuse.

Neither reported the abuse because of their fear of repercussions
and the threat of increased abuse upon reporting.

According to Ann Kenney, CEO of Community Living South Muskoka,
some clients of Community Living came from Huronia Regional
Centre, however its main clientele came from the closure of the
Muskoka Centre in Gravenhurst in the early 1990s.

Ms. Kenney said throughout the years the local Community Living
accepted some clients from Huronia, but doesn't believe any would
be applicable to the lawsuit.

The court appointed the law firm of Koskie Minsky LLP from Toronto
to represent the Class as class counsel.

"Now that the procedural hurdles for this class action are behind
us, we are looking forward to moving to trial to seek justice for
the former residents of Huronia and to bring the alleged abuses
and maltreatment they suffered to light," class counsel Kirk Baert
said in a statement.

More detailed information on the lawsuit is available at
http://www.huroniaclassaction.ca/or by calling 1-866-879-4915.
Interested parties may also write to Huronia Class Action
Administrator, 3-505, 133 Weber St. North, Waterloo, Ontario, N2J
3G9; or email huronia@crawco.ca


KINDERMUSIK INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 7,000 Zoom Buggy Cars
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Kindermusik International, Inc. of Greensboro N.C., announced a
voluntary recall of about 7,000 Zoom Buggy Cars and 300 Dream
Pillow Stars were sold in the United States, 1300 Zoom Buggy Cars
and 100 Dream Pillow Stars were sold in Canada.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The wheels on the Zoom Buggy cars and plastic beads on the Dream
Pillow Star can detach, posing a choking hazard to young children.

Kindermusik International Inc. has received 15 reports of the
wheels detaching from the Zoom Buggy Car and no incidents with the
Dream Pillow Star.  No injuries have been reported.

Zoom Buggy Cars have a wooden body with red and blue plastic
wheels and a red handle.  The recalled units have tracking labels
on both the product and packaging with a date code of 201005 and a
batch ID of APO18829 on the bottom of the cars.  Dream Pillow
Stars have a wooden star center with red plastic handles, yellow
plastic center stars and red, blue and green plastic beads.  The
recalled units have tracking labels on both the product and
packaging with a date code of 201005 and a batch ID of APO18829 on
the bottom of the product.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11076.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Kindermusik Educators as part of Kindermusik At-Home-Materials
from July 2010 through October 2010 for the Zoom Buggy Car and
from September 2010 through October 2010 for the Dream Pillow Star
for about $33.95.  Also sold at Kindermusik classes and
Kindermusik.com from August 2010 through October 2010 for about
$10.

Consumers should stop using and discard the recalled items
immediately and contact their Kindermusik Educator for a
replacement.  For additional information, contact Kindermusik
International at (800) 628-5687 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, visit the Kindermusik
International Web site at http://www.kindermusik.com/or e-mail
the firm at info@kindermusik.com/


LAFAYETTE INSURANCE: Supreme Court Overturns Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports property
owners alleging Lafayette Insurance improperly denied Hurricane
Katrina claims can't pursue a class action, the Supreme Court of
Louisiana decided on Nov. 30.

The Justices ruled that St. Bernard Parish District Judge Manuel
Fernandez committed an error when he certified a class action
across eight parishes.

They found individual questions predominated over questions common
to the class.

Justice Greg Guidry found the claims so highly individualized that
class certification would likely be unfair to those with stronger
claims than the class representatives.

"Also militating against class certification is the fact that
individual suits raising similar insurance adjusting claims have
already been filed widely -- and many have been resolved,"
Justice Guidry wrote.

The Justices reversed Fifth District appeals judges in Gretna, who
affirmed Judge Fernandez.

The decision will require individual litigation of about 300 suits
that remain out of thousands that policyholders filed against
Lafayette.

Plaintiff lawyer Robert Murphy of New Orleans expected to
represent thousands, not hundreds, in a class action.

At oral argument in September, he said that without a class
action, 7,000 homeowners wouldn't be able to pursue claims.

Justice John Weimer said 3% of the 7,000 ended in litigation.

Mr. Murphy said a significant number of the 7,000 would step
forward prior to trial.

He called on the Justices to resist a trend away from class
actions.

"In federal court the last several years class actions have not
been looked on very well, but in Louisiana things have been
different," Mr. Murphy said.

He said Louisiana's legislature and courts recognize the benefits
of class actions.

For Lafayette, Howard Kaplan of Metairie told the Justices that
every Katrina adjusting class action in federal court was
dismissed.

He said individual issues predominated over class issues.

Justice John Weimer asked if that would be true if no one received
an appropriate level of payment.

"That is not the factual testimony," Mr. Kaplan said.

Mr. Murphy's clients sued Lafayette over adjustment of claims in
St. Bernard, Orleans, Jefferson, Plaquemines, St. Tammany, St.
Charles, Tangipahoa and Terrebonne parishes.

They claimed Lafayette denied claims by attributing damage to
water rather than wind.

They claimed repair payments didn't account for price increases
after Katrina.

They claimed repair payments didn't include contractor overhead
and taxes.

They claimed Lafayette denied payments for additional living
expenses and for civil authority claims that arise when government
orders citizens to leave their homes.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, the National Association
of Mutual Casualty Insurers opposed a class action as friend of
the court.

Adrianne Baumgartner of New Orleans wrote for the association that
Fernandez wrested control of ongoing suits from absent class
members.

"Unless those individual class members affirmatively opt out of
the class, they will be unable to fully litigate their cases to
their respective strengths," Ms. Baumgartner wrote.

She wrote that their cases would be centrally managed by other
attorneys who have significant financial incentives to settle on
terms favorable to themselves.

"This judicially endorsed power grab serves class counsel well,
but it is detrimental to the many class members whose cases
currently await adjudication," she wrote.

Though Mr. Murphy said at oral argument that Judge Fernandez found
his experts satisfactory, Judge Guidry picked the experts apart.

Judge Guidry wrote that adjuster Wesley Baldwin hadn't written a
property estimate in 25 years.

He wrote that Mr. Baldwin didn't view properties of the
plaintiffs, didn't know the dates of pricing that independent
adjusters used, didn't know what software Lafayette adjusters
used, and didn't suggest a price list the adjusters should have
used.

"He conceded he had seen nothing in the reviewed files indicating
adjusters were advised either to adjust claims differently from
how they had done so for any of their other client insurance
companies or to use a particular pricing profile," he wrote.

Guidry wrote that general contractor Jonathan Drennan testified
that the roof on each property should be replaced.

He wrote that Mr. Drennan conceded that if a roof required repair
rather than replacement, the difference between his estimates and
Lafayette's would be less.

Judge Guidry found no evidence that Lafayette instructed jurors to
use pre-Katrina pricing.

He wrote that each claim of under pricing would have to be
individually examined to determine the extent and scope of damage,
whether from wind or storm surge.

He wrote that "whether a claim was in fact knowingly under priced
will necessarily turn on a myriad of individual factual issues."

Justice Bernette Johnson dissented in part, finding a class action
could have proceeded on claims that Lafayette improperly denied
living expenses and civil authority claims.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend "Brown" Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica, inc., continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit alleging violations of labor laws and pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, according to the Company's Dec. 9,
2010 Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended October 31, 2010.

On September 7, 2010, a former hourly Company employee filed a
class action entitled Lydia Brown v. lululemon athletica inc.  The
lawsuit alleges that the Company requires employees to work "off
the clock" without compensation. Plaintiff seeks on behalf of
herself and other putative class members back wages, interest,
attorneys fees and costs, and equitable relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the labor laws of each of the 30 states.

The Company denies the allegations and intends to vigorously
defend the matter.


MAGMA DESIGN: Continues to Defend Genesis Insurance Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magma Design Automation, Inc., disclosed in its December 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended October 31, 2010, that it continues to defend
itself against a lawsuit filed by Genesis Insurance Company, which
seeks a return of money it paid to settle a class action lawsuit
that the company was involved in.

In Genesis Insurance Company v. Magma Design Automation, et al.,
Case No. 06-5526-JW, filed on September 8, 2006, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
Genesis Insurance Company seeks a declaration of its rights and
obligations under an excess directors and officers liability
policy for defense and settlement costs arising out of the
securities class action against the Company, in re: Magma Design
Automation, Inc. Securities Litigation, as well as a related
derivative lawsuit.

Genesis seeks a return of $5.0 million it paid towards the
settlement of the securities class action and derivative lawsuits
from the Company or from another of the Company's excess directors
and officers liability insurers, National Union.  The Company
contends that either Genesis or National Union owes the settlement
amounts, but not the Company.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the Company and
National Union, finding that Genesis owed the settlement amount.
Genesis appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the
Company cross-appealed.  On July 12, 2010, the Court of Appeals
reversed, ruling that Genesis does not owe the settlement amount
under its policy, and remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings.


MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Weiss & Lurie Probes Royal DSM Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Lurie, a national class action and shareholder rights law
firm with offices in New York City and Los Angeles, is
investigating possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other
violations of law by members of the Board of Directors of Martek
Biosciences Corporation (NASDAQ: MATK) arising from the proposed
acquisition of Martek by Royal DSM N.V. (NYSE Euronext: DSM KON)
for $31.50 per share.  The transaction is valued at approximately
$1.09 billion and is expected to close in the first half of 2011.

Weiss & Lurie is investigating whether Martek's Board acted in
shareholders' best interests in approving the transaction, whether
the Board adequately shopped the Company so as to maximize
shareholder value, and if the Company has made proper disclosure
to its shareholders.

If you own Martek shares and would like more information about
your rights as a shareholder or additional information concerning
our investigation, please contact Michael A. Rogovin either by
email at infony@weisslurie.com or by telephone at (888) 593-4771.

Weiss & Lurie -- http://www.weisslurie.com/-- has litigated
hundreds of stockholder class and derivative actions for
violations of corporate and fiduciary duties.


MECOX LANE: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. reminds investors of the February 1, 2011
lead plaintiff deadline in the class action on behalf of
investors.  If you purchased Mecox Lane Limited (Nasdaq:MCOX) you
should contact the Rosen Law Firm for more information about the
importance of serving as a lead plaintiff.  The lawsuit is seeking
to recover damages for investors from violations of federal
securities laws.

If you purchased Mecox Lane shares during the period from
October 26, 2010 through November 29, 2010, inclusive, you can
join the class action against Mecox Lane.  Go to the firm's Web
site at http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or
Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653.  You may also email
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

The Complaint alleges that Mecox Lane, certain of its officers and
directors, and others are liable under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the issuance of an
inaccurate registration statement in connection with the Company's
IPO.  Particularly, the Complaint alleges that contrary to the
Company's registration statement filed with the SEC, the Company's
gross margins had been adversely impacted by increased costs and
expenses which made it impossible for Mecox Lane to achieve the
results defendants projected at the time of the IPO.  The
Complaint alleges that when the truth was revealed on November 29,
2010, the value of the Company's shares dropped, damaging
investors.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than February 1, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of absent class members
in directing and overseeing the litigation.  If you wish to join
the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding
this class action, please contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Toll-Free: 866-767-3653
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  Until a
class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you
retain one.  You may choose to do nothing at this point and remain
an absent class member.

The Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- concentrates
its practice on investor securities litigation, representing
investors throughout the world.


MEDTRONIC INC: 8th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Fidelis Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed an MDL
court's decision to dismiss a class action lawsuit against
Medtronic, Inc., according to the company's Dec. 8, 2010, Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended October 29, 2010.

On Oct. 15, 2007, the company voluntarily suspended worldwide
distribution of its Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation leads.
The leads are used to deliver therapy in patients with ICDs, but
are generally not used in pacemaker patients.  The U.S. Food and
Drug Administration subsequently classified the company's action
as a Class I recall.

As of Sept. 1, 2010, approximately 3,700 lawsuits regarding the
Fidelis leads have been filed against the company, including
approximately 47 putative class action suits reflecting a total of
approximately 8,100 individual personal injury cases.  In general,
the suits allege claims of product liability, warranty,
negligence, unjust enrichment, emotional distress, and consumer
protection violations.  One lawsuit includes a claim by an
individual purporting to act as a surrogate for the Center for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, and one lawsuit has been brought
by a third-party payor as a putative class action suit.
Approximately 2,600 of the lawsuits have been commenced in state
court, generally alleging similar causes of action.  Of those
state court actions, almost all are pending before a single judge
in Hennepin County District Court in the state of Minnesota.  The
federal court cases have been consolidated for pretrial
proceedings before a single federal judge in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to the Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) rules.

On January 5, 2009, the MDL court dismissed with prejudice the
master consolidated complaint for individuals and the master
consolidated complaint for third-party payors on grounds of
federal preemption.  On May 12, 2009, the MDL court dismissed with
prejudice 229 cases that adopted the master consolidated complaint
and stayed all other cases pending further order of the court.

On October 15, 2010, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.


MEDTRONIC INC: Ontario Court Denies Further Appeal of Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada has denied
plaintiffs' request to further appeal the Court's decision to
deny class certification on the claim for punitive damages against
Medtronic, Inc., according to the company's Dec. 8, 2010, Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended October 29, 2010.

On Oct. 15, 2007, the company voluntarily suspended worldwide
distribution of its Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation leads.
The leads are used to deliver therapy in patients with ICDs, but
are generally not used in pacemaker patients.  The U.S. Food and
Drug Administration subsequently classified the company's action
as a Class I recall.

As of Sept. 1, 2010, approximately 3,700 lawsuits regarding the
Fidelis leads have been filed against the company, including
approximately 47 putative class action suits reflecting a total of
approximately 8,100 individual personal injury cases.  In general,
the suits allege claims of product liability, warranty,
negligence, unjust enrichment, emotional distress, and consumer
protection violations.  One lawsuit includes a claim by an
individual purporting to act as a surrogate for the Center for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, and one lawsuit has been brought
by a third-party payor as a putative class action suit.
Approximately 2,600 of the lawsuits have been commenced in state
court, generally alleging similar causes of action.  Of those
state court actions, almost all are pending before a single judge
in Hennepin County District Court in the state of Minnesota.  The
federal court cases have been consolidated for pretrial
proceedings before a single federal judge in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to the Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) rules.

In addition, one putative class action has been filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada.  On Oct. 20, 2009,
that court certified a class proceeding, but denied class
certification on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages, which the
plaintiffs appealed.  On July 16, 2010, the appeal was denied.
Plaintiffs' request for further appeal was denied on November 22,
2010.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.


MEDTRONIC INC: 8th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Kurzweil Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has affirmed the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota's decision to
dismiss claims against Medtronic, Inc., according to the company's
Dec. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2010.

On November 8, 2007, Stanley Kurzweil filed a putative class
action complaint against the Company and certain of its officers
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The complaint is
brought on behalf of persons or entities who purchased securities
of Medtronic during the period of June 25, 2007 through
October 15, 2007. The complaint alleges that "materially false and
misleading" representations were made as to the market acceptance
and use of the Fidelis defibrillator leads to artificially inflate
Medtronic's stock price.

Pursuant to court order, the caption of the case was changed to
Medtronic, Inc., Securities Litigation, and a consolidated
putative class action complaint was filed on April 18, 2008.

On March 10, 2009, the court dismissed the complaint with
prejudice and denied plaintiffs' leave to amend.

On September 16, 2010, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.


MEDTRONIC INC: Appeal to Dismiss "Brown" ERISA Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a putative ERISA class action
complaint against Medtronic, Inc., remains pending, according to
the company's Dec. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 29, 2010.

On Aug. 11, 2008, Mark Brown filed a complaint against the company
and certain directors, officers and other company personnel in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of
participants in and beneficiaries of the Medtronic, Inc. Savings
and Investment Plan, whose individual accounts held shares of
company stock at any time from Feb. 15, 2007 to Nov. 19, 2007.

On Dec. 29, 2008, the plaintiff amended the complaint to add
similar allegations relating to alleged off-label promotion of
INFUSE Bone Graft and to amend the class to include participants
in the plan from Feb. 15, 2007 to Dec. 12, 2008.

The defendants' motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice on
May 26, 2009, on the grounds plaintiff lacked standing to assert
his claims.  Plaintiffs have appealed.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.


MEDTRONIC INC: Motion to Dismiss "Wright" Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc.'s motion to dismiss Christin Wright's amended
putative class action complaint remains pending, according to the
company's Dec. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2010.

On Feb. 24, 2009, Christin Wright filed a complaint against the
company and certain directors, officers and other company
personnel in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.  The complaint was filed purportedly on
behalf of a putative class comprised of participants and
beneficiaries of the Medtronic, Inc., Savings and Investment Plan,
whose individual accounts held shares of company stock at any time
from June 28, 2006 to Nov. 18, 2008.  The plaintiff claims the
defendants breached fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to
properly disclose the September 2008 settlement of the litigation
with Fastenetix, LLC and the October 2008 settlement of the Cordis
litigation.

On March 17, 2010, defendants' motion to dismiss the allegations
in the original complaint was granted without prejudice.

On May 14, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add
allegations similar to those made in a different class action
lawsuit.  Defendants have moved to dismiss that amended complaint.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.


MEDTRONIC INC: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Minn.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc., continues to defend itself against a consolidated
securities class action complaint in Minnesota, according to the
company's Dec. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2010.

On Dec. 11, 2008, the Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association
filed a putative class action complaint against the company and
two of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants made false and misleading public statements concerning
the INFUSE Bone Graft product which artificially inflated
Medtronic's stock price during the period.

On August 21, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated putative class
action complaint expanding the class. Medtronic's motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint was denied on Feb. 3, 2010, and
pretrial proceedings are underway.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.


MEDTRONIC INC: Continues to Face Kinetic Knife Suit in Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit filed by Kinetic Knife, according to the company's Dec. 8,
2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2010.

On February 10, 2005, Medtronic voluntarily began to advise
physicians about the possibility that a specific battery shorting
mechanism might manifest itself in a subset of implantable
cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization
therapy-defibrillators (CRT-Ds). These included certain Marquis
VR/DR and Maximo VR/DR ICDs and certain InSync I/II/III CRT-D
devices. Subsequent to this voluntary field action, a number of
lawsuits were filed against the Company alleging a variety of
claims, including individuals asserting claims of personal injury
and third-party payors alleging entitlement to reimbursement.
These United States lawsuits were settled in 2008, and only a
relatively small number of individual cases remain.

One third-party payor, Kinetic Knife, dismissed its original
action without prejudice and on November 5, 2008, filed a putative
class action relating to the same subject matter. Medtronic
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota. Pretrial proceedings are underway.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.


MEDTRONIC INC: Pretrial Proceedings Still Ongoing in Ontario
------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc., continues to defend itself against a consolidated
class action product liability lawsuit in Ontario, according to
the company's Dec. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 29, 2010.

On February 10, 2005, Medtronic voluntarily began to advise
physicians about the possibility that a specific battery shorting
mechanism might manifest itself in a subset of implantable
cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization
therapy-defibrillators (CRT-Ds). These included certain Marquis
VR/DR and Maximo VR/DR ICDs and certain InSync I/II/III CRT-D
devices. Subsequent to this voluntary field action, a number of
lawsuits were filed against the Company alleging a variety of
claims, including individuals asserting claims of personal injury
and third-party payors alleging entitlement to reimbursement.

Class action product liability suits pending in Canada are
consolidated in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. That court
certified a class of individual implant recipients and their
family members for proceeding on December 6, 2007. Additionally,
the subrogated claims of the provincial health insurers to recover
costs incurred in providing medical services to the implant class
are claimed in the class proceeding. Pretrial proceedings are
underway. The Company has not recorded an expense related to
damages for the remaining suits because any potential loss is not
currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.


MELA SCIENCES: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
---------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of MELA Sciences, Inc. (Nasdaq:MELA) are reminded of
the securities class action lawsuit filed against MELA and certain
of its officers.  The class action (Civil Action No.: 10-CV-9024)
pending in the Southern District of New York is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased MELA
securities from February 13, 2009 through November 16, 2010,
inclusive.  The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants represented to the
investing public that an approval of MelaFind by the United States
Food and Drug Administration would be forthcoming through a series
of materially false and misleading statements regarding the status
of MelaFind's ongoing clinical studies, and the safety and
efficacy of the Company's products.  For instance, at the
beginning of the Class Period, Defendants announced "positive top-
line results of its pivotal trial of MelaFind, a non-invasive,
point-of-care instrument to assist in the early detection of
melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer."

In misrepresenting positive aspects of MelaFind, Defendants were
able to, among other things: (a) deceive the investing public
regarding the Company's business, operations, management, future
business prospects and the intrinsic value of MELA's common stock;
(b) deceive the investing public regarding MELA's business and
management; (c) deceive the investing public regarding the
efficacy of MelaFind and its prospects for FDA approval; (d)
enable Defendants to sell almost $79 million of MELA's common
stock to the public while in possession of material adverse non-
public information about the Company; and (e) cause plaintiff and
other members of the Class to purchase MELA common stock at
artificially inflated prices.

Finally, on November 16, 2010, it was reported, in part, that
MelaFind "could cause harm because of the potential for
misdiagnosis," and that "FDA staff pointed to numerous problems
with MELA's study of the device, called MelaFind, including a
significant lack of data, and urged a new clinical trial." On this
news, MELA's stock price plummeted approximately 54% or $3.45 per
share, to close at $2.92 per share.

If you are a shareholder who purchased MELA securities during the
Class Period, you have until January 21, 2011 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/

To discuss this action, contact:

          Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          Toll-Free: 888-476-6529 (ext. 241)
          E-mail: flqian@pomlaw.com

Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

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


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc., is awaiting a court ruling on its
motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit filed by
Material Yard Workers Local 1175 Benefit Funds, according to the
company's Dec. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 30, 2010.

On Oct. 8, 2009, the company was named in a federal securities
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.  The case is styled
Material Yard Workers Local 1175 Benefit Funds, et al. v. The
Men's Wearhouse, Inc., Case No. 4:09-cv-03265.  The class period
alleged in the complaint runs from March 7, 2007, to Jan. 9, 2008.
The primary allegations are that the company issued false and
misleading press releases regarding its guidance for fiscal year
2007 on various occasions during the alleged class period.  The
complaint seeks damages based on the decline in the company's
stock price following the announcement of lowered guidance on
Oct. 10, 2007, Nov. 28, 2007, and Jan. 9, 2008.

The case is in its early stages and discovery has not begun.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 12,
2010, and it is awaiting a decision from the Court.  The Company
believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to mount a
vigorous defense; the company is unable to determine the likely
outcome at this time.

The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. -- http://www.menswearhouse.com/-- is a
specialty retailer of men's suits and a provider of tuxedo rental
product in the United States and Canada.  At Jan. 30, 2010, the
company operated 1,259 retail stores, with 1,142 stores in the
United States and 117 stores in Canada.  Its United States retail
stores are operated under the brand names of Men's Wearhouse (581
stores), Men's Wearhouse and Tux (454 stores) and K&G (107 stores)
in 47 states and the District of Columbia.  Its Canadian stores
are operated under the brand name of Moores Clothing for Men in 10
provinces.  It also operates a corporate apparel and uniform
program (operated as Twin Hill) and, in the Houston, Texas area, a
retail dry cleaning and laundry business (operated as MW
Cleaners).  At Jan. 30, 2010, it operated 581 Men's Wearhouse
apparel stores in 47 states and the District of Columbia.  These
stores are referred to as Men's Wearhouse stores or traditional
stores.


MICHAELS STORES: Recalls 8,250 Silver Tree Tealight Candle Holders
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Michaels Stores Inc., of Irving, Texas, announced a voluntary
recall of about 7,600 Silver Tree Tealight Candle Holders and 650
in Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The tealight cups are positioned where the flame from the candles
can ignite other parts of the candle holder, posing fire and burn
hazards to consumers.

Michaels has received reports of six incidents including five
fires and a consumer who received minor burns.

This recall involves silver-colored tealight candle holders in a
shape of a Christmas tree.  The candle holders are about 16-inches
tall and have a silver star on the top.  Nine tealight cups and
clear plastic beads hang from the tree branches.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11078.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Michaels Arts & Craft stores nationwide from October 2010 through
December 2010 for about $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled candle
holders and return the product to any Michaels Arts & Craft store
for a full refund.  For additional information, contact Michaels
at (800) 642-4235 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Central Times,
Monday through Saturday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Central Times
on Sunday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.michaels.com/


NAVISITE INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated IPO Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Navisite, Inc., disclosed in its Dec. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended October 31, 2010, that it continues to defend itself against
a consolidated class action lawsuit related to its initial public
offering as appeals from its settlement remain pending.

In 2001, lawsuits naming more than 300 issuers and over 50
investment banks were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York for all pretrial purposes.  Between
June 13, 2001, and July 10, 2001, five purported class-action
lawsuits seeking monetary damages were filed against the Company;
Joel B. Rosen, the Company's then-chief executive officer; Kenneth
W. Hale, the Company's then-chief financial officer; Robert E.
Eisenberg, the Company's then president; and the underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering of October 22, 1999.

On September 6, 2001, the Court consolidated the five similar
cases and a consolidated, amended complaint was filed on April 19,
2002 on behalf of all persons who acquired shares of the company's
common stock between October 22, 1999, and December 6, 2000,
against the Company and Messrs. Rosen, Hale and Eisenberg and
against underwriter defendants Robertson Stephens, BancBoston,
J.P. Morgan, Hambrecht & Quist and First Albany.

The plaintiffs uniformly alleged that all defendants, including
the NaviSite Defendants, violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 by issuing and selling the company's common stock in
the offering without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters, including the lead underwriters, allegedly had
solicited and received undisclosed agreements from certain
investors to purchase aftermarket shares at pre-arranged,
escalating prices and also to receive additional commissions
and/or other compensation from those investors. Plaintiffs did not
specify the amount of damages they sought in the Class-Action
Litigation.

On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement among
the plaintiffs, issuer defendants (including any present or former
officers and directors) and underwriters was submitted to the
Court for preliminary approval.  Pursuant to the Global
Settlement, all claims against the NaviSite Defendants would be
dismissed with prejudice and the company's pro-rata share of the
settlement consideration would be fully funded by insurance.

By Opinion and Order dated October 5, 2009, after conducting a
settlement fairness hearing on September 10, 2009, the Court
granted final approval to the Global Settlement and directed the
clerk to close each of the actions comprising the IPO Securities
Litigation, including the Class-Action Litigation.

A proposed final judgment in the Class-Action Litigation was filed
on November 23, 2009, and was signed by the Court on November 24,
2009 and entered on the docket on December 29, 2009.  The
settlement remains subject to numerous conditions, including the
resolution of several appeals that have been filed, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and there can be
no assurance that the Court's approval of the Global Settlement
will be upheld in all respects upon appeal.

The deadline for appellants to submit their papers to the Court of
Appeals was October 6, 2010.  One appellant timely filed an
opening brief, a second appellant filed an untimely brief on
October 7, 2010, as well as an amended brief on November 5, 2010,
and the remaining appellants filed a stipulation of dismissal of
their appeals pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(d).

Appellees' responsive briefing was due December 17, 2010.

The company believes that the allegations against it are without
merit, and, if the litigation continues, it intends to vigorously
defend against the plaintiffs' claims. Because of the inherent
uncertainty of litigation, and because the settlement remains
subject to numerous conditions and appeals, the company is not
able to predict the possible outcome of the suits and their
ultimate effect, if any, on its business, financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Faces Five Suits Over Engine Defects
----------------------------------------------------
Mark Clothier, writing for Bloomberg News, reports Navistar
International Corp., a maker of commercial and military vehicles,
said it is the subject of five lawsuits that could be granted
class-action status stemming from "design and manufacturing
defects" in truck engines it made for Ford Motor Co.

Navistar on Dec. 22 said in a regulatory filing Brandon Burns sued
last month in California seeking class-action status for owners
and lessees of Ford vehicles with Navistar 6-liter power stroke
engines for the model years 2003 through 2007.  Four other
lawsuits have since been filed seeking class status in Utah,
Arkansas, Tennessee and Mississippi.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Defends Complaint in San Francisco County
--------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of California for San
Francisco County, according to the company's Dec. 8, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended October 30, 2010.

On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California filed by Sheila Monjazeb, individually and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, against the company, Newton Holding, LLC, TPG Capital,
L.P. and Warburg Pincus, LLC.

On July 12, 2010, all defendants except for the company were
dismissed without prejudice, and on Aug. 20, 2010, this case was
refiled in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco
County.

The complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit
originally filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, alleges that the
company has engaged in various violations of the California Labor
Code and Business and Professions Code, including without
limitation (1) asking employees to work "off the clock," (2)
failing to provide meal and rest breaks to its employees, (3)
improperly calculating deductions on paychecks delivered to its
employees, and (4) failing to provide a chair or allow employees
to sit during shifts.

The plaintiffs seek certification of their case as a class action,
reimbursement for past wages and temporary, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief preventing defendant from allegedly
continuing to violate the laws cited in their complaints.

The company intends to vigorously defend its interests in these
matters.  Currently, the company cannot reasonably estimate the
amount of loss, if any, arising from these matters.  However, it
does not currently believe the resolution of these matters will
have a material adverse impact on its financial position.  The
company will continue to evaluate these matters based on
subsequent events, new information and future circumstances.

Neiman Marcus, Inc.'s operations include the Specialty Retail
Stores segment and the Direct Marketing segment.  The Specialty
Retail Stores segment consists primarily of Neiman Marcus and
Bergdorf Goodman stores. The Direct Marketing segment conducts
both online and print catalog operations under the Neiman Marcus,
Horchow and Bergdorf Goodman brand names.  On the Net:
http://www.neimanmarcusgroup.com/


NICOR INC: D&Os Face Second Suit Over Sale of Company to AGL
------------------------------------------------------------
Gus Monahu, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Nicor Inc., et al., Case No. 2010-CH-53447 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty. December 17, 2010), accuses Nicor and certain of
its officers and directors of breaching applicable law by directly
breaching or aiding the other defendants' breaches of their
fiduciary duties, arising out their efforts to sell the Company to
AGL Resources Inc. via an unfair process and at an unfair price.

Nicor, an Illinois corporation, is a holding company headquartered
in Naperville, Illinois, whose major subsidiaries include Nicor
Gas, one of the nation's largest distributors of natural gas, and
Tropical Shipping, a transporter of containerized freight in the
Bahamas and the Caribbean region.

AGL is an Atlanta-based energy services company which
primarily distributes natural gas to 2.3 million customers in
Florida, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, Tennessee and Virginia.
Defendants Ottawa Acquisition LLC and Apollo Acquisition Corp. are
wholly owned subsidiaries of AGL.

Nicor and AGL announced on December 7, 2010, that Nicor had
entered into a definitive Merger Agreement to be acquired by AGL
for $21.20 in cash and 0.8382 shares of AGL common stock, which
together represent a current market value of $51 per share and a
premium of 12% to Nicor's closing stock price of $46.76 the day
before the announcement.  Following the completion of the merger,
AGL shareholders will own roughly 67% and Nicor shareholders will
own roughly 33% of the combined company.

Plaintiff Gus Monahu says that the terms of the Merger Agreement
ensures the sale of Nicor to AGL only because of several onerous,
preclusive deal protection devices that defendants agreed to,
including:

(a) a termination fee of $36-$67 million that must be paid to
     AGL in event that Nicor's Board chooses to accept a superior
     proposal;

(b) a no shop/no talk clause that forbid defendants from
     communicating with or providing Company information to
     competing bidders unless an unsolicited superior proposal is
     made; and

(c) recurring unlimited matching rights that allow AGL to match
     any superior proposal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Leigh R. Lasky, Esq.
         Norman Rifkind, Esq.
         Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
         Heidi Vonderheide, Esq.
         LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
         350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1320
         Chicago, IL 60610
         Telephone: (312) 634-0057

              - and -

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

              - and -

         Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL
         273 Montgomery Avenue, Suite 202
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Telephone: (610) 660-8000


NICOR INC: D&Os Face Third Suit Over Sale of Company to AGL
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roberto R. Vela, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Russ M. Strobel, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-53448 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. December 17, 2010), accuses the members of
Nicor Inc.'s board of directors of breaching their fiduciary
duties to the Company's shareholders, arising out of the proposed
merger between the Company and AGL Resources and its affiliates.
Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Nicor will merge with AGL
Resources in a combined cash and stock transaction with an
enterprise value of roughly $3.1 billion, including a total equity
value of $2.4 billion.

Nicor and AGL are charged for aiding and abetting the individual
defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties.

Nicor, an Illinois corporation, is a holding company headquartered
in Naperville, Illinois, whose principal subsidiary is Northern
Illinois Gas Company, a regulated natural gas distribution company
that serves more than two million customers in Illinois.

Defendant Russ M. Strobel is Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Office of Nicor Inc. and Nicor Gas and serves on the
board of directors of both companies.

Defendant AGL distributes natural gas to 2.3 million customers in
Florida, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, Tennessee and Virginia.
Defendants Ottawa Acquisition LLC and Apollo Acquisition Corp. are
wholly-owned subsidiaries of AGL.

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Nicor shareholders stand to
receive $21.20 in cash and 0.8382 shares of AGL common stock for
each share of Nicor stock they own.   Based on AGL's closing price
of $34.98 per share on December 17, 2010, this represents roughly
$51.36 per share that Nicor shareholders are to receive pursuant
to the Merger.

The Plaintiff believes, however, that the Merger consideration is
wholly inadequate, given the Company's intrinsic value, recent
performance, and future prospects.

The Plaintiff says that the individual defendants further breached
their fiduciary duties by agreeing to numerous anticompetitive
deal preclusion devices in the Merger Agreement which act to deter
other competing bids.  Specifically, according to the Complaint,
the Board agreed to a no-solicitation provision, granted AGL the
right to match any superior bid within five days, and also agreed
to pay AGL either $36 million or $67 million, depending on the
circumstances, "simply" to proceed with the superior bid.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Leigh R. Lasky, Esq.
         Norman Rifkind, Esq.
         Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
         Heidi Vonderheide, Esq.
         LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
         350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1320
         Chicago, IL 60610
         Telephone: (312) 634-0057

              - and -

         W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
         Joseph Levi, Esq.
         LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
         30 Broad Street, 15th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Omnivision Technologies, Inc.'s settlement of a consolidated class
action lawsuit related to its initial public offering remains
subject to appeals filed by certain objectors, according to the
company's Dec. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended October 31,
2010.

On November 29, 2001, a complaint captioned McKee v. OmniVision
Technologies, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 01 CV 10775, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the company, some of its directors
and officers, and various underwriters for its initial public
offering. Plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants violated
federal securities laws because the prospectus related to its
offering failed to disclose, and contained false and misleading
statements regarding, certain commissions purported to have been
received by the underwriters, and other purported underwriter
practices in connection with their allocation of shares in its
offering. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of its common stock between July 14,
2000 and December 6, 2000. Substantially similar actions have been
filed concerning the initial public offerings for more than 300
different issuers, and the cases have been coordinated as In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92. On
February 19, 2003, the Court issued an order dismissing all claims
against the company except for a claim brought under Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the coordinated
litigation. Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full
amount of settlement share allocated to the company, and it will
bear no financial liability.  The company and the other defendants
will receive complete dismissals from the case. On October 5,
2009, the Court entered an order granting final approval of the
settlement. Certain objectors have filed appeals. If for any
reason the settlement does not become effective, and litigation
against the company proceeds, it believes that it has meritorious
defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the action
vigorously.


ORIENTAL TRADING: Recalls 220,000 Ceramic Piggy and Lion Banks
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Oriental Trading Company, Inc. of Omaha, Ne., announced a
voluntary recall of about 220,000 Ceramic piggy and lion banks.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The yellow surface paint on the banks contains excessive levels of
lead which is prohibited under federal law.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves piggy banks shaped like a pig and the body of
the piggy bank is painted yellow with floral designs.  The ceramic
lion bank is shaped like a lion and is painted yellow with a brown
mane.  The banks measure about 4 inches in length, 2.5 inches in
width, and 3.5 inches in height.  Only yellow banks with black
plastic stoppers in the bottoms of the banks are being recalled.
Banks with white or translucent stoppers are not being recalled.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11077.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
online at http://www.orientaltrading.com/and
http://www.funexpress.com/and through Oriental Trading Company
and Fun Express catalogs from February 2003 through September 2010
for between about $7 and $20 a dozen.

Consumers should immediately take these recalled ceramic banks
away from children, discard them and contact Oriental Trading
Company for information on receiving a refund or credit.  For
additional information, contact Oriental Trading Company at (800)
723-6155 anytime or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.orientaltrading.com/


OVERHILL FARMS: Continues to Defend Two Employee Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
Overhill Farms, Inc., continues to defend itself against two
lawsuits filed by its former employees in Los Angeles for
allegedly violating labor laws, according to the Company's Dec. 9,
2010, Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended September 26, 2010.

On July 1, 2009, Bohemia Agustiana, Isela Hernandez, and Ana Munoz
filed a purported "class action" against the Company in which they
asserted claims for failure to pay minimum wage, failure to
furnish wage and hour statements, waiting time penalties,
conversion and unfair business practices.  The plaintiffs are
former employees who had been terminated one month earlier because
they had used invalid social security numbers in connection with
their employment with the Company.  They filed the case in Los
Angeles County on behalf of themselves and a class which they say
includes all non-exempt production and quality control workers who
were employed in California during the four-year period prior to
filing their complaint.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages,
restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the conversion claim, and
the motion was granted by the court on February 2, 2010.

On May 12, 2010, Alma Salinas filed a purported "class action" in
Los Angeles County Superior Court against the Company in which she
asserted claims on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated current and former production workers for failure to
provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to
pay minimum wage, failure to make payments within the required
time, unfair business practice in violation of Section 17200 of
the California Business and Professions Code and Labor Code
Section 2698.  Ms. Salinas is a former employee who had been
terminated because she had used an invalid social security number
in connection with her employment with the Company.  Ms. Salinas
seeks allegedly unpaid wages, waiting time penalties, PAGA
penalties, interest and attorneys' fees, the amounts of which are
unspecified.

The Company expects the Salinas Case to be consolidated with the
earlier-filed Agustiana Case because the claims in the two actions
substantially overlap each other.

The parties are engaged in the discovery phase of the cases.  The
Company believes it has valid defenses to the plaintiffs' claims
and that it paid all wages due to the employees.


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Continues to Defend "Nelson" Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a class action lawsuit alleging violations of wage and
hour laws, according to the Company's Dec. 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended October 30, 2010.

On April 30, 2010, Ned Nelson filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company alleging various violations of
California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break
rules and regulations -- Ned Nelson, as an individual and on
behalf of others similarly situated, vs. Pacific Sunwear of
California, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 436947.
The complaint seeks class certification, the appointment of the
plaintiff as class representative and an unspecified amount of
damages and penalties.

The Company will file an answer denying all allegations regarding
any claims and asserting various defenses.  As the ultimate
outcome is uncertain, no amounts have been accrued by the Company
as of October 30, 2010.


ROSS STORES: Still Facing Wage and Hour Lawsuit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Stores, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit regarding wage and hour claims.

Like many California retailers, the company has been named in
class action lawsuits regarding wage and hour claims.  A class
action litigation involving allegations that hourly associates
have missed meal or rest break periods, as well as allegations
of unpaid overtime wages to store managers and assistant store
managers at company stores under state law, remains pending as of
October 30, 2010.

No additional details were reported in the company's Dec. 8,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 30, 2010.

Ross Stores, Inc. -- http://www.rossstores.com/-- is the nation's
second largest off-price retailer with fiscal 2009 revenues of
$7.2 billion.  The company is headquartered in Pleasanton,
California.


SHOPPERS DRUG: Faces Class Suit for Breach of Franchise Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Hasselback, writing for the Financial Post, reports
disgruntled pharmacists have officially launched a $1-billion
class action lawsuit that accuses Shoppers Drug Mart of breaching
a franchise agreement and unfairly seizing profits.

John Spina, who owns a Shoppers franchise in Ajax, Ont., and Romeo
Vandenburg, who owns a Shoppers franchise in Toronto, filed the
case in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on Dec. 20.  They
want the court to set up a class that would include all current
and former Shoppers Drug Mart "associate" owners in Canada, except
for Quebec.

The 42-page lawsuit claims that tensions between Shoppers and its
associates started around 2001, just after the retailer made an
initial public offering and became a publicly traded company.
Since then, the suit claims, Shoppers has been putting the squeeze
on the "associate" owners who've signed franchise agreements and
joined the retailers network.

"In effect, the Defendants now treat all the Class Members not as
peers in a joint enterprise, but as assets to maximize shareholder
value without regard to the Defendants' legal obligations," the
suit claims.

The arrival of the suit is hardly a surprise.  A month ago,
Messrs. Spina and Vandenburg filed a Notice of Action with the
court, a document that put Shoppers on notice that a class action
could be on the way.

The Statement of Claim filed last week adds a lot more detail to
the allegations mentioned in the Notice of Action.  As was
suggested by the Notice of Action, a huge part of the dispute
centers on how Shoppers has been handling the so-called
"professional allowances" it collects from generic drug
manufacturers on behalf of the associates.

But the Statement of Claim also spells out some other bones of
contention.  The plaintiffs claim Shoppers charges more for
advertising that it is supposed to.  They also claim take issue
with the "penalties" Shoppers allegedly charges franchises that
fail to make annual profit targets.

"The Defendants' actions represent a systematic attempt to
increase their share of the profits earned by Class Members at the
expense of and to the detriment of the Class Members," the suit
claims.

None of the allegations has been proven in court, and the lead
plaintiffs have yet to convince a judge to certify the lawsuit as
a class action.

When the Notice of Action was filed, Shoppers described the
proposed class action as being without merit.


SKYSERVICE AIRLINES: Ontario Ct. OKs Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports an Ontario court has approved a
settlement in a class action lawsuit against now-defunct charter
airline Skyservice.

The airline has already paid out $300,000 to passengers aboard a
2005 flight that had a hard landing in the Dominican Republic.

Law firm Rochon Genova LLP says Skyservice has agreed to set up an
initial settlement fund of $600,000, and will pay for all bodily
injuries that resulted from the landing.

The airline has already settled with 34 people, and lawsuits with
at least 10 more passengers are still outstanding, said Rochon
Genova, which represented the plaintiffs in the class action.

The class action sought to recover damages for injuries and
economic losses following the hard landing of a flight that took
off from Toronto on May 22, 2005, and landed in Punta Cana.


SMITH & WESSON: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. continues to defend itself against a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, according to the
company's Dec. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2010.

The company, its Chairman of the Board, its Chief Executive
Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer were named in
three similar purported securities class-action lawsuits.   The
complaints in these actions, which have been consolidated into
one action, were brought individually and on behalf of all persons
who purchased securities between June 15, 2007 and Dec. 6, 2007.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for alleged violations of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The company has filed a Motion to Dismiss the litigation.  On
March 26, 2009, the Court dismissed the company's Chairman of the
Board from the litigation.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification and the
company is opposing that motion.  The company's brief in
opposition was filed on March 8, 2010.

On May 11, 2010, the Court certified the consolidated action as
consisting of a class of persons who purchased the company's
securities between June 15, 2007 and Dec. 6, 2007, and suffered
damage as a result.

The Court scheduled discovery concerning the facts of this action
ended on May 28, 2010.  Examination of any experts put forth by
the parties ended on Oct. 1, 2010.

On October 29, 2010, the Company moved for summary disposition of
the case.  Lead Plaintiff opposed the Company's motion on
November 22, 2010 and cross-moved for partial summary judgment.
Hearing of the matter was set for December 20, 2010.  If not
resolved at the summary judgment stage, trial is scheduled to
begin on February 7, 2011.


SYNGENTA AG: Tillery Files Pleadings Under Seal in Atrazine Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
Attorney Stephen Tillery of St. Louis sealed his reasons for
subjecting Swiss holding company Syngenta AG to American justice,
and he blamed the Swiss for his secrecy.

Mr. Tillery, pursuing a water contamination claim for cities in
four states, told U.S. District Judge Phil Gilbert on Dec. 21 that
he sealed his briefs to comply with a confidentiality order.

Judge Gilbert had directed Mr. Tillery to explain why he sealed
them, and Mr. Tillery answered that Syngenta AG should explain.

"Plaintiffs do not oppose having their pleadings unsealed, and so
should not have to make the argument to the contrary on
defendants' behalf," he wrote.

Mr. Tillery seeks to hold Syngenta AG responsible for actions of
Syngenta Crop Protection Inc., a manufacturer of weed killer
atrazine in North Carolina.

Federal regulators regard atrazine as safe in water supplies at
concentrations below three parts per billion, but Mr. Tillery
proposes to declare it dangerous at any level.

In the suit before Judge Gilbert and suits against many companies
before Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder, he seeks
compensation for past water treatment, funds for future treatment,
and other relief.

He represents cities in Illinois, Missouri, Kansas and Ohio.

He sued Syngenta Crop Protection and Syngenta AG in federal court
in March.

In May, Syngenta Crop Protection moved to dismiss for failure to
state a claim, and Syngenta AG moved to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction.

Kurtis Reeg of St. Louis wrote that Syngenta AG has no employees
and doesn't manufacture, design or sell any product.

Mr. Reeg wrote that it primarily owns shares in agricultural and
chemical companies.

He wrote that there are no overlapping members on the boards of
Syngenta AG and Syngenta Crop Protection.

He wrote that while two members of Syngenta AG's executive
committee serve on the board of Syngenta Crop Protection, they
comprise a minority of the board.

That sounded like a confession of control to Tillery associate
Patricia Murphy of Energy, wife of U.S. District Judge Patrick
Murphy.

"While it may be true that they alone cannot garner a majority
vote of the SCPI board, that does not mean that they cannot exert
undue influence or instruct the other SCPI directors on how to
vote," Ms. Murphy wrote in June.

She moved for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery.

"Syngenta AG sits atop a vast but closely intertwined and
carefully coordinated international network of subsidiaries that
includes the defendant in this lawsuit, Syngenta Crop Protection,"
she wrote.

"The seat of power for that network, as well as its ultimate
source of authority, is in Basel, Switzerland," she wrote.

"The Rosental compound in Basel acts as Syngenta's global
headquarters, and is home to no fewer than 12 of Syngenta AG's
wholly owned subsidiaries," she wrote.

Ms. Murphy wrote that plaintiffs intend to prove Syngenta AG
dominates and controls Syngenta Crop Protection AG, which in turn
controls Syngenta Crop Protection Inc.

She wrote that Syngenta AG is directly responsible for
contamination of water supplies, and is ultimate owner of more
than 200 subsidiaries operating all over the world.

Syngenta AG "has denied the human health threat of atrazine while
concealing internal studies suggesting otherwise, and has
manipulated the weight of scientific evidence to create the
illusion of atrazine's safety," Ms. Murphy wrote.

She wrote that plaintiffs seek to understand the role Syngenta AG
and other Basel companies play in atrazine activities in the
United States.

She wrote that they would analyze Syngenta's corporate structure,
the roles of key individuals, and whether the Basel companies
control Syngenta Crop Protection Inc.

Judge Gilbert granted leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery.

Mr. Tillery delivered the response to the motion to dismiss on
Dec. 17, under seal.

On the same date, he sealed and filed a motion to strike
declarations.

On Dec. 20, he sealed and filed a motion to substitute the motion
to strike.

On Dec. 21, Judge Gilbert wrote that it wasn't immediately
apparent why he sealed them.

"Court records are presumptively open to the public," Gilbert
wrote.

He ordered Mr. Tillery to explain why he sealed the motions, but
he didn't order Mr. Tillery to explain why he sealed the response
to the motion to dismiss.

Mr. Tillery wrote that Syngenta AG and Syngenta Crop Protection
requested and obtained an extremely broad confidentiality order.

He wrote that it requires him to seal all pleadings that contain,
attach or refer to confidential information.

"Plaintiffs fully agree with the court that court records are
presumptively open to the public and should remain open to the
public absent the genuine threat of disclosing trade secrets,"
Mr. Tillery wrote.


TELECOM PROVIDERS: Saskatchewan Class Action Nears Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Smith, writing for The Wire Report, reports a class action
suit seeking telecom providers to reimburse clients 20-years worth
of system fees is on the verge of being settled after seven years
in Saskatchewan's court system.

"Every time you break out something that really should be part of
your basic monthly fee, it's misleading.  Customers think it's a
government fee or some sort of CRTC mandated fee, and it's a
problem," John Lawford, legal counsel for consumer group the
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), said in an interview.

The Regina office of law firm Merchant Law Group LLP began the
class action suit in 2004 to try to establish that Canadian
consumers were misled to believe that access fees were collected
as a government tax or CRTC levy.


TORONTO COMMUNITY: Legal Aid Clinic Closes Over Unfair Offer
------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Vukets, writing for Toronto Star, reports legal aid
lawyers have shut down a free clinic for Wellesley fire victims to
protest what they're calling an unfair compensation offer from
Toronto Community Housing.

The agency has been "very inconsiderate in not giving people more
time to consider the offer," said Jack de Klerk of Neighbourhood
Legal Services.

He and other volunteer lawyers are withdrawing their services
because tenants are being asked to make a decision by Jan. 21
about taking compensation immediately or waiting for the results
of a pending class action lawsuit, which isn't fair, he said.

The Toronto Community Housing Corp. set up a compensation package
last month for tenants evacuated from 200 Wellesley St. E. during
September's six-alarm blaze.  Tenants are eligible for several
thousand dollars for emotional distress and replacing household
items, but must seek independent legal advice before applying for
compensation.

They must also sign a release stating they will not to join an $80
million class action lawsuit against TCHC and Greenwin Property
Management, nor undertake legal action for future medical or
psychological conditions.

"What's putting so much unfair pressure on the tenants is that
they don't have any money," Mr. de Klerk said.  "They're not
getting any money if they don't sign . . . and that means people
are being forced to sign."

A class action expert said TCHC is taking advantage of "desperate"
tenants.

"They wouldn't be aware at all of their legal rights," said Kirk
Baert, a partner with Koskie Minsky LLP.  "This is an even more
vulnerable group with language issues and disability issues.  Plus
it's winter."

He said the fact that the compensation offer was drafted by TCHC's
lawyers and will be evaluated by the organization's insurance
agent means tenants are getting low-balled.

"Large corporations and governments don't pay money to people
except in exchange for something," he said.  "The idea here is to
get people to take less because they need it."

The housing corporation, however, said the package was designed to
support tenants and help them get back to their normal lives as
quickly as possible.

When asked if the loss of the legal aid clinic would affect the
process, TCHC spokesman Jeffrey Ferrier said the agency will hire
lawyers to advise tenants.

"They don't have to see the legal clinics," he said, adding it's
"not uncommon" for lawyers advising potential plaintiffs to be
paid by the potential defendant.

He added there is still "lots of time" for tenants to consider
their options before the Jan. 21 deadline.

"I bet there will be a lot of talking over holiday meals with
family and friends about what to do," said Mr. Ferrier.

Messrs. De Klerk and Baert both suggested an "interim payment"
option.  TCHC could give tenants a few thousand dollars to get
them started, and then give them time to think about whether they
wish to get guaranteed compensation or take their chances on a
lawsuit that could end up paying much more a year or two down the
road.

Mr. Ferrier said TCHC is not considering an interim payment.

"My advice would be to wait," said Martin Teplitsky, co-counsel
for the class action suit.

He said his team would have a better idea of what fair
compensation is after doing research for the lawsuit.  But before
that, it's unreasonable for TCHC to ask tenants to make a
decision.

"After we finish our work, if we think the offer is reasonable and
a decent outcome for people, we'll recommend it ourselves," he
said.

Mr. Teplitsky and co-counsel Brian Shell was scheduled to go to
court on Dec. 23 where they hope to set a date for certification
of the class action suit.

"These are disadvantaged people in our society," he said.  "They
need to be treated fairly and not railroaded."


WYETH: Trial Lawyer Briefs Oppose Court Ruling in Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports
West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw and the state's
trial lawyers are more than likely not happy about a ruling handed
down by the state Supreme Court of Appeals in the case of White v.
Wyeth.

Following the Court's ruling in the case Dec. 17, plaintiffs now
will have to show a causal connection between their individual
claims of injury and any alleged unfair or deceptive conduct if
suing for misrepresentation under the state's Consumer Credit and
Protection Act.

Previously, state consumers simply had to prove there was
misrepresentation and then could seek damages.

The ruling has tremendous implications for consumers, especially
those filing lawsuits involving prescription medications, for the
Court also found that the private cause of action afforded state
consumers does not extend to prescription drug purchases.

The Court's decision also might affect the state Attorney
General's Office and the number of opportunities for lawsuits it
files on behalf of the state.

In an amicus brief filed prior to the Court's ruling, McGraw
expressed his support for the group of private citizens who
purchased prescription hormone replacement therapy drugs and
alleged in their suit, filed in April 2004, that pharmaceutical
company Wyeth used "unfair" and "deceptive" practices in promoting
the drug products.

In his office's 33-page brief filed Feb. 22, Mr. McGraw wrote that
requiring a consumer to show proof of reliance is a "significant
impediment" to fraud claims, particularly in class actions.

Mr. McGraw's office contended that Wyeth urged the trial court to
ignore the plain language of West Virginia Code and "read into it
a reliance requirement."

"Reliance is not a requirement" under state code, he said.

"The Legislature made its intention crystal clear with the words
they chose in providing this right," Mr. McGraw wrote.  "To find
otherwise, and hold that reliance is a requirement before a
consumer can assert a private cause of action under the WVCCPA
would impair the consumers' ability to stop practices before they
cause widespread consumer harm."

His office also argued it leads businesses to try to evade
consequences for their deceptive practices by inserting clauses in
the fine print of their contracts stating that the consumer did
not rely on what the salesperson said.

Mr. McGraw further argued that the words "result" and "reliance"
are not interchangeable.

In 2009, the Putnam Circuit Court found that the consumer
protection act does not require plaintiffs pursuing a private
cause of action to allege reliance in their complaints.  The court
then denied Wyeth's motions to dismiss or for summary judgment for
lack of standing.

However, the lower court observed that the interpretation of the
phrase "as a result of" in West Virginia Code was a matter of
first impression and was a determinative issue in a potentially
large and costly suit.

Concerned with the seeming conflict between its interpretation of
the statutory phrase in light of the constitutional standing
requirement regarding causal connection, the lower court certified
the issue as a legal question to the state's high court.

Wyeth also petitioned the Court for review of the certified
question, which was accepted by order dated Nov. 12, 2009.

The certified question -- reformulated by the state's high court
-- reads, "Does the 'as a result of' language in Section 46A-6-
106(a) of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act
require proof of reliance on alleged affirmative
misrepresentations in order to satisfy the element of causation in
private causes of action brought pursuant to the Act?"

Mr. McGraw, citing Webster's Dictionary, defined "result" as
"something that follows as a consequence of another action,
condition or event."  "Reliance," he wrote, is defined as
"somebody or something needed or depended on."

"The statute explicitly states that consumers may bring a private
cause of action if they have suffered an ascertainable loss 'as a
result of,' or as a consequence of, or following the business's
use of unfair or deceptive acts or practices," he wrote.

"Had the Legislature intended to require consumers to prove they
had relied upon a misrepresentation and suffered a loss as a
result of their reliance thereon, it would have said so."

Mr. McGraw argued in his conclusion that consumers often lack
"intimate knowledge" of the products and services they are
purchasing and the education to understand whether the language in
the contract they are about to execute contains a legal loophole
that does not actually protect them.

"The WVCCPA was not enacted to determine whether the parties got
the benefits of a presumed arms' length bargain," he wrote.
"Rather, state consumer protection statutes were enacted to outlaw
unfair and deceptive conduct, even if the consumer was not
actually deceived."

The West Virginia Association for Justice, which represents more
than 500 attorneys in West Virginia and surrounding states, filed
its own amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs.

In its 16-page brief, filed on Feb. 22, the trial lawyers group
argued the rejection of a reliance requirement has been "a
consistent part of the jurisprudence in this State for at least 10
years."  Answering "no" to the certified question, the group
wrote, "requires nothing more than reaffirming this consistent
jurisprudence."

"It seems that only the pharmaceutical manufacturers and others
who commit consumer fraud are interested in imposing the reliance
requirement," the trial lawyers group said.

Like the Supreme Court, which surveyed other states and their
language, the WVAJ did their own study.  However, they found that
requiring proof of reliance "is a minority position."

The Court's research revealed otherwise -- that the private cause
of action provisions of 28 states contain the "as a result of"
language, and that 11 states and the District of Columbia have
statutes containing the "whether or not any person has in fact
been misled, deceived or damaged" language.  Only five states have
both statutory provisions, it found.

The WVAJ said "a few" states have explicit reliance requirements
and that "a few" states do judicially impose reliance
requirements, but that "the vast majority" do not.

The group also argued that interpreting the consumer protection
act as requiring reliance is "contrary to many policies that
underlie the statute."

"Judicially imposing a reliance requirement is inconsistent with
the legislative choices made in establishing the statute and this
Court's precedents," it wrote.  "First, as this Court has
recognized, the Legislature explicitly left out class action bans
present in the model act upon which the W.Va. Statute is based.
Moreover, this Court has explicitly held that contractual
restrictions on the right to bring consumer protection class
actions are unconscionable and unenforceable.

"If this Court will not permit parties to contractually waive
class relief on public policy grounds, it should not strain to
adopt constructions of the Act that may have substantially the
same effect."

The Product Liability Advisory Council, a non-profit association
with more than 100 corporate members representing American and
international product manufacturers, filed the lone amicus brief
in support of the pharmaceutical company at the center of the
Court's ruling.

The council, in its 30-page brief, filed on Jan. 14, argued that
the Putnam Circuit Court's decision was "unnecessary" and "a
faulty interpretation" of the remedial provisions of the consumer
protection act.

"If, as the Circuit Court held, reliance resulting in actual
injury is not required, this will have far-reaching negative
effects on the development of product liability law and litigation
in this State, as attorneys recast traditional product liability
claims as consumer protection claims for which they seek class
certification," the council wrote.

As the council pointed out, "one cannot be injured 'as a result
of' a deceptive act without actually being deceived."

The language and structure of the act show that reliance is
necessary, it argued.

"While it explicitly defines a 'deceptive act' so as not to
require proof that 'any person has in fact been misled, deceived
or damaged thereby,' when it creates the private cause of action,
it with equal specificity requires proof that the plaintiff's loss
is 'a result of' such a deceptive act," the council wrote.

Had the Court affirmed the lower court's answer to the certified
question, the council argued, it would further encourage lawsuit
abuse. It also would mean higher prices to cover the
manufacturers' costs of routinely making such windfall payments.

"Product manufacturers one way or another build such costs into
the price of their products, and so the vast majority of consumers
will simply have to pay more," it wrote.  "And if enough
expensive, time-consuming, and bankruptcy-threatening class
actions are filed, there may come a point where consumers who have
real injuries receive less compensation.

"Given the increasing cost of health care in our country, not just
consumers, but the general public cannot afford the additional,
unnecessary costs that Plaintiffs' answer to the certified
question would impose."

Consumers also would suffer from the loss of product innovation if
manufacturers are forced to cut back on research and development
spending for fear of litigation, the council said.

"The civil justice system should concentrate on the fair and
efficient administration of cases filed by plaintiffs who are
actually injured as a result of reliance on a defendant's
deceptive act," it concluded.


ZALE CORP: Defends Consolidated Suit in Northern Texas
------------------------------------------------------
Zale Corporation continues to defend itself against a consolidated
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, according to the company's Dec. 8, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended October 31, 2010.

In November 2009, the company and four former officers, Neal L.
Goldberg, Rodney Carter, Mary E. Burton and Cynthia T. Gordon,
were named as defendants in two purported class-action lawsuits.
The suits alleged various violations of securities laws arising
from the financial statement errors that led to the restatement
completed by the company as part of its Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2009.

On Aug. 9, 2010, the two lawsuits were consolidated into one.  The
consolidated lawsuit requests unspecified damages and costs, and
is in the preliminary stage.

Zale Corporation -- http://www.zalecorp.com/-- is a specialty
retailer of diamonds and other jewelry products in North America,
operating approximately 1,900 retail locations throughout the
United States, Canada and Puerto Rico, as well as online.  Zale
Corporation's brands include Zales Jewelers, Zales Outlet,
Gordon's Jewelers, Peoples Jewellers, Mappins Jewellers and
Piercing Pagoda.  Zale also operates online at
http://www.zales.com/, http://www.zalesoutlet.com/and
http://www.gordonsjewelers.com/


* Alberta Opts Out as Class Action Jurisdiction
-----------------------------------------------
Daryl-Lynn Carlson, writing for The Financial Post, reports
Alberta has joined five other provinces in becoming an "opt-out"
jurisdiction for class actions.  Yet despite the amendments, which
recently passed third reading in the Alberta legislature and could
take effect in early 2011, lawyers are doubtful the province will
become a preferred jurisdiction for plaintiff lawyers launching
nation-wide class actions.

"It might actually make it more difficult for class proceedings
that are truly national to take a foothold in Alberta," said Sean
Smyth, a partner at McCarthy Tetrault LLP's Calgary office who
represents many class action defendants.

He noted that under Alberta's revised legislation, if there is a
competing class action in another province such as Ontario or
Quebec, an Alberta court must weigh the benefits of allowing the
central Canada national class action to move forward instead of
the one launched in Western Canada.

The provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova
Scotia have "opt-out" class action regimes.  These enable all
qualified plaintiffs to participate, unless they "opt out" or
formally decline to make a claim should a settlement be reached.

British Columbia, Newfoundland and New Brunswick are "opt-in"
jurisdictions, which leave it up to plaintiffs themselves to take
the necessary steps to participate in class actions.

Mr. Smyth explained that the new regime requires an Alberta court
to look at another province's class proceeding to determine
whether it would be better for all parties.  "So it creates
another hurdle for plaintiffs in this province if there is another
class proceeding in, say, Ontario."

He pointed out that in the 2009 Ontario case of Canada Post Corp.
v. Lepine, there was a court-approved settlement that would have
included members of the Quebec class.  A Quebec court refused to
enforce the Ontario judgment and the Supreme Court of Canada
upheld the Quebec court's decision.

Kara Smyth, also a partner at McCarthy's Calgary office (and no
relation to Sean Smyth), said the SCC's decision affirms that
courts have a lot to consider when authorizing a national class
action, so it's unlikely that Alberta's amended legislation will
trigger a significant number of cases.

"The concentration of population is in Ontario and Quebec, and one
of the factors the courts have to consider is the viability of the
class, the capacity and resources to advance the claim in
whichever jurisdiction is best for the plaintiffs," she said.

Ultimately, the differing legislation regarding class actions
across the country could lead to court challenges between
plaintiff lawyers for carriage of a case.  These can be somewhat
costly, depending on the nature of the case, she said.

Barry Glaspell, a litigation partner at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
in Toronto, affirmed that all of the provinces need to get on the
same page to facilitate national class actions, particularly in
light of Canada Post Corp. v. Lepine.

"There is an increasing tendency toward national class actions in
Canada, particularly in pure economic loss cases and personal
injury," Mr. Glaspell said.  Provinces should make an effort to
harmonize their class action legislation to avoid conflicts,
carriage fights and, ultimately, higher costs, he said.

He noted that Alberta's legislation requires plaintiff lawyers to
notify lawyers in other provinces who have filed similar class
actions with a national scope, and the matter could be deferred to
a more populated jurisdiction.

As well, he said, each province should keep a formal registry of
class actions, along with the Canadian Bar Association's National
Class Action Database.

Ward Branch of Branch MacMaster LLP in Vancouver represents mostly
plaintiffs.  He agreed that the provinces need to harmonize their
approach to class actions.

He said he expects that British Columbia will follow Alberta's
decision to update its legislation to an "opt-out" jurisdiction.

"The new statute in Alberta is actually doing two important
things," he said.  "It evens the playing field where you can have
national opt-out class actions and is setting up a national
carriage procedure, so if there are competing class actions, there
is a way to sort that out."


                             *********

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  * * *