CAR_Public/110103.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, January 3, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 1

                             Headlines

ADELPHIA COMMS: Bernstein Demands $22MM From Abbey Spanier
AGILENT TECH: Processing Settlement in Varian Shareholder Lawsuit
AGILENT TECH: Appeal of IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
AKEENA SOLAR: Class Certification Hearing Set for February 7
AMBAC FINANCIAL: Awaits Court Okay of Securities Suits Settlement

AMERICAN BUSINESS: Defendants in Locklear Class Suit in Default
ARAMARK CORP: Court Approves Settlement of Wage Violation Lawsuit
AT&T INC: Sued Over Deceptive Charges for Prepaid Services
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Settles Shareholder Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in E.D. Mo. Ct. Over HAMP Violations

BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Seeks New Trial on Class Action Verdict
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Still Pending in IPO Suit
BROOKFIELD HOMES: Faces Class Suit in Delaware Over Merger
BURLINGTON COAT: Continues to Defend FLSA-Violations Complaint
COMFORCE CORP: In Talks to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit

COMMSCOPE INC: In Talks to Settle Shareholder Class Action
COMPELLENT TECH: Defending Merger-Related Class Suit in Minnesota
COOPER COMPANIES: Obtains Final Approval of Class Suit Settlement
COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Hawk" Plaintiff Granted Class Certification
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal on "Ellis" Certification Still Pending

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Two Classes Certified in "Pytelewski" Lawsuit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal From Remand of "Medrano" Suit Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Amended Complaints Over Improper Labels
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Dismissed From "Product Ambassadors" Lawsuit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Motion to Certify "Salmon" Suit Denied

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Plaintiff Appeals Denial of Motion to Amend Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Kilano" Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Head" Suit in California
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Face Motor Fuel Class Suits
DEL MONTE: D&Os Face Second Suit Over $5.3-Bil. Sale to KKR

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Accused of Violating Rehabilitation Act
FEDEX CORP: Express Continues to Defend "Bibo" Wage & Hour Suit
FEDEX CORP: "Taylor" Wage & Hour Suit Scheduled for Trial in July
FEDEX CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal in "Anfinson" Suit Still Pending
FEDEX CORP: Unit Continues to Defend "Rascon" Suit in Colorado

FEDEX CORP: 19 of 28 FedEx Ground Summary Judgment Motions Granted
FEDEX CORP: FedEx Ground Continues to Defend "Tidd" Suit
GOOGLE INC: Ordered to Divulge Identity of AdWords Advertisers
GSI GROUP: Court Sets Feb. 16 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Appeal Still Pending in "Skold" Suit

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Fairness Hearing on Inkjet Suit Set for Jan. 28
HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Baggett" Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Jan. 31
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Defend Suits Over FLSA Violations
INTERNATIONAL ASSETS: FCStone Still Defending Consolidated Suit
INTERNATIONAL ASSETS: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending

ISRAEL FUEL COS: Face NIS1.4-Bil. Class Action Over "Hot Fuel"
JP MORGAN: Accused of Manipulating Silver Bar Financial Products
KEITHLEY INSTRUMENTS: Awaits Court Approval of Suit Settlement
LTX-CREDENCE: Faces Four Merger-Related Suits in Calif. & Mass.
MCDONALD'S CORP: Accused of Violating Computer Privacy Laws

MEDCATH CORP: Court Strikes Class Allegations v. Bakersfield Unit
META FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Two Stockholder Suits in Iowa
META FINANCIAL: Still Defending Suits Over Certificates of Deposit
MICROSOFT CORP: Calif. Schools Get Class Action Settlement Money
NEW SOUTH WALES: May Face Suit Over Legal System Computer Flaw

NORTH ORANGE COUNTY: Calif. App. Ct. Rules on Sheppard Suit
NOVELL INC: Faces 14 Class Suits Over Proposed Attachmate Merger
NOVELL INC: Appeal Pending in SilverStream Securities Class Suit
OHIO: Lead Monitor Appointed in Juvenile Justice Class Action
ONEIDA COUNTY: Social Services Sued Over Food Stamp Policy

PANTRY INC: Continues to Defend "Amason" Suit in Alabama
PANTRY INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Kansas
PAVARINI MCGOVERN: Sued for Diverting Trust Funds Under Lien Law
PHILIP MORRIS: Minn. Court Reinstates Portions of Class Action
PNC FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Mortgage Refinancing Fee

PROSPECT MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suits
REMEC INC: Appeals on California Securities Suit Dismissed Sept. 1
RENTECH INC: Consolidated Securities Suit in Calif. Still Stayed
RINO INTERNATIONAL: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
SANTARUS INC: Faces Suit Alleging Labor Violations in New York

SEARCHMEDIA HOLDINGS: Still Faces Securities Suit in California
SHEREMETYEVO AIRPORT: Stranded Passengers to File Class Action
SSI INVESTMENTS: Holds $0.8MM Cash for Class Suit Defense Costs
STATER BROS: SBM Diaries Settles "O'Connor" Suit
SUNCOR ENERGY: Judge Blocks Gas Station Owners' Class Action

T-MOBILE USA: Sued for Inflating Fees Passed on to Subscribers
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Obtains Final Approval of Suit Settlement
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: St. Clair Derivative Action Now Concluded
UNITED STATES: Court Won't Re-Open Age Discrimination Suit v. FAA
WELLCARE HEALTH: Settles Securities Class Action for $200-Mil.
WPCS INTERNATIONAL: Parties Agree to Dismiss "Pignataro" Suit

* US Drug Watchdog Wants Trial Law Firms to Handle Darvon Suits



                             *********

ADELPHIA COMMS: Bernstein Demands $22MM From Abbey Spanier
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann et al. demand $22 million from Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams
& Paradis et al., in a dispute over the Adelphia Communications
securities class action, and the lead plaintiffs in it, in New
York County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman
LLP, et al. v. Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP, et al., Index No.
652379/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/27/AttyFees.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory P. Joseph, Esq.
          Douglas J. Pepe, Esq.
          Sandra M. Lipsman, Esq.
          Siobhan Briley, Esq.
          GREGORY P. JOSEPH LAW OFFICES LLC
          485 Lexington Avenue, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 407-1200


AGILENT TECH: Processing Settlement in Varian Shareholder Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Agilent Technologies, Inc., is now processing the settlement of
class action lawsuits over its proposed acquisition of Varian,
Inc., according to Agilent's Dec. 20, 2010, Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended October 31, 2010.

On Aug. 5, 2009, a putative class action was filed in
California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara, entitled Feivel
Gottlieb Plan - Administrator Feivel Gottlieb Defined Benefit
Pension Plan DTD 01-01-04 v. Garry W. Rogerson, et al., No. 1-09-
CV-149132.  The action was allegedly brought on behalf of a class
of shareholders of Varian, Inc., against Varian, its board of
directors, Agilent and Cobalt Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Agilent, in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Varian.  A similar action, entitled Stuart
Kreisberg v. Garry W. Rogerson, et al., No. 1-09-CV-149383, was
filed in the same court on Aug. 7, 2009.  The actions were
subsequently consolidated under the caption In re Varian, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 1-09-CV- 149132, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on Aug. 14, 2009.
The consolidated amended complaint is also filed on behalf of an
alleged class of Varian shareholders against Varian, its
directors, Agilent and Cobalt.  The consolidated amended complaint
alleges that Varian's directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed acquisition and asserts, among other
things, that the price and other terms are unfair, that Varian's
directors have engaged in self-dealing, and that the disclosures
in Varian's Aug. 7, 2009, proxy filing are inadequate.  Agilent
and Cobalt are alleged to have aided and abetted the Varian
directors' purported breaches of fiduciary duties.  The Plaintiffs
seek injunctive and other relief, including attorneys' fees and
costs.

On Aug. 19, 2009, another substantially similar putative class
action, entitled Hawaii Laborers Pension Fund v. Varian, Inc., et
al., No. 1-09-CV-150234, was filed in the same court against
Varian, its directors, and Agilent.  Like the consolidated amended
complaint, it asserts claims on behalf of a class of Varian
shareholders, alleges that Varian's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed acquisition by,
inter alia, failing to value Varian properly, agreeing to improper
deal terms, engaging in self-dealing and making misleading
disclosures, alleges that Agilent aided and abetted those
purported breaches of fiduciary duties, and seeks injunctive and
other relief (including attorneys' fees and costs).

On Sept. 25, 2009, the parties signed a memorandum of
understanding to settle the class actions.  The settlement
provides, among other things, that:

     (i) Varian would make certain agreed-upon disclosures
         designed to supplement those contained in its
         definitive proxy statement filed on Aug. 20, 2009;

    (ii) the litigation will be dismissed with prejudice as to
         all defendants;

   (iii) defendants believe the claims are without merit and
         continue to deny liability, but agree to settle in
         order to avoid the potential cost and distraction of
         continued litigation and to eliminate any risk of any
         delay to the acquisition; and

    (iv) plaintiffs' counsel may seek fees and costs of up to
         $625,000, subject to court approval.

There is to be no payment of money to the alleged class members.
The Santa Clara Superior Court preliminarily approved the
settlement, whereupon the Court notified the class of the
settlement.  One shareholder objected, but the Court found that
the objection was not filed before the deadline set by the Court.
After an October 1, 2010 hearing, the Santa Clara Superior Court
issued its order providing final approval of the settlement on
November 5, 2010.  The Court made one change to the proposed
settlement; the Court awarded plaintiffs' counsel attorney's fees
in the amount of $476,600, rather than the $625,000 they had
sought.  The Company is now processing the settlement.

Agilent Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.agilent.com/-- is a
measurement company providing bio-analytical and electronic
measurement solutions to the communications, electronics, life
sciences and chemical analysis industries.  The company operates
in two business segments: electronic measurement business and the
bio-analytical measurement business.


AGILENT TECH: Appeal of IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the final approval of Agilent Technologies, Inc.'s
settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit related to its
initial public offer remains pending, according to Agilent's
Dec. 20, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010.

In November 2001, a securities class action, Kassin v. Agilent
Technologies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-10639, was
filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against certain investment bank underwriters for its
initial public offering, Agilent and various of its officers and
directors at the time of the IPO. In 2003, the Court granted
Agilent's motion to dismiss the claims against Agilent based on
Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act, but denied Agilent's
motion to dismiss the claims based on Section 11 of the Securities
Act. On June 14, 2004, papers formalizing a settlement among the
plaintiffs, Agilent and more than 200 other issuer defendants and
insurers were presented to the Court. Under the proposed
settlement, plaintiffs' claims against Agilent and its directors
and officers would be released, in exchange for a contingent
payment (which, if made, would be paid by Agilent's insurer) and
an assignment of certain potential claims. However, class
certification of plaintiffs' underlying action against the
underwriter defendants was a condition of the settlement. On
December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reversed the Court's order certifying such a class in several
"test cases" that had been selected by the underwriter defendants
and plaintiffs. On January 5, 2007, plaintiffs filed a petition
for rehearing to the full bench of the Second Circuit. On April 6,
2007, the Second Circuit issued an order denying rehearing but
noted that plaintiffs are free to "seek certification of a more
modest class." On June 25, 2007, the Court entered an order
terminating the proposed settlement between plaintiffs and the
issuer defendants based on a stipulation among the parties.
Plaintiffs have amended their allegations and filed amended
complaints in six "test cases" (none of which involve Agilent).
Defendants in these cases have moved to dismiss the amended
complaints. On March 26, 2008, the Court denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss.

The parties have again reached a global settlement of the
litigation and filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement on April 2, 2009. Under the settlement, the insurers
would pay the full amount of settlement share allocated to
Agilent, and Agilent would bear no financial liability. Agilent,
as well as the officer and director defendants who were previously
dismissed from the action pursuant to tolling agreements, would
receive complete dismissals from the case. On October 5, 2009, the
Court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement.
Certain objectors have appealed the Court's October 5, 2009 order
to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. That appeal is pending.

Agilent Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.agilent.com/-- is a
measurement company providing bio-analytical and electronic
measurement solutions to the communications, electronics, life
sciences and chemical analysis industries.  The company operates
in two business segments: electronic measurement business and the
bio-analytical measurement business.


AKEENA SOLAR: Class Certification Hearing Set for February 7
------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider a motion to certify a class in a lawsuit
alleging securities violations pending in California is scheduled
for February 7, 2011, according to Akeena Solar, Inc.'s Dec. 15,
2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities Exchange
Commission.

On October 22, 2010, lead plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification in the federal action Hodges v. Akeena Solar, Inc.,
et al., Case No. CV-09-02147-JW.

On November 15, 2010, lead plaintiff Sharon Hodges filed a motion
to withdraw as a representative plaintiff in the Class Action.
Ms. Hodges was one of three court-appointed co-lead plaintiffs in
the Class Action.  The remaining two lead plaintiffs filed a
corrected motion seeking class certification on November 15, 2010.

On December 13, 2010, the Company filed an opposition to
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and against the
appointment of the remaining lead plaintiffs as class
representatives.  The plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion
for class certification is due January 13, 2011.  The hearing on
the motion for class certification is currently scheduled for
February 7, 2011.

The Company continues to believe that the class action has no
merit and that it has strong defenses to the claims.  As the
Company has stated in connection with the securities class action
matter, it believes that its disclosures concerning its business
during the relevant period of the lawsuit were appropriate and
were in full compliance with the federal securities laws.  The
Company intends to continue defending the remaining claims
vigorously.


AMBAC FINANCIAL: Awaits Court Okay of Securities Suits Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ambac Financial Group, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its
settlement with lead plaintiffs of securities class action
lawsuits pending in New York, according to the Company's Dec. 15,
2010 Form 8-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Ambac and certain of its present or former officers or directors
have been named in lawsuits that allege violations of the federal
securities laws.  These Securities Class Actions include (i) five
class actions in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York that were consolidated under the caption In
re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case
No. 08 CV 411; the consolidated amended complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of purchasers of Ambac's common stock from
October 25, 2006 to April 22, 2008, on behalf of purchasers of
Ambac's "DISCS", issued in February of 2007, and on behalf of
purchasers of equity units and common stock in Ambac's March 2008
offerings and (ii) a putative class action entitled Stanley Tolin
et al. v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et al., filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Ambac, one former officer and director and one former
officer, Case No. 08 CV 11241, brought on behalf of all purchasers
of Structured Repackaged Asset-Backed Trust Securities, Callable
Class A Certificates, Series 2007-1, STRATS(SM) Trust for Ambac
Financial Group, Inc. Securities 2007-1 from June 29, 2007 through
April 22, 2008.  The complaints allege, among other things, that
the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding Ambac's business and financial results and guarantees of
CDO and MBS transactions, in violation of the securities laws.

Various shareholder derivative actions have been filed against
certain present or former officers or directors of Ambac, and
against Ambac as a nominal defendant.  The Shareholder Derivative
Actions include (i) three actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York that have
been consolidated under the caption In re Ambac Financial Group,
Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 08 CV 854; (ii) two
actions filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery that have been
consolidated under the caption In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc.
Shareholders Derivative Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 3521;
and (iii) two actions filed in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, New York County, that have been consolidated under the
caption In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Shareholder Derivative
Litigation, Consolidated Index No. 650050/2008E.  The complaints
in each of the Shareholder Derivative Actions assert, among other
claims, claims for breaches of fiduciary duties, gross
mismanagement, abuse of control and waste.

On November 8, 2010, Ambac filed a voluntary petition for relief
under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code
in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
New York.  On November 22, 2010, the consolidated shareholder
derivative action pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York was dismissed without prejudice
in light of the automatic stay required by Ambac's filing under
Chapter 11.

On December 9, 2010, Ambac and certain of its present or former
officers or directors, including the present or former officers or
directors who are defendants in the Securities Class Actions,
entered into a memorandum of understanding with the lead
plaintiffs in In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation and the named plaintiffs in Tolin v. Ambac Financial
Group, Inc., for settlement of both of the Securities Class
Actions.  The MOU provides that the claims of the putative
plaintiff classes will be settled for a cash payment of $27.1
million.  The insurance carriers who provided directors and
officers liability coverage to Ambac's present and former officers
and directors for the period July 2007-July 2009 have agreed to
pay $24.6 million of the settlement and Ambac has agreed to pay
$2.5 million of the settlement. Lead and named plaintiffs in the
Securities Class Actions, on behalf of themselves and all other
members of the settlement class, have agreed to releases of claims
against, among others, Ambac and the present or former officers or
directors who are parties to the MOU. The settlement provided for
in the MOU is subject to various conditions, including among
others bankruptcy court approval of the settlement and of the
releases and bar orders that would release and bar claims against
present or former officers or directors of Ambac that were, could
have been, might have been or might be in the future asserted by
or on behalf of Ambac, including claims purportedly asserted
derivatively by any shareholder or creditor of Ambac.  The
settlement provided for in the MOU also contemplates an order
entered by a bankruptcy court directing the filing of appropriate
applications seeking dismissal of the Shareholder Derivative
Actions (if those Actions have not been previously dismissed).
The MOU further provides that nothing in the MOU shall be deemed
an admission by any defendant (or any person or entity associated
with any defendant) of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing.


AMERICAN BUSINESS: Defendants in Locklear Class Suit in Default
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
two defendants in one of a series of class actions filed over
faxed advertisements are in default, according to an order signed
by a Madison County judge.

Madison County Circuit Judge Andreas Matoesian on Dec. 10 granted
a request by plaintiff Locklear Electric of Wood River to find
defendants in default.

Neither defendant Christopher Parks nor American Business Lending
entered an appearance in the case despite service.

A hearing on damages in the case remains to be set.

No class was certified in the case.

Locklear has filed a number of class actions over faxed
advertisements in both Madison and St. Clair counties.

While several have either ended or been taken to federal court,
another suit against Taylorville Chiropractic Clinic of
Florissant, Mo. remains active.

Larry Darr represents Locklear in the case at hand.

No attorneys are listed for the defendants.

The case is Madison case number 08-L-1131.


ARAMARK CORP: Court Approves Settlement of Wage Violation Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARAMARK Corp. disclosed in its Dec. 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended October 1, 2010, that its settlement of the class
action lawsuit originally filed by Genaro Zendejas Morales, Ricky
Silva and Christian Sanchez against ARAMARK Sports, LLC, alleging
that defendants did not pay all monies due under California wage
and hour laws was approved by the United States District Court,
Central District of California on October 12, 2010.

The settlement amount was accrued as of October 1, 2010 with
payment made during the first quarter of fiscal 2011.

ARAMARK Corp. -- http://www.aramark.com/-- is a leader in
professional services, providing award-winning food services,
facilities management, and uniform and career apparel to health
care institutions, universities and school districts, stadiums
and arenas, and businesses around the world.


AT&T INC: Sued Over Deceptive Charges for Prepaid Services
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that AT&T and
Southwestern Bell bilk customers for unauthorized charges,
according to the latest in a string of federal class actions
challenging phone companies' billing practices.  The telephone
giants disguise the "unauthorized, misleading or deceptive
charges" as "Enhanced Services," "HBS Billing Services" and/or
"ILD Teleservices," according to the complaint.

"During the statutory period, defendants began placing on the
monthly landline telephone bills of plaintiffs, and other
customers similarly situated, unauthorized, misleading, or
deceptive charges for prepaid services, collected a fee for these
charges," the complaint states.

Lead plaintiff Kim Arnold says the defendants never made full
disclosures about the billings, which customers never authorized
or ordered, and the phone giants refused to refund the money.

The class consists of all U.S. residents who between Dec. 27, 2008
and Dec. 23, 2010 were charged on their monthly landline telephone
for Enhanced Services or HBS Billing Services or ILD Teleservices,
but who did not order or request such services.

A copy of the Complaint in Arnold v. A&T, Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-02429 (E.D. Mo.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/27/PhoneBillsCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C. Marshall Friedman, Esq.
          Tamar Hamm, Esq.
          C. MARSHALL FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          1010 Market Street, Thirteenth Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314-621-8400
          E-mail: mfriedman@marshallfriedman.com
                  thamm@marshallfriedman.com


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Settles Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Authentidate Holding Corp. disclosed that on December 23, 2010, it
entered into a settlement agreement providing for the resolution
and dismissal, with prejudice, of the purported shareholder class
action entitled In re Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No, 1:05-CV-5323-LTS, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The settlement, which is subject to approval by the Court,
provides for a $1.9 million payment to be made by the company's
insurance carrier, does not contain or reflect any admission of
liability by any defendants and provides an end to continued
costly and time-consuming litigation by all parties.  Shareholders
who purchased Authentidate common stock between July 16, 2004 and
May 27, 2005, will be mailed a detailed notice of the settlement
and will be permitted to submit claims for a potential payment
from the settlement fund.

Authentidate Holding Corp. (Nasdaq: ADAT) --
http://www.authentidate.com-- is a worldwide provider of secure
health information exchange, workflow management services and
telehealth solutions.  The company's software and web-based
services enable healthcare organizations and other enterprises to
increase revenues, reduce costs and enhance patient care by
eliminating paper and manual work steps from clinical and
administrative processes.  The web-based services are delivered as
Software as a Service (SaaS), and only require that customers have
an Internet connection and web browser.  The company's healthcare
customers and users include leading homecare companies, health
systems and physician groups.  These organizations utilize the
company's products and services to coordinate care for patients
outside of acute-care.


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in E.D. Mo. Ct. Over HAMP Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that the seemingly
endless string of class actions against Bank of America's
foreclosure policies continued in the Eastern District of Missouri
Federal Court.  The class claims that BofA and BAC Home Loans
Servicing refuse to participate in foreclosure prevention programs
despite taking $25 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program money.

Lead plaintiff Susan Fraser says Bank of America, by accepting the
TARP money, agreed to participate in at least one TARP-authorized
program to minimize foreclosures.  The complaint echoes similar
complaints filed in December by the attorneys general of Arizona
and Nevada.  BAC Home Loans Servicing is also named as a defendant
in the St. Louis complaint.

Bank of America signed a contract with the U.S. Treasury April 17,
2009 agreeing to comply with the Home Affordable Modification
Program to perform loan modifications and other foreclosure
prevention services, the St. Louis complaint states.

The class claims the HAMP program requires Bank of America to
identify loans that are subject to modification; collect financial
and other personal information from the homeowners to evaluate
whether the homeowner is eligible for modification; institute a
modified loan with a reduced payment amount as per a mandated
formula that is effective for a three-month trial period; and
provide a permanently modified loan to those homeowners who comply
with the requirements during the trial period.

"Though Bank of America accepted $25 billion in TARP funds and
entered into a contract obligating itself to comply with the HAMP
directives and to extend loan modifications for the benefit of
distressed homeowners, Bank of America has systematically failed
to comply with the terms of the HAMP directives and has regularly
and repeatedly violated several of its prohibitions," the
complaint states.

"Under HAMP, the federal government incentivizes participating
servicers to make adjustments to existing mortgage obligations in
order to make the monthly payments more affordable.  Servicers
receive $1,000 for each HAMP modification.  However, this
incentive is countered by a number of financial factors that make
it more profitable for a mortgage for a mortgage servicer such as
Bank of America to avoid modification and to continue to keep a
mortgage in a state of default or distress and to push loans
towards foreclosure.  This is especially true in cases where the
mortgage is owned by a third-party investor and is merely serviced
by the servicer such as Bank of America.  On information and
belief, Bank of America does not own a significant majority of the
loans on which it functions as a servicer."

Ms. Fraser says the financial factors that discourage Bank of
America from fully participating in HAMP include having to
repurchase loans to modify the loan and its collection of default
fees.

"Rather than allocating adequate resources and working diligently
to reduce the number of loans in danger of default by establishing
permanent modifications, Bank of America has serially strung out,
delayed, and otherwise hindered the modification processes that it
contractually undertook to facilitate when it accepted billions of
dollars from the United States," the complaint states.  "Bank of
America's delay and obstruction tactics have taken various forms
with the common result that homeowners with loans serviced by Bank
of America, who are eligible for permanent loan modifications, and
who have met the requirements for participation in the HAMP
program, have not received permanent loan modifications to which
they are entitled."

The class consists of all eligible homeowners who have been
serviced by one or both defendants who have not received a
permanent modified loan.  The class seeks an injunction and
damages.

A copy of the Complaint in Fraser v. Bank of America, N.A., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-02400 (E.D. Mo.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/27/BofA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CAREY DANIS & LOWE
          8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-7700
          E-mail: mflannery@careydanis.com


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Seeks New Trial on Class Action Verdict
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Gale, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports a
motion filed by BankAtlantic Bancorp slams the actions of U.S.
District Judge Usrula Ungaro as the defendants seek a new trial to
overturn the results of a class action securities lawsuit.

The five-week trial, which ended in November, resulted in a jury
finding that the Fort Lauderdale-based company (NYSE: BBX), along
with Chairman and CEO Alan Levan and CFO Valerie Toalson, violated
securities laws.

The motion asks the court to schedule post-trial oral arguments.
It also attacks the court's methodology, which led to the jury
concluding there were eight false and misleading statements from
April 2007 through October 2007 that caused $2.41 a share in
damages.

"The magnitude of prejudicial error in the trial of this case,
invited by plaintiffs, is simply overwhelming," the Dec. 17 motion
states.

The case comes at a challenging time for BankAtlantic, which has
sought to raise $125 million after suffering 13 straight quarterly
losses.  More recently, the bank said it is open to opportunities
about its future even though it remains well capitalized and has
wanted to stay independent.

Some of the motion's arguments center on the value of testimony by
expert witness Candace Preston and also involve a verdict form
from the defendants that the judge rejected.

"The court sided with plaintiffs and refused to submit to the jury
a form of verdict that would have the jury determine if the
factual assumptions accepted by Preston as true, were true,"
BankAtlantic's motion states.  "Defendants were entitled to a jury
determination of these factual assumptions.  The failure to
provide the jury with such a form of verdict was highly
prejudicial error."

Aside from seeking a hearing with Judge Ungaro, the arguments
outline a strategy for a possible appeal.

The motion says the jury failed to get full instructions on the
risk theory behind a precedent-setting case that involved Merrill
Lynch & Co.

"The principal defect in the court's instruction was that it
failed to define the zone of foreseeable risk consistently and in
a way that made clear that defendants' argument was that the
collapsing Florida real estate market severed the causal link,"
the motion states.

During the trial, BankAtlantic senior officials said problems with
the bank's loan portfolio, which ultimately affected stock prices,
were caused by the real estate downturn in Florida and that bank
officials had provided timely disclosures.

The motion says the court committed a prejudicial error in
instructing the jury that CEO and Chairman Alan Levan gave false
statements when talking to analysts on July 25, 2007.

Mr. Levan was asked about $135 million in land loans and whether
there were other construction portfolios "that you feel there
might be some risk down the road as well," according to the
motion, which emphasized the quoted phrase in italics.

Mr. Levan's response included the statement that "there are no
asset classes that we are concerned about in the portfolio as an
asset class," the motion notes.

The motion states that the specific loans in a larger class being
watched "has nothing to do with the entire class of such loans."

The motion states the trial engaged "in a process of cherry
picking a few words from sentences" and ignored what else was said
in the surrounding sentences, paragraphs and pages.

Plaintiffs' attorney Eugene Stearns, a name partner in Miami's
Stearns Weaver law firm, raised similar concerns during the trial.

The motion notes that Mr. Levan's statements also fall under the
SEC's "safe harbor" rules, which govern what executives can say
about the outlook for their companies.  There's a high bar to
demonstrate "severe recklessness," the motion states.

Talking about Mr. Levan's frame of mind when he talked to the
analysts, the motion notes: "Whatever the court's opinion about
the objective falsity of these statements, there was not a shred
of evidence that Alan Levan did not believe his statements to be
true when made or even made them with severe recklessness."

The motion also says the court committed prejudicial error in
allowing introduction of eight e-mails by Perry Alexander, "which
were laced with profanity, slang, gossip, and every other
indication of unreliability imaginable."

The plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden of tying
Mr. Alexander's job position to the statement he made in his e-
mails, the motion states.

Mr. Alexander, a senior VP in BankAtlantic's special asset
department, was BankAtlantic's commercial lending manager for
Miami-Dade County from 1995 through 2008, and sat on its major
loan committee (MLC) with Mr. Levan and other top officials from
2004 through most of 2007.

His e-mails referred to the bank's MLC as "a sneaky pack of liars"
and "asleep at the wheel."  He said that one MLC member knew
nothing about commercial real estate and was like "putty" in the
hands of Mr. Levan.

The motion states that the plaintiffs "did not and cannot show
that Alexander was the lender for, or as market manager,
supervised the lender for, any of the loans that even they claim
are relevant to this dispute."

In a sign that the bank is ready to appeal, the section on Perry
also says, "The Eleventh Circuit will reverse and order a new
trial based on the erroneous admission of evidence if the district
court made 'a clear error of judgment' or 'applied an incorrect
legal standard.'"


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Still Pending in IPO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.'s settlement of a
consolidated class action lawsuit related to its initial public
offering remains subject of appeals, according to the company's
Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-K filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended October 30, 2010.

On July 20, 2001, the first of a number of putative class actions
for violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Brocade, certain of its officers and directors, and
certain of the underwriters for Brocade's initial public offering
of securities. A consolidated amended class action captioned, In
re Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, No. 01 Civ. 6613, was filed on April 19,
2002. The complaint generally alleges that various underwriters
engaged in improper and undisclosed activities related to the
allocation of shares in Brocade's initial public offering and
seeks unspecified damages for claims under the Exchange Act on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of common stock from
May 24, 1999 to December 6, 2000. The lawsuit against Brocade was
coordinated for pretrial proceedings with a number of other
pending litigations challenging underwriter practices in over 300
cases as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21
MC 92 (SAS), including actions against McDATA Corporation, Inrange
Technologies Corporation -- which was first acquired by Computer
Network Technology Corporation and subsequently acquired by McDATA
as part of the CNT acquisition -- and Foundry, and certain of each
entity's respective officers and directors, and initial public
offering underwriters.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the coordinated
litigation, under which the insurers will pay the full amount of
settlement share allocated to the Brocade Entities, and the
Brocade Entities will bear no financial liability.  On October 5,
2009, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. Certain
objectors have appealed the Court's final order.


BROOKFIELD HOMES: Faces Class Suit in Delaware Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Brookfield Homes Corporation disclosed in a Form 8-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Dec. 17, 2010, that
on or about December 13, 2010, Plymouth County Retirement
Association, on behalf of itself and other similarly situated
parties, filed an action in Delaware Chancery Court alleging
breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
business combination of Brookfield Homes Corporation and the
residential and land division of Brookfield Properties
Corporation.

The complaint names Brookfield Homes, Brookfield Asset Management
Inc., Brookfield Properties, Brookfield Residential Acquisition
Corporation, and each member of the Board of Directors of
Brookfield Homes, as defendants.  The complaint asserts a claim
against all defendants for alleged breaches of their purported
fiduciary duties in connection with the merger.  The complaint
also asserts a claim against Brookfield Properties for aiding and
abetting the alleged breaches.  In addition to requesting that the
case proceed as a class action, the complaint seeks to enjoin
consummation of the merger as well as an award of unspecified
damages and attorney's fees.


BURLINGTON COAT: Continues to Defend FLSA-Violations Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc., continues to
defend itself against an amended complaint alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the company's Dec. 14,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 30, 2010.

A putative class action lawsuit, entitled May Vang, and all others
similarly situated, v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse
Corporation, Case No. 09-CV-08061-CAS, was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California on Sept. 17, 2009.  The named
plaintiff purports to assert claims on behalf of all current,
former, and future employees in the United States and the State of
California for the relevant statutory time period.  Plaintiff
filed an amended complaint on Nov. 16, 2009.  The amended
complaint asserts claims for failure to pay all earned
hourly wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, failure
to pay all earned hourly wages in violation of the California
Labor Code, providing compensatory time off in lieu of overtime
pay, forfeiture of vacation pay, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, secret payment of lower wages than that required by
statute or contract, failure to provide accurate, written wage
statements, and unfair competition.  The complaint seeks
certification as a class with respect to the FLSA claims,
certification of a class with respect to California law claims,
appointment of class counsel and class representative, civil
penalties, statutory penalties, declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, actual damages, liquidated damages, restitution, pre-
judgment interest, costs of suit and attorney's fees.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this action.

Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/-- is a nationally
recognized retailer of high-quality, branded apparel at everyday
low prices.  The company currently serves its customers through
its 449 stores in 44 states and Puerto Rico.


COMFORCE CORP: In Talks to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
COMFORCE Corporation disclosed in a Form 8-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Dec. 17, 2010, that it is in
talks with plaintiffs to settle a class action lawsuit alleging
breach of fiduciary duties due to the Company's planned merger
with another company.

On November 1, 2010, COMFORCE Corporation entered into an
agreement and plan of merger with CFS Parent Corp., an affiliate
of ABRY Partners, LLC and CFS Merger Sub Corp., a direct wholly-
owned subsidiary of Parent, pursuant to which Merger Sub will
merge with and into the Company, with the Company being the
surviving corporation.

On November 22, 2010, the Company filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission a definitive proxy statement in connection
with the proposed merger.

Following the announcement of the merger agreement, three putative
class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of stockholders of the
Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York sitting in
Nassau County, docketed as Scott Deal v. COMFORCE Corporation, et
al., Index No. 600986/2010, Brian Anthony v. COMFORCE Corporation,
et al., Index No. 10-20869 and Jack Wilkinson v. Harry V.
Maccarrone, et al., Index No. 600996/2010, two of which were filed
on November 5, 2010, and one of which was filed on November 15,
2010. A fourth purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on November 17, 2010,
docketed as Austin A. Iodice v. COMFORCE Corporation, et al., Case
No. 5999-VCN. In addition, a fourth case was filed on behalf of
stockholders of the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York sitting in Nassau County, docketed as Kenneth Schuster,
et al. v. COMFORCE Corporation, et al., Index No. 10-21588, which
was filed on Nov. 18, 2010.

On November 23, 2010, the New York Supreme Court entered an Order
consolidating the four New York cases under the caption In re
Comforce Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 600986/2010 and
appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel.  Thereafter, the court in the
Consolidated New York Action scheduled a hearing to consider
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction for December 16 to
17, 2010, and the parties commenced discovery pursuant to an
agreed-upon expedited schedule.

On December 7, 2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery stayed the
remaining case, Austin A. Iodice v. COMFORCE Corporation, in favor
of the Consolidated New York Action. This separate Delaware action
is not part of the Consolidated New York Action.

Subsequently, the parties in the Consolidated New York Action
entered into a binding memorandum of understanding, dated as of
December 16, 2010, which provides the general terms for a
settlement of the Consolidated New York Action.  Under the terms
of the memorandum of understanding, Parent, Merger Sub and the
Company agreed to amend the merger agreement to address certain
provisions characterized by the plaintiffs as "preclusive," and
the Company agreed to make certain disclosures to its stockholders
relating to the merger, in addition to the information contained
in the definitive proxy statement.  The memorandum of
understanding provides that the parties will use their good faith
best efforts to agree upon and execute an appropriate stipulation
of settlement and such other documentation as may be necessary for
the presentation of the settlement to the Supreme Court of the
State of New York sitting in Nassau County for approval.  The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval.  After submission of the stipulation of
settlement, the court will schedule a hearing at which the court
will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
settlement.  At such time as the Court sets a hearing to consider
the settlement, further information regarding the settlement and
the approval process will be provided to stockholders.

The lawsuits name the Company, its directors (other than John
Fanning in one of the complaints), certain Company officers, ABRY,
Parent and Merger Sub. The lawsuits allege, among other things,
that the members of the board of directors and named officers,
breached certain fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by
entering into the merger agreement.  The complaints also allege
that the Company, ABRY, Parent and/or Merger Sub aided and abetted
such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints, one of
which was amended, include additional allegations that the proxy
statement fails to disclose certain material information. The
plaintiffs are seeking relief that includes, among other things,
preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting consummation of
the merger, rescission or rescissory damages, and payment of the
plaintiffs' costs and expenses. The Company, Parent, Merger Sub
and ABRY have entered into a joint defense agreement.

The Company and the other defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue to vigorously deny, that they have committed or aided and
abetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in
any of the wrongful acts that were or could have been alleged in
any of the actions, and expressly maintain that they diligently
and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal
burdens and are entering into the contemplated settlement solely
to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation, to put
the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest, and to
avoid any possible delay in the consummation of the merger.


COMMSCOPE INC: In Talks to Settle Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
CommScope, Inc., is trying to negotiate a settlement of a
consolidated class action lawsuit filed by shareholders who are
against the merger agreement among CommScope, Cedar I Holding
Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation that was formed by an
affiliate of The Carlyle Group, and Cedar I Merger Sub, Inc.,
according to CommScope's Form 8-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 20, 2010.

Four putative stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in
connection with the Merger in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware against the Company, members of its board of
directors, Parent, Merger Sub, and Carlyle asserting that the
directors breached their fiduciary duties, and asserting that
Parent, Merger Sub and Carlyle aided and abetted those alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. These four actions were consolidated
before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on
November 23, 2010 under the caption In re CommScope Corp.
Shareholders Litigation.

On December 17, 2010, CommScope entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of this
consolidated putative stockholder class action.

The Company believes that no further disclosure is required to
supplement the Definitive Proxy Statement under applicable laws;
however, to avoid the risk that the putative stockholder class
action may delay or otherwise adversely affect the consummation of
the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending such action,
the Company has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed
settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to
the proposed Merger. Subject to completion of certain confirmatory
discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs, the memorandum of
understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a
stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be
subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to the Company's stockholders. In the event that
the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will
be scheduled at which the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy
of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the
court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that
were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the
proposed 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 will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final
approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with the
settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will
file a petition in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by the
Company or its successor, which the defendants may oppose. The
Company or its successor will pay or cause to be paid any
attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware. There can be no assurance that the parties
will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.


COMPELLENT TECH: Defending Merger-Related Class Suit in Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Compellent Technologies, Inc., disclosed in a Form 8-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Dec. 16, 2010, that
it is currently defending itself against a class action lawsuit
relating to its merger with a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dell Inc.

On December 12, 2010, Compellent Technologies entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Dell Inc., Dell International L.L.C., and Dell Trinity Holdings
Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Dell International.  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub
will merge with and into Compellent, with Compellent continuing as
the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dell.
As a result of the Merger, each share of Compellent common stock
issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of
the Merger (other than shares held by Compellent, Dell, Merger Sub
or any of their wholly owned subsidiaries or by stockholders of
Compellent who have validly exercised their appraisal rights under
Delaware law) will be converted into the right to receive $27.75
in cash, without interest and subject to any required tax
withholding.

On December 15, 2010, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed by a single plaintiff against the members of
Compellent's board of directors, Dell and Merger Sub in the State
of Minnesota District Court, Fourth Judicial District in the
County of Hennepin.  The action, entitled Robert P. Jones v. Black
et al., alleges that the members of Compellent's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good
faith and independence to Compellent's stockholders by entering
into the Merger Agreement because they failed to, among other
things (1) fully inform themselves of the market value of
Compellent before entering into the Merger Agreement, (2) exercise
valid business judgment in connection with the Merger Agreement,
(3) act in the bests interests of the stockholders, (4) maximize
stockholder value, and (5) obtain the best financial and other
terms.  The complaint alleges that Dell and Merger Sub aided and
abetted Compellent's board of directors in breaching their
fiduciary duties.  Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the acquisition of
Compellent by Dell and Merger Sub and seeks monetary damages in an
unspecified amount.

Additional lawsuits may be filed asserting substantially similar
allegations and seeking substantially similar relief, Compellent
noted.

Compellent believes the allegations in the complaint are entirely
without merit, and intends to vigorously defend each action.
However, even a meritless lawsuit potentially may delay
consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement, including the Merger.


COOPER COMPANIES: Obtains Final Approval of Class Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action lawsuit titled In re Cooper
Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation is pending in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, Case
No. SACV-06-169 CJC, against The Cooper Companies; A. Thomas
Bender, its Chairman of the Board and a director; Robert S. Weiss,
its Chief Executive Officer and a director; and Gregory A.
Fryling, CooperVision's former President and Chief Operating
Officer.

On May 4, 2010, the Company announced that it has reached an
agreement in principle to settle the consolidated class action
lawsuit for $27.0 million.  The Court granted preliminary approval
of the proposed settlement on August 16, 2010, and final approval
on December 13, 2010.  The Company has exhausted its insurance
coverage in defense of this litigation, and if the settlement were
to be overturned as a result of an appeal, general and
administrative expenses will increase, according to its Dec. 17,
2010, Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Hawk" Plaintiff Granted Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the complaint styled Raven Hawk v. Costco
Wholesale Corp., Case No. 09-242196-0-SEA, pending in the King
County Superior Court was granted class certification status,
according to Costco Wholesale's Dec. 17, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 21, 2010.

The suit was filed on Nov. 20, 2009, in the State of Washington,
and contains similar allegations as in the matter Mary Pytelewski
v. Costco Wholesale Corp., in which the plaintiff principally
alleges that the Company's routine closing procedures and security
checks cause employees to incur delays that qualify as
uncompensated working time.

On December 3, 2010, the court granted in part plaintiff's motion
for class certification; the class certified consists of people
employed in Washington state warehouses from November 2006 through
November 2009 who had clocked out and were detained during closing
procedures without compensation.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal on "Ellis" Certification Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation's appeal on the class certification
in the matter Shirley "Rae" Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case
No. C-04-3341-MHP, remains pending.

A case brought as a class action on behalf of certain present and
former female managers, in which plaintiffs allege denial of
promotion based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and California state law.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief,
interest and attorneys' fees.  Class certification was granted by
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco) on Jan. 11, 2007.

On May 11, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
granted a petition to hear the Company's appeal of the
certification.  The appeal was argued on April 14, 2008.  The
Company continues to await a decision.

No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 17, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Nov. 21, 2010.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Two Classes Certified in "Pytelewski" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two classes were certified in the case captioned as Mary
Pytelewski v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior Court for the
County of San Diego, Case No. 37-2009-00089654, according to
Costco Wholesale's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 21,
2010.

A case purportedly brought as a class action was filed on May 15,
2009 on behalf of present and former hourly employees in
California, in which the plaintiff principally alleges that the
Company's routine closing procedures and security checks cause
employees to incur delays that qualify as uncompensated working
time.

On December 14, 2010, the court certified two classes of hourly
non-exempt employees subject to the Company's closing lockdown
procedures: one under California law for California non-union
employees who were subject to the closing procedures between
May 15, 2005 and October 1, 2009; and a nationwide class under
federal law for full-time employees who were subject to the
closing procedures between April 8, 2007 and October 1, 2009.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal From Remand of "Medrano" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation is appealing a court's decision to
remand the matter Manuel Medrano v. Costco Wholesale Corp., and
Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc., according to the company's
Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 21, 2010.

On July 14, 2010, a putative class action was filed alleging that
the company unlawfully failed to pay overtime compensation, denied
meal and rest breaks, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to
provide accurate wage-itemization statements, and willfully failed
to pay termination wages alleged resulting from misclassification
of certain California department managers as exempt employees.

On Sept. 3, 2010, the company removed the case to federal court.
The court recently remanded the action, and the Company has
appealed that decision.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Amended Complaints Over Improper Labels
---------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation has been named as a defendant in two
purported class actions relating to sales of organic milk: Hesse
v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. C07-1975 (W.D. Wash.); and Snell v.
Aurora Dairy Corp., et al., No. 07-CV-2449 (D. Col.).  Both
actions claim violations of the laws of various states,
essentially alleging that milk provided to Costco by its supplier
Aurora Dairy Corp. was improperly labeled "organic."  Plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint on July 18, 2008.  With respect to
the company, plaintiffs seek to certify four classes of people who
purchased Costco organic milk.  Aurora has maintained that it has
held and continues to hold valid organic certifications.  The
consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, actual,
compensatory, statutory, punitive and/or exemplary damages in
unspecified amounts, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.

On June 3, 2009, the district court entered an order dismissing
with prejudice, among others, all claims against the Company. As a
result of an appeal by the plaintiffs, on Sept. 15, 2010, the
court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the rulings
of the district court and remanded the matter for further
proceedings.

Plaintiffs have filed amended complaints, according to the
company's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 21, 2010.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Dismissed From "Product Ambassadors" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation has been dismissed from the matter
Bright v. Dennis Garberg & Assocs., Inc., et al., Case No.
BC399563, pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court, according to
the company's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 21,
2010.

On July 23, 2010, a putative class action was filed against
several defendants, including the company, alleging that
defendants unlawfully failed to pay overtime compensation, failed
to provide accurate wage-itemization statements, failed to pay
wages, denied meal and rest breaks, and failed to reimburse for
uniforms and expenses.  Plaintiffs are temporary promotion
employees, known as "product ambassadors," hired by various
marketing companies (also named defendants), which contract with
retailers such as the company, to staff in-store demonstrations
and promotional events.  The complaint alleges that the company is
a "joint employer" of the plaintiffs.

On November 29, 2010, the parties filed a stipulated dismissal of
the Company.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Motion to Certify "Salmon" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
The motion of plaintiffs to certify a class in the Farm Raised
Salmon Coordinated Proceedings, Case No. JCCP No. 4329, against
Costco Wholesale Corporation was denied by the Los Angeles
Superior Court in November, according to the company's Dec. 17,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 21, 2010.

The company has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action relating to sales of farm-raised salmon.  The action
alleges that the company violated California law requiring farm-
raised salmon to be labeled as "color added."  The complaint
asserts violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the California False
Advertising Law, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks
restoration of money acquired by means of unfair competition or
false advertising and compensatory damages in unspecified amounts,
injunctive relief remedying the allegedly improper disclosures,
and costs and attorneys' fees.

A California Superior Court ruling dismissing the action on the
ground that federal law does not permit claims for mislabeling of
farm-raised salmon to be asserted by private parties was reversed
by the California Supreme Court.  The company has denied the
material allegations of the complaint.  Plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class was denied on November 16, 2010.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Plaintiff Appeals Denial of Motion to Amend Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiff has appealed the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York's denial of a motion to file an amended
complaint in the matter In Verzani, et ano., v. Costco Wholesale
Corp., No. 09 CV 2117, according to Costco Wholesale's Dec. 17,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 21, 2010.

The suit is a purported nationwide class action, alleging claims
for breach of contract and violation of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, based on the failure of the Company to disclose on
the label of its "Shrimp Tray with Cocktail Sauce" the weight of
the shrimp in the item as distinct from the accompanying cocktail
sauce, lettuce, and lemon wedges.  The complaint seeks various
forms of damages (including compensatory and treble damages and
disgorgement and restitution), injunctive and declaratory relief,
attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. On April 21,
2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction,
seeking to prevent the Company from selling the shrimp tray unless
the Company separately discloses the weight of the shrimp and
provides shrimp consistent with the disclosed weight.

By orders dated July 29 and Aug. 6, 2009, the court denied the
preliminary injunction motion and dismissed the claim for breach
of contract, and on July 21, 2010, the court of appeals summarily
affirmed these rulings.

On Sept. 28, 2010, the district court denied the motion of one
plaintiff to file an amended complaint.  On December 1, this
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of this and other rulings.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Kilano" Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation continues to defend itself against a
lawsuit captioned as Kilano, et. ano, v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
No. 2:10-cv-11456-VAR-DAS, pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan.

Two members purport to represent a class of certain Michigan
Executive level-members who received 2% rewards.  Plaintiffs
allege that the company "guarantees" that the member will receive
rewards of no less than the fifty dollar difference between
Executive and Gold Star membership and that the company is
required to but has failed to automatically reimburse members
whose rewards are less than this difference.  Plaintiffs allege
violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, breach of
contract, and unjust enrichment.  They seek compensatory and
statutory damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees.
The company has filed an answer denying the material allegations
of the complaint.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification, according
to the company's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 21,
2010.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Head" Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case purportedly brought as a class action on behalf of certain
present and former managers of Costco Wholesale Corp. in
California, in which plaintiff principally alleges that he has not
been properly compensated for overtime work -- Terry Head v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles, Case No. BC-409805.  On October 2, 2009, the court
granted the Company's motion for summary judgment, and that ruling
has been appealed.

No further updates were reported in Costco Wholesale's Dec. 17,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 21, 2010.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Face Motor Fuel Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. continues to face class action lawsuits
alleging that it has been overcharging consumers in relation to
motor fuel sold, according to the company's Dec. 17, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Nov. 21, 2010.

Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the
United States against motor fuel retailers, including the Company,
alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by selling
gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without
adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion
or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy
equivalent received by the consumer. The Company is named in the
following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.); Phyllis Lerner, et al., v.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D.
Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation North America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.); James Graham, et al. v.
Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.);
Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups, Convenience Stores, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v.
Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James
Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride,
Inc., et al., Case No. 06-2582 (D. Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v.
BP North America Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D.
Tenn.); Mara Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast
Products LLC, et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et
al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.);
Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.;
Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker, et al. v. Chevron
USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J.
Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., Case No.
07cv291 (E.D. Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess
Corporation, et al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins,
et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D.
Utah); and Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al.,
Case No. 07-1754 (S.D. Cal.). On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation assigned the action, entitled In re
Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No
1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil in the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas. On February 21, 2008, the court denied
a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

On April 12, 2009, the Company agreed to a settlement involving
the actions in which it is named as a defendant. Under the
settlement, which is subject to final approval by the court, the
Company has agreed, to the extent allowed by law, to install over
five years from the effective date of the settlement temperature-
correcting dispensers in the States of Alabama, Arizona,
California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.
Other than payments to class representatives, the settlement does
not provide for cash payments to class members. On August 18,
2009, the court preliminarily approved the settlement.

On August 13, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of the settlement.

Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates
membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a
range of merchandise categories.  It buys the majority of its
merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross-
docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses.


DEL MONTE: D&Os Face Second Suit Over $5.3-Bil. Sale to KKR
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah P. Heintz, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Richard Wolford, et al., Case No. 10-cv-05789 (N.D.
Calif. December 20, 2010), brings claims against Del Monte Foods
Company and its Board of Directors for breaches of fiduciary duty
and other violations of state law, arising out of their attempt to
sell the Company to an investor group led by funds affiliated with
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., Vester Capital Partners and
Centerview Partners via an unfair process and for an unfair price
of $19.00 in cash for each share of Del Monte common stock, in a
transaction valued at roughly $5.3 billion, including the
assumption of roughly $1.3 billion in net debt.  Ms. Heintz
further accuses Del Monte Foods, Blue Acquisition Group, Inc., and
Blue Merger Sub, Inc., for aiding and abetting the individual
defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties.

Ms. Heintz says the proposed offer is unfair because it does not
adequately value the Company's future growth prospects.  Moreover,
according to Ms. Heintz, the Schedule 14A Proxy Statement the
Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 15, 2010, fails to provide the Company's shareholders
with material information which would enable them to cast an
informed vote regarding the proposed transaction.  These
disclosure deficiencies principally include Barclays Capital
Inc.'s individual involvement in the financing, the amount it has
committed to provide, the corresponding interest rates, and the
significant compensation it will receive.  Barclays Capital is the
Company's financial advisor in connection with the proposed
transaction.

Moreover, Del Monte Foods also agreed to onerous and preclusive
deal protection devices that act to discourage other competing
bids for the company, including:

  -- a strict "no solicitation" provision following a 45-day "go-
     shop" period;

  -- a matching rights provision granting the Buyout Group a free
     right to top any superior offer for the Company;

  -- a termination fee of $120,000,000 (or $60,000,00 in the event
     that the competing bid resulted from the "go-shop" process)
     that must be paid by Del Monte to the Buyout Group.

Del Monte is one of the country's largest and most well-known
producers, distributors and marketers of premium quality, branded
pet products and food products for the U.S. retail market, with
roughly $3.7 billion in net sales in fiscal 2010.

Defendant Richard Wolford is the Chairman of the Board, President
and Chief Executive Officer of Del Monte Foods.  Defendant Blue
Acquisition Group, Inc., is owned by a consortium of private
equity funds affiliated with KKR, Vestar, and Centerview.
Defendant Blue Merger Sub is wholly owned by Blue Acquisition
Group, Inc., that was created for the sole purpose of effectuating
the proposed transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
          Culver City, CA 90230-7600
          Telephone: (310) 839-0442
          E-mail: dbower@zlk.com

               - and -

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


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Accused of Violating Rehabilitation Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that disabled people who want to
live at home rather than in an institution filed a federal class
action against the District of Columbia, which provides them few,
if any, opportunity to do this.

A copy of the Complaint in Day, et al. v. District of Columbia, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-02250 (Huvelle, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/27/MedRights.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marjorie Rifkin, Esq.
          Jennifer Lav, Esq.
          UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES-PROTECTION & ADVOCACY
          220 I Street NE#130
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 547-0198 ext. 128
          E-mail: mrifkin@uls-dc.org
                  jlav@uls-dc.org

               - and -

          Kelly Bagby, Esq.
          Bruce Vignery, Esq.
          AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION
          601 E Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20049
          Telephone: (202) 434-2060

               - and -

          Barbara Wahl, Esq.
          Brian D. Schneider, Esq.
          ARENT FOX LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Telephone: (202) 857-6000
          E-mail: wahl.barbara@arentfox.com
                  schneider.brian@arentfox.com


FEDEX CORP: Express Continues to Defend "Bibo" Wage & Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A business segment of FedEx Corporation, Federal Express
Corporation, continues to defend the wage-and-hour case captioned
Bibo v. FedEx Express, according to the Company's Dec. 17, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2010.

In April 2009, a California federal court granted class
certification, certifying several subclasses of FedEx Express
couriers in California from April 14, 2006 (the date of the
settlement of the Foster class action) to the present.  The
plaintiffs allege that FedEx Express violated California wage-
and-hour laws after the date of the Foster settlement.  In
particular, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they
were forced to work "off the clock" and were not provided with
required meal breaks or split-shift premiums.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has refused to
accept a discretionary appeal of the class certification order at
this time.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of
transportation, e-commerce and business services through companies
that compete collectively, operate independently and manage
collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  These companies
are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal Express
Corp., is an express transportation company, offering time-certain
delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-package ground
delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a
provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through its
FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and
interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL
business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services,
FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and
information technology support, as well as customer service
support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc.


FEDEX CORP: "Taylor" Wage & Hour Suit Scheduled for Trial in July
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The trial of a purported class action lawsuit over alleged
violation of California wage and hour laws captioned Taylor v.
FedEx Freight filed against one of FedEx Corporation's
subsidiaries is scheduled to begin in July 2011, according to the
Company's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2010.

In September 2009, in Taylor v. FedEx Freight, a California state
court granted class certification, certifying a class of all
current and former drivers employed by FedEx Freight in California
who performed linehaul services since June 2003.  The plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that they were forced to work "off the
clock" and were not provided with required rest or meal breaks.

The case has been removed to federal court in California, and
trial is currently scheduled for July 2011.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of
transportation, e-commerce and business services through companies
that compete collectively, operate independently and manage
collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  These companies
are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal Express
Corp., is an express transportation company, offering time-certain
delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-package ground
delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a
provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through its
FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and
interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL
business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services,
FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and
information technology support, as well as customer service
support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc.


FEDEX CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal in "Anfinson" Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the verdict in favor of one of
FedEx Corporation's business segments, FedEx Ground Package
System, Inc., in a contractor-model lawsuit captioned Anfinson v.
FedEx Ground, remains pending.

In January 2008, the Anfinson suit was certified as a class action
by a Washington state court.  The lawsuit is not part of the
multidistrict litigation against FedEx Ground.  The plaintiffs in
Anfinson represent a class of FedEx Ground single-route, pickup-
and-delivery owner-operators in Washington from Dec. 21, 2001
through Dec. 31, 2005, and allege that the class members should be
reimbursed as employees for their uniform expenses and should
receive overtime pay.  In March 2009, a jury trial in the Anfinson
case was held, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of FedEx
Ground, finding that all 320 class members were independent
contractors, not employees.

The plaintiffs have appealed the verdict.

No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 17, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2010.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-package
ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a
provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through its
FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and
interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL
business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services,
FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and
information technology support, as well as customer service
support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc.


FEDEX CORP: Unit Continues to Defend "Rascon" Suit in Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of FedEx Corp. continues to face the class action
lawsuit captioned Rascon v. FedEx Ground, according to the
company's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2010.

In August 2010, a contractor-model lawsuit that is not part of the
multidistrict litigation, Rascon v. FedEx Ground, was certified as
a class action by a Colorado state court.  The plaintiff in Rascon
represents a class of single-route, pickup-and-delivery owner-
operators in Colorado who drove vehicles weighing less than 10,001
pounds at any time from Aug. 27, 2005 through the present.  The
lawsuit seeks unpaid overtime compensation, and related penalties
and attorneys' fees and costs, under Colorado law.

The Company's applications for appeal challenging the class
certification decision have been rejected.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-package
ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a
provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through its
FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and
interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL
business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services,
FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and
information technology support, as well as customer service
support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc.


FEDEX CORP: 19 of 28 FedEx Ground Summary Judgment Motions Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nineteen out of the 28 summary judgment motions made by FedEx
Ground Package System, Inc., on state law claims in class action
lawsuits have been granted, according to FedEx Corporation's
Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2010.

FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class-action lawsuits
(including 30 that have been certified as class actions),
individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative
proceedings that claim that the company's owner-operators should
be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors.

Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana.  The multidistrict litigation court granted class
certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases.  On
December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order
addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the
status of the owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs.
employee).  In sum, the court has now granted FedEx Ground's
motions for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of
FedEx Ground on all claims in 19 of the 28 multidistrict
litigation cases that had been certified as class actions, finding
that the owner-operators in those cases were contractors as a
matter of the law of the following states: Alabama, Arizona,
Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas (the court's previous dismissal
without prejudice of the nationwide class claim under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 based on the plaintiffs'
failure to exhaust administrative remedies has been appealed),
Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

In the other nine certified class actions in the multidistrict
litigation, the court ruled in favor of FedEx Ground on some of
the claims and against FedEx Ground on at least one claim in three
of the cases (filed in Kentucky, Nevada and New Hampshire) and
then remanded all nine cases back to district court in the
following states for resolution of the remaining claims: Arkansas,
California, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon (two
certified classes) and Texas.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-package
ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a
provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through its
FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and
interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL
business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services,
FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and
information technology support, as well as customer service
support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc.


FEDEX CORP: FedEx Ground Continues to Defend "Tidd" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., one of FedEx Corporation's
business segments, continues to defend a class claim of failure to
pay regular wages due under the Fair Labor Standards Act in the
matter Tidd v. Adecco USA, Kelly Services and FedEx Ground,
according to the company's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Nov. 30, 2010.

In September 2008, a Massachusetts federal court conditionally
certified a class limited to individuals who were employed by two
temporary employment agencies and who worked as temporary pick-up-
and-delivery drivers for FedEx Ground in the New England region
within the past three years.  Potential claimants must voluntarily
"opt in" to the lawsuit in order to be considered part of the
class.  In addition, in the same opinion, the court granted
summary judgment in favor of FedEx Ground with respect to the
plaintiffs' claims for unpaid overtime wages.  The court has since
granted judgment in favor of the other two defendants with respect
to the overtime claims.  Accordingly, the conditionally certified
class of plaintiffs is now limited to a claim of failure to pay
regular wages due under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of
transportation, e-commerce and business services through companies
that compete collectively, operate independently and manage
collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand.  These companies
are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal Express
Corp., is an express transportation company, offering time-certain
delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-package ground
delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a
provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through its
FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and
interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL
business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services,
FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and
information technology support, as well as customer service
support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc.


GOOGLE INC: Ordered to Divulge Identity of AdWords Advertisers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports in the latest twist in
a long-running potential class-action lawsuit about Google's
parked domain program, a federal judge has ordered the search
company to reveal potentially confidential information about four
AdWords advertisers who also are clients of the Internet marketing
firm Wpromote.

The ruling, issued earlier in December by U.S. Magistrate Judge
Howard Lloyd in the Northern District of California, stems from
several lawsuits filed in 2008 complaining about Google's AdSense
for Domains and AdSense for Errors programs, which place ads on
sites that have little or no editorial content.  Users often land
on such sites after mistyping a URL.

The lawsuits, now proceeding as one consolidated action,
originally alleged that these sites are low-quality and yield
worse conversion rates for marketers than ads that appear on
Google's search results.  In an amended complaint filed in
December, the marketers say they believed that clicks on ads on
parked domains "were unlikely to lead to desirable business
outcomes, and that placement on such pages could damage their
brands."

Google, which says that parked-domain ads "perform as well as or
better than ads on Search and Display Network sites," recently
filed papers seeking dismissal of the case.  The company argues
that it didn't mislead or harm any of the plaintiffs by placing
their ads on parked domains or error sites.

Separately, as part of its defense, Google tapped Wpromote CEO
Michael Mothner to prepare a report arguing that the lawsuit
should not be granted class-action status.  That's a key issue for
Google because even if the case isn't dismissed by the court,
individual marketers' damages in click-fraud lawsuits tend to be
too small to make it worthwhile for them, or their attorneys, to
pursue the cases individually.

Mr. Mothner wrote that the lawsuit should not proceed as a class-
action because conversion rates vary depending on the advertiser.
In particular, he said that some ads have "higher conversion rates
on parked domain and error page Web sites than on other websites,"
according to the court's ruling.

To arrive at his conclusion, Mr. Mothner examined aggregate data
from four search marketers that his firm represents.  That move,
however, appears to have paved the way for the marketers who are
suing to learn the identities of Mr. Mothner's clients -- despite
Google's allegation that its contract with those marketers
includes confidentiality provisions.

"It was Google (or Mothner) who put the Wpromote clients'
identities at issue in the first place, so it cannot use
confidentiality provisions to shield itself from disclosing their
identities now," Judge Lloyd wrote.  He gave Google until Dec. 22
to comply.

Google has not yet responded to a request from Online Media Daily
for comment.  But it appears from court papers that the company
has not yet disclosed the information; instead, Google appears to
have asked Judge Lloyd to modify his order.

The plaintiffs filed papers alleging that Google "is in violation
of a court order" because it had not yet turned over information
about the search marketers.


GSI GROUP: Court Sets Feb. 16 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
GSI Group, Inc.'s settlement of a securities class action lawsuit
will be heard for final approval on Feb. 16, 2011, according to
the Company's Dec. 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 1, 2010.

On December 12, 2008, in connection with the delayed filing of its
results for the quarter ended September 26, 2008, and the
announcement of a review of revenue transactions, a putative
shareholder class action alleging federal securities violations
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Company, a former officer and a then
current officer and director.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that the Company and the individual defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks recovery of damages in an
unspecified amount.  A lead plaintiff, Mason Tenders District
Council Trust Funds, was appointed on May 8, 2009.

In May 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the litigation.  The settlement covers purchasers of the
common stock of the Company between February 27, 2007 and June 30,
2009.

On October 12, 2010, the United States District Court approved an
order granting the parties' Motion for Certification of a
Settlement Class and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement.  The United States District Court has set February 16,
2011, as the date for the final Settlement Fairness Hearing.
Although the settlement agreement has not yet been approved by the
United States District Court, the total settlement amount has been
deposited into an escrow account.  If the settlement is approved
by the United States District Court, the Company's contribution to
the settlement amount will be limited to the balance of the
Company's self-insured retention.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Appeal Still Pending in "Skold" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
An appeal remains pending from a court's denial of class
certification in the case Skold, et al. v. Intel Corporation and
Hewlett-Packard Company, according to HP's Dec. 15, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2010.

Skold, et al. v. Intel Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Company is
a lawsuit in which HP was joined on June 14, 2004, that is pending
in state court in Santa Clara County, California. The lawsuit
alleges that HP (along with Intel) misled the public by
suppressing and concealing the alleged material fact that systems
that use the Intel Pentium 4 processor are less powerful and
slower than systems using the Intel Pentium III processor and
processors made by a competitor of Intel. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and
certification of a nationwide class. On February 27, 2009, the
court denied with prejudice plaintiffs' motion for nationwide
class certification for a third time. The plaintiffs have appealed
the court's decision.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Fairness Hearing on Inkjet Suit Set for Jan. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing has been set for January 28, 2011, to determine
whether to grant final approval of Hewlett-Packard Company's
proposed settlement of certain class action lawsuits over its
inkjet printer products, according to HP's Dec. 15, 2010 Form 10-K
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended October 31, 2010.

HP is involved in several lawsuits claiming breach of express and
implied warranty, unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and
unfair business practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among
other things, that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet
printing products in order to register ink depletion prematurely
and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration
date that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to
consumers, or both. The plaintiffs have also contended that
consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart
chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its
full capacity or to choose competitive products.

   * A consolidated lawsuit captioned In re HP Inkjet Printer
     Litigation is pending in the United States District Court for
     the Northern District of California where the plaintiffs are
     seeking class certification, restitution, damages (including
     enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and
     attorneys' fees. On January 4, 2008, the court heard
     plaintiffs' motions for class certification and to add a
     class representative and HP's motion for summary judgment.
     On July 25, 2008, the court denied all three motions. On
     March 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for
     class certification. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for
     class certification scheduled for April 9, 2010 was
     postponed.

   * A lawsuit captioned Blennis v. HP was filed on January 17,
     2007, in the United States District Court for the Northern
     District of California where the plaintiffs are seeking class
     certification, restitution, damages (including enhanced
     damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys'
     fees. A class certification hearing was scheduled for May 21,
     2010, but was taken off the calendar.

   * A lawsuit captioned Rich v. HP was filed against HP on
     May 22, 2006 in the United States District Court for the
     Northern District of California. The suit alleges that HP
     designed its color inkjet printers to unnecessarily use color
     ink in addition to black ink when printing black and white
     images and text. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a
     nationwide injunctive class and a California-only damages
     class. A class certification hearing was scheduled for May 7,
     2010, but was taken off the calendar.

   * Four class actions against HP and its subsidiary, Hewlett-
     Packard (Canada) Co., are pending in Canada, one commenced in
     British Columbia in February 2006, two commenced in Quebec in
     April 2006 and May 2006, respectively, and one commenced in
     Ontario in June 2006, where the plaintiffs are seeking class
     certification, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive
     relief and unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive
     damages. In March 2010, one of the Quebec cases was
     voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

On August 25, 2010, HP and the plaintiffs in In re HP Inkjet
Printer Litigation, Blennis v. HP and Rich v. HP entered into an
agreement to settle those lawsuits on behalf of the proposed
classes, which agreement is subject to approval of the court
before it becomes final. Under the terms of the proposed
settlement, the lawsuits will be consolidated, and eligible class
members will each have the right to obtain e-credits not to exceed
$5 million in the aggregate for use in purchasing printers or
printer supplies through HP's website. As part of the proposed
settlement, HP also agreed to provide class members with
additional information regarding HP inkjet printer functionality
and to change the content of certain software and user guide
messaging provided to users regarding the life of inkjet printer
cartridges. In addition, class counsel and the class
representatives will be paid attorneys' fees and expenses and
stipends in an amount that is yet to be approved by the court.

On October 1, 2010, the court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement. The court has scheduled a fairness hearing on
January 28, 2011 to determine whether to grant final approval of
the proposed settlement.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Baggett" Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Jan. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider final approval of a settlement entered into
by Hewlett-Packard Company and plaintiffs of a class action,
Baggett v. HP, will be convened on January 31, 2011, according to
the Company's Dec. 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31,
2010.

Baggett v. HP is a consumer class action filed against HP on
June 6, 2007, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California alleging that HP employs a technology in
its LaserJet color printers whereby the printing process shuts
down prematurely, thus preventing customers from using the toner
that is allegedly left in the cartridge.  The plaintiffs also
allege that HP fails to disclose to consumers that they will be
unable to utilize the toner remaining in the cartridge after the
printer shuts down.  The complaint seeks certification of a
nationwide class of purchasers of all HP LaserJet color printers
and seeks unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 29, 2009, the court granted HP's motion for summary
judgment against the named plaintiff and denied plaintiff's motion
for class certification as moot.  On November 3, 2009, the court
entered judgment against the named plaintiff.  On November 17,
2009, plaintiff filed an appeal of the court's summary judgment
ruling with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

On August 25, 2010, HP and the plaintiff entered into an agreement
to settle the lawsuit on behalf of the proposed class, which
agreement is subject to approval of the court before it becomes
final.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement, eligible class
members will each have the right to obtain e-credits not to exceed
$5 million in the aggregate for use in purchasing printers or
printer supplies through HP's website.  In addition, class counsel
and the class representative will be paid attorneys' fees and
expenses and stipends in an amount that is yet to be approved by
the court.

On October 13, 2010, the court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement.  The court has scheduled a fairness hearing
for January 31, 2011 to determine whether to grant final approval
of the proposed settlement.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Defend Suits Over FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company continues to be involved in several
lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime
compensation and other damages based on allegations that various
employees of its subsidiary Electronic Data Systems Corporation or
HP have been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act or in violation of the California Labor Code
or other state laws, according to the Company's Dec. 15, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010.

Those matters include:

   * Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
     Corporation is a purported collective action filed on May 10,
     2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
     New York claiming that current and former EDS employees
     involved in installing and/or maintaining computer software
     and hardware were misclassified as exempt employees. Another
     purported collective action, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic
     Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on October 23,
     2007, is also now pending in the same court alleging similar
     facts. The Steavens case has been consolidated for pretrial
     purposes with the Cunningham case. On December 14, 2010, the
     court granted conditional certification of the class in the
     consolidated Cunningham and Steavens matter.

   * Heffelfinger, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation
     is a class action filed in November 2006 in California
     Superior Court claiming that certain EDS information
     technology workers in California were misclassified as exempt
     employees. The case was subsequently transferred to the U.S.
     District Court for the Central District of California, which,
     on January 7, 2008, certified a class of information
     technology workers in California. On June 6, 2008, the court
     granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The
     plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal with the U.S. Court
     of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is pending. Two other
     purported class actions originally filed in California
     Superior Court, Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
     Corporation, which was filed on March 16, 2009, and George,
     et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was
     filed on April 2, 2009, allege similar facts. The Karlbom
     case is pending in San Diego County Superior Court but has
     been temporarily stayed based on the pending motions in the
     Steavens consolidated matter. The George case is pending in
     the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
     and has been consolidated for pretrial purposes with the
     Cunningham and Steavens cases.


INTERNATIONAL ASSETS: FCStone Still Defending Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Assets Holding Corporation continues to defend
itself against a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
pending in Missouri, according to the company's Dec. 15, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010

On September 30, 2009, International Assets Holding Corporation
completed its acquisition of FCStone Group, Inc., pursuant to the
merger of FCStone and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. As
a result of this transaction, the Company issued approximately 8.2
million shares of its common stock to the former shareholders of
FCStone, and FCStone became a wholly owned subsidiary of
International Assets Holding Corporation.

FCStone Group Inc. and certain officers of FCStone were named as
defendants in an action filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri on July 15, 2008.  A
consolidated amended complaint was subsequently filed on
September 25, 2009. The action, which purports to be brought as a
class action on behalf of purchasers of FCStone common stock
between November 15, 2007 and February 24, 2009, seeks to hold
defendants liable under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for allegedly false statements and
failure to disclose adverse facts relating to an interest rate
hedge, the bad debt reserve of FCStone and losses sustained by
FCStone in connection with a customer's energy trades.

FCStone filed a motion to dismiss this amended complaint, along
with supporting documents, on November 24, 2009. On November 16,
2010, the Court denied FCStone's motion to dismiss and granted the
plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint on or before December 15,
2010.


INTERNATIONAL ASSETS: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
International Assets Holding Corporation is awaiting a court
ruling on FCStone Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended
consolidated class action lawsuit pending in Missouri, according
to the company's Dec. 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2010.

On September 30, 2009, International Assets Holding Corporation
completed its acquisition of FCStone Group, Inc., pursuant to the
merger of FCStone and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. As
a result of this transaction, the Company issued approximately 8.2
million shares of its common stock to the former shareholders of
FCStone, and FCStone became a wholly owned subsidiary of
International Assets Holding Corporation.

A purported shareholder derivative action was filed against
FCStone Group, Inc., (solely as a nominal defendant) and certain
officers and directors of FCStone in August 2008 in the Circuit
Court of Platte County, Missouri, alleging breaches of fiduciary
duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. An
amended complaint was subsequently filed in May 2009 to add claims
based upon the losses sustained by FCStone arising out of a
customer's energy trading account. On July 2, 2009 FCStone filed a
motion to dismiss and supporting documents. On July 7, 2009, the
same plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the existing case
to add a purported class action claim on behalf of the holders of
FCStone common stock.

On July 8, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
against FCStone and its directors, as well as International Assets
Holding Corporation and International Assets Acquisition
Corporation in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri by two
individuals who purported to be stockholders of FCStone. The
plaintiffs purported to bring this action on behalf of all
stockholders of FCStone. The complaint alleged that FCStone and
its directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
maximize stockholder value in connection with the contemplated
acquisition of FCStone by International Assets Holding
Corporation. The complaint also alleged that FCStone,
International Assets Holding Corporation and International Assets
Acquisition Corporation aided and abetted the directors' alleged
breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs sought to permanently
enjoin the transaction between FCStone and International Assets
Holding Corporation, monetary damages in an unspecified amount
attributable to the alleged breach of duties, and legal fees and
expenses. The plaintiffs did not succeed in enjoining the
transaction.

This complaint was subsequently consolidated with the complaint
filed in the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri, and will
fall under the jurisdiction of that court.  A combined, amended
complaint was served on the defendants in January 2010. All of the
defendants intend to defend against the complaint vigorously. The
defendants filed a notice to dismiss in February 2010, the
plaintiffs filed their opposition to this in April 2010 and
supplemental filings were made in September and October 2010.


ISRAEL FUEL COS: Face NIS1.4-Bil. Class Action Over "Hot Fuel"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chen Ma'anit at Globes reports that a NIS1.4 billion class action
suit was filed in the Tel Aviv District Court on Dec. 26 against
Israel's leading fuel companies: Paz Oil Company Ltd., Delek
Israel Fuel Corporation Ltd., Sonol Israel Ltd. and Dor Alon
Energy in Israel (1988) Ltd.  The suit claims that the companies
have been systematically cheating consumers by selling gasoline at
temperatures that are higher than the international standard and
thus raising their profits by tens of millions of shekels
annually.

Gasoline's volume expands when heated.  The lawyers filing the
suit explained that the fuel companies buy the gasoline at 15
degrees centigrade, the international standard, but sell it at
higher temperatures, where the volume is thus higher but the
amount of energy it generates is lower.  In this way the companies
increase their profits.

The class action suit says that the fuel companies achieve this by
storing gasoline above ground so that it naturally heats up in
Israel's warm climate.  The suit claims that this practice is
"unacceptable and bordering on the criminal."


JP MORGAN: Accused of Manipulating Silver Bar Financial Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cafferty Faucher LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of a class that
includes purchasers and sellers of the iShares Silver Trust (NYSE-
Arca "SLV") and the ETF Securities Ltd. Silver Trust (NYSE-Arca
"SIVR") during the period March 1, 2008 through the present.

The lawsuit alleges that JPMorgan, the custodian of silver backing
SLV securities and the sub-custodian of silver backing SIVR
securities, and HSBC, the custodian of silver backing the SIVR
securities, manipulated and suppressed the price of silver bar
financial products, including SLV and SIVR, in violation of
Section 9 of the Securities Exchange Act.

If you purchased or sold the iShares Silver Trust ETF (NYSE-Arca
"SLV") or the ETF Securities Silver Trust (NYSE-Arca "SIVR")
securities during the period March 1, 2008 through the present,
you may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff within 60 days.
The lawsuit, Case No. 1:10-cv-07768, was filed in the Northern
District of Illinois on December 7, 2010 and is currently assigned
to the Honorable Charles R. Norgle, Sr.

The case is also brought on behalf of investors who purchased or
sold CME Group Inc's "COMEX" silver futures or options contracts
which are traded electronically through the Chicago-based "GLOBEX"
platform and through COMEX.  On behalf of these investors, the
lawsuit alleges violations of the anti-manipulation provisions of
the Commodity Exchange Act.

In addition to the claims under the anti-manipulation provisions
of the Securities Exchange Act and the Commodity Exchange Act, the
lawsuit also alleges that defendants violated federal antitrust
law.

Cafferty Faucher LLP -- http://www.caffertyfaucher.com-- with
offices in Chicago, Philadelphia and Ann Arbor, Michigan, is a
national litigation firm that represents investors, businesses and
consumers who have been injured by illegal marketplace practices.
Firm contact information is available at the above Web site.  The
firm has recovered tens of billions of dollars for its clients in
cases targeting illegal acts and practices in a variety of
industries including securities, commodities, insurance,
pharmaceuticals, banking services, medical, high-tech, food and
beverage, construction materials, and many others.  Combined, the
firm's attorneys have hundreds of years of experience working to
recover losses on behalf of clients.


KEITHLEY INSTRUMENTS: Awaits Court Approval of Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
On October 4, 2010, a purported class action and derivative
lawsuit was filed related to the then-pending merger of Keithley
Instruments, Inc., into a subsidiary of Danaher Corporation
pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
September 29, 2010, by and among the Company, Danaher and Aegean
Acquisition Corp.

The case, Donald Freidlander v. Danaher Corporation, Brian R.
Bachman, James B. Griswold, Leon J. Hendrix, Jr., Brian J.
Jackman, Joseph P. Keithley, N. Mohan Reddy, Thomas A. Saponas,
Barbara V. Scherer and Keithley Instruments, Inc., was filed on
October 4, 2010, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County,
Ohio (Case No. CV 10 738257). The complaint alleged, among other
things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the merger and that Danaher aided and
abetted the Company's directors in their alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties. The relief sought by the plaintiff included a
declaration that the action is properly maintainable as a
derivative and class action, a declaration that the merger is
unlawful and unenforceable, an injunction barring the merger,
rescinding (to the extent already implemented) the merger or any
of the terms thereof and the payment of costs and disbursements of
the action, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

On November 15, 2010, counsel for all parties reached an agreement
in principle regarding the settlement of the Action.  The parties
are waiting for court approval of the settlement, according to the
company's December 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2010.

On December 8, 2010, the Company completed the transactions
contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger. Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, Aegean Acquisition Corp. was merged into the
Company and each outstanding Common Shares and Class B Common
Share of the Company was converted into the right to receive
$21.60 per share in cash.


LTX-CREDENCE: Faces Four Merger-Related Suits in Calif. & Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
LTX-Credence Corporation is facing four separate lawsuits in
California and Massachusetts over its proposed merger with Verigy
Ltd., Alisier Limited, Lobster-1 Merger Corporation, a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Verigy Ltd., and Lobster-2 Merger Corporation,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alisier Limited.

On November 22, 2010, the Company, its directors, Lobster-1 Merger
Corporation, and Lobster-2 Corporation, were named as defendants
in a putative class action complaint, captioned Carneau v. LTX-
Credence Corp., et. al., 110-cv-188153, filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California. That action, purportedly brought
on behalf of a class of stockholders, alleges that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed merger by, among other things, failing to maximize
shareholder value, obtain the best financial and other terms, sell
the Company in a fair process, and act in the best interests of
public shareholders, and seeking to benefit themselves improperly.
The complaint further alleges that the non-LTX-Credence defendants
aided and abetted the directors' purported breaches. The plaintiff
seeks declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief,
including to enjoin the Company and Verigy from consummating the
merger, in addition to fees and costs.

On November 23, 2010, the Company and its directors were named as
defendants in a putative class action complaint, captioned Shah v.
Tacelli, et. al., No. 10- 4580, filed in the Superior Court of the
State of Massachusetts. That action, purportedly brought on behalf
of a class of stockholders, alleges that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
merger by, among other things, failing to maximize shareholder
value, obtain the best financial and other terms, sell the Company
in a fair process, and act in the best interests of public
shareholders, and seeking to benefit themselves improperly. The
complaint further alleges that LTX-Credence aided and abetted the
directors' purported breaches. The plaintiff seeks declaratory,
injunctive, and other equitable relief, including to enjoin the
Company and Verigy from consummating the merger, in addition to
fees and costs. On December 6, 2010, the plaintiff served document
requests on the Company.

On November 30, 2010, the Company, its directors, Lobster-1 Merger
Corporation, and Lobster-2 Corporation, were named as defendants
in a putative class action complaint, captioned Keuler v. LTX-
Credence Corp., et. al., 1:10-cv-12058, filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. That action,
purportedly brought on behalf of a class of stockholders, alleges
that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed merger by, among other things,
failing to maximize shareholder value, obtain the best financial
and other terms, sell the Company in a fair process, and act in
the best interests of public shareholders, and seeking to benefit
themselves improperly. The complaint further alleges that the non-
LTX-Credence defendants aided and abetted the directors' purported
breaches. The plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and other
equitable relief, including to enjoin the Company and Verigy from
consummating the merger, in addition to fees and costs.

On December 3, 2010, the Company, its directors, Lobster-1 Merger
Corporation, and Lobster-2 Corporation, were named as defendants
in a putative class action complaint, captioned Krieger v. LTX-
Credence Corp., et. al., No. 10-04713, filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. That action,
purportedly brought on behalf of a class of stockholders, alleges
that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed merger by, among other things,
failing to maximize shareholder value, obtain the best financial
and other terms, sell the Company in a fair process, and act in
the best interests of public shareholders, and seeking to benefit
themselves improperly. The complaint further alleges that the non-
LTX-Credence defendants aided and abetted the directors' purported
breaches. The plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and other
equitable relief, including to enjoin the Company and Verigy from
consummating the merger, in addition to fees and costs.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in these suits are
without merit. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued a
liability for any of these actions as of October 31, 2010.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Accused of Violating Computer Privacy Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that McDonald's, CBS, Mazda and
Microsoft use their Internet ads as a cover for data-mining, to
identify the Web sites people visit, invading people's privacy,
misappropriating their personal information and interfering with
the operations of their computers, a class action claims in
Federal Court.  "Defendants acted in concert with [nonparty]
Interclick, mining consumers' web browser histories for entries of
particular relevance to defendants' respective, customized
advertising campaigns," the complaint states.

Lead plaintiff Sonal Bose, of New York, N.Y., included Does 1-50
as defendants.

She claims McDonald's committed its offenses, including violations
of computer privacy laws, through its online World Cup-theme game
in the summer of 2010.

CBS did it in an online ad campaign for its "online fantasy sports
platform" before the 2010 Major League Baseball season began;
Mazda did it in ads for its summer sales and 2010 models, and
Microsoft did it during a 7-month ad campaign for its Windows
Smartphone, according to the complaint.

All of them worked with Interclick, which is not listed as a
defendant.  The complaint claims that "Interclick specialized in
'behavior advertising,' that is, Interclick tracks individual
consumers to collect information about their web-browsing
activities, which it compiled in individual profiles and analysis
to determine which advertisements to display to which consumers.
Interclick continually updates its database of consumer profiles
with information acquired from and about consumers in its online
advertising campaigns. . . .

"Interclick augmented its profile database with individual-level
information it acquired from defendants in the process of
optimizing and measuring the success of advertising campaigns.
For example, defendants and Interclick cooperated to identify
[which] consumers are 'hand raisers' who clicked on an
advertisement to visit the advertiser's website, register to enter
the advertisers' sweepstakes or play online games, or make
purchases.

"Interclick's profiles are stored and analyzed in a data warehouse
designed to allow Interclick to mine and correlate the large
volumes of highly granular consumers data it acquires."

The class claims Interclick has "maintained consumer profiles
since June 2007," and that it "significantly increased its data
warehousing and analysis capabilities in early 2010.  Interclick
has stated that it 'organizes and valuates billions of data points
daily to construct the most responsive digital audiences for major
digital marketers.'"

The class claims that the defendants and Interclick "used browser
history sniffing to identify defendants' competitors with whom
consumers communicated," and that "all the consumer information
Interclick acquired while executing an ad campaign for any one
defendant was merged into Interclick's consumer profile database
and subsequently used for behavioral targeting on behalf of all
defendants."

Ms. Bose seeks statutory and class damages for computer fraud and
abuse, violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
violations of state business law, trespass to personal property,
breach of implied contract, and tortious interference with
contract.  The class also wants all its personal data collected in
this way deleted, wants the defendants enjoined from doing it
again, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and notice and a choice
about whether they want their data mined.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MEDCATH CORP: Court Strikes Class Allegations v. Bakersfield Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Medcath Corporation's subsidiary, Bakersfield Heart Hospital,
obtained a court order on November 24, 2010, striking certain
class allegations against it, according to Medcath's Dec. 14,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010.

During October, 2009, a purported class action law suit was filed
by an individual against the Bakersfield Heart Hospital, a
consolidated subsidiary of the Company.  In the complaint the
plaintiff alleges that under California law, and specifically
under the Knox-Keene Healthcare Service Plan Act of 1975 and under
the Health and Safety Code of California, California prohibits the
practice of "balance billing" for patients who are provided
emergency services.

On November 24, 2010, the court granted the Bakersfield Heart
Hospital's motion to strike plaintiff's class allegations.


META FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Two Stockholder Suits in Iowa
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meta Financial Group, Inc., is facing two separate lawsuits
accusing the Company of violating federal securities laws,
according to the Company's Dec. 13, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2010.

The Company has been informed that two former stockholders,
Thirumalesh Bhat and Alaa M. Elgaouni, have separately filed
purported class action lawsuits against the Company and certain of
its officers alleging violations of certain federal securities
laws.  The cases were filed on October 22, 2010 and November 5,
2010 in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Iowa purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the Company's
stock between May 14, 2009 and October 15, 2010.  The complaints
allege that the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection
with certain allegedly false and misleading public statements made
during this period by the Company and its officers.  The
complaints do not specify an amount of damages sought.

The Company denies the allegations in the complaints and intends
to vigorously pursue its defense.


META FINANCIAL: Still Defending Suits Over Certificates of Deposit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta Financial Group, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit involving the sale of certificates of
deposits, according to the Company's Dec. 13, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2010.

Lawsuits against MetaBank involving the sale of purported MetaBank
certificates of deposit continue to be addressed.  Since its
filing of Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2009, three
such lawsuits have been settled for a payment and dismissed with
prejudice: (i) the matter of Methodist Hospitals of Dallas v.
MetaBank and Meta Financial Group, Inc., filed in the 95th
Judicial District Court of Dallas County, TX, Cause No. 08-06994:
(ii) the matter of St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co., as assignee and
subrogate of Lemont National Bank, v. Metabank, filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Case No. 1:09-cv-01031; and (iii) Coreplus Federal
Credit Union and Waterbury CT Teachers Federal Credit Union, v.
MetaBank and Meta Financial Group, filed in the United States
District Court for the District of South Dakota, Southern
Division, Case No. 09-cv-4130.  In all, nine cases have been filed
to date, and of those nine, three have been dismissed, and four
have been settled for payments that the Company deemed reasonable
under the circumstances, including the costs of litigation.  Of
the two remaining cases, one is a class action case.  On May 5,
2010, in that class action, Guardian Angel Credit Union v.
MetaBank et al., Case No. 08-cv-261-PB (USDC, District of NH), the
court granted the plaintiff's motion to certify the class.
Additionally, a lawsuit relating to this matter has been filed by
Airline Pilots Assoc Federal Credit Union in the Iowa District
court for Polk County, Case number CL-118792.  The underlying
matter was first disclosed in the Company's quarterly report for
the period ended December 31, 2007, which stated that an employee
of the Bank had sold fraudulent CDs for her own benefit.  The
unauthorized and illegal actions of the employee have since
prompted a number of demands and lawsuits seeking recovery on the
fraudulent CDs to be filed against the Bank, which have been
disclosed in subsequent filings. The employee was prosecuted,
convicted and, on June 2, 2010, sentenced to more than seven years
in federal prison and ordered to pay more than $4 million in
restitution. Notwithstanding the nature of her crimes, which were
unknown by the Bank and its management, plaintiffs in the two
remaining cases seek to impose liability on the Bank under a
number of legal theories with respect to the remaining $3.6
million of fraudulent CDs that were issued by the former employee.

The Bank and its insurer, which has assumed defense of the action
and which is advancing defense costs subject to a reservation of
rights, continue to vigorously contest liability in the remaining
actions.


MICROSOFT CORP: Calif. Schools Get Class Action Settlement Money
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Barrientos, writing for The Bakersfield Californian, reports
more than 200 local schools will receive several thousands of
dollars for technology purchases as part of a 2006 lawsuit
settlement involving Microsoft.

It's the second round of funding from a class-action antitrust
lawsuit against Microsoft in which $1.1 billion was awarded to
California users of Microsoft software.  Nearly 900 education
agencies and 7,400 schools received $25 million this time,
according to the California Department of Education.

The money can be used to buy computers, software, connect
classrooms to the Internet and provide teacher tech training.

"This funding to help school districts purchase technology comes
at a critical time when schools continue to struggle because of
severe budget cuts," said state Superintendent Jack O'Connell in a
statement.

The lawsuit started in 1999 when 27 California consumers and
businesses filed a class-action lawsuit against Microsoft alleging
unfair competition over the sale of certain operational and
software systems.  Microsoft settled and a fund called "Cy Pres"
was made to benefit the state's poorest schools.  School districts
apply for that money through the Education Technology K-12 Voucher
Program.

To be eligible, schools must have at least 40 percent of students
from low-income families.  They get anywhere from $50 to $100 per
student.

Roughly 230 local schools and education agencies will receive
money, and Kern's high schools received the most.  Golden Valley
High, for example, will get $14,104.  For a full list of local
school recipients, go to The Californian's education blog, The
Grade, at bakersfield.com/blogs.

On the Net: http://www.edtechk12vp.com/

                   Tulare Schools Get Settlement

Victor Garcia, writing for Visalia Times-Delta, reports many
Tulare County schools received a small portion of a $25 million
state settlement agreement with Microsoft for the purchase of
technology.

Most Tulare City School District, Tulare Joint Union High School
District and Visalia Unified School District campuses received a
portion of the settlement.

Money not claimed by individual consumers was put into a fund for
educational agencies.

A list of some of the schools and the amount received:

TCSD

    * Cypress School: $3,570
    * Heritage School: $3,134
    * Mulcahy Middle School: $3,368
    * Wilson School: $2,249

TJUHSD

    * Mission Oak High School: $5,254
    * Tulare Union High School: $9,753
    * Tulare Western High School: $9,987
    * Sierra Vista High School (Continuation): $1,105

VUSD

    * El Diamante High School: $10,481
    * Redwood High School: $10,273
    * Mineral King Elementary: $3,654
    * Veva Blunt Elementary: $3,378


NEW SOUTH WALES: May Face Suit Over Legal System Computer Flaw
--------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Jopson, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
children and adults wrongly arrested and detained because of
systemic computer problems are the subject of a planned class
action that would add millions to compensation already paid by the
state government.

A group of Sydney lawyers is planning the litigation over a legal
system computer flaw that has led to dozens of people, including
children, being wrongfully arrested and often falsely imprisoned.

In the past financial year alone, NSW Police paid more than $2.7
million to 22 people, including five juveniles, after officers
made unlawful arrests wrongly alleging bail condition breaches.
The police computer system did not contain accurate information,
the government has revealed in parliamentary papers.

"It's kind of Kafkaesque.  We've been running a campaign on this
and we've made 10 separate representations to the state government
since 2007 without success," said Edward Santow, the chief
executive of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, which plans
litigation to force a solution.

"The Attorney-General's Department says there is a problem with
the police.  The police say it is the Attorney-General.
Meanwhile, you have the terrible injustice of people being
arrested and detained overnight.

"It's a terrible waste of money.  Even if you don't care about
human rights, or people who may or may not have committed a crime,
surely you care about the pointless expense."

The system flaw meant that when a bail condition such as an 8:00
p.m. curfew expired or was removed, the information was not
communicated to police, who then arrested and, in many cases,
locked up people innocent of a breach, Mr. Santow said.

"They go before a court.  The court records are accurate and the
police say 'sorry' and the state ends up with a compensation
payment on its hands."

The 22 matters already settled or resulting in court orders for
compensation averaged a payout of $124,000 each.  They involved
some related claims of false imprisonment, assault and malicious
prosecution, the government told the Greens MP David Shoebridge in
a budget estimates meeting.

There have been more payouts of as much as $200,000 in the 2010
financial year, with more in the pipeline, the center says.

Its legal team has found 10 more people aged 13 to 19 alleging
wrongful arrest who may join the litigation, planned in
conjunction with a Sydney legal practice whose name is yet to be
made public.

Mr. Santow said the planned litigation was designed to "jolt the
government" into action after individual cases had made no
difference.

Children with offences as minor as shoplifting or traveling
without a train ticket had been held overnight in police cells or
juvenile detention with more serious offenders, said a solicitor
at the center, Laura Brown.  She said police often failed to make
adequate inquiries and ignored other options such as a caution.

A disproportionate number of indigenous children had been
wrongfully arrested.  She said a 17-year-old girl who was in the
city with friends was arrested for breaching a bail condition that
included being with her mother at all times.  The condition had
been lifted two weeks before.  The police said the bail conditions
still applied, even though her mother offered to fax the order
proving otherwise.

A spokesman for the Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, said: "We
have received correspondence from PIAC in recent weeks and we are
examining the issues raised."  A spokeswoman for the Police
Minister, Michael Daley, said it was a matter for the Attorney-
General.


NORTH ORANGE COUNTY: Calif. App. Ct. Rules on Sheppard Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth District
reversed, in part, and affirmed, in part, a trial court ruling in
the action, James Sheppard, v. North Orange County Regional
Occupational Program, No. G041956 (Calif. App. Ct.).

Mr. Sheppard was a part-time instructor employed by NOCROP, which
was created by four public school districts.  During his
employment, Mr. Sheppard was required to spend 20 minutes of
unpaid time preparing for every hour he spent teaching.  Mr.
Sheppard sued NOCROP and sought compensation for his unpaid
preparation time by asserting claims for violation of the minimum
wage law, pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission's wage
order No. 4-2001 and Labor Code section 218, breach of contract,
and quantum meruit.  Mr. Sheppard's first amended complaint also
contained class action allegations.

Following a series of challenges to Mr. Sheppard's pleadings,
judgment was entered in favor of NOCROP.  Mr. Sheppard contends
the trial court erred by (1) ordering judgment on the pleadings as
to the violation of the minimum wage law claim contained in the
first amended complaint; (2) sustaining, without leave to amend,
NOCROP's demurrer to Mr. Sheppard's breach of contract claim as
contained in the original complaint; and (3) sustaining, without
leave to amend, NOCROP's demurrer to his quantum meruit claim as
contained in the third amended complaint.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order granting
judgment on the pleadings as to the violation of the minimum wage
law claim.  Mr. Sheppard alleged he was employed by a regional
occupational program which was the creation of one or more public
school districts through Education Code section 52301.  The Court
of Appeals concluded the minimum wage provision in Wage Order No.
4-2001 applies to Mr. Sheppard's employment with NOCROP.  The
Court of Appeals also held that the Legislature has plenary
authority over public school districts and was constitutionally
authorized to vest in the IWC, through section 1173, the power to
impose the minimum wage law provision contained in Wage Order No.
4-2001 as to employees of such public school districts.   The
Court of Appeals therefore reversed the trial court's order
granting judgment on the pleadings as to the violation of the
minimum wage law claim.

The Court of Appeals also reversed the order sustaining NOCROP's
demurrer to Mr. Sheppard's breach of contract claim.  California
Supreme Court precedent establishes that a public employee has a
contractual right to earned but unpaid compensation, which is
protected by the state Constitution.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order sustaining the demurrer to
the quantum meruit claim because the Government Claims Act (Gov.
Code, Sec. 810 et seq.) bars the assertion of such a claim against
a public entity.

A copy of the Court of Appeal's December 23 Opinion, written by
Judge Richard D. Fybel, is available at http://is.gd/jGBTbfrom
Leagle.com.


NOVELL INC: Faces 14 Class Suits Over Proposed Attachmate Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Novell, Inc., is facing 14 class action lawsuits in Delaware and
Massachusetts that accuse the Company of breaching its fiduciary
duties in relation to its merger with Attachmate Corporation,
according to the Company's Dec. 13, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
October 31, 2010.

On November 21, 2010, Novell entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Attachmate Corporation and Longview Software
Acquisition Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Attachmate --
Merger Sub.  The Merger Agreement provides that, upon the terms
and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement,
Merger Sub will be merged with and into Novell, with Novell
continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Attachmate.

In November and December 2010, individuals or entities claiming to
be the Company's stockholders filed putative class action lawsuits
challenging the Company's pending merger with Attachmate.  As of
December 7, 2010, ten actions had been filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery, one action had been filed in the Superior Court of
Massachusetts, and three actions had been filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

All of the actions are brought against the members of the
Company's Board of Directors, and all but one of the actions also
name the Company as a defendant.  In addition: (i) all of the
actions except for one name Attachmate as a defendant; (ii) all of
the actions except for two name Merger Sub as a defendant; (iii)
seven of the actions name CPTN as a defendant; (iv) three of the
actions name Microsoft and Elliott Associates, L.P. as defendants;
(v) two of the actions name the company's Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer as a defendant; and (vi) one of the
actions names "Golden Gate Private Equity," "Francisco Partners,"
and "Thoma Cressey Bravo," as defendants.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company's
directors failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties with regard to
the Company's pending merger with Attachmate by failing to
maximize the Company's value to its public stockholders and that
the entities named in the complaints aided and abetted those
alleged breaches.

Two of the actions also allege, among other things, that the
Company's directors failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties with
regard to the pending patent sale to CPTN Holdings, LLC.  The
plaintiffs seek orders that, among other things, certify the cases
as class actions, enjoin the Company's merger with Attachmate,
award plaintiffs and the putative class damages in the event that
the Company's merger with Attachmate is consummated, and award
plaintiffs costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

The Company believes that there are substantial legal and factual
defenses to the claims and intend to pursue them vigorously.


NOVELL INC: Appeal Pending in SilverStream Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals remain pending in the securities class action lawsuit
against SilverStream Software, Inc., according to Novell, Inc.'s
Dec. 13, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010.

SilverStream, which Novell, Inc., acquired in July 2002, and
several of its former officers and directors, as well as the
underwriters who handled SilverStream's two public offerings, were
named as defendants in several class action complaints that were
filed in July 2001. The complaints were filed by former
stockholders of SilverStream who purchased shares of SilverStream
common stock between August 16, 1999 and December 6, 2000. The
original complaints were closely related to similar complaints
brought against 309 other issuers and underwriters, and allege
violations of U.S. Securities laws, including that there was
undisclosed compensation received by the underwriters and that
false information prepared by the underwriters resulted in
hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to stockholders. A
Consolidated Amended Complaint with respect to all of these
complaints was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District
of New York, on April 19, 2002. While Novell believes that
SilverStream and its former officers and directors have
meritorious defenses to the claims, various parties, including the
many underwriters, participated in settlement discussions and
reached a proposed settlement agreement. After notice to the
plaintiff class, the settlement agreement received final approval
from the Court on September 10, 2009. Certain parties have filed
Notices of Appeal from the Court's decision.

Novell believes it is probable that any settlement payment will be
covered by its insurance carrier. Thus, Novell does not believe
that resolution of this litigation will have a material adverse
effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.


OHIO: Lead Monitor Appointed in Juvenile Justice Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
On December 21, 2010, Federal Judge Algenon Marbley appointed Will
Harrell to serve as the lead monitor in S.H. v. Stickrath.  He
will head a team of experts supervising State efforts to comply
with a federal court order requiring reforms in the treatment of
youth held in custody by the Department of Youth Services.  The
sweeping order helps move Ohio's juvenile justice system from one
of over-incarceration to one of rehabilitation through evidence-
informed practices; both contributing to cost savings and public
safety.  Mr. Harrell succeeds the interim monitor Vince Nathan,
appointed two months ago after the resignation of Fred Cohen.

The role of lead monitor is a complex one.  It is designed not
only to hold the state accountable for compliance under the order
but also assists the state in adopting best practices where
appropriate.  This partnership among the parties and the State
promotes the best outcomes for the state, local communities, youth
and their families.  Mr. Harrell is no stranger to this
complexity.  He has extensive experience in juvenile justice and
conditions of confinement and has held positions such as the chief
ombudsman for the Texas Youth Commission, public policy director
of the Southern Policy Law Center, chair of the Texas Criminal
Justice Coalition, and executive director of the ACLU of Texas.
Mr. Harrell's human rights background spans internationally as
well.  He holds a J.D. and an LL.M from American University,
Washington College of Law, and has prosecuted human rights abuses
in Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, Haiti, the Bahamas, the US and
elsewhere.  He supervised elections in Bosnia Herzegovina,
represented political asylum seekers from various countries, and
represented migrant farm workers in Colorado.

"We are excited to have Will Harrell serve in this role," states
Kim Brooks Tandy, executive director of the Children's Law Center,
Inc. and one of the plaintiffs' counsel for S.H. v. Stickrath.
"We submitted his name after an extensive search for a candidate
who had both hands-on experience in addressing similar issues in
other states, as well as a strong national perspective that can
contribute to better outcomes for Ohio youth in these facilities,"
she adds.

In May 2011, the State will have been under the stipulation for
three years.  The State of Ohio has been working collaboratively
to undertake different aspects of the settlement but there is
still a lot of work to be accomplished.  It is critical that
progress continues.  Mr. Harrell, once named one of 35 people
shaping the future of Texas, seems well-suited to help do the same
in Ohio.


ONEIDA COUNTY: Social Services Sued Over Food Stamp Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
the Oneida County Department of Social Services has a policy of
"deterring, discouraging, and preventing persons from filing
applications for food stamps, Medicaid, cash assistance and
emergency assistance, in violation of federal and state law and
regulations."

A copy of the Complaint in Howard, et al. v. Soldato, Case No.
10-cv-01557 (N.D.N.Y.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/27/CivRts.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel C. Young, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES OF CENTRAL NEW YORK, INC.
          472 South Salina Street, Suite 300
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Telephone: (315) 703-6591

               - and -

          Susan Antos, Esq.
          EMPIRE JUSTICE CENTER
          119 Washington Avenue
          Albany, NY 12210
          Telephone: (518) 462-6831


PANTRY INC: Continues to Defend "Amason" Suit in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------
The Pantry, Inc., continues to defend itself against a lawsuit
alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act.

On Oct. 19, 2009, Patrick Amason, on behalf of himself and a
putative class of similarly situated individuals, filed suit
against The Pantry in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, Western Division (Patrick Amason v. Kangaroo
Express and The Pantry, Inc. No. CV-09-P-2117-W).  The plaintiff
seeks class action status and alleges that The Pantry included
more information than is permitted on electronically printed
credit and debit card receipts in willful violation of the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, codified at 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681c(g).  The plaintiff seeks an award of statutory
damages for each alleged willful violation of the statute, as well
as attorneys' fees, costs, punitive damages and a permanent
injunction against the alleged unlawful practice.

The company believes that there are substantial factual and legal
defenses to class certification and to the theories alleged in the
lawsuit, and intend to vigorously defend against the claims.  As
the case is at a very early stage, the company cannot at this time
estimate its ultimate exposure to loss or liability, if any,
related to this lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 14, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.thepantry.com/-- operates an
independently operated convenience store chain in the United
States.


PANTRY INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Pantry, Inc., continues to defend itself against class action
lawsuits over motor fuel delivery, according to the company's
Dec. 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class action lawsuits
have been filed in federal courts across the country against
numerous companies in the petroleum industry.  Major petroleum
companies and significant retailers in the industry have been
named as defendants in these lawsuits.  The company has been named
as a defendant in seven cases:

     -- one in Florida (Cozza, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA,
        Inc. et al., S.D. Fla., No. 9:07-cv-80156-DMM, filed on
        Feb. 16, 2007;

     -- one in Delaware (Becker, et al. v. Marathon Petroleum
        Company LLC, et al., D. Del., No. 1:07-cv-00136, filed
        on March 7, 2007;

     -- one in North Carolina (Neese, et al. v. Abercrombie Oil
        Company, Inc., et al., E.D.N.C., No. 5:07-cv-00091-FL,
        filed on March 7, 2007);

     -- one in Alabama (Snable, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA,
        Inc., et al., N.D. Ala., No. 7:07-cv-00535-LSC, filed on
        March 26, 2007;

     -- one in Georgia (Rutherford, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA,
        Inc., et al., No. 4:07-cv-00113-HLM, filed on June 5,
        2007;

     -- one in Tennessee (Shields, et al. v. RaceTrac Petroleum,
        Inc., et al., No. 1:07-cv-00169, filed on
        July 13, 2007); and

     -- one in South Carolina (Korleski v. BP Corporation North
        America, Inc., et al., D.S.C., No 6:07-cv-03218-MDL,
        filed on Sept. 24, 2007.

Pursuant to an Order entered by the Joint Panel on Multi-District
Litigation, all of the cases, including the seven in which the
company is named, have been transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas and consolidated for all pre-trial
proceedings.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that
they are retail purchasers who received less motor fuel than the
defendants agreed to deliver because the defendants measured the
amount of motor fuel they delivered in non-temperature adjusted
gallons which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy.  These
cases seek, among other relief, an order requiring the defendants
to install temperature adjusting equipment on their retail motor
fuel dispensing devices.  In certain of the cases, including some
of the cases in which the company is named, plaintiffs also have
alleged that because defendants pay fuel taxes based on
temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons, but allegedly collect
taxes from consumers on non-temperature adjusted gallons,
defendants receive a greater amount of tax from consumers than
they paid on the same gallon of fuel.  The plaintiffs in these
cases seek, among other relief, recovery of excess taxes paid and
punitive damages.  Both types of cases seek compensatory damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and prejudgment
interest.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss all cases for failure to
state a claim, which were denied by the court on February 21,
2008.  A number of the defendants, including the Company,
subsequently moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the
grounds that plaintiffs' claims constitute non-justiciable
"political questions."  The Court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss on political question grounds on December 3, 2009.
Defendants filed a request to appeal that decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in June 2010.  That
request was denied on  August 31, 2010.

In May 2010, the Court granted class certification to Kansas fuel
purchasers seeking implementation of automated temperature
controls and certain disclosures, but deferred ruling on any class
for damages.  Defendants sought permission to appeal that decision
to the Tenth Circuit in June, and that request was denied on
August 31, 2010.

The company continues to believe that there are substantial
factual and legal defenses to the theories alleged in these
lawsuits, and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. At
this stage of proceedings, the company cannot estimate its
ultimate exposure to loss or liability, if any, related to these
lawsuits.

The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.thepantry.com/-- operates an
independently operated convenience store chain in the United
States.


PAVARINI MCGOVERN: Sued for Diverting Trust Funds Under Lien Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Exterior Fabricators, LLC, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated, v. Pavarini McGovern, LLC, et al., Case
No. 652369/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. December 22, 2010),
brings claims against the general contractor for non-payment of
$483,002 owed to the Plaintiff under a subcontract agreement.  The
Plaintiff agreed to provide the general contractor with labor,
materials and equipment in connection with the fabrication,
furnishing and installation of an exterior wall panel system and
windows at the real property and improvements known as 66-70 W.
45th Street, New York, which is owned by defendant Waterscape
Resort LLC. The Plaintiff relates that it fully, satisfactorily
and timely performed the work required of it including additional
and extra work the general contractor directed it to do, and that
its work was fully accepted by the general contractor and the
owner of the Premises.

The Plaintiff tells the Court that, pursuant to the New York State
Lien Law, on November 8, 2010, within eight months from the last
day on which the Plaintiff provided the labor, materials and
equipment at the Premises, it filed with the New York County
Clerk, a Notice of Mechanic's Lien for $483,002 against the
Premises.  The Plaintiff says that pursuant to the Lien Law, the
Notice of Mechanic's Lien has priority over the mortgage held by
U.S. Bank N.A. against the Premises.

The Plaintiff states that Waterscape violated Section 77 of the
Lien Law when it made unauthorized, illegal, unjustified and
improper diversion of the funds it received pursuant to a building
loan mortgage from U.S. Bank, which under Article 3-A of the Lien
Law, constitute trust funds required to be held by Waterscape in
trust and used only for the purpose of paying for the labor,
materials, equipment, and services relating to the improvement of
the Premises.

The Plaintiff asserts the same claims against Pavarini for
diversion of payments received from Waterscape on account of the
improvement of the Premises.

The Plaintiff asks the Court to decree, among other things, that
it has a valid and subsisting lien upon the interest of the
defendants in the Premises, for $483,002, plus interest at 12%
thereon from August 26, 2010; that it is entitled to enforce and
foreclose its liens against the premises; and that if it is
determined that it did not have a valid and subsisting lien
against the Premises, that it be granted personal judgment against
Pavarini for $483,002, plus interest at 12% from August 26, 2010.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to decree that its Notice of
Mechanic's Lien has priority over the mortgages held by defendant
U.S. Bank against the Premises.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Parshhueram T. Misir, Esq.
          AGOVINO & ASSELTA, LLP
          330 Old Country Road, Suite 201
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 248-9880


PHILIP MORRIS: Minn. Court Reinstates Portions of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Collins, writing for Minnesota Public Radio, reports the
Minnesota Court of Appeals on Dec. 28 reinstated portions of a
nearly 10-year-old, class action lawsuit against Philip Morris
that claims the company fraudulently marketed Marlboro Lights as a
safer cigarette.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2008 cleared the way for class
action suits against cigarette companies that manufacture "light"
cigarettes.  The surprising 5-4 decision paved the way for the
state actions.  Since then, there have been numerous lawsuits
filed around the country with mixed results.  Class action suits
have been certified in Massachusetts, Minnesota and Missouri.
Judges in eight other states have rejected attempts to certify
similar classes, according to the Concord (NH) Monitor.  A judge
in New Hampshire in November certified a similar lawsuit as a
class action, in what could be the largest case in that state's
history.

In Minnesota, however, the Court of Appeals ruled the suit cannot
proceed against Philip Morris' owner, Altria.  It said the two are
different corporations.  However the court reversed an October
2009 district court ruling that threw out the claims that Philip
Morris "could not be sued for false advertising, consumer fraud,
and deceptive trade practices regarding light cigarettes in
violation of Minnesota consumer-protection statutes."

The group filing the suit claims the tobacco company marketed the
Marlboro Lights as safer than a typical cigarette.  Memos
uncovered during the Minnesota tobacco litigation in the '90s
revealed the company knew the claim to be false.  The memos
acknowledged that consumers who smoked "low tar" or "light"
cigarettes, took longer "drags" on them, negating any benefit.

The lower court had also ruled that the settlement negotiated
between then Attorney General "Skip" Humphrey's office and Philip
Morris barred the lawsuit.  The Court of Appeals on Dec. 28
reversed that ruling.

"The Tobacco Settlement does not provide any remedy for individual
consumers who claimed to have been injured by Philip Morris's
violation of consumer-protection laws," the court said in
rejecting the tobacco company's claims.

"Now that this important consumer-protection lawsuit can proceed,
I look forward to it going to the trial in the near future,"
Edward Sweda, the senior attorney for the Tobacco Products
Litigation project said.


PNC FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Mortgage Refinancing Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Coolidge, writing for the Cincinnati Enquirer, reports a
Cincinnati lawyer has filed a proposed class action lawsuit
against PNC Financial Services Group after the lender slapped her
with a $135 fee when she refinanced her mortgage with another
lender.

Ellen Essig, the local lawyer, refinanced her mortgage in
September with Cleveland-based Third Federal Savings and Loan,
which held her original home loan.  Pittsburgh-based PNC charged
Ms. Essig the fee in connection with her home equity line of
credit.

Ms. Essig's home equity loan provides that a fee be charged when
PNC agrees to subordinate its loan to another creditor.  Home
equity loans are typically subordinated to first and even second
mortgages.

Ms. Essig says the clause in her home equity agreement is vague
and should not be allowed to charge her the fee after refinancing
her mortgage, in court papers.  She adds the bank even overcharged
her, noting the clause spells out a $100 subordination fee.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Western Pennsylvania,
is seeking damages and a court order to ban PNC from collecting
similar fees.  The lawsuit also seeks class action status for
similar cases since Dec. 24, 2004.

PNC officials declined to comment on the lawsuit.  The bank is the
nation's No. 5 home equity lender with $23.8 billion in
outstanding loans as of Sept. 30, according to the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corp.

Ms. Essig deferred comment to her own lawyer, Jeffrey Norton in
New York.

"It's so vague -- It's preying on unsuspecting borrowers," he
said.  "It allows them to attach fees whenever they want."


PROSPECT MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself
against class action lawsuits related to its merger with Ivy
Holdings Inc. and Ivy Merger Sub Corp., according to the company's
Dec. 20, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010.

On August 16, 2010, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Ivy Holdings Inc. and Ivy Merger Sub Corp., an
indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Ivy Holdings.

Following the announcement of the merger, two putative class
action complaints were filed against the Company, each of the
Rollover Investors, each of the special committee members, the
Buyer, the Merger Sub, and Leonard Green.  These complaints allege
generally that defendants breached their fiduciary duties, or
aided and abetted others' breaches of fiduciary duties, in
connection with the proposed transaction with the Company by,
among other things, authorizing the transaction for what
plaintiffs claim to be inadequate consideration and pursuant to
what plaintiffs claim to be an inadequate process.  The complaint
seeks, among other relief, an injunction against the proposed
merger, rescission of the merger or rescissory damages to the
putative class if the merger is completed and an award of costs,
including attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

Defendants believe the claims are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against the suits.

On December 15, 2010, the Company's stockholders approved the
Merger Agreement at a special meeting of stockholders. With the
closing of the merger, shares of Prospect common stock ceased
trading in the Nasdaq Global Market and will be delisted. The
Company expects to pay expenses relative to the merger aggregating
amounts ranging from $13,000,000 to $15,000,000 (unaudited).


REMEC INC: Appeals on California Securities Suit Dismissed Sept. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------
Remec, Inc., disclosed that appeals from the final judgment in a
securities class action lawsuit in California were dismissed on
September 1, 2010, according to the Company's Dec. 13, 2010 Form
10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 29, 2010.

On September 29, 2004, three class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and certain former officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California,
which were consolidated into a single case, alleging that between
September 8, 2003 and September 8, 2004 the Defendants made false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information regarding the Company's financial condition,
operations and future business prospects in violation of federal
securities laws.

Four motions seeking Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment
were filed with the Court, three by the Defendants and one by the
Plaintiffs.  On April 21, 2010, the Court issued an Order on the
motions, granting Defendants' motions for Summary Judgment based
on scienter and loss causation.  The Court dismissed the case with
prejudice, and directed that final judgment be entered for
Defendants.

On May 21, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.  On June 2, 2010, the Defendants
filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeal.

On August 30, 2010, the parties entered into an agreement whereby
the parties agreed to request dismissal of the Appeal and Cross
Appeal, exchange releases, and accept the final judgment of the
District Court.  The agreement does not include the payment of any
money by the Company or its insurers. The appeal and cross appeal
were dismissed on September 1, 2010.

The suit is In re: REMEC Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-1948 (S.D. Calif.) (Miller, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

        Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
        MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN, LLP
        355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170
        Los Angeles, CA 90071
        Telephone: (213) 617-1200
        Facsimile: (213) 617-1975

             - and -

        David W. Mitchell, Esq.
        LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP
        655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
        San Diego, CA 92101-4297
        Telephone: (619) 231-1058
        Facsimile: (619) 231-7423

             - and -

        Blake Muir Harper, Esq.
        HULETT HARPER STEWART, LLP
        550 West C Street, Suite 1600
        San Diego, CA 92101
        Telephone: (619) 338-1133
        Facsimile: (619) 338-1139

Representing the defendants is:

        Robert W. Brownlie, Esq.
        DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY, US, LLP
        401 "B" Street, Suite 1700
        San Diego, CA 92101
        Telephone: (619) 699-2700
        Facsimile: 858-677-1401


RENTECH INC: Consolidated Securities Suit in Calif. Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action lawsuit against Rentech,
Inc., which is pending in California, remains stayed to allow
parties to discuss a settlement, according to the company's
Dec. 14, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010.

Between December 29, 2009 and January 6, 2010, three purported
class action shareholder lawsuits were filed against the Company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California alleging that the Company and the named current and
former directors and officers made false or misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial performance in connection with
its financial statements for fiscal year 2008 and the first three
quarters of fiscal year 2009. Plaintiffs in the actions purport to
bring claims on behalf of all persons who purchased Rentech
securities between May 9, 2008, and December 14, 2009 and seek
unspecified damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.  The
cases were consolidated as Michael Silbergleid v. Rentech, Inc.,
et al. (In re Rentech Securities Litigation), Lead Case No.
2:09-cv-09495-GHK-PJW (C.D. Cal.), and a lead plaintiff was
appointed on April 5, 2010.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on May 20,
2010, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the action on
October 15, 2010. The matters are currently stayed to allow the
parties to discuss settlement. At this time, the Company does not
believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect on
the Company.

Rentech, Inc. -- http://www.rentechinc.com/-- is focused on
providing clean energy solutions.  The company is focusing on the
deployment of the Rentech Process and the Rentech-SilvaGas biomass
gasification technology (Rentech-SilvaGas Technology) through both
licensing of its technology and development of facilities to
produce synthetic fuels and chemicals, natural gas substitutes,
and electric power from renewable and fossil feedstocks.


RINO INTERNATIONAL: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of RINO International Corporation (formerly
Nasdaq:RINO) (OTCBB:RINO) are reminded of the securities class
action lawsuit filed against RINO and certain of its officers.
The class action (Civil Action No.: 10-cv-1908) pending in the
Central District of California is on behalf of a class of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired RINO
securities during the period from May 15, 2008 through
November 17, 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.

RINO, through its subsidiaries, operates as an environmental
protection and remediation company in the People's Republic of
China.  The Company engages in designing, manufacturing,
installing, and servicing wastewater treatment and flue gas
desulphurization equipment primarily for use in the iron and steel
industry, and anti-oxidation products and equipment for use in the
manufacture of hot rolled steel plate products.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that
the Company did not enter into at least two customer contracts and
20-40% of the Company's other contracts had problems for which it
reported revenues during its 2008 and 2009 fiscal years; (2) that
the Company's reported revenues for fiscal year 2009 to the SEC
were inflated by 94%; (3) that the Company's management was
draining cash from the Company for its own business and personal
uses; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's financial results were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

On November 10, 2010, Muddy Waters LLC, a research firm issued a
report calling into question, among others, the Company's customer
relationships, accounting, and financial results. The research
firm claimed that its investigation indicated that RINO had
fabricated customer relationships, exaggerated sales, and issued
phony financial statements.  In particular, the report highlighted
that the same day that RINO closed a $100 million financing
transaction, certain officers/directors "borrowed" $3.2 million
from the Company to purchase a luxury home in Orange County,
California.

On this news, shares of RINO declined by $2.34 per share, more
than 15%, to close on November 10, 2010, at $13.18 per share, on
unusually high volume.  The stock further declined another $2.08
per share, or 15.08%, to close on November 11, 2010, at $11.10 per
share after launching an internal review into Muddy Waters'
allegations.

Then on November 15, 2010, RINO announced extremely disappointing
third quarter 2010 results with revenues of $52.7 million and net
income of $8.8 million, just over half the net income reported on
the prior year.  RINO also reduced its revenue forecast for 2010
from $221-$229 million to $203-$211 million.  On this news, RINO's
shares declined $3.46 per share, or more than 31%, to close on
November 15, 2010, at $7.55 per share.

On November 19, 2010, RINO disclosed in a filing with the SEC that
it had received a letter from its independent auditing firm which
recounted a conversation between a member of the firm and RINO's
Chief Executive Officer, defendant Zou Dejun, during which Dejun
revealed that RINO had, in fact, not entered into two of the six
customer contracts discussed in the Muddy Waters report.
Furthermore, the independent auditors advised that its audit
reports of the Company's previously issued financial statements
for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and its reviews of the Company's
quarterly financial statements for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and
its reviews of the Company's quarterly financial statements for
periods between March 31, 2008 and September 30, 2010 should no
longer be relied upon.

When RINO's shares resumed trading on the OTC on December 8, 2010
after being halted by NASDAQ on November 17, 2010, the stock
further declined $2.92 or 48% and closed at $3.15 per share.

If you are a shareholder who purchased RINO securities during the
Class Period, you have until January 14, 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 Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free.
Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

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


SANTARUS INC: Faces Suit Alleging Labor Violations in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Dec. 13, 2010, Santarus, Inc., disclosed that on
December 8, 2010, a complaint styled as a putative class action
was filed against the company in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York by a person employed by the
Company as a sales representative and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated current and former employees of the Company.
The complaint seeks damages for alleged violations of the New York
Labor Law 650 Section et. seq and the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act. Such alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime
work.  The complaint seeks an unspecified amount for unpaid wages
and overtime wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and other damages.


SEARCHMEDIA HOLDINGS: Still Faces Securities Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Searchmedia Holdings Limited and certain of its officers continue
to defend itself against a class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws filed by shareholders in
California, according to the company's Dec. 16, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

A shareholder complaint was filed on September 13, 2010, by Sid
Murdeshwar against SearchMedia Holdings, the former Ideation
officers and directors and certain of the SearchMedia Holdings'
officers and directors as a purported class action on behalf of
the shareholders of SearchMedia Holdings in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  The case
was filed under the caption Sid Murdeshwar, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. SearchMedia
Holdings Limited f/k/a Ideation Acquisition Corp., Robert N.
Fried, Phillip Frost, Rao Uppaluri, Steven D. Rubin, Glenn
Halpryn, Thomas E. Beier, David H. Moskowitz, Shawn Gold, Garbo
Lee, Paul Conway, Qinying Liu, Earl Yen, and Jennifer Huang,
Defendants.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
directors of SearchMedia Holdings violated the federal securities
laws by making false and misleading statements regarding
Ideation's acquisition of the target company, SearchMedia
International and by overstating SearchMedia International's
financial results.  The complaint further alleges that the
Individual Defendants are liable for the alleged
misrepresentations as controlling persons.  The complaint seeks
certification of a class of SearchMedia Holdings' shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired SearchMedia Holdings securities
between April 1, 2009, and August 20, 2010, an award of
compensatory damages, an award of reasonable fees and costs
incurred in this action, and such other relief as the Court deems
just and proper.


SHEREMETYEVO AIRPORT: Stranded Passengers to File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
RIA Novosti reports lawyers of stranded passengers are preparing a
multi-million ruble class action suit against Moscow's
Sheremetyevo and Domodedovo airports, lawyer Sergei Zhorin said.

Thousands of passengers remain stranded at the airports following
an ice storm that hit the entire territory of Central Russia over
the weekend.  Hundreds of flights have been canceled and delayed
as severe freezing rain caused serious power outages.  Some 20,000
passengers have been affected by the weather.

"The situation in the airports, according to our information, is
inadmissible: prices for food have been inflated tenfold; airlines
are not providing hotels or meals to clients, which is against the
law," Mr. Zhorin said, adding that taxi fares have been illegally
hiked as well.

"We plan to file a class action lawsuit from all those affected,
which could be over 1,000 people, and the claim amount could be
unprecedented for Russia," he said.

Mr. Zhorin said airport authorities are capable of influencing the
situation with the growing prices in airports.

"We see collusion here and plan to prove it in court," he said.

Earlier on Dec. 28, passengers angered by massive disruptions of
flights from Sheremetyevo Airport reportedly attacked several
employees of Russia's largest air company, Aeroflot, which the
airport later denied.

Russian Transport Minister Igor Levitin criticized the Aeroflot
management, saying he had "questions" for the company.

President Dmitry Medvedev has instructed prosecutors to check
whether airport authorities and air carriers have taken "all
necessary measures" to comply with legislation on air
transportation and passenger services in emergency situations.


SSI INVESTMENTS: Holds $0.8MM Cash for Class Suit Defense Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
In its Dec. 15, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended October 31,
2010, SSI Investments II Limited disclosed that at October 31,
2010, the Company had approximately $0.9 million of restricted
cash; approximately $0.8 million is held voluntarily to defend
named former executives of SmartForce PLC for actions arising out
of an SEC investigation and litigation related to the 2002
securities class action. On October 7, 2010, the Company's Board
of Directors approved a settlement in the amount of approximately
$0.9 million of an indemnification claim made by former officers
of SmartForce. The settlement amount was paid on November 22,
2010. The remaining $0.1 million of restricted cash is held in
certificates-of-deposits with a commercial bank pursuant to terms
of certain facilities lease agreements.


STATER BROS: SBM Diaries Settles "O'Connor" Suit
------------------------------------------------
Stater Bros. Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary SBM Dairies, Inc., has
entered into a settlement of a wage-hour lawsuit, according to the
company's Dec. 16, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 26, 2010.

In December 2008, an action by Dennis M. O'Connor, et al. was
filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court against Santee Dairies,
Inc., d/b/a Heartland Farms seeking individual and potential class
action monetary damages for time spent by non-exempt hourly paid
employees for changing into and out of sanitary uniforms.

On September 23, 2010 following mediation the case was settled.
Under the settlement agreement, the settlement amount will be paid
pursuant to procedures for filing and approval of claims for
members of the certified class with a portion of any unclaimed
amounts returned to SBM Dairies, Inc.

Stater Bros. Holdings Inc. -- http://www.staterbros.com/--
through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Stater Bros. Markets,
operates a supermarket chain of 167 stores located throughout
Southern California.


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

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

The case flows from the merger between Suncor and Petro-Canada,
which took effect on Aug. 1, 2009.  The $19-billion deal brought
some significant changes to independent gas stations operating
under the Sunoco brand.  Canada's competition regulator required
that Suncor and PetroCan divest almost 200 gas stations in
Ontario.

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

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

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

Indeed, David Sterns, lawyer for the plaintiff gas station owners,
confirmed that an appeal will be the next step: "We are appealing
it directly to the Court of Appeal.  We think that the decision is
not consistent with the principles that have been established by
the Court of Appeal in matters relating to disclosure under the
Arthur Wishart Act."

Larry Lowenstein, litigation partner with Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt
LLP in Toronto, argued the case for Suncor.  While he realizes the
matter will likely be appealed, he said it is notable to have a
judge rule on a $200-million lawsuit within a year of its
launching.  Earlier in 2010, Ontario changed its Rules of Civil
Procedure to make it possible to expedite cases by making it
easier to bring matters to a decision using motions for summary
judgment.

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


T-MOBILE USA: Sued for Inflating Fees Passed on to Subscribers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genevieve Meyer, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-05858 (N.D. Calif.
December 23, 2010), accuses the telecommunications carrier of
assessing Cal-USF fees based on the aggregate calculation of
intrastate, interstate, and international telecommunications
services, despite the prohibition against said charges being based
on interstate or international revenues (which would interfere
with the Fed-USF), thus inflating the five Cal-USF specific
charges it is allowed to lawfully pass to subscribers via its
subscribers' phone bills.

Ms. Meyer explains that the Telecommunications Act, which was
passed by Congress in 1996, and is promulgated by the Federal
Communications Commission, requires carriers to contribute to a
federal Universal Service Fund -- Fed-USF.  Carrier contributions
to the Fed-USF are calculated according to each carrier's specific
interstate and international telecommunications revenues.
Carriers are allowed to pass along the costs of fulfilling their
Fed-USF contribution obligations to their subscribers in
accordance with FCC guidelines.  States may also implement similar
Universal Service programs provided that said programs do not rely
on or burden the funding of the Fed-USF.  California has a
Universal Service program -- Cal-USF -- which is funded by
assessing only intrastate revenues.

Ms. Meyer says that because T-Mobile already assesses fees for
compliance with Fed-USF based on interstate and international
revenues, the unlawful inclusion of those revenue in the
calculation of Cal-USF fees results in "double-billing" T-Mobile's
subscribers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          Mark Punzalan, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 398-8700
          E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com
                  mpunzalan@finkelsteinthompson.com

               - and -

          Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., Esq.
          LITIGATION LAW GROUP
          1801 Clement Avenue, Suite 101
          Alameda, CA 94501
          Telephone: (510) 238-9610
          E-mail: gmf@classlitigation.com


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Obtains Final Approval of Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York gave
final approval in October of the settlement of a consolidated
complaint alleging backdating of stock options against Take-Two
Interactive Software, Inc., according to the company's Dec. 20,
2010, Form 10-KT filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the transition period from November 1, 2009 to
March 31, 2010.

In February and March 2006, four purported class action complaints
were filed against the company and certain of its then current and
former officers and directors in the SDNY Court.  The actions were
consolidated, and in April 2007 the lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated second amended complaint which contained allegations
related to purported "hidden content" contained in Grand Theft
Auto: San Andreas and the backdating of stock options, including
the investigation thereof conducted by the Special Litigation
Committee of the Board of Directors and the restatement of the
company's financial statements relating thereto.  The complaint
was filed against the company, its former Chief Executive Officer,
its former Chief Financial Officer, its former Chairman of the
Board, its Rockstar Games subsidiary, and one officer and one
former officer of the company's Rockstar Games subsidiary.  The
lead plaintiffs sought unspecified compensatory damages and costs
including attorneys' fees and expenses.

In April 2008, the Court dismissed, with leave to amend, all
claims as to all defendants relating to Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas and certain claims as to the company's former CEO, CFO and
certain director defendants relating to the backdating of stock
options.

In September 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended
consolidated complaint seeking to reinstate these claims which the
company opposed.

On Aug. 31, 2009, the company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the lead plaintiffs to comprehensively settle
all claims asserted by them against the company, its Rockstar
Games subsidiary and all of the current and former officers and
directors named in the actions.  Under the terms of the proposed
settlement, the company will pay approximately $20.1 million into
a settlement fund for the benefit of class members, approximately
$15.3 million of which will be paid by the company's insurance
carriers and the balance of approximately $4.8 million has
previously been accrued for in the company's financial statements.
In addition to the payment to the settlement fund, the company
will also supplement the substantial changes that it has already
implemented in its corporate governance policies and practices.
The proposed settlement is subject to the completion of final
documentation and preliminary and final approval by the SDNY
Court.  Neither the company, its subsidiary nor any of the
individuals admit any wrongdoing as part of the proposed
settlement agreement.

On June 29, 2010, the SDNY Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement, and scheduled a fairness hearing to be held on
Oct. 12, 2010.  In accordance with the terms of the settlement
$20.1 million was placed into an escrow fund for the benefit of
class members.  The Company's insurance carriers contributed $15.3
million of this payment, and the Company contributed $4.8 million,
which had previously been accrued for in the company's financial
statements. In addition to the payment to the settlement fund, the
company will also supplement the substantial changes that it has
already implemented in its corporate governance policies and
practices with certain additional changes.

On October 12, 2010, the Court gave its final approval to the
settlement, and subsequently issued its Final Judgment and Order
of Dismissal on October 19, 2010.  No appeal of the Court's
Judgment was filed by the deadline of November 18, 2010.  Neither
the Company, its subsidiary nor any of the individuals admit any
wrongdoing as part of the proposed settlement agreement.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: St. Clair Derivative Action Now Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------------
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., disclosed in its Dec. 20,
2010, Form 10-KT filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the transition period from November 1, 2009 to
March 31, 2010, that the St. Clair Derivative Action has been
concluded.

In January 2006, the St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement
System filed a purported class and derivative action complaint in
the SDNY Court against the company, as nominal defendant, and
certain of its directors and certain former officers and
directors. Certain of the factual allegations in this action are
similar to those in the securities class action described above.
The plaintiff asserts that certain defendants breached their
fiduciary duty by selling their stock while in possession of
certain material non-public information and that the company
violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
thereunder by failing to disclose material facts in the company's
2003, 2004 and 2005 proxy statements in which the company
solicited approval to increase share availability under its 2002
Stock Option Plan. The plaintiff seeks the return of all profits
from the alleged insider trading conducted by the individual
defendants who sold the company's stock, unspecified compensatory
damages with interest and its costs in the action. In March 2007,
the Special Litigation Committee moved to dismiss the complaint
based on, among other things, the Committee's conclusion that
"future pursuit of this action is not in the best interests of
Take-Two or its shareholders." In August 2007, the plaintiff filed
an Amended Derivative and Class Action Complaint alleging, among
other things, that defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the issuance of proxy statements from 2001 through
2005.

In September 2007, the Special Litigation Committee moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint or to consolidate certain of its
claims with the securities class action. In July 2008, the Court
dismissed all claims against the company and all claims against
all defendants that arose out of the plaintiff's derivative
claims. The Court expressly did not determine whether these claims
would entitle the putative class to monetary damages, but invited
briefs from the individual defendants on this point. In October
2008, these individuals moved to dismiss the remaining claims
against them. Briefing was concluded as of January 16, 2009.  On
September 15, 2009, the case was reassigned to Judge Sullivan, who
denied the pending motions to dismiss without prejudice pending an
October status conference. At that status conference, the Court
reinstated the motions to dismiss, and oral argument on those
motions was held November 23, 2009. Those motions to dismiss were
granted in their entirety on September 9, 2010, and the deadline
for any appeals to be filed expired on October 13, 2010. The case
is now concluded.


UNITED STATES: Court Won't Re-Open Age Discrimination Suit v. FAA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia denied Timothy O'Hara's request to re-open an age
discrimination class action complaint asserted against the Federal
Aviation Administration.

The original complaint was commenced in 2005 by Malachy Coghlan,
in behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly situated
persons, on allegations that his employer, the FAA, discriminated
against him and other FAA employees on the basis of age.  Mr.
O'Hara was named co-plaintiff in the amended complaint.

In March 2008, the District Court held that the Plaintiffs failed
to initiate administrative proceedings within the 45-day period in
which they were required to and thus, entered judgment in favor of
FAA.

Under his Motion to Re-Open, Mr. O'Hara argued that the enactment
of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 warrants a ruling
vacating the 2008 judgment entered by the District Court.  Under
the Act, each paycheck resulting from the original compensation
decision or other practice triggers a new filing period during
which a claim challenging the original compensation decision may
be timely brought, even if the compensation decision itself was
made long before.

The 2008 judgment in the O'Hara case was final and not subject to
appeal when the Little Ledbetter Act took effect, Judge Friedman
opined.

A copy of Judge Friedman's December 23, 2010 Order is available at
http://is.gd/jCFVhfrom Leagle.com.


WELLCARE HEALTH: Settles Securities Class Action for $200-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tampa Bay Business Journal reports WellCare Health Plans Inc. has
signed an agreement finalizing the terms of a $200 million
settlement in a securities class action lawsuit.

The settlement, which still requires court approval, is intended
to resolve all the claims that are the subject of the class
action, WellCare said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The case stemmed from allegations of health care fraud. The
material terms of the agreement are substantively the same as
WellCare disclosed in August, the filing said.  The company said
it would make a cash payment of $52.5 million within 30 days after
the court approves the settlement and another $35 million by
July 31, 2011.  WellCare also said it would issue tradeable
unsecured bonds with an aggregate face value of $112.5 million, a
fixed coupon of 6 percent and a maturity date of Dec. 31, 2016.

WellCare (NYSE: WCG), headquartered in Tampa, provides managed
care services targeted to government-sponsored health care
programs.


WPCS INTERNATIONAL: Parties Agree to Dismiss "Pignataro" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter on September 23, 2010, reported that
WPCS International Incorporated faced a purported class action
lawsuit captioned Pignataro v. WPCS International Incorporated, et
al., 5801- ,filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  The Sept. 7, 2010, complaint claims breach of fiduciary
duty in connection with a purported offer to acquire the company.

WPCS disclosed in its Dec. 15, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended October 31, 2010, that on December 9, 2010, the company
obtained a stipulation to the dismissal without prejudice to a
purported class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware against the Company and its directors --
Pignataro v. WPCS International Incorporated, et al.

WPCS International Incorporated -- http://www.wpcs.com/-- is a
design-build engineering company that focuses on the
implementation requirements of communications infrastructure. The
company provides its engineering capabilities including wireless
communication, specialty construction and electrical power to the
public services, healthcare, energy and corporate enterprise
markets worldwide.


* US Drug Watchdog Wants Trial Law Firms to Handle Darvon Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The US Drug Watchdog is saying, "while the US FDA is warning
patients, who have been prescribed Darvon, Darvocet, or generic
propoxyphene to stop using these medications immediately, we want
to add-save the pills, or their container in a safe place-as these
may become important evidence."  They say, "if you have you, or a
loved one suffered from abnormal heart rhythms, heart attacks, or
other heart problems while taking Darvon, Darvocet, or the generic
propoxyphene, please call us immediately at 866-714-6466."
Darvocet, or Darvon victims can also contact the US Drug Watchdog
via its Web site at http://USDrugWatchdog.com

What are the symptoms experienced by many Darvocet, or Darvon pain
pill users?

The US Drug Watchdog indicates the serious side effects that they
are aware of with respect to Darvocet, or Darvon users are as
follows:

    * Heart Arrhythmia
    * Heart Attack
    * Suicide
    * Overdose
    * Sudden Death

The US Drug Watchdog is the premier private pharmaceutical
watchdog in the United States.  They say, "we appreciate there are
numerous lawsuits, and or class actions over the Darvocet, or
Darvon pain pill heart attacks, sudden deaths, and serious heart
damage.  There are numerous attorneys, and law firms involved;
tragically most of the attorneys, or law firms advertising for
help with heart conditions, heart attacks, or even sudden death
after using Darvocet, or Darvon are middlemen marketing law firms-
not the actual trial law firms, that will prosecute these cases.
We want to make certain the Darvocet, or Darvon victims get to the
actual trial law firms, or attorneys, that have the best record in
achieving significant results for their clients-period-not a
middleman marketing law firm."

Federal Case No. 2:10-cv-04455

                             *********

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 2011.  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  * * *