CAR_Public/110104.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, January 4, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 2

                             Headlines

ABM INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Seven Wage-and-Hour Lawsuits
ACCESS PLANS: Continues to Defend "Rivell" Suit in Georgia
AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 18,500 Honda Snowblowers
APPLE INC: Sued for Privacy Violations and Unfair Bus. Practices
BABYUNITED LLC: Recalls 4,500 Baby Leg Warmers and Socks

BCSB BANCORP: Seeks Dismissal of "Piontek" Suit in Maryland
BELL MOBILITY: Class Action Over 911 Service Fees Still Pending
BP PLC: Sued Over Toxic Chemical Release at Texas Refinery
BP PLC: Pension Funds to Serve as Class Action Lead Plaintiff
BP PLC: Cost of Losing Class-Actions Difficult to Estimate

BRAZILIAN BLOWOUT: Sued in California for Fraudulent Marketing
CALAMOS INVESTMENTS: Faces ARPS Class Suit for Fund Unit
CHARLES SCHWAB: Tepper Law Firm Files YieldPlus Individual Claims
CIENA CORP: Appeals Still Pending in Securities Suit Settlement
FIJI WATER: Faces Class Action Over Carbon Negative Claim

GMAC LLC: May Face Class Action Over Wrongful Foreclosure
HARRIS COUNTY: Sued in Calif. for Not Paying Overtime to Nurses
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Negotiating Settlement of "Sewell" Suit
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Mediation on Consolidated Suit Ongoing
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: ERISA and WARN Act Class Suit Now Concluded

K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits
NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Compliance of Suit Settlement Hit Snags
NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Faces Five Suits Over 6.0L Diesel Engine
NU HORIZONS: Awaits Court Approval of Merger-Related Suit in NY
ORACLE CORPORATION: Consolidated Securities Litigation Concluded

PARISH OF JEFFERSON: Sued Over Unpaid Indigent Transcript Fees
QVC: Recalls 14,000 Metallic Spinning Candle Holders
RICK'S CABARET: Strippers' Class Action Can Move Forward
SCHOLASTIC CORP: Plaintiff Seeks to Shorten Class Period
SMART TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in N.Y.

STIHL INCORPORATED: Recalls 5,000 STIHL MS 361C Chain Saws
TOLL BROTHERS: Awaits Court Okay of Pennsylvania Suit Settlement
TORO COMPANY: Still Evaluating Canada Lawnmower Suit
TORO COMPANY: Appeal on Lawnmower Suit Settlement Still Pending
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Still Pending

VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Israel Suit Remains Stayed
WELLCARE HEALTH: Plaintiffs Finalizing Eastwood Suit Settlement
WELLS CARGO: Class Action Over Foreclosure Fees Can Move Forward
ZYNGA GAME: Calif. Judge Appoints Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel



                             *********

ABM INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Seven Wage-and-Hour Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries, Inc., disclosed in its Dec. 23, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 31, 2010, that it is currently a defendant
in, among others, seven class action or purported class action
lawsuits related to alleged violations of federal and state wage-
and-hour laws:

   * the consolidated cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v.
     American Commercial Security Services (ACSS) filed July 12,
     2005, in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
     County;

   * the consolidated cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM
     Janitorial Services filed on April 7, 2006, in the Superior
     Court of California, County of San Francisco;

   * the consolidated cases of Batiz/Heine v. ACSS filed on
     June 7, 2006, in the U.S. District Court of California,
     Central District;

   * the consolidated cases of Diaz/Morales/Reyes v. Ampco System
     Parking filed on December 5, 2006, in L.A. Superior Court;

   * Khadera v. American Building Maintenance Co.-West and ABM
     Industries filed on March 24, 2008, in U.S District Court of
     Washington, Western District;

   * Simpson v. ABM Janitorial Services-Northwest, Inc., and ABM
     Industries Incorporated filed on September 24, 2010 in the
     Superior Court for the State of Washington in and for King
     County; and

   * Villacres v. ABM Security filed on August 15, 2007, in the
     U.S. District Court of California, Central District.

The named plaintiffs in the lawsuits are current or former
employees of subsidiaries of ABM who allege, among other things,
that they were required to work "off the clock," were not paid
proper minimum wage or overtime, were not provided work breaks or
other benefits, and/or that they received pay stubs not conforming
to state law. In all cases, the plaintiffs generally seek
unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or both.

On January 8, 2009, the Augustus case was certified as a class
action by the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. On
October 6, 2010, the Company moved to decertify the class and for
summary judgment. The case has been stayed pending a decision by
the court.

On September 29, 2010, the Batiz case was decertified as a class
action by the United States District Court of California, Central
District, and all opt-in plaintiffs were dismissed without
prejudice.

On February 19, 2010, the United States District Court granted
conditional certification of the class in the Khadera case as a
federal "opt-in" class action. The Simpson case, which is a
purported class action brought under state law, was filed in
Washington State court subsequent to the decision of the federal
court in the Khadera case and contains allegations generally
similar to those made in the Khadera case.

On January 15, 2009, a federal court judge denied with prejudice
class certification status in the Villacres case. That case, and
the companion state court case filed April 3, 2008, in Los Angeles
Superior Court were both subsequently dismissed with prejudice on
summary judgment. On June 17, 2010, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the
district court, which had summarily dismissed with prejudice the
Villacres case. The state court companion case, filed April 3,
2008 in Los Angeles Superior Court, has also been dismissed with
prejudice by the judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court. On
October 22, 2010, the State Appellate Court affirmed the decision
of the judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court.

ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com/-- is a facility
services contractor in the U.S.  ABM and its subsidiaries provide
janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting services
for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail facilities in
hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in British Columbia,
Canada.  The company operates through five segments: Janitorial,
Parking, Security, Engineering and Lighting.


ACCESS PLANS: Continues to Defend "Rivell" Suit in Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
Access Plans, Inc.'s subsidiary, The Capella Group, Inc.,
continues to defend itself against a lawsuit pending in Georgia,
according to the company's Dec. 22, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2010.

William Andrew Rivell, M.D. and Alan B. Whitehouse, M.D.,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
Private Health Care Systems and The Capella Group, Inc.; Civil
Action File No: CV106-176 was filed and remains pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia,
Augusta Division.  The plaintiffs in the case allege that the
contracts entered into by medical providers with the Company's
subsidiary, The Capella Group, Inc. through Capella's relationship
with the Private Health Care Systems network of providers did not
allow for the use of the providers' names to market a discount
medical plan whereby payment for services is made at the point of
service by the consumer, and not by a third-party payor such as an
insurance company.  The Plaintiffs are seeking certification of
the case as a class action on behalf of all similarly-situated
physicians nationwide.

The case was originally instituted on November 17, 2006, but was
thereafter dismissed by the District Court.  The United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated the dismissal
and remanded the case to the District Court on March 24, 2008.

In August of 2009 the District Court denied Plaintiffs' Amended
Motion for Class Certification.  In September of 2009 Plaintiffs
filed their Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Amended
Motion for Class Certification, asking the District Court to
certify a smaller class.

On September 30, 2010, the Court issued a ruling denying
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Amended
Motion for Class Certification.


AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 18,500 Honda Snowblowers
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American Honda Motor Co. Inc., of Torrance, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 18,500 Honda snowblowers.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The fuel tank joint and o-ring located on the underside of the
fuel tank can seep or drip fuel over time, posing a fire hazard.

Honda has received 90 reports of fuel either seeping or dripping.
No fires have been reported.

This recall involves Honda snowblowers with model numbers and
frame serial numbers listed below.  The snowblowers are red and
black.  The frame serial number is located on the rear of the
machine just below the engine.  The name Honda and the model
number are located on the side of the front scoop.

     Model     Frame Serial Number
     -----     -------------------

     HS724     SZBE-1037913 through 1046577
     HS928     SZAS-1151080 through 1169012
     HS1132    SZBF-1018734 through 1025998

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11082.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Japan and sold through
Honda Power Equipment dealers nationwide from April 2005 through
November 2010 for between $2,000 and $3,400.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled snowblowers
and contact any Honda Power Equipment dealer to arrange for a free
fuel tank joint and o-ring replacement.  Registered owners of the
recalled snowblowers will be mailed a notice.  For additional
information, contact Honda at (888) 888-3139 between 8:30 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/


APPLE INC: Sued for Privacy Violations and Unfair Bus. Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Lalo, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Apple, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-05878 (N.D. Calif.
December 23, 2010), bring claims against the maker of the Apple
iPhone of unfair business practices and violations of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  Mr. Lalo says
Apple misused their personal information and interfered with the
operability of their mobile devices when it allowed some of the
applications (apps) -- that plaintiffs downloaded from an Apple-
sponsored Web site to their iPhone and iPad mobile devices -- to
transmit their personal, identifying information -- PII -- to
third-party advertising networks for Apple and co-defendants'
financial gain, without obtaining their consent.

Mr. Lalo has owned an iPhone since the device was first introduced
to the market.  Mr. Lalo states that for a period range from
several years to the past six months, he has installed a number of
apps on his iPhone, including: (a) Dictionary.com; (b) Pandora;
(c) Paper Toss; and (d) The Weather Channel.  Mr. Lalo alleges
that, contrary to statements of Apple -- that it reviews all apps
available on its App Store, and does not allow apps to transmit
data about a user without consent -- the applications acquire UDID
-- Unique Device Identifier -- and geographic location
information, in addition to other personal information, from
users' iPhones without users' consent and "in a manner that is not
apparent to users."

Each Apple iPhone is encoded with an electronically readable UDID
which cannot be blocked, altered, or deleted.  These UDIDs can be
used to track the user of the device, including a variety of
information that can be inferred based on the apps that the user
downloads.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          David A. Stampley, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          100 Wall Street, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 920-3072
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com
                  dstampley@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Avi Kreitenberg, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLP
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 601
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 400-1050
          E-mail: akreitenberg@kamberlaw.com


BABYUNITED LLC: Recalls 4,500 Baby Leg Warmers and Socks
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
BabyUnited LLC dba BabyLegs of Seattle, Wash., announced a
voluntary recall of about 4,500 Baby leg warmers and socks.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The leg warmers and socks have a heart applique that can detach,
posing a choking hazard to small children.

The firm has received one report of an infant choking on the
heart-shaped applique.  Her mother was able to dislodge the
applique from her throat.  No medical attention was required.

This recall involves only those BabyLegs brand leg warmers, ankle-
high socks and knee-high socks adorned with a heart-shape
applique.  The recalled products are pink, white or purple cable
knit socks and leg warmers.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11081.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
http://www.babylegs.comand independent retailers from August 2010
to November 2010 for about $11 per pair.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled socks and leg
warmers away from children.  Consumers can remove and discard the
heart applique to eliminate the hazard or contact BabyLegs to
receive a full refund or a coupon to be redeemed on the BabyLegs
Web site.  For additional information, contact BabyLegs toll-free
at (888) 791-6098 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time,
Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.babylegs.com/


BCSB BANCORP: Seeks Dismissal of "Piontek" Suit in Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------
BCSB Bancorp, Inc., is asking a federal court in Maryland to
dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act, according to the Bank's Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2010, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Dec. 23, 2010.

On November 2, 2010, the Bank was sued in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland in the matter of Vicki
Piontek v. Baltimore County Saving Bank, F.S.B. (Civil Action No.
10-cv-3101).  The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges violations of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act concerning notice requirements to be
displayed upon one of the Bank's ATM machines and seeks
certification of the action as a class action.

The Bank has answered the Complaint, denied any such violations
and demanded that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and
that it be awarded the costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys
fees and intends to vigorously defend the matter.


BELL MOBILITY: Class Action Over 911 Service Fees Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Hardy, writing for MobileSyrup.com, reports the ongoing
$6-million class action lawsuit between Yellowknife resident James
Anderson and Bell Mobility has dragged on since 2007.  Mr.
Anderson claims that where he lives there is no 911 service so he
shouldn't have to pay the monthly $0.75 911 fee.  He's not alone,
there are about 20,000 Bell customers in the North West
Territories that are possibly seeking a resolution to this case.
Mr. Anderson stated when the lawsuit became a class action case
that "We've had to put up without having the service and having to
pay for it, and that's not like it is in most areas of Canada.
So, yeah, I think it's a win for everybody up here."

A glimpse of progress occurred in December when Mr. Anderson met
with Bell representatives to reach a settlement . . . but
unfortunately this didn't happen.  Bell's reasoning for charging
the fee to customers in the N.W.T is because people could possibly
use the 911 service when they are traveling to southern Canada.
So the case continues but no follow up court date has been set.


BP PLC: Sued Over Toxic Chemical Release at Texas Refinery
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that neighbors of BP's Texas City
oil refinery demand $10 billion in punitive damages for years of
air pollution that contaminated "yards and homes, including . . .
air-conditioning units and ducts . . . with toxic chemicals".  The
class describes BP as "a known felon and serial polluter who
purposely releases on a routine basis, toxic gases into the air,"
and then lies about it to regulators.

"The damage that BP has done to the environment for those
communities surrounding its Texas City Plant may take years to
correct, if ever," the complaint states.

Since March 23, 2005, when a series of explosions and fires killed
15 workers at the third-largest petroleum refinery in the United
States, BP's Texas City operations have been scrutinized by
federal and state regulators, and BP was fined more than $70
million under a settlement with the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, according to the complaint.

Since that 2005 disaster four more workers have died at the
refinery: one in 2006, one in 2007, and two in 2008, the class
claims.

"All of these deaths were related to failure to implement and
follow procedures, failure to inspect and maintain equipment,
and/or failures of [production safety management]," according to
the complaint.

The latest example of BP's alleged culture of noncompliance came
from April 6 to May 16, when it released 538,000 pounds of
chemical compounds, including 17,000 pounds of carcinogenic
benzene, into the air, according to the complaint.

"After the release, BP reported to the authorities that various
amounts were allegedly released, and stated publicly that the
release was of no consequence and constituted no harm to the
public," the class says.

BP said that flares it uses to burn off chemicals released from
the refinery broke down the chemicals before they could harm the
public.

"Specifically, BP stated: 1) fence-line monitors are in place to
detect any harmful chemicals, and none of concern were detected;
2) the flare in question was 300 feet tall, and thus any
substances released dissipated long before any harm could be done
to the public; and 3) there are other monitors with Texas City
that will detect harmful substances, if any had been released -
and these monitors did not detect any chemical levels of concern,"
according to the complaint.

But the class says: "All of BP's public statements are misleading
and several are outright lies."

The complaint continues: "First, BP knows that its fence-line
monitors will not detect substances released more than 300 feet in
the air; indeed, the air model created by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality ('TCEQ') for this very release demonstrates
as much.

"Second, BP knows full well there are no monitors that detect for
benzene beyond those at its fence line -- there are simply no
benzene monitors in the cities of Texas City or La Marque.

"Third, BP knows, but did not tell anyone that Flare No. 3 has
repeatedly malfunctioned and BP was advised in July 2009 that this
flare needed to be calibrated and overhauled.

"Fourth and most importantly, BP knows that due to maintenance
issues, there is no way that BP can even make an educated guess as
to the amount of product sent to flare or how much actually
burned.

"Based on BP's own records, and those of the TCEQ, the amount of
gas released into Texas City and La Marque is exponentially more
than what BP reported, and it simply would not have been detected,
except by those people who were unfortunate enough to breathe it
into their lungs.  BP lied to the authorities, the press, and the
general public. This is standard practice for this British
company. It should be punished, severely," the class says.

"Despite the efforts of the EPA, OSHA, TCEQ, and other federal and
state agencies, including the United States Justice Department,
and despite the massive fines that these agencies have assessed,
BP simply has not changed, and continues to pollute the ground,
water and air," according to the complaint.

"Harmful chemical and particulates released from the refinery
continue to descend on nearby properties causing permanent damage
to the real property and fixtures and, as a direct result, many of
the schools in the Texas City Independent School District were
found to have among the worst air quality in the country when
compared to other schools.  This pollution and contamination has
caused a long term stigma to attach to the properties surrounding
the refinery. . . . Plaintiffs and all members of the class bring
this case seeking change."

The proposed class consists of "hundreds, if not thousands" of
people who own, or have owned, property near BP's Texas City
refinery.

The class seeks more than $5 million in economic and compensatory
damages and $10 billion in punitive damages.  It alleges
negligence, trespass, nuisance and vicarious liability for
negligent conduct of employees at BP's Texas City refinery.

A copy of the Complaint in Cannon, et al. v. BP Products North
America, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-00622 (S.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/28/BPAgain.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony G. Buzbee, Esq.
          Christopher K. Johns, Esq.
          Peter K. Taaffe, Esq.
          THE BUZBEE LAW FIRM
          JPMorgan Chase Tower
          600 Travis, Suite 7300
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: 713-223-5393
          E-mail: tbuzbee@txattorneys.com
                  cjohns@txattorneys.com
                  ptaaffe@txattorneys.com


BP PLC: Pension Funds to Serve as Class Action Lead Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Business Review reports a group of New York and Ohio pension
funds has clinched court approval to serve as the lead plaintiff
in a class-action suit to recover what investors say are billions
of dollars lost over five years as fuel giant BP Plc allegedly
made false claims on the safety of its drilling operations.

Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray confirmed on Dec. 29 that
Judge Keith Ellison signed an order granting the status in a
Houston federal court.  The Ohio Public Employees Retirement
System, State Teachers Retirement System, School Employees
Retirement System of Ohio, Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund and
New York State Common Retirement Fund first sought lead plaintiff
status in July.

A BP oil rig explosion in April sparked the worst oil spill in
U.S. history and the class-action suit from a New Orleans firm
that claimed the company didn't disclose that its drilling
operations were run in a reckless manner.  Investors in the class-
action suit also claim BP didn't have a plan to respond to the
Gulf of Mexico spill.

BP touted the Gulf as a growth area starting in 2005, but the
fallout from the spill caused its stock to plunge 40% over five
years.  Total investor losses are estimated in the billions of
dollars.  The Ohio and New York funds say they lost more than $200
million by investing in BP stock from June 30, 2005, through June
2010.

               BP Downplayed Severity of Explosion,
                        Class Action Claims

Alexandra Frean, writing for The Times, reports BP condoned a
corporate culture for years in which safety protocols and
environmental laws were ignored in favor of profits, a lawsuit
says.

The US class action lawsuit also alleges that the oil company
deliberately played down the severity of the Deepwater Horizon rig
explosion.

Litigants, led by the New York and Ohio state pension funds, are
seeking compensation for investment losses suffered in the wake of
the spill.

The suit claims that BP "intentionally understated the oil flow
rate" after the disaster in an attempt to "convince investors that
the spill would not significantly impact the company".

Details of the case were made public as US District Judge Keith
Ellison, in Houston, Texas, named Thomas DiNapoli, the New York
state comptroller, and Richard Cordray, the Ohio state attorney-
general, who head their states' public employee pension funds, as
lead plaintiffs.

They represent the investors who bought either BP common stock or
American depositary receipts (ADRs) before the disaster and in the
six weeks afterwards, a period running from June 2005 to June
2010.

Judge Ellison also named four individual investors as lead
plaintiffs in a smaller class of investors who claim that BP made
misleading statements about drilling safety in the Gulf of Mexico
over a much shorter period, from March 2009 to April 20, in the
run-up to the explosion, which sparked the worst offshore oil
spill in US history.

The four are Robert Ludlow, Peter Lichtman, Leslie Nakagiri and
Paul Huyck.

BP shares fell by about 40% in the weeks after the disaster,
wiping billions of dollars off the company's total market
capitalization, the shareholders' lawyers said in their filing to
the court.

The total cost of the disaster is expected to exceed the US$40
billion (AU$39.3 billion) publicly estimated by BP.  While the
clean-up operation is expected to cost about US$10 billion and
fines to come to between US$5.4 billion and US$21.1 billion, the
costs of lawsuits are more difficult to estimate.

In a separate development, the administrator of BP's US$20 billion
compensation fund has paid US$67.8 million to more than 8000 Gulf
Coast residents and businesses on the condition that they agree
not to sue the company for damages stemming from the spill.

In the aftermath of the disaster, commercial and recreational
fishing waters were closed to shipping, the local tourist industry
was damaged and deepwater drilling operations were shut down.

One business received US$10 million, while other recipients
received an average of US$7200 each.  In total, the fund has paid
out more than US$2.6 billion to 467,889 claimants, including
thousands of emergency payments to recipients who have not waived
their right to sue BP.


BP PLC: Cost of Losing Class-Actions Difficult to Estimate
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that as the Gulf oil spill gushed out
of control, BP's financial liabilities seemed big enough to sink
the company.  No more.

Cleanup, government fines, lawsuits, legal fees and damage claims
will likely exceed the $40 billion that BP has publicly estimated,
according to an Associated Press analysis.  But they'll be far
below the highest estimates made over the summer by legal experts
and prominent Wall Street banks, such as Goldman Sachs, which said
costs could near $200 billion.

BP will survive the worst oil spill in U.S. history for several
key reasons: it has little debt; its global businesses are
forecast to generate $26 billion this year in cash flow from
operations; the environmental impact of the spill isn't as bad as
feared; and the government seems unlikely to ban BP from Gulf
drilling.  To bolster its finances, BP has cut its dividend,
issued debt and sold more than $21 billion in assets.

"It could have been a lot worse," says Tyler Priest, a University
of Houston petroleum historian who serves on President Obama's oil
spill investigation committee.  "BP is going to come back from
this."

Many influential investors appear to agree.  According to Thomson
Reuters, 23 firms with $1 billion or more invested in the stock
market, including BlackRock Investment Management, Managed Account
Advisors and Rydex Security Global Investors, more than doubled
their holdings of BP stock from July through September.

BP shares traded around $44.11 on Dec. 29.  AP notes BP's stock
price has risen 63% from its low of $27.02 on June 25.  It's still
down 27% from its close of $60.48 on April 20, the day of the
spill.  The well was capped on July 15.

The AP analysis shows the company is likely to face $38 billion to
$60 billion in spill-related costs.  A settlement with the federal
government could reduce that amount, while a successful class-
action lawsuit could add billions more.

The analysis includes:

   -- The $10.7 billion that BP already has paid to plug its well,
clean up the spilled oil and pay damage claims and other costs.

   -- A $20 billion fund that BP set up in August for individuals
and private businesses that were affected by the spill.  The fund,
known as the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, pays for environmental
damage, personal injury, cleanup and lost earnings.  The fund so
far has paid $2.7 billion to address nearly 168,000 claims.
Nearly half a million individuals and businesses have filed
claims, and those that settle with the fund give up their right to
sue the company.  If any of the $20 billion is left over, it goes
back to BP.

   -- Fines: The Justice Department is suing BP for violating the
Clean Water Act.  Fines are based on how much oil was spilled.
The government's estimate of 4.9 million barrels means BP faces
between $5.4 billion and $21.1 billion in fines.  The upper limit
applies if investigators conclude BP acted with gross negligence.
The government has a history of settling with companies for as
little as 50 cents on the dollar in order to avoid lengthy
disputes, says Eric Schaeffer, former head of the Environmental
Protection Agency's enforcement division.

   -- Legal fees: BP has hired lawyers, engineers and geologists
to defend the company.  These experts could cost as much as $2
billion, according to Mitratech Inc., a consulting firm that
handles legal and trial logistics for Fortune 500 companies.

   -- Lawsuits: The toughest costs to estimate are future
settlements and judgments from the hundreds of lawsuits filed
against BP, including any class actions.  Shrimpers, oystermen,
charter-boat operators, restaurant workers and real-estate
developers are suing BP for lost business.  Oil rig workers and
cleanup crews are making personal injury claims.  And Gulf states
and local governments are expected to sue for lost tax revenue and
environmental damages.  Alabama is seeking an initial $148 million
from BP.  Analysts at Citigroup say settlements, judgments and
punitive damages from these suits will total as much as $6
billion.

Legal experts caution that the unpredictability of juries makes it
difficult to estimate the cost of losing a class-action lawsuit.
A successful class-action could easily double the Citigroup
estimate for total legal liabilities, says Alexandra Lahav, a
University of Connecticut professor who studies such lawsuits.

BP may be able to spread the spill's costs around.  Minority
partners Anadarko Petroleum Corp. and MOEX 2007 LLC own 35 percent
of the operation, and rig owner Transocean Ltd. also may be asked
to pay.  "Companies have the incentive to settle with BP to put
the matter behind them," FBR analyst Robert MacKenzie says.  He
expects BP to get as much as $2 billion from Transocean and as
much as $4 billion from Anadarko.

Since the spill, BP has moved aggressively to shore up its
finances.

The company suspended its quarterly dividend of 84 cents a share,
which cost it $10.5 billion in 2009.  It also raised $21 billion
in asset sales that include: $7 billion for its stake in Pan
American Energy; $7 billion for oil fields in the U.S., Canada and
Egypt; $1.9 billion for its Colombian exploration business; and
$1.8 billion for assets in Vietnam and Venezuela.  BP also raised
$3.5 billion in an Oct. 1. bond sale.

From April through June, when BP's stock was tanking, Fred Fromm,
who manages a natural resources fund for Franklin Templeton
Investments, scooped up 170,000 shares.  Their value climbed by
more than $2 million in the third quarter.

A few weeks after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and sank,
scientists worried the oil slick would reach the Gulf's Loop
Current, which sweeps around Florida and up the East Coast.
Beaches would be damaged along the way.  But BP got lucky.  Gulf
winds kept shifting, which kept the oil concentrated in the waters
south of Louisiana, said David Hollander, a University of South
Florida chemical oceanographer.  And hurricanes mostly avoided the
region.

Scientists disagree about how much oil remains in the Gulf, but
already the streaky sheens of oil on the surface are mostly gone.
The more oil that remains, the greater the potential for
environmental lawsuits.

Whatever remains, "it won't impact their long-term ability to do
business," says Citigroup oil analyst Mark Fletcher.

Exxon dealt with lawsuits for decades after its Valdez supertanker
ran aground and spilled 11 million gallons of crude into Alaska's
Prince William Sound in 1989.  The spill cost Exxon $4.5 billion
-- nearly half of which went to clean up the oil.  The rest was
spent on payments to residents and businesses, punitive damages
and settlements with the government.

Exxon never lost its perch among industry leaders, and BP won't
either, says Citigroup's Mr. Fletcher.  BP remains among the top
oil drillers in a world that runs on petroleum, and that may be
the best way to judge the company's lasting power.

"Did (Valdez) stop anyone from buying Exxon gasoline? No.  Exxon's
results are better than anyone's on a multiyear basis,"
Mr. Fletcher said.


BRAZILIAN BLOWOUT: Sued in California for Fraudulent Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action seeks
millions of dollars for fraudulent marketing of Brazilian Blowout
Solution, a pricey hair straightener that goes for $250 a bottle.
The class claims the defendants -- GIB LLC, Brand Building
Communications, and Brazilian Blowout -- say the stuff contains no
formaldehyde -- but it does.

A rash of similar complaints has been filed in courts around the
country.  The class in San Diego claims the defendants falsely
advertise that the product "Contains No Formaldehyde!!" had "No
Harsh Chemicals" and is "Formaldehyde Free."

These false claims induced class members to pay the extra money,
believing that it was safe to apply Brazilian Blowout without
gloves and masks, even for people who are sensitive to
formaldehyde, according to the complaint.

The false claims were devastating to professional hair stylists
who used it in the course of business and harmed customers and
lost business from it, according to the two named plaintiffs, both
of them owners of hair salons.

Class representatives Jennifer Acitelli Meints and Diana Salinas
seek more than $5 million in class damages for fraud by omission,
unjust enrichment, breach of warranty, intentional
misrepresentation, false advertising and violation of business
laws.

A copy of the Complaint in Meints, et al. v. GIB, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 37-2010-00063019 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/28/Brazilian.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gene Williams, Esq.
          Mark P. Pifko, Esq.
          Theodore O'Reilly, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5637
          E-mail: gwilliams@initiativelegal.com
                  mpifko@initiativelegal.com
                  toreilly@initiativelegal.com


CALAMOS INVESTMENTS: Faces ARPS Class Suit for Fund Unit
--------------------------------------------------------
Calamos Investments disclosed in a December 27, 2010, Form 8-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a law
firm has re-filed a putative class action lawsuit, previously
announced on August 16, 2010 and later voluntarily dismissed, on
behalf of an asserted class of common shareholders of Calamos
Convertible and High Income Fund (NYSE:CHY), alleging breach of
fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and
unjust enrichment in connection with the redemption of auction
rate preferred securities by CHY following the collapse of auction
markets in February 2008. The named defendants include CHY itself,
the current and former trustees of CHY, Calamos Advisors LLC and
Calamos Asset Management, Inc.

Calamos Advisors and Calamos Asset Management believe that the
lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend themselves
vigorously against these charges.

Calamos Investments -- http://www.calamos.com/-- is a globally
diversified investment firm offering equity, fixed-income,
convertible and alternative investment strategies, among others.
The firm serves institutions and individuals around the world via
separately managed accounts and a family of open-end and closed-
end funds, providing a risk-managed approach to capital
appreciation and income-producing strategies.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Tepper Law Firm Files YieldPlus Individual Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Law Firm of Mark A. Tepper, P.A. has filed
individual claims against Charles Schwab (Nasdaq: SCHW), alleging
the discount brokerage firm misrepresented that the Schwab
YieldPlus Fund was suitable as "a smart alternative for your
cash."

The claims, filed with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(FINRA), allege that Schwab trained its agents to sell YieldPlus
as a "smart alternative for your cash."

"However, unlike cash and money market funds, YieldPlus' portfolio
held large positions in long term securities which exposed the
portfolio to substantial market risk," the claims allege.

That market risk was realized when, "YieldPlus posted steep losses
in 2007-2008, during the financial collapse, because more than
half its portfolio holdings were mortgage backed and asset backed
securities," the claims contend.

The claims allege that Schwab encouraged retail customers like the
Claimants, to hold onto their YieldPlus shares and that "In
contrast, Schwab was liquidating YieldPlus from its other mutual
funds, as well as its funds operated for the benefit of Schwab
senior management."

"Its liquidation of YieldPlus for its executives clearly shows
Schwab putting its own financial interests ahead of Claimant's.
Schwab was selling its YieldPlus to get out before the inevitable
YieldPlus crash, leaving Claimant and others to suffer the
losses," the claims contend.

Requests from Charles Schwab YieldPlus Fund investors, to opt out
of the YieldPlus Class Action lawsuit and have their case handled
individually, must be postmarked no later than January 14, 2011.


CIENA CORP: Appeals Still Pending in Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ciena Corporation disclosed in its Dec. 22, 2010, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended October 31, 2010, that appeals remain pending from the
final approval of its settlement of a securities class action
lawsuit.

As a result of its June 2002 merger with ONI Systems Corp., the
company became a defendant in a securities class action lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York in August 2001. The complaint named ONI,
certain former ONI officers, and certain underwriters of ONI's
initial public offering as defendants, and alleges, among other
things, that the underwriter defendants violated the securities
laws by failing to disclose alleged compensation arrangements
(such as undisclosed commissions or stock stabilization practices)
in ONI's registration statement and by engaging in manipulative
practices to artificially inflate ONI's stock price after the IPO.
The complaint also alleges that ONI and the named former officers
violated the securities laws by failing to disclose the
underwriters' alleged compensation arrangements and manipulative
practices. No specific amount of damages has been claimed.

Similar complaints have been filed against more than 300 other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998, and all
of these actions have been included in a single coordinated
proceeding. The former ONI officers have been dismissed from the
action without prejudice. In July 2004, following mediated
settlement negotiations, the plaintiffs, the issuer defendants
(including Ciena), and their insurers entered into a settlement
agreement. The settlement agreement did not require Ciena to pay
any amount toward the settlement or to make any other payments.
While the partial settlement was pending approval, the plaintiffs
continued to litigate their cases against the underwriter
defendants. In October 2004, the district court certified a class
with respect to the Section 10(b) claims in six "focus cases"
selected out of all of the consolidated cases, which cases did not
include Ciena, and which decision was appealed by the underwriter
defendants to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On February 15, 2005, the district court granted the motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, subject to
certain modifications, and on August 31, 2005, the district court
issued a preliminary order approving the revised stipulated
settlement agreement. On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court's grant
of class certification in the six focus cases. On April 6, 2007,
the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing. In
light of the Second Circuit's decision, the parties agreed that
the settlement could not be approved. On June 25, 2007, the
district court approved a stipulation filed by the plaintiffs and
the issuer defendants terminating the proposed settlement. On
August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed second amended complaints
against the defendants in the six focus cases. On September 27,
2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification based
on their amended complaints and allegations. On March 26, 2008,
the district court denied motions to dismiss the second amended
complaints filed by the defendants in the six focus cases, except
as to Section 11 claims raised by those plaintiffs who sold their
securities for a price in excess of the initial offering price and
those who purchased outside the previously certified class period.
Briefing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
focus cases was completed in May 2008. That motion was withdrawn
without prejudice on October 10, 2008. On April 2, 2009, a
stipulation and agreement of settlement between the plaintiffs,
issuer defendants and underwriter defendants was submitted to the
Court for preliminary approval. The Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval and preliminarily certified the
settlement classes on June 10, 2009. The settlement fairness
hearing was held on September 10, 2009. On October 6, 2009, the
Court entered an opinion granting final approval to the settlement
and directing that the Clerk of the Court close these actions.

Notices of appeal of the opinion granting final approval have been
filed. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation and because
the settlement remains subject to appeal, the ultimate outcome of
the matter is uncertain.


FIJI WATER: Faces Class Action Over Carbon Negative Claim
---------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Leader reports Fiji Water Company has been named in
a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in Santa
Ana, Calif. that alleges the company has profited by greenwashing
claims that its water products are carbon negative -- which means
that the production, packaging and shipment of the water removes
more carbon pollution from the atmosphere than it releases into
it.

The lawsuit was brought by the Newport Beach, Calif.-based Newport
Trial Group on behalf of Desiree Worthington and other similarly
situated individuals to seek restitution for "the false claims
from which [Fiji Water Company has] richly profited."

According to the complaint, Fiji Water Company has gained
significant market share from its carbon negative claim:

"This case is very simple: Defendants convince consumers to buy
their "FIJI" brand of bottled water -- and to pay more for FIJI
than for competing brands -- by advertising and labeling FIJI as
"The World's Only CARBON NEGATIVE bottled water".  In other words,
Defendants claim that they remove more carbon pollution from our
atmosphere than they release into it.  In reality, however, FIJI
water is not "Carbon Negative."  Instead, Defendants justify this
claim by employing a discredited carbon accounting method known as
"forward crediting."  Thus, Defendants do not remove more carbon
pollution than they create; they simply claim credit for carbon
removal that may or may not take place -- up to several decades in
the future."

Fiji Water received a slew of unfavorable green press in 2007
after being featured in a TriplePundit article and a Fast Company
article.

Following that, the company said it would account for the carbon
footprint throughout the entire lifecycle of its products and
then, through a combination of reductions, "carbon-reducing land
use" and renewable energy projects, would make the production and
sale of each bottle of Fiji Water result in a net reduction of
carbon in the atmosphere of 20 percent.

But the complaint alleges that the carbon negative claim does not
apply to Fiji Water's current operations, but instead to offsets
for future carbon emissions.  It alleges:

"To reduce their carbon footprint, corporations purchase carbon
"offset credits," which is a generic term for any tradable
certificate or permit representing the right of the purchaser to
emit one ton of carbon dioxide.  "Standard offset credits"
represent carbon reductions that have already taken place.  By
contrast, "forward offset credits" represent carbon reductions
that may or may not take place up to several decades in the
future."

Fiji has previously said that offsets generated over 30 years will
be used to meet Fiji's "carbon negative in 2008? commitment.

Fiji Water which recently faced a standoff with the military
government of the island nation that provides their water and
their name, has not commented on the suit.  In December, the
company threatened to leave Fiji and take hundreds of jobs with
it, if the Fijian government didn't repeal an increase in its
"extraction tax" from .33 cents to 15 cents per bottle of water.
The government stood firm, and the company decided to stay put and
pay the tax.  It remains to be seen whether the company also
stands pat on its carbon negative claim.


GMAC LLC: May Face Class Action Over Wrongful Foreclosure
---------------------------------------------------------
Henni Espinosa, writing for ABS-CBN North America News Bureau,
reports it's now seldom that the Riformo family gets to share a
meal in one house.

Since they were evicted from their 5-bedroom home in El Sobrante,
California in July, Maria, Hailey and their 4 children have been
living apart.

The Riformos said they never expected their dream home to be
foreclosed by their lender, GMAC, because they were put on a trial
loan modification program.

From $4,000 a month -- Maria said their lender lowered their
payments to $2,500.  Maria added that they never missed the
payments and they always paid on time.

But when their payment was rejected in January, Maria said she and
her husband became worried.

"I called them and asked them what happened.  They told me our
house was sold.  I said 'what?' I was surprised," shared Maria.

In July, the sheriff paid a visit to the Riformos and posted an
eviction notice for the family.

They were forced to cram all their belongings in storage.  They
were given just 2 weeks to leave their home.

Maria and husband Hailey now lives in one of the rooms in a care
home they own.  Their eldest Matthew had to move out.

Matthew said, "Well basically we got separated.  I had to stop
school to start work with 2 jobs and then sometimes I barely get
to see them nowadays, usually I get to see them a lot on a daily
basis."

Matthew's other siblings live in another care home that the
Riformos operate.

"It seems like were not as happy as we use to be.  The kids were
affected," said Maria.

The Riformos have filed a complaint before the District Attorney's
Office against GMAC.  They are also calling on other victims of
wrongful foreclosure cases to band together with them for a class
action lawsuit against GMAC.

Balitang America tried to contact GMAC.  They have yet to respond
to the Riformos' case.

Maria said, "This is about getting justice, about doing what's
right.  This is about knowing that you should not give up when you
know your home is worth fighting for."


HARRIS COUNTY: Sued in Calif. for Not Paying Overtime to Nurses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
the Harris County Hospital District stiffs nurses for overtime.

A copy of the Complaint in Ihegword, et al. v. Harris County
Hospital District, et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____ (S.D. Tex.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/28/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
          ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
          One Arena Place
          7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920
          Houston, TX 77074
          Telephone: (713) 223-1300
          E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Negotiating Settlement of "Sewell" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc., is negotiating a potential settlement
of a class action filed against one of the Company's subsidiaries
in Florida, according to the Company's Dec. 22, 2010 Form 10-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended October 31, 2010.

A subsidiary of the company has been named as a defendant in a
purported class action suit filed on May 30, 2007, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida captioned
Randolph Sewell, et al., v. D'Allesandro & Woodyard, et al.,
alleging violations of the federal securities acts, among other
allegations, in connection with the sale of some of the
subsidiary's homes in Fort Myers, Florida.

The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Oct. 19, 2007.  The
Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of certain home purchasers
in southwestern Florida and sought damages, rescission of certain
purchase agreements, restitution of out-of-pocket expenses, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The company's subsidiary filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended
complaint on Dec. 14, 2007.  Following oral argument on the Motion
in September 2008, the court dismissed the amended complaint with
leave for the Plaintiffs to amend.

The Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on Oct. 31, 2008.
The company's subsidiary filed a Motion to Dismiss the second
amended complaint.  The Court dismissed portions of the second
amended complaint.  The Court dismissed additional portions of the
second amended complaint on April 28, 2010.

The Company has had negotiations with the plaintiffs recently to
settle the case.  Based on the negotiations the Company accrued an
immaterial amount for the potential settlement based on its
assessment of the outcome.

Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.khov.com/-- designs,
constructs, markets and sells single-family detached homes,
attached townhomes and condominiums, mid-rise and high-rise
condominiums, urban infill and active adult homes in planned
residential developments.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Mediation on Consolidated Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company has agreed to mediation of a
consolidated class action lawsuit pending in Missouri, according
to the Company's December 27, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2010.

On Feb. 3, 2009, plaintiff Harold Crocker filed a putative class-
action complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri captioned Crocker v. KV
Pharmaceutical Co., et al., No. 4-09-cv-198-CEJ.  The Crocker case
was followed shortly thereafter by two similar cases, also in the
Eastern District of Missouri:

     (1) Bodnar v. KV Pharmaceutical Co., et al.,
         No. 4:09-cv-00222-HEA, filed on Feb. 9, 2009, and

     (2) Knoll v. KV Pharmaceutical Co., et al.,
         No. 4:09-cv-00297-JCH, filed on Feb. 24, 2009.

The two later cases were consolidated into Crocker so that only a
single action now exists, and the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint on June 26, 2009.  The Complaint purports to
state claims against the company and certain current and former
employees for alleged breach of fiduciary duties to participants
in the company's 401(k) plan.  Defendants, including the company
and certain of its directors and officers, moved to dismiss the
amended complaint on Aug. 25, 2009, and briefing of those motions
was completed on Oct. 19, 2009.

The court granted the motion to dismiss of the company and all
individual defendants on March 24, 2010.

A motion to alter or amend the judgment and second amended
consolidated complaint was filed on April 21, 2010.  The company,
on May 17, 2010, filed a Memorandum in Opposition to plaintiff's
motion to alter or amend the judgment and for leave to amend the
consolidated complaint.  On October 20, 2010, the Court denied
plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the judgment and for leave to
amend the complaint.  Plaintiffs have requested mediation and the
Company has agreed to this request.

K-V Pharmaceutical Company -- http:/www.kvpharmaceutical.com/ --
is a fully-integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures, markets, and acquires technology-
distinguished branded prescription pharmaceutical products.  The
company markets its technology-distinguished products through
Ther-Rx Corporation, its branded drug subsidiary.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: ERISA and WARN Act Class Suit Now Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company disclosed in its December 27, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, that an ERISA and WARN
Act class action lawsuit filed by John Foster has been concluded.

The Company was named as a defendant in an ERISA and Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act putative class action
filed on March 12, 2009, in the U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Missouri styled John Foster on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. KV Pharmaceutical Company. The
putative class action is being brought on behalf of terminated or
laid off employees who allegedly were not provided sixty days
advance written notice as required by the WARN Act. Service was
received on April 8, 2009. A motion to dismiss or in the
alternative a motion for summary judgment was filed on April 28,
2009 and on March 12, 2010, the court dismissed the case with
prejudice pursuant to the Company's motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, for summary judgment. The time for filing an appeal
has passed and the matter is concluded.

K-V Pharmaceutical Company -- http:/www.kvpharmaceutical.com/ --
is a fully-integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures, markets, and acquires technology-
distinguished branded prescription pharmaceutical products.  The
company markets its technology-distinguished products through
Ther-Rx Corporation, its branded drug subsidiary.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company and its subsidiary ETHEX Corp. are
named defendants in at least 47 pending product liability lawsuits
that relate to the voluntary product recalls initiated by the
Company in late 2008 and early 2009. The plaintiffs in these
lawsuits allege damages as a result of the ingestion of
purportedly oversized tablets allegedly distributed in 2007 and
2008. The lawsuits are pending in federal and state courts in
various jurisdictions. The 47 pending lawsuits include 7 that have
settled but have not yet been dismissed. In the 47 pending
lawsuits, one plaintiff alleges economic harm, 37 plaintiffs
allege that a death occurred, and the plaintiffs in the remaining
lawsuits allege non-fatal physical injuries. Plaintiffs'
allegations of liability are based on various theories of
recovery, including, but not limited to strict liability,
negligence, various breaches of warranty, misbranding, fraud and
other common law and/or statutory claims. Plaintiffs seek
substantial compensatory and punitive damages. One of the lawsuits
is a putative class action, one of the lawsuits is on behalf of 29
claimants, and the remaining lawsuits are individual lawsuits.

The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and is
vigorously defending against them, except where, in its judgment,
settlement is appropriate. In addition to the 47 pending lawsuits,
there are at least 208 pending pre-litigation claims (at least 28
of which involve a death) that may or may not eventually become
lawsuits. Forty-one of these pending pre-suit claims (including 22
death claims) have settled recently, but have not yet been
released. The Company has also resolved a significant number of
related product liability lawsuits and pre-litigation claims. In
addition to self insurance, the Company possesses third-party
product liability insurance, which the Company believes is
applicable to the pending lawsuits and claims.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 27,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010.

K-V Pharmaceutical Company -- http:/www.kvpharmaceutical.com/ --
is a fully-integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures, markets, and acquires technology-
distinguished branded prescription pharmaceutical products.  The
company markets its technology-distinguished products through
Ther-Rx Corporation, its branded drug subsidiary.


NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Compliance of Suit Settlement Hit Snags
---------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation continues to be involved in
litigation related to a settlement of a 1992 class action,
according to the company's Dec. 22, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended October 31, 2010.

In April 2010, the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America and others filed a "Motion of
Plaintiffs Art Shy, UAW, et al for an Injunction to Compel
Compliance with the Settlement Agreement."  The Shy Motion is
pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
The Shy Motion seeks to enjoin the company from implementing an
administrative change relating to prescription drug benefits under
a healthcare plan for Medicare eligible retirees -- Part D Change.
Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that the Part D Change violates the
terms of a June 1993 settlement agreement previously approved by
the Court.  That Settlement Agreement resolved a class action
originally filed in 1992 regarding the restructuring of the
company's then applicable retiree health care and life insurance
benefits.  The Part D Change was effective July 1, 2010, and made
the company's prescription drug coverage for post-65 retirees --
Plan 2 or Medicare-eligible retirees -- supplemental to the
coverage provided by Medicare.  Plan 2 retirees now pay the
premiums for Medicare Part D drug coverage.  For drugs that are
covered by Medicare Part D, Plan 2 supplements that coverage
through a "buy down" of co-payments to the amounts in place prior
to the Part D Change.

In May 2010, the Company filed its Opposition to the Shy Motion.

In June 2010, Navistar filed a separate Complaint in the Court
relating to the Settlement Agreement.  In the Complaint, the
Company argues that it has not received the consideration that it
was promised in the Settlement Agreement -- specifically, that the
Company's APBO for health benefits would be "permanently reduced"
to approximately $1 billion.  The Company, therefore, seeks a
declaration from the Court that it is not required to fund or
provide retiree health benefits that would cause its APBO to
exceed the approximate $1 billion amount provided in the
Settlement Agreement.


NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Faces Five Suits Over 6.0L Diesel Engine
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation is facing five class action
lawsuits filed by owners and lessees of model year 2003-07 Ford
vehicles powered by the 6.0L Power Stroke(R) engine, according to
the company's Dec. 22, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
October 31, 2010.

In November 2010, Brandon Burns filed a putative class action
lawsuit against Navistar, Inc., and Ford in federal court for the
Southern District of California. The Burns Action seeks to certify
a class of California owners and lessees of model year 2003-07
Ford vehicles powered by the 6.0L Power Stroke(R) engine that
Navistar, Inc., previously supplied to Ford. Burns alleges that
the engines in question have design and manufacturing defects. The
theories of liability asserted against Navistar are negligent
performance of contractual duty (related to Navistar's former
contract with Ford), unfair competition, and unjust enrichment.
For relief, the Burns Action seeks dollar damages sufficient to
remedy the alleged defects, compensate the alleged damages
incurred by the proposed class, and compensate plaintiffs'
counsel. The Burns Action also asks the Court to award punitive
damages and restitution/disgorgement.

Since the filing of the Burns Action, four additional putative
class action lawsuits have been filed in federal courts by the
same plaintiff's attorney representing Mr. Burns in the Burns
Action. The Additional Actions seek to certify in Utah, Arkansas,
Tennessee, and Mississippi, classes similar to the proposed
California class in the Burns Action. Navistar has not yet been
served in the Mississippi case, but has obtained a copy of the
complaint. The theories of liability and relief sought in the
Additional Actions are substantially similar to the Burns Action.


NU HORIZONS: Awaits Court Approval of Merger-Related Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nu Horizons Electronics Corp. is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit related to its
merger with Arrow Electronics, Inc., according to the company's
Dec. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2010.

After the announcement of the proposed Merger with Arrow on
September 20, 2010, four class action lawsuits were filed against
the Company, its directors, Arrow Electronics, Inc., and a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Arrow.  All of the lawsuits were filed in New
York State Supreme Court in Suffolk County.  By order of the Court
entered on October 29, 2010, the four class actions were
consolidated in the New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County before
the Hon. Elizabeth H. Emerson under the caption In re Nu Horizons
Shareholders Litigation.

Also on October  29, 2010, the Court (Emerson, J.) entered an
order appointing the law firms of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd,
LLP, Robbins Umeda, LLP, and Levy & Korsinsky, LLP as Co-Lead
Counsel for the plaintiffs in the Action.

Following extensive document production by the defendants to the
plaintiffs' counsel, the plaintiffs' counsel alleged that there
were certain additional disclosures that they believed the
defendants should make in connection with the Merger.  While the
defendants believe that the original proxy statement disclosed all
material facts concerning the proposed transaction and complied
with all applicable laws and regulations, the parties' counsel
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated November 12,
2010, pursuant to which the defendants agreed to make certain
additional disclosures proposed by the plaintiffs in order to
settle the Action and avoid the burden, expense and uncertainty of
further litigation.  The supplemental disclosures were made on
November 15, 2010.

Although the parties have reached an agreement to settle the
Action, as memorialized in the Memorandum of Understanding, final
settlement of the Action is subject to certain conditions that
remain to be satisfied, including final approval by the Court.
Furthermore, the defendants have the right to terminate the
settlement in the event that more than eight percent of the common
stockholders of Nu Horizons elect to opt out of the settlement.


ORACLE CORPORATION: Consolidated Securities Litigation Concluded
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oracle Corporation disclosed in its Dec. 21, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended November 30, 2010, that a consolidated securities
class action litigation against some of its officers has finally
been concluded.

Stockholder class actions were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the company
and its Chief Executive Officer on and after March 9, 2001.
Between March 2002 and March 2003, the court dismissed plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint, first amended complaint and a revised
second amended complaint. The last dismissal was with prejudice.
On September 1, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case
for further proceedings. The revised second amended complaint
named the company's Chief Executive Officer, its then Chief
Financial Officer (who currently is Chairman of its Board of
Directors) and a former Executive Vice President as defendants.
This complaint was brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period from December 14, 2000 through
March 1, 2001. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false
and misleading statements about the company's actual and expected
financial performance and the performance of certain of its
applications products, while certain individual defendants were
selling Oracle stock in violation of federal securities laws.
Plaintiffs further alleged that certain individual defendants sold
Oracle stock while in possession of material non-public
information. Plaintiffs also allege that the defendants engaged in
accounting violations.

On July 26, 2007, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment,
and plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment against
all defendants and a motion for summary judgment against the
company's Chief Executive Officer. On August 7, 2007, plaintiffs
filed amended versions of these motions. On October 5, 2007,
plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a default judgment against
defendants or various other sanctions because of defendants'
alleged destruction of evidence. A hearing on all these motions
was held on December 20, 2007. On April 7, 2008, the case was
reassigned to a new judge. On June 27, 2008, the court ordered
supplemental briefing on plaintiffs' sanctions motion. On
September 2, 2008, the court issued an order denying plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment against all defendants. The
order also denied in part and granted in part plaintiffs' motion
for sanctions. The court denied plaintiffs' request that judgment
be entered in plaintiffs' favor due to the alleged destruction of
evidence, and the court found that no sanctions were appropriate
for several categories of evidence. The court found that sanctions
in the form of adverse inferences were appropriate for two
categories of evidence: e-mails from the company's Chief Executive
Officer's account, and materials that had been created in
connection with a book regarding its Chief Executive Officer.  The
court then denied defendants' motion for summary judgment and
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against the company's
Chief Executive Officer and directed the parties to revise and
re-file these motions to clearly specify the precise contours of
the adverse inferences that should be drawn, and to take these
inferences into account with regard to the propriety of summary
judgment. The court also directed the parties to address certain
legal issues in the briefing.

On October 13, 2008, the parties participated in a court-ordered
mediation, which did not result in a settlement. On October 20,
2008, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and
plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment against the
company's Chief Executive Officer. The parties also filed several
motions challenging the admissibility of the testimony of various
expert witnesses. Opposition briefs were filed on November 17,
2008, and reply briefs were filed on December 12, 2008. A hearing
on all these motions was held on February 13, 2009.

On June 16, 2009, the court issued an order granting defendants'
motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment against the company's Chief Executive Officer,
and it entered a judgment dismissing the entire case with
prejudice. On July 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
Plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief on November 30,
2009. Defendants filed their opposition brief on February 4, 2010,
and plaintiffs filed their reply on March 15, 2010. The court
heard oral argument on July 13, 2010. On November 16, 2010, the
court issued an opinion, affirming the lower court's grant of
summary judgment. On November 30, 2010, plaintiffs filed a
petition for rehearing. On December 9, 2010, the parties filed a
joint motion with the appellate court, seeking dismissal of the
petition with each party to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs
in the action. On December 13, 2010, the appellate court issued an
order dismissing the petition for rehearing. This order represents
the final conclusion of this litigation.


PARISH OF JEFFERSON: Sued Over Unpaid Indigent Transcript Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that court
reporters in suburban New Orleans have been forced to prepare
transcripts of indigents' criminal appeals for free for more than
a year, and "have been threatened with contempt of court and jail
time if they do not continue to work without pay," they say in a
federal class action.  "Many of the proposed class members are
owed thousands of dollars or more in unpaid transcript fees,"
according to the complaint.

The lead defendant is Jefferson Parish, which includes most of the
suburbs of New Orleans.

Lead plaintiff Vincent Borrello Jr. has been a court reporter
since 1999.  According to his complaint, "On March 16, 2010,
Deputy Judicial Administrator John Andressen sent correspondence
to the proposed class members, among others, noting that:
'Presently court reporters in the 24th Judicial District Court are
not being paid for transcripts prepared for indigent defendants
whose cases are on appeal.  The fund that these transcripts were
paid out of ran out of money in December 2009.  The 24th JDC is
current working on a solution to this problem and hopes to have a
resolution in the next few months.'"

But the class claims they "should not be involuntarily forced to
pay the costs of indigent appeals from that parish, which the
defendants are required by law to pay."

The other defendants are the 24th Judicial District Public
Defender Office, the Louisiana Appellate Project and the Louisiana
Public Defender Board.

Court reporters "have had difficulty being paid for preparing
indigent appeal transcripts since at least the end of 2006, when
defendants stopped paying for transcripts," the class claims.
Even when money for indigent transcripts does come through, it is
seldom enough to pay for the transcripts already prepared, and the
cost of preparing transcripts can be substantial.

In 2007 the defendants received a $50,000 grant to pay for
indigent transcripts.  "However, the grant money ran out again
sometime in approximately October of 2007.  Defendants started
paying for indigent appeal transcripts again in January 2008.
Again, defendants stopped paying for transcripts in August 2008,"
according to the complaint.

Under Louisiana law, court reporters are appointed by the judges
of the court they serve.

"They generally serve at the pleasure of the court, and are
required to attend the civil and criminal sessions of the district
court and 'shall be subject to the orders of the judges of the
court.'  They are required to take down testimony, objections and
rulings thereon, and all matters which may be directed by the
judge of the court," according to the complaint.

The complaint adds: "The statute sets out the payment to court
reporters for transcribed pages of the transcript on appeal.  By
recent amendment of the statute, enacted after plaintiffs and the
proposed class members already had been ordered to prepare appeal
transcripts and actually prepared other transcripts, fees for
transcripts in criminal appeals by indigents 'shall be charged to
and paid from any fund established by law for the payment of
expenses incurred in the defense of indigent persons in criminal
proceedings."

The class claims that "although newly enacted provisions of the
statute allow for a $2 filing fee per case to assist in the
payment of transcript fees, this is no indication as to how such
money will be disbursed or when plaintiffs and the proposed class
members will be paid.

"Additionally, there is no reasonable or practical expectation
that with tens of thousands of dollars being owed and continuing
to grow with new appeals being granted that the $2 fee could
accumulate to cover these debts.  But, pursuant to the Deputy
Judicial Administrator and the Court of Appeal's previous
directives, the reporters are supposed to continue to transcribe
these cases without compensation."

The court reporters "have continued to provide transcripts for
indigent appeals but have not been paid for their work, as agreed,
since October 2009.  The proposed class members have been
threatened with contempt of court and possible jail time if they
do not prepare appeal transcripts, even though they have not been
paid and there is no assurance as to when or if they will be
paid."

The Public Defender Office is a defendant because "the Public
Defender Office administers funds received from Jefferson Parish
and other sources, and is responsible for paying court reporters,
including plaintiff and the proposed class representatives, for
transcribing transcripts."

The defendant Louisiana Appellate Project gets its funding for
indigent appeal transcripts from the Louisiana Public Defender
Board, which was created in August 2007, "and administers the
Public Defender Fund, which supports all 42 judicial districts,"
and also receives funding from the Public Defender's Offices from
which cases originate.

"The Louisiana State Constitution guarantees that when any person
has been arrested or detained in connection with the investigation
or commission of any offense, he shall be advised of his right to
the assistance of counsel and, if indigent, his right to court-
appointed counsel.  At each stage of the proceedings, every person
is entitled to assistance of counsel of his choice, or appointed
by the court if he is indigent and charged with an offense
punishable by imprisonment," according to the complaint.

The class adds that even criminal defendants who are not poor file
for indigent status.  They cite the case of the rapper C-Murder,
who was sentenced to life in prison for killing a teen-age fan at
a nightclub: "In the recent 'C-Murder' second-degree murder
appeal, the defendant, Corey 'C-Murder' Miller requested indigent
status to avoid paying the costs associated with his appeal,
including an estimated $17,000 for transcripts," the complaint
states, citing a story in The Times Picayune.

The class seeks specific performance, quantum meruit, and damages
for breach of contract, breach of duty and unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in Borrello v. Parish of Jefferson, et
al., Case No. 597203 (La. Dist. Ct., East Baton Rouge Parish), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/28/CourtReporters.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salvador M. Brocato, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SALVADOR M. BROCATO, III, APLC
          800 North Causeway Blvd., Suite 100
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Telephone: (504) 832-7225


QVC: Recalls 14,000 Metallic Spinning Candle Holders
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
QVC, of West Chester, Pa., announced a voluntary recall of about
14,000 metallic spinning candle holders with 12 soy tea lights.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The candle holders can catch fire, posing a fire hazard to
consumers.

The firm has received 19 reports that the candle holders ignited.
Eleven of these reported damage to surrounding surfaces and
furnishings.  Two minor burns and one puncture wound have been
reported.

This recall involves QVC item H189749, a metallic spinning candle
holder with 12 soy tea lights.  The candle holders come in four
colors - red, green, silver and gold.  The candle holder has a
base that holds a tea light and a shade which is attached to the
center of the base by an approximately six inch vertical metal
rod.  When the candle is lit, the shade spins, projecting a
display of moving light on nearby walls and surfaces.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11712.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
QVC's televised shopping programs and its Web site during November
2010 for $25 including shipping and handling.

Consumers should immediately stop using the candle holder.  QVC
has notified consumers who purchased the candle holders through a
QVC television program or QVC.com to stop using the product.
During the week of December 20, 2010, all purchasers will be
mailed instructions on how to receive a full refund.  Consumers
who have not received the information package by January 10, 2011
should contact QVC to receive the information.  For additional
information, contact QVC at (800) 367-9444 between 7:00 a.m. and
1:00 a.m., Eastern Time, any day, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.qvc.com


RICK'S CABARET: Strippers' Class Action Can Move Forward
--------------------------------------------------------
Shayna Jacobs, writing for DNAinfo.com, reports dozens of
strippers will be allowed to advance a $5 million class action
lawsuit against the corporation that owns Rick's Cabaret, a
Midtown strip club, a Manhattan federal judge ruled in a decision
made public on Dec. 29.

The judge said the group of more than 50 strippers have proved
that the strip club's international corporation was their legal
employer -- not the local Rick's Cabaret -- allowing the workers
to chase compensation from the deeper pockets of the club's parent
company, Ricks' Cabaret International, the New York Post reported.

The group of pole-dancing plaintiffs are reportedly alleging that
they were cheated out of money they earned in "dance dollars," a
fake currency redeemable in lap dances.

While working at the West 33rd Street club, they purportedly
received only $18 of the $24 value of the lap dance tickets,
according to the Post's report.

Rick's Cabaret International owns several of strip clubs and over
20 clubs in total nation-wide, according to the company's Web
site.


SCHOLASTIC CORP: Plaintiff Seeks to Shorten Class Period
--------------------------------------------------------
Scholastic Corporation continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action lawsuit alleging securities fraud,
according to the company's Dec. 22, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Nov. 30, 2010.

The Company is party to certain actions originally filed by each
of Alaska Laborer Employers Retirement Fund and Paul Baicu, which
were consolidated on November 8, 2007. On September 26, 2008, the
plaintiff sought leave of the Court to file a second amended class
action complaint, in order to add allegations relating to the
Company's restatement announced in the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K filed on July 30, 2008. The Court thereafter dismissed
the Company's pending motion to dismiss as moot. On October 20,
2008, the plaintiff filed the second amended complaint, and on
October 31, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On September 30, 2010, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for
failure to state a cause of action, while also granting leave to
the plaintiff to move to file a new proposed amended complaint. On
December 1, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a
proposed third amended class action complaint, as well as a motion
to replace Alaska Laborer Employers Retirement Fund with City of
Sterling Heights Police and Fire Retirement System as lead
plaintiff. The proposed third amended class action complaint
shortens the original class action period to end on December 16,
2005 rather than on March 23, 2006, but otherwise continues to
allege securities fraud relating to statements made by the Company
concerning its operations and financial results, now for the
period between March 18, 2005 and December 16, 2005, and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages.

The Company continues to believe that the allegations in such
complaint are without merit and is vigorously defending the
lawsuit.

Scholastic Corporation -- http://www.scholastic.com/-- publishes
and distributes children's books and is a leader in educational
technology and related services and children's media.  Scholastic
creates quality books, print and technology-based learning
materials and programs, magazines, multi-media and other products
that help children learn both at school and at home.  The company
distributes its products and services worldwide through a variety
of channels, including school-based book clubs and book fairs,
retail stores, schools, libraries, on-air, and online.


SMART TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gilman and Pastor, LLP, on December 29 disclosed that a lawsuit
seeking class action status has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
the purchasers of the common stock of Smart Technologies, Inc.
pursuant to the Initial Public Offering on July 20, 2010, or
bought in the open market thereafter, through November 9, 2010,
inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that SMT violated federal securities laws by
failing to disclose the following facts: (i) the recently acquired
NextWindow business was not proceeding according to plan; (ii)
revenues were declining in the second quarter of 2010 as a result.
As a result of Defendants' misleading statements, SMT common stock
traded at artificially high price levels.

In the IPO, Company insiders sold over 30 million shares, out of
the 38.8 million shares sold, realizing tens of millions of
dollars of profit.  Then, on November 9, 2010, SMT announced
weaker-than-expected revenue for the 2010 second quarter.
Consequently, shares of SMT dropped more than 31% on the following
day.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired SMT shares during the Class
Period, between July 20, 2010 and November 9, 2010, and either
lost money on the transaction or still hold the shares, you may
contact Gilman and Pastor by no later than February 1, 2011 to
discuss your rights, including as to the recovery of your losses,
or to obtain additional information, at http://www.investment-
losses.com by email at kgilman@gilmanpastor.com or by calling
toll-free (888)252-0048.

Gilman and Pastor, LLP represents institutional and individual
investors in class actions, complex securities and corporate
governance litigation.


STIHL INCORPORATED: Recalls 5,000 STIHL MS 361C Chain Saws
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
STIHL Incorporated of Virginia Beach, Va., announced a voluntary
recall of about 5,000 STIHL MS 361C chain saws (C-Q version).
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The throttle trigger may stick after it has been released by the
operator, which could cause the engine to continue to run at a
speed that drives the saw chain.  This can pose a risk of a
laceration injury to the user or a bystander.

STIHL has received three reports of the throttle trigger sticking.
No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves chain saws have a rear-handle activated chain
brake (C-Q version) and have an orange top casing, gray base,
black handle and "STIHL MS 361C" printed in an orange circle on
the side of the unit.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11080.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
through authorized STIHL dealers nationwide from February 2004
through August 2009 for about $640.

Consumers should stop using these chain saws immediately and
return them to an authorized STIHL dealer for a free repair.  For
additional information, contact STIHL at (800) 610-6677 between
8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Times, Monday through Friday or
visit STIHL's Web site at http://www.stihlusa.com/


TOLL BROTHERS: Awaits Court Okay of Pennsylvania Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Toll Brothers, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its settlement
with plaintiffs of a lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania, according to
the Company's Dec. 22, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31,
2010.

On April 17, 2007, a securities class action suit was filed
against Toll Brothers, Inc. and Robert I. Toll and Bruce E. Toll
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of the purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between December 9, 2004 and November 8,
2005.  The original plaintiff has been replaced by two new lead
plaintiffs: The City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System and
the Laborers Pension Trust Funds for Northern California.

On August 14, 2007, an amended complaint was filed and the
following individual defendants, who are directors and/or officers
of Toll Brothers, Inc., were added to the suit: Zvi Barzilay, Joel
H. Rassman, Robert S. Blank, Richard J. Braemer, Carl B. Marbach,
Paul E. Shapiro and Joseph R. Sicree.  The amended complaint filed
on behalf of the purported class alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing various materially
false and misleading statements that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the company's stock.
The plaintiffs further allege that the individual defendants sold
shares for substantial gains during the class period.  The
purported class is seeking compensatory damages, counsel fees, and
expert costs.

The parties reached a settlement agreement in October 2010, which
is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  The entire settlement amount will be
funded by the Company's insurers.


TORO COMPANY: Still Evaluating Canada Lawnmower Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The Toro Company continues to evaluate a class action litigation
in Canada over horsepower labels on its lawnmowers, according to
the company's Dec. 22, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Oct. 31, 2010.

In March 2010, individuals who claim to have purchased lawnmowers
in Canada filed class action litigation against the company and
other defendants that (i) contains allegations under applicable
Canadian law that are similar to the allegations made by the
United States plaintiffs, (ii) seeks certification of a class of
all persons in Canada who, beginning January 1, 1994 through the
present, purchased a lawnmower containing a gas combustible engine
up to 30 horsepower that was manufactured or sold by the
defendants, and (iii) seeks under applicable Canadian law
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' costs
and fees, and equitable relief.

Management continues to evaluate this litigation.

The Toro Company -- http://www.toro.com/-- is engaged in
designing, manufacturing and marketing professional turf
maintenance equipment and services, turf and micro irrigation
systems, landscaping equipment, and residential yard products.
The company classifies its operations in two business segments:
professional and residential.  A third segment called other
consists of domestic company-owned distributorships, corporate
functions, and Toro Credit Company, a wholly owned financing
subsidiary.  The company's products are advertised and sold at the
retail level under the trademarks of Toro, Exmark, Irritrol,
Hayter, Pope, Lawn-Boy and Lawn Genie.  Toro manufactures its
products in the United States, Mexico, Australia, Italy, and the
United Kingdom.


TORO COMPANY: Appeal on Lawnmower Suit Settlement Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order approving an agreement entered into
by The Toro Company to settle a consolidated consumer fraud class
action remains pending, according to the company's Dec. 22, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010.

In June 2004, individuals who claim to have purchased lawnmowers
in Illinois and Minnesota filed a class action lawsuit in Illinois
state court against the company and other defendants alleging that
the horsepower labels on the products the plaintiffs purchased
were inaccurate.   Those individuals later amended their complaint
to add additional plaintiffs and an additional defendant.  The
plaintiffs asserted violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and state statutory and
common law claims.  The plaintiffs sought certification of a class
of all persons in the United States who, beginning January 1, 1994
purchased a lawnmower containing a two-stroke or four-stroke gas
combustible engine up to 30 horsepower that was manufactured or
sold by the defendants.  The amended complaint also sought an
injunction, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, treble
damages under RICO, and attorneys' fees.

In May 2006, the case was removed to federal court in the Southern
District of Illinois.

In May 2008, the Court issued a memorandum and order that, among
other things, (i) dismissed the RICO claim in its entirety; and
(ii) dismissed all non-Illinois state-law claims but with
instructions that such claims could be re-filed in local courts.
The plaintiffs subsequently (i) re-filed the Illinois claims with
the court; and (ii) filed non-Illinois claims in federal courts
throughout the U.S. with essentially the same state law claims.

In September 2008, the company and other defendants filed a motion
with the MDL Panel that sought to transfer the multiple actions
for coordinated pretrial proceedings. In December 2008, the MDL
Panel issued an order that (i) transferred the lawsuits for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings; (ii) selected
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin as the transferee district; and (iii) provided that
additional lawsuits would be treated as "tag-along" actions in
accordance with its rules.

In January 2009, at the initial hearing held in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the Court
(i) appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel, and (ii) entered a stay of
all litigation so that the parties could explore mediation. The
company and certain other defendants entered into a settlement
agreement with plaintiffs in February 2010 and, ultimately, all
defendants entered into various settlement agreements with the
plaintiffs. The company's settlement agreement provides for, among
other things, (i) a monetary settlement, (ii) an additional
warranty period for some engines that are subject to the
litigation, and (iii) injunctive relief relating to power rating
labeling practices. The plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the company's settlement agreement and for
certification of the settlement class. The court granted the
motion.

Notice was given to the settlement class and, in June 2010, the
Court conducted a hearing to consider objections from certain
members of the settlement class and to determine whether the
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.  In August 2010, the
Court filed an order and judgment in which it determined that the
company's settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and
approved the settlement.  The Court filed similar orders and
judgments approving the settlements entered into by other
defendants.

Also in August 2010, certain objectors filed notices with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to appeal
the order and judgment approving the company's settlement and the
other orders and judgments approving the settlements with the
other defendants.

The Toro Company -- http://www.toro.com/-- is engaged in
designing, manufacturing and marketing professional turf
maintenance equipment and services, turf and micro irrigation
systems, landscaping equipment, and residential yard products.
The company classifies its operations in two business segments:
professional and residential.  A third segment called other
consists of domestic company-owned distributorships, corporate
functions, and Toro Credit Company, a wholly owned financing
subsidiary.  The company's products are advertised and sold at the
retail level under the trademarks of Toro, Exmark, Irritrol,
Hayter, Pope, Lawn-Boy and Lawn Genie.  Toro manufactures its
products in the United States, Mexico, Australia, Italy, and the
United Kingdom.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Systems, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a third amended
complaint remains pending before the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, according to the company's
Dec. 21, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010.

On or after Dec. 4, 2007, several securities class action claims
were filed against the company and certain of its officers, former
officers, and a former director.  The lawsuits were consolidated
as In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, C 07-6140
MHP.

The original actions were:

     -- Eichenholtz v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al.,
        C 07-6140 MHP;

     -- Lien v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6195 JSW;

     -- Vaughn et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al.,
        C 07-6197 VRW (Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this
        complaint on March 7, 2008);

     -- Feldman et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al.,
        C 07-6218 MMC;

     -- Cerini v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6228 SC;

     -- Westend Capital Management LLC v. VeriFone Holdings,
        Inc. et al., C 07-6237 MMC;

     -- Hill v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6238 MHP;

     -- Offutt v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6241 JSW;

     -- Feitel v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., et al., C 08-0118 CW.

On Aug. 22, 2008, the court appointed plaintiff National Elevator
Fund lead plaintiff and its attorneys lead counsel.  Plaintiff
filed its consolidated amended class action complaint on Oct. 31,
2008, which asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act
Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 for securities fraud and control person
liability against the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors, based on allegations that the
company and the individual defendants made false or misleading
public statements regarding its business and operations during the
putative class periods and seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on Dec. 31, 2008.  The court
granted that motion on May 26, 2009, and dismissed the
consolidated amended class action complaint with leave to amend
within 30 days of the ruling.  The proceedings were stayed pending
a mediation held in October 2009 at which time the parties failed
to reach a mutually agreeable settlement.  Plaintiffs' first
amended complaint was filed on Dec. 3, 2009, followed by a second
amended complaint filed on Jan. 19, 2010.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
and the hearing on that motion was held on May 17, 2010.

In July 2010, prior to any court ruling on the company's motion,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint on the basis that they have newly discovered evidence.
The company's motion to dismiss the third amended complaint is
currently due on Nov. 5, 2010, and a hearing on the company's
motion is set for Feb. 28, 2011.

Although discovery has not yet commenced in this action, on
Nov. 20, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion to partially lift the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act discovery stay in order
to obtain documents produced by the company to the SEC in
connection with the SEC's investigation into the restatement of
the company's fiscal year 2007 interim financial statements.  The
company filed its opposition to this motion in January 2010 and at
a hearing in February 2010 the court denied the plaintiffs' motion
to lift the discovery stay.

No further updates were reported in the company's latest Form
10-K.

VeriFone Systems, Inc. -- http://www.verifone.com/-- is the
global leader in secure electronic payment solutions.  VeriFone
provides expertise, solutions and services that add value to the
point of sale with merchant-operated, consumer-facing and self-
service payment systems for the financial, retail, hospitality,
petroleum, government and healthcare vertical markets.  VeriFone
solutions are designed to meet the needs of merchants, processors
and acquirers in developed and emerging economies worldwide.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Israel Suit Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------
A class action complaint against VeriFone Systems, Inc., in Israel
remains stayed pending resolution of the securities class action
in the U.S., according to the company's Dec. 21, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 31, 2010.

On Jan. 27, 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the
company in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel on
behalf of purchasers of the company's stock on the Tel Aviv Stock
Exchange.  The complaint seeks compensation for damages allegedly
incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of
erroneous financial reports.

The company filed a motion to stay the action, in light of the
proceedings already filed in the United States, on March 31, 2008.
A hearing on the motion was held on May 25, 2008.  Further
briefing in support of the stay motion, specifically with regard
to the threshold issue of applicable law, was submitted on
June 24, 2008.

On Sept. 11, 2008, the Israeli District Court ruled in the
company's favor, holding that U.S. law would apply in determining
the company's liability.  On Oct. 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to appeal the District Court's ruling to the
Israeli Supreme Court.  The company's response to plaintiffs'
appeal motion was filed on Jan. 18, 2009.

The District Court has stayed its proceedings until the Supreme
Court rules on plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal.

On Jan. 27, 2010, after a hearing before the Supreme Court, the
court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal and
addressed the case back to the District Court.  The Supreme Court
instructed the District Court to rule whether the Israeli class
action should be stayed, under the assumption that the applicable
law is U.S. law.

Plaintiff subsequently filed an application for reconsideration of
the District Court's ruling that U.S. law is the applicable law.

Following a hearing on plaintiff's application, on April 12, 2010,
the parties agreed to stay the proceedings pending resolution of
the U.S. securities class action, without prejudice to plaintiff's
right to appeal the District Court's decision regarding the
applicable law to the Supreme Court.

Plaintiff has filed a motion with the Israeli Supreme Court for
leave to appeal the District Court's decision.  No briefing
schedule or hearing date has been set for plaintiff's motion.

VeriFone Systems, Inc. -- http://www.verifone.com/-- is the
global leader in secure electronic payment solutions.  VeriFone
provides expertise, solutions and services that add value to the
point of sale with merchant-operated, consumer-facing and self-
service payment systems for the financial, retail, hospitality,
petroleum, government and healthcare vertical markets.  VeriFone
solutions are designed to meet the needs of merchants, processors
and acquirers in developed and emerging economies worldwide.


WELLCARE HEALTH: Plaintiffs Finalizing Eastwood Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
WellCare Health Plans, Inc., has reached an agreement on the
material terms of a settlement with a group of five public pension
funds appointed by the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida to act as lead plaintiffs in a consolidated
securities class action captioned Eastwood Enterprises, L.L.C. v.
Farha, et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-1940-VMC-EAJ, according to a Form
8-K filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Dec. 23, 2010.

On December 17, 2010, WellCare entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement with the lead plaintiffs finalizing the
terms of the settlement that is intended to resolve all of the
claims that are the subject of the class action.  The Stipulation
Agreement is subject to the approval of the Court following its
filing, notice to all class members and other legally-required
procedural steps.

As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter, putative
class action complaints were filed in October 2007 and in
November 2007.  These putative class actions, entitled Eastwood
Enterprises, L.L.C., v. Farha, et al.; and Hutton v. WellCare
Health Plans, Inc., et al., respectively, were filed in Federal
Court against the Company, Todd Farha, former chairman and chief
executive officer, and Paul Behrens, former senior vice president
and chief financial officer.  Messrs. Farha and Behrens were also
officers of various subsidiaries of the Company.

The Eastwood Enterprises complaint alleges that the defendants
materially misstated the Company's reported financial condition
by, among other things, purportedly overstating revenue and
understating expenses in amounts unspecified in the pleading in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The
Hutton complaint alleges that various public statements supposedly
issued by the defendants were materially misleading because they
failed to disclose that the Company was purportedly operating its
business in a potentially illegal and improper manner in violation
of applicable federal guidelines and regulations.  The complaint
asserts claims under the Exchange Act. Both complaints seek, among
other things, certification as a class action and damages.  The
two actions were consolidated, and various parties and law firms
filed motions seeking to be designated as Lead Plaintiff and Lead
Counsel.

In an Order issued in March 2008, the Federal Court appointed a
group of five public pension funds from New Mexico, Louisiana and
Chicago as Lead Plaintiffs.  In October 2008, an amended
consolidated complaint was filed in this class action asserting
claims against the Company, Messrs. Farha and Behrens, and adding
Thaddeus Bereday, former senior vice president and general
counsel, as a defendant.  In January 2009, the Company and certain
other defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint, arguing, among other things, that the
complaint failed to allege a material misstatement by defendants
with respect to the Company's compliance with marketing and other
health care regulations and failed to plead facts raising a strong
inference of scienter with respect to all aspects of the purported
fraud claim.  The Federal Court denied the motion in September
2009 and the Company and the other defendants filed answer to the
amended consolidated complaint in November 2009.

In April 2010, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification.  On June 18, 2010, the USAO filed motions seeking
to intervene and for a temporary stay of discovery of this matter.
In July 2010, the Federal Court granted the United States' motions
and ordered that discovery be stayed through December 2010.

On August 6, 2010, the Company reached agreement with the Lead
Plaintiffs on the material terms of a settlement to resolve this
matter.  The terms of the settlement are being documented in a
formal settlement agreement that will be subject to approval by
the Federal Court following notice to all class members.  The
settlement provides that the Company will make cash payments to
the class of $52,500,000 within thirty business days following the
Federal Court's preliminary approval of the settlement and
$35,000,000 by July 31, 2011.  The settlement also provides that
the Company will issue to the class tradable unsecured bonds
having an aggregate face value of $112,500,000, with a fixed
coupon of 6% and a maturity date of December 31, 2016.  The bonds
shall also provide that, if the Company incur debt obligations in
excess of $425,000,000 that are senior to the bonds, the bonds
shall accelerate as to payment and be redeemed.  The settlement
has two further contingencies.  First, it provides that if, within
three years following the date of the settlement agreement, the
Company is acquired or otherwise experiences a change in control
at a share price of $30.00 or more, the Company will pay to the
class an additional $25,000,000.  Second, the settlement provides
that the Company will pay to the class 25% of any sums it recovers
from Messrs. Farha, Behrens and Bereday as a result of claims
arising from the same facts and circumstances that gave rise to
this matter.  The Company may terminate the settlement if a
certain number or percentage of the class opt out of the
settlement class.  The settlement agreement will also provide that
the settlement does not constitute an admission of liability by
any party and such other terms as are customarily contained in
settlement agreements of similar matters.

As a result of this settlement having been reached, the company's
current estimate for the resolution of this matter is
$200,000,000.  The company has discounted the $200,000,000
liability for the resolution of this matter and accrued this
amount at its estimated fair value, which amounted to
approximately $194,905,000 at September 30, 2010.  Approximately
$85,520,000 and $109,385,000 have been included in the current and
long-term portions, respectively, of Amounts accrued related to
investigation resolution in the company's Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2010.  There can be no assurance
that the settlement will be finalized and approved and the actual
outcome of this matter may differ materially from the terms of the
settlement.


WELLS CARGO: Class Action Over Foreclosure Fees Can Move Forward
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diane C. Lade, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports a state appeal
court in West Palm Beach has ruled a class-action lawsuit claiming
Plantation attorney David J. Stern charged excessive fees to
homeowners fighting their foreclosures can move forward, three
years after it was first filed.

The 4th District Court of Appeal's opinion upheld an earlier
decision by Palm Beach Circuit Judge Thomas Barkdull.  Judge
Barkdull had granted class action certification to a suit brought
by Boynton Beach electrician Loren Banner against his lender,
Wells Fargo Bank, Stern and Stern's firm, which handled Wells
Fargo's foreclosure work.

The class includes Florida property owners facing foreclosure by
Wells Fargo who received reinstatement letters from Stern's office
between January 2003 and February 2009.  They claim they were
charged excessive fees for title searches and examinations, being
served foreclosure papers, legal work -- and in some cases, were
billed for expenses and mortgage payments not yet due.

"These are people who wanted to save their homes," said West Palm
Beach attorney Louis Silber, who along with attorney Kirk
Friedland is representing the homeowners.  "The improper charges
made it much more difficult for them to reinstate their
mortgages."

Jeffrey Tew, the Miami attorney representing Stern, could not be
reached for comment on Dec. 29 despite several attempts by phone
and e-mail.

The suit claims Stern's foreclosure practices violated state laws
protecting consumers from unfair debt-collection methods and
deceptive trade.  Stern's attorneys had appealed Judge Barkdull's
certification, arguing circumstances would be different for
homeowners whose mortgages had been reinstated and those who lost
their property.

Mr. Silber said between 1,500 and 2,000 borrowers could join the
suit.  The class is limited to those with Wells Fargo loans.  But
some of the practices that the suit alleges generate excessive
fees are common to most large foreclosure law firms, not just
Stern's.

"We think this will have an across-the-board affect," Mr. Silber
said.


ZYNGA GAME: Calif. Judge Appoints Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a decision following contested motion practice, Judge James
Ware, of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, appointed Adam J. Levitt, a partner in the
Chicago office of national class action law firm Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLC as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel in the
recently filed class action lawsuit against Zynga Game Network,
Inc.  In that same Order, Judge Ware also appointed Jonathan Shub,
of Seeger Weiss LLP and Michael Aschenbrener, of Edelson McGuire
LLC, as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel along with Mr. Levitt.

Messrs. Levitt, Shub and Aschenbrener will direct the prosecution
of the named plaintiffs' and the other proposed class members'
claims against Zynga, alleging that Zynga sold, collected, and/or
transmitted the Personally Identifiable Information of tens of
millions of Americans in violation of both federal and state law,
as well as in violation of Zynga's own privacy policy.

In appointing Messrs. Levitt, Shub and Aschenbrener, as Interim
Co-Lead Class Counsel, Judge Ware recognized that those lawyers
were "pioneers in the electronic privacy class action field,
having litigated some of the largest consumer class actions in the
country on this issue," and further recognized that "the
nomination of the Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman and Herz,
Seeger Weiss and Edelson McGuire, LLC is appropriate given the
firms' extensive experience in privacy litigation."

"We are pleased that Judge Ware appointed our proposed leadership
group," Mr. Levitt stated.  "We believe that our group brings to
this litigation an enormous amount of legal talent and experience
in the electronic privacy class action field -- factors we are
confident will be brought to bear in successfully litigating this
case against Zynga and obtaining a favorable result for the
proposed class."

Mr. Levitt and his law firm have a long history of leading complex
class action cases, including many of the seminal cases in the
electronic privacy class action field, including In re Amazon.Com,
Inc./Alexa Internet Privacy Litigation, In re RealNetworks, Inc.
Privacy Litigation, In re DoubleClick, Inc. Privacy Litigation,
and Chance v. Avenue A, Inc.  Several of these cases are the key
cases in the Internet privacy field and have been instrumental in
creating the jurisprudential framework for this type of class and
direct litigation.

                             *********

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  * * *