---

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

            Tuesday, January 18, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 12

                             Headlines

ALPHA INDUSTRIES: Recalls 900 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts
APOLLO GROUP: Petition for Certiorari Pending in Policeman's Suit
APOLLO GROUP: Group Has Until Jan. 24 to File Consolidated Suit
APOLLO GROUP: Still Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Pension Suit
APOLLO GROUP: Gets 700 Opt-In Notices in "Sabol" Wage & Hour Suit

APOLLO GROUP: Continues to Defend "Adoma" Wage & Hour Class Suit
APPLIED SIGNAL: Being Sold for Too Little, Calif. Suit Claims
ASPENBIO PHARMA: Faces Class Action Complaint
AUDIOVOX CO: Still Defending "Radiation" Class Action in Maryland
BEXAR COUNTY: Judge Okays Strip Search Class Action Settlement

BLOCKBUSTER INC: Wants Court to Junk Class Action Over Late Fees
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Accused in Calif. of Defrauding Students
CARMAX INC: Subsidiaries Still Face Claims From Sales Consultants
CINTAS CORP: Continues to Defend Gender-Race Discrimination Suits
CINTAS CORP: Court Approval of Veliz Suit Settlement Still Pending

CPI INTERNATIONAL: Signs MOU With Continuum Capital to Settle Suit
EBAY INC: Settlement Final Fairness Hearing Set for March 28
EMCORE CORP: IBEW's Renewed Motion to Select Lead Counsel Pending
EMMIS COMMS: Obtains Dismissal of Going Private Lawsuits
HITACHI HOME: Judge Denies Motion to Certify Class in LCD Suit

IMMUCOR INC: Discovery Begins in Price-Fixing Lawsuits
IMMUCOR INC: Continues to Face Private Securities Litigation
INDIVIDUAL DEV'T: Class Suit Court Monitor Gives Critical Report
LAWSON SOFTWARE: Awaits Court Decision on De-Certification Motion
LIVEDEAL INC: Discussing Settlement of 2008 Consumer Fraud Suit

MCGRATH'S PUBLICK: Employee Class Claim Loses Priority Status
MERRILL LYNCH: N.Y. Pension Fund Settles Fraud Class Action
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Awaits Court Approval of Price-Fixing Lawsuits
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal of Quebec Price-Fixing Suit Pending
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Awaits Court Approval of Idaho Securities Suit

MONSANTO CO: Aug. 1 Trial for "Bibb" Chemical Contamination Suit
MONSANTO CO: Review of Age Discrimination Suit Decision Sought
MONSANTO CO: Jan. 31 Deadline Set for Filing Amended Complaint
NATIONAL BEEF: NBL Dismissed From Wastewater Class Suits
NEW ENGLAND MINT: Accused in Calif. of Defrauding Consumers

NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over Lack of Taxis for Disabled
NVIDIA CORP: Payouts in Notebook GPU Class Action Starts
PHILIP MORRIS: Judge Dismisses Medical Monitoring Class Action
PRAIRIE MOUNTAIN: Recalls 6,200 Youth Hooded Wind/Rain Jackets
RED HAT: Appeals From IPO Lawsuit Settlement Still Pending

RED HAT: Obtains Final Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
ROYAL BANK: Judge Uses Morrison Ruling in Class Action Dismissal
SABA SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Against IPO Lawsuit in New York
TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Still Defending "Chrome 6" Lawsuits
VCG HOLDING: Receives "Doyle" Complaint in Colorado

WD-40 CO: Continues to Defend "Burns" Suit in California

* Credit Unions Face Class Actions Over ATM Fee Disclosure Rules



                             *********


ALPHA INDUSTRIES: Recalls 900 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Alpha Industries, of Chantilly, Va., announced a voluntary recall
of about 900 children's hooded sweatshirts.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The hooded sweatshirts have drawstrings through the hoods which
can pose a strangulation or entrapment hazard to children. In
February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines, which were incorporated
into an industry voluntary standard in 1997, to help prevent
children from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and
waist drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and
sweatshirts.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves children's hooded, zippered sweatshirts with
drawstrings through the hood.  The cotton sweatshirts are olive
green with an eagle on the front and the words "Hero by Choice"
and "Alpha."  They were sold in sizes 2T, 3T, 4T, 5, 6, 7, 8 and
10/12.  "Alpha Industries" and "RN#35569" are printed on a label
sewn into the neck of the sweatshirts.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11098.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
department stores and juvenile product stores nationwide from
August 2009 through February 2010 for between $28 and $42.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the hoods
of the sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard or return them to the
place of purchase or Alpha Industries for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Alpha Industries toll-free at
(866) 631-0719 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.alphaindustries.com/


APOLLO GROUP: Petition for Certiorari Pending in Policeman's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc.'s petition for certiorari remains pending with
the U.S. Supreme Court in relation to the ruling of the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversing an order granting judgment in
favor of Apollo, according to the company's Jan. 10, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2010.

In October 2004, three class action complaints were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.  The District
Court consolidated the three pending class action complaints under
the caption In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT and a consolidated class action complaint
was filed on May 16, 2005 by the lead plaintiff (Policeman's
Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago).  The consolidated complaint
named the company, Todd S. Nelson, Kenda B. Gonzales and Daniel E.
Bachus as defendants. On March 1, 2007, by stipulation and order
of the Court, Daniel E. Bachus was dismissed as a defendant from
the case. Lead plaintiff represents a class of the Company's
shareholders who acquired their shares between February 27, 2004
and September 14, 2004.  The complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Act by the company for
defendants' allegedly material false and misleading statements in
connection with the Company's failure to publicly disclose the
contents of a preliminary U.S. Department of Education program
review report.  The case proceeded to trial on November 14, 2007.
On January 16, 2008, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiffs awarding damages of up to $5.55 for each share of
common stock in the class suit, plus pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest.  The class shares are those purchased after
February 27, 2004, and still owned on September 14, 2004.  The
judgment was entered on January 30, 2008, subject to an automatic
stay until February 13, 2008.  On February 13, 2008, the District
Court granted the company's motion to stay execution of the
judgment pending resolution of its motions for post-trial relief,
which were also filed on February 13, 2008, provided that the
company post a bond in the amount of $95.0 million.  On
February 19, 2008, the Company posted the $95.0 million bond with
the District Court.  Oral arguments on the Company's post-trial
motions occurred on August 4, 2008, during which the District
Court vacated the earlier judgment based on the jury verdict and
entered judgment in favor of Apollo and the other defendants.  The
$95.0 million bond posted in February was subsequently released on
August 11, 2008. Plaintiffs' lawyers filed a Notice of Appeal with
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 29, 2008.  A hearing
before a panel of the Court of Appeals took place on March 3,
2010. On June 23, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the District
Court's ruling in the Company's favor and ordered the District
Court to enter judgment against the company in accordance with the
jury verdict.

Liability in the case is joint and several, which means that each
defendant, including the Company, is liable for the entire amount
of the judgment.  As a result, the Company may be responsible for
payment of the full amount of damages as ultimately determined.
The Company does not expect to receive material amounts of
insurance proceeds from its insurers to satisfy any amounts
ultimately payable to the plaintiff class and the Company expects
its insurers to seek repayment of amounts advanced to it to date
for defense costs.  The actual amount of damages will not be known
until all court proceedings have been completed and eligible
members of the class have presented the necessary information and
documents to receive payment of the award.  The Company has
estimated for financial reporting purposes, using statistically
valid models and a 60% confidence interval, that the damages could
range from $127.2 million to $228.0 million, which includes the
Company's estimates of (a) damages payable to the plaintiff class;
(b) the amount the company may be required to reimburse the
company's insurance carriers for amounts advanced for defense
costs; and (c) future defense costs.  Accordingly, in the third
quarter of fiscal year 2010, the Company recorded a charge for
estimated damages in the amount of $132.6 million, which, together
with the existing reserve of $44.5 million recorded in the second
quarter of fiscal year 2010, represented the mid-point of the
estimated range of damages payable to the plaintiffs, plus the
other estimated costs and expenses.  The company elected to record
an amount based on the mid-point of the range of damages payable
to the plaintiff class because under statistically valid modeling
techniques the mid-point of the range is in fact a more likely
estimate than other points in the range, and the point at which
there is an equal probability that the ultimate loss could be
toward the lower end or the higher end of the range.  The
Company's range of damages estimate included estimated post-
judgment interest through June 23, 2010.  The Company has recorded
charges in subsequent periods, including $0.9 million in the first
quarter of fiscal year 2011, for estimated incremental post-
judgment interest.

On July 21, 2010, the Company filed a petition for a rehearing en
banc by the Ninth Circuit, which was denied on August 17, 2010.
On August 23, 2010, the Company filed a motion to stay the mandate
while it seeks review by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Company's
motion to stay the mandate was granted on August 24, 2010 and the
Company filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court
on November 15, 2010.

The Company believes it has adequate liquidity to fund the amount
of any required bond or, if necessary, the satisfaction of the
judgment.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu/-- is a private
education provider and has been in the education business for more
than 35 years.  The company offers innovative and distinctive
educational programs and services both online and on-campus at the
high school, undergraduate, master's and doctoral levels through
its subsidiaries: University of Phoenix, Apollo Global, Institute
for Professional Development, College for Financial Planning and
Meritus University.  The company's programs and services are
provided in 40 states and the District of Columbia; Puerto Rico;
Canada; Latin America; and Europe, as well as online throughout
the world.


APOLLO GROUP: Group Has Until Jan. 24 to File Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Apollo Institutional Investors Group as lead plaintiff of a
securities class action against Apollo Group, Inc., has until
January 24, 2011, to file a consolidated amended complaint,
according to the Company's Jan. 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Nov. 30, 2010.

On August 16, 2010, a securities class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by Douglas
N. Gaer naming the company, John G. Sperling, Gregory W. Cappelli,
Charles B. Edelstein, Joseph L. D'Amico, Brian L. Swartz and
Gregory J. Iverson as defendants for allegedly making false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business practices
and prospects for growth.  That complaint asserts a putative class
period stemming from December 7, 2009 to August 3, 2010.  A
substantially similar complaint was also filed in the same court
by John T. Fitch on September 23, 2010 making similar allegations
against the same defendants for the same purported class period.
Finally, on October 4, 2010, another purported securities class
action complaint was filed in the same court by Robert Roth
against the same defendants as well as Brian Mueller, Terri C.
Bishop and Peter V. Sperling based upon the same general set of
allegations, but with a defined class period of February 12, 2007
to August 3, 2010.  The complaints allege violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  On October 15, 2010, three
additional parties filed motions to consolidate the related
actions and be appointed the lead plaintiff.

On November 23, 2010, the Gaer, Fitch and Roth actions were all
consolidated under the Gaer case and the Court appointed the
"Apollo Institutional Investors Group" consisting of the Oregon
Public Employees Retirement Fund, the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme,
and Amalgamated Bank as lead plaintiff.  The case is now entitled,
Gaer v. Apollo Group, Inc., et al.  The lead plaintiff has until
January 24, 2011 to file a consolidated amended complaint.  The
Company anticipates that the plaintiffs will seek substantial
damages.

Discovery in this case has not yet begun.  Because of the many
questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this
legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.  Based on information
available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate
a range of loss for this action and accordingly have not accrued
any liability associated with these actions.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu/-- is a private
education provider and has been in the education business for more
than 35 years.  The company offers innovative and distinctive
educational programs and services both online and on-campus at the
high school, undergraduate, master's and doctoral levels through
its subsidiaries: University of Phoenix, Apollo Global, Institute
for Professional Development, College for Financial Planning and
Meritus University.  The company's programs and services are
provided in 40 states and the District of Columbia; Puerto Rico;
Canada; Latin America; and Europe, as well as online throughout
the world.


APOLLO GROUP: Still Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Pension Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc., is still awaiting a ruling on its motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by The Pension Trust
Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff of the class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's Jan. 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Nov. 30, 2010.

On November 2, 2006, the Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare
Funds filed a class action complaint purporting to represent a
class of shareholders who purchased the company's stock between
November 28, 2001 and October 18, 2006.  The complaint, filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, is entitled
Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc.
et al., Case Number 06-cv-02674-RCB, and alleges that the Company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by purportedly
making misrepresentations concerning the company's stock option
granting policies and practices and related accounting.  The
defendants are Apollo Group, Inc., J. Jorge Klor de Alva, Daniel
E. Bachus, John M. Blair, Dino J. DeConcini, Kenda B. Gonzales,
Hedy F. Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Todd S. Nelson, Laura Palmer
Noone, John R. Norton III, John G. Sperling and Peter V. Sperling.
The Company anticipates that the plaintiff will seek substantial
damages.

On September 11, 2007, the Court appointed The Pension Trust Fund
for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on November 23, 2007, asserting the same legal
claims as the original complaint and adding claims for violations
of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
allegations of breach of fiduciary duties and civil conspiracy.

On January 22, 2008, all defendants filed motions to dismiss. On
March 31, 2009, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice as to
Daniel Bachus, Hedy Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Dino J. DeConcini,
and Laura Palmer Noone.  The Court also dismissed the case as to
John Sperling and Peter Sperling, but granted plaintiffs leave to
file an amended complaint against them.  Finally, the Court
dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims concerning misconduct before
November 2001 and all of the state law claims for conspiracy and
breach of fiduciary duty.  On April 30, 2009, plaintiffs filed
their Second Amended Complaint, which alleges similar claims for
alleged securities fraud against the same defendants.  On June 15,
2009, all defendants filed another motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint.  On February 22, 2010, the Court partially
granted the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, but withheld a
final determination on the individual defendants pending the
Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.

Discovery in this case has not yet begun.  Because of the many
questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this
legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.  Based on information
available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate
a range of loss for this action and accordingly have not accrued
any liability associated with this action.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu/-- is a private
education provider and has been in the education business for more
than 35 years.  The company offers innovative and distinctive
educational programs and services both online and on-campus at the
high school, undergraduate, master's and doctoral levels through
its subsidiaries: University of Phoenix, Apollo Global, Institute
for Professional Development, College for Financial Planning and
Meritus University.  The company's programs and services are
provided in 40 states and the District of Columbia; Puerto Rico;
Canada; Latin America; and Europe, as well as online throughout
the world.


APOLLO GROUP: Gets 700 Opt-In Notices in "Sabol" Wage & Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc., has received notice of approximately 700 "opt-
ins" from prospective class members of a wage and hour lawsuit in
Philadelphia, according to the Company's Jan. 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Nov. 30, 2010.

On July 31, 2009, several former employees filed an action in
Federal District Court in Philadelphia alleging wage and hour
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay
overtime and other violations, entitled, Sabol, et al., v. Apollo
Group, Inc., et al.  The Company filed an answer denying the
asserted claim on September 29, 2009.  During the course of the
action, all but one of the former employees voluntarily opted out
of the lawsuit.  On January 24, 2010, the Company filed a motion
for partial summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's claim
that the "Academic Counselor" position is incorrectly classified
as exempt.  On February 9, 2010, plaintiff filed a Rule 56(f)
motion seeking leave to conduct additional discovery before
response to the company's motion for partial summary judgment.  On
March 3, 2010, the Court granted plaintiff leave to conduct
additional discovery on issues related to the motion for partial
summary judgment until April 5, 2010.  The Court also ordered
plaintiff to file his response to the motion for summary judgment
on or before April 20, 2010.  On February 15, 2010, plaintiff
filed a motion for class certification and the Company filed its
opposition on March 5, 2010.

On April 19, 2010, the parties agreed to dismiss with prejudice
their claims regarding employment as an Academic Counselor and to
withdraw their pending motion for conditional certification to the
extent it seeks to certify a class of Academic Counselors.  On
May 12, 2010, the Court granted plaintiff's motion to
conditionally certify a collective action to include current and
former admissions personnel at all of University of Phoenix's
nationwide locations.  The deadline for prospective class members
to submit a claim form and "opt in" was December 9, 2010 and the
Company has received notice of approximately 700 opt-ins.  The
Company believes that the claims do not support conditional
certification as a collective action and will move the Court to
de-certify the class following additional discovery.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.
Based on information available to the Company at present, the
Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action
and accordingly have not accrued any liability associated with
this action.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu/-- is a private
education provider and has been in the education business for more
than 35 years.  The company offers innovative and distinctive
educational programs and services both online and on-campus at the
high school, undergraduate, master's and doctoral levels through
its subsidiaries: University of Phoenix, Apollo Global, Institute
for Professional Development, College for Financial Planning and
Meritus University.  The company's programs and services are
provided in 40 states and the District of Columbia; Puerto Rico;
Canada; Latin America; and Europe, as well as online throughout
the world.


APOLLO GROUP: Continues to Defend "Adoma" Wage & Hour Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc., continues to defend itself against a wage and
hour class action lawsuit filed by Diane Adoma in California,
according to the Company's Jan. 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Nov. 30, 2010.

On January 8, 2010, Diane Adoma filed an action in United States
District Court, Eastern District of California alleging wage and
hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law
for failure to pay overtime and other violations, entitled Adoma
et al. v. University of Phoenix, et al.  On March 5, 2010, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay
or transfer, the case based on the previously filed Sabol and
Juric actions.  On May 3, 2010, the Court denied the motion to
dismiss and/or transfer.  On April 12, 2010, plaintiff filed her
motion for conditional collective action certification.  The Court
denied class certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
transferred these claims to the District Court in Pennsylvania.
On August 31, 2010, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for class
action certification of the California claims.  On September 14,
2010, the Company filed a petition for permission to appeal the
class certification order with the Ninth Circuit, which was denied
on November 3, 2010.  As a result, notice of the lawsuit was
mailed to 1,554 current and former employees explaining that they
will remain a part of the lawsuit unless they complete an "opt-
out" form within 45 days of receiving the notice.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based
on information available to the company at present, the company
cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and,
accordingly, the company has not accrued any liability associated
with this action.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu/-- is a private
education provider and has been in the education business for more
than 35 years.  The company offers innovative and distinctive
educational programs and services both online and on-campus at the
high school, undergraduate, master's and doctoral levels through
its subsidiaries: University of Phoenix, Apollo Global, Institute
for Professional Development, College for Financial Planning and
Meritus University.  The company's programs and services are
provided in 40 states and the District of Columbia; Puerto Rico;
Canada; Latin America; and Europe, as well as online throughout
the world.


APPLIED SIGNAL: Being Sold for Too Little, Calif. Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Applied Signal Technology is
selling itself too cheaply through a coercive, unfair and illegal
process to Raytheon, for $38 a share, or $532 million,
shareholders claim in Santa Clara County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Jarackas v. Applied Signal Technology,
et al., Case No. 1-11-CV-191643 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/12/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASPENBIO PHARMA: Faces Class Action Complaint
---------------------------------------------
On January 10, 2011, AspenBio Pharma, Inc., issued a letter to its
shareholders.  Among others, AspenBio Pharma disclosed that in
late 2010, the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers were named as defendants in U.S. District
Court in complaints filed by individual plaintiffs and a similar
action filed as a class action.  The defendants are evaluating the
complaints, believe that the allegations in the complaints are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against these
claims.  The Company recently filed motions to dismiss all or
portions of the initial complaint in the first action, and a
separate motion to move the case to the United States District
Court in Colorado.  As with any such litigation there can be no
assurance of the outcome.  Additionally, defending these actions
may take significant management time and resources.


AUDIOVOX CO: Still Defending "Radiation" Class Action in Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Audiovox Corporation is still defending a lawsuit filed by
plaintiffs alleging damages sustained from phone radiation,
according to the Company's January 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Nov. 30, 2010.

Certain consolidated class actions transferred to a Multi-District
Litigation Panel of the United States District Court of the
District of Maryland against the Company and other suppliers,
manufacturers and distributors of hand-held wireless telephones
alleging damages relating to exposure to radio frequency radiation
from hand-held wireless telephones are still pending.  No
assurances regarding the outcome of this matter can be given, as
the Company is unable to assess the degree of probability of an
unfavorable outcome or estimated loss or liability, if any.
Accordingly, no estimated loss has been recorded for the case.

Audiovox Corp. -- http://www.audiovox.com/-- is an international
distributor and value added service provider in the accessory,
mobile and consumer electronics industries.


BEXAR COUNTY: Judge Okays Strip Search Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettemens.com reports a $3 million settlement of a class
action lawsuit involving Bexar County Jail was approved last week
by a federal judge.  The suit alleged thousands of people were
illegally strip searched in Bexar County Jail.

The suit, filed in 2007, alleged a blanket strip search policy
violated inmates' constitutional rights.  As a result of the case,
the jail in April 2009 dropped its policy to do strip searches of
every inmate.  The procedure now is applied only to detainees
charged with felonies or those suspected of having contraband.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said 30,000 people qualify for the
settlement.  The deal applies to inmates booked on misdemeanor
charges and searched between Nov. 15, 2005, and April 9, 2009.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Wants Court to Junk Class Action Over Late Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Gruenwedel, writing for Home Media Magazine, reports lawyers
representing Blockbuster Inc. on Jan. 13 filed a motion with the
bankruptcy court requesting it not grant class-action status to a
decade-old late-fees lawsuit filed in Illinois.

Specifically, Blockbuster lawyers said the plaintiffs -- Marc
Cohen, Mark Perper and Uwe Stueckrad -- in their 1999 lawsuit did
not merit class-action qualifications due to myriad legal reasons,
including the fact the case does not meet the requirements of non-
Illinois residents.

The motion, filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York, also alleges that one plaintiff continued to
voluntarily pay "extended viewing" fees and "unreturned video"
charges after the suit was filed, and even considered the fees
"reasonable."

In the original suit, the plaintiffs alleged the late fees
represented illegal penalties that arose from improper damages
assessed against a customer for his or her breach of contract.
They claimed the fees were open ended and not based on "good
faith" estimates of actual damages, among other concerns.

Blockbuster stopped charging late fees Jan. 1, 2005, following the
settlement of a separate trial in Texas, which was given class-
action status.  The Illinois plaintiffs, however, refused to
accept that decision.

Halting late fees cost Blockbuster about $250 million a year in
operating income, according to financial filings.  The company
reinstituted more clearly defined late fees last May -- about four
months before it filed for bankruptcy.

Separately, a group of unsecured Blockbuster debtors filed a
motion asking the court to not consider class-action status on the
Illinois case.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Accused in Calif. of Defrauding Students


---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Bridgepoint Education and its
colleges, Ashford University and the University of the Rockies,
are the latest for-profit colleges to face a federal class action
accusing them of defrauding students.

A copy of the Complaint in Rosendahl, et al. v. Bridgepoint
Education, Inc. et al., Case No. 11-cv-99999 (S.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/12/ForProfit.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Shawn E. Fields, Esq.
          JOHNSON BOTTINI, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1720
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063


CARMAX INC: Subsidiaries Still Face Claims From Sales Consultants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Two of Carmax, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to face claims from
the sales consultant putative class of a consolidated lawsuit
filed in California, according to the Company's Jan. 7, 2011, Form
10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended November 30, 2010.

On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action
lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, and
CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.  Subsequently, two other
lawsuits, Leena Areso, et al., v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case.
The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to
provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2)
failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related
to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime;
(4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
provisions; and (5) unfair competition.  The putative class
consisted of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly
employees who worked for the company in California from April 2,
2004, to the present.  On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of
the class claims with respect to the sales manager putative class.
On June 16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the
failure to comply with the itemized employee wage statement
provisions.  The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary
adjudication with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay
overtime to the sales consultant putative class.  The plaintiffs
have appealed the court's ruling regarding the sales consultant
overtime claim.  In addition to the plaintiffs' appeal of the
overtime claim, the claims currently remaining in the lawsuit
regarding the sales consultant putative class are: (1) failure to
provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2)
failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related
to meal and rest breaks; and (3) unfair competition.  On June 16,
2009, the court entered a stay of these claims pending the outcome
of a California Supreme Court case involving related legal issues.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages,
interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive
relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees.

The Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount
or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in
these matters.

CarMax, Inc. -- http://www.carmax.com/-- is a holding company
and its operations are conducted through its subsidiaries.  The
company is a retailer of used cars.


CINTAS CORP: Continues to Defend Gender-Race Discrimination Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation continues to defend itself from gender and race
discrimination lawsuits, according to the Company's Jan. 7, 2011,
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended November 30, 2010.

Cintas is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit, Mirna
E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano), filed on
May 10, 2004, and pending in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.  The Serrano
plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against women in
hiring into various service sales representative positions across
all divisions of Cintas.  On November 15, 2005, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) intervened in the Serrano
lawsuit.  The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other
remedies.  On October 27, 2008, the United States District Court
in the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in
favor of Cintas limiting the scope of the putative class in the
Serrano lawsuit to female applicants for service sales
representative positions at Cintas locations within the state of
Michigan.  Consequently, all claims brought by female applicants
for service sales representative positions outside of the state of
Michigan were dismissed.  Similarly, any claims brought by the
EEOC on behalf of similarly situated female applicants outside of
the state of Michigan have also been dismissed from the Serrano
lawsuit.

Cintas is a defendant in another purported class action lawsuit,
Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Avalos), which
was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division.  The Avalos plaintiffs alleged that
Cintas discriminated against women, African-Americans and
Hispanics in hiring into various service sales representative
positions in Cintas' Rental division only throughout the United
States.  The Avalos plaintiffs sought injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other
remedies.  The claims in Avalos originally were brought in the
lawsuit captioned Robert Ramirez, et al. v. Cintas Corporation
(Ramirez), filed on January 20, 2004, in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division.

On May 11, 2006, the Ramirez and Avalos African-American, Hispanic
and female failure to hire into service sales representative
positions claims and the EEOC's intervention were consolidated for
pretrial purposes with the Serrano case and transferred to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division.  The consolidated case was known as Mirna E.
Serrano/Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation
(Serrano/Avalos).  On March 31, 2009, the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division entered an
order denying class certification to all plaintiffs in the
Serrano/Avalos lawsuits.  Following denial of class certification,
the Court permitted the individual Avalos and Serrano plaintiffs
to proceed separately.  In the Avalos case, the court dismissed
the remaining claims of the individual plaintiffs who remained in
that case after the denial of class certification.  On May 11,
2010, Plaintiff Tanesha Davis, on behalf of all similarly situated
plaintiffs in the Avalos case, filed a notice of appeal of the
District Court's summary judgment order in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  The Appellate Court has made no
determination regarding the merits of Davis' appeal.  In September
2010, the Court in Serrano dismissed all private individual claims
and all claims of the EEOC and the 13 individuals it claimed to
represent.  The time for appeal has not yet expired on these
Serrano dismissals, but, as of the date of this disclosure, no
appeal has been taken.

The litigation, if decided or settled adversely to Cintas, may,
individually or in the aggregate, result in liability material to
Cintas' consolidated financial condition or results of operation
and could increase costs of operations on an ongoing basis. Any
estimated liability relating to these proceedings is not
determinable at this time.  Cintas may enter into discussions
regarding settlement of these and other lawsuits, and may enter
into settlement agreements if it believes such settlement is in
the best interest of Cintas' shareholders.

Cintas Corp. -- http://www.cintas.com/-- provides specialized
products and services to businesses of all types primarily
throughout the United States and Canada.  The company is a
provider of corporate identity uniforms through rental and sales
programs, as well as a significant provider of related business
services, including entrance mats, restroom products and services,
first aid, safety and fire protection products and services,
document management services and branded promotional products.
Cintas classifies its businesses into four operating segments:
Rental Uniforms and Ancillary Products; Uniform Direct Sales;
First Aid, Safety and Fire Protection Services, and Document
Management Services.  The company provides its products and
services to approximately 800,000 businesses of all types, from
small service and manufacturing companies to corporations.


CINTAS CORP: Court Approval of Veliz Suit Settlement Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation is still waiting for court approval of a
settlement resolving a wage hour lawsuit in California, according
to its Jan. 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2010.

Cintas is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit, Paul
Veliz, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Veliz), filed on March 19,
2003, in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, Oakland Division, alleging that Cintas violated
certain federal and state wage and hour laws applicable to its
service sales representatives, whom Cintas considers exempt
employees, and asserting additional related ERISA claims.  On
April 5, 2004 and February 14, 2006, the Court stayed the claims
of all plaintiffs with valid arbitration agreements pending
arbitration of those claims.  Claims made in the Veliz action,
therefore, are pending before the United States District Court,
Northern District of California and Judge Bruce Meyerson (Ret.),
an Arbitrator selected by the parties.

On August 5, 2009, the parties in the Veliz action reached a
settlement in principle.  When the settlement is fully documented
and approved by the Court, the settlement will resolve all claims
now pending or that could have been brought relating to the
subject matter of the case before the Court and the Arbitrator.
The principal terms of the settlement provide for an aggregate
cash payment of approximately $24.0 million, which is accrued in
current accrued liabilities at November 30, 2010.  The pre-tax
impact, net of insurance proceeds, was $19.5 million.

Cintas Corp. -- http://www.cintas.com/-- provides specialized
products and services to businesses of all types primarily
throughout the United States and Canada.  The company is a
provider of corporate identity uniforms through rental and sales
programs, as well as a significant provider of related business
services, including entrance mats, restroom products and services,
first aid, safety and fire protection products and services,
document management services and branded promotional products.
Cintas classifies its businesses into four operating segments:
Rental Uniforms and Ancillary Products; Uniform Direct Sales;
First Aid, Safety and Fire Protection Services, and Document
Management Services.  The company provides its products and
services to approximately 800,000 businesses of all types, from
small service and manufacturing companies to corporations.


CPI INTERNATIONAL: Signs MOU With Continuum Capital to Settle Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
CPI International, Inc., and other defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding to settle a class action lawsuit
relating to its merger, according to its Form 8-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 12, 2011.

On July 1, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the directors of CPI International, Inc., CPI, and Comtech
Telecommunications Corp. in the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Santa Clara by Continuum
Capital, a purported CPI stockholder, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated (Case No. 1:10-CV-175940).  Continuum
Capital filed an amended complaint on July 28, 2010.  The
complaint and the amended complaint generally concerned CPI's
prior merger agreement with Comtech, which was terminated on
September 7, 2010.

On November 24, 2010, CPI, Catalyst Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and an affiliate of The Veritas Capital Fund IV, L.P.,
and Catalyst Acquisition, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Catalyst, entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger.  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement and subject to
the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will merge with and
into CPI, with CPI surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Catalyst.

On December 9, 2010, after the announcement of the Merger
Agreement and Merger, Continuum Capital filed a motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint adding allegations related to
the Merger and adding allegations related to Veritas.  On
December 23, 2010, after CPI filed its preliminary proxy statement
relating to a special meeting in connection with the approval of
the Merger Agreement, Continuum Capital filed a third amended
complaint, adding allegations related to the disclosures in the
preliminary proxy statement.

The third amended complaint seeks: (i) determination that the
action is a proper class action and that Continuum Capital is a
proper class representative; (ii) judgment that CPI and its
directors, as well as Cypress Associates II LLC, breached their
fiduciary duties and that Veritas or its affiliates aided and
abetted such breaches; (iii) unspecified compensatory and/or
rescissory damages; (iv) interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees
and other costs; and (v) such other relief as the court may find
just and proper.

On January 10, 2011, CPI and the other defendants entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with Continuum Capital, whereby the
plaintiff will dismiss its third amended complaint with prejudice
in exchange for, among other agreements, an agreement by CPI to
make certain additional disclosures concerning the merger, which
disclosures have been included in a definitive proxy statement
filed by CPI on January 11, 2011. In addition, the Memorandum of
Understanding provides that, subject to court approval of the
settlement, CPI, its insurers or its successor in interest will
cause to be paid to the plaintiff's counsel $575,000 in full
settlement of any claim for attorneys' fees and all expenses. CPI
expects the majority of this payment to be borne by its insurance
carrier.


EBAY INC: Settlement Final Fairness Hearing Set for March 28
------------------------------------------------------------
Ina Steiner, writing for AuctionBytes, reports eBay settled a
class action lawsuit for $30 million over allegations it had
overcharged sellers in the eBay Motors Parts and Accessories
category.  Third-party administrator A.B. Data Ltd. sent an e-mail
to affected sellers last week informing them of the settlement and
providing a link to more information on the Web site,
http://www.eBayMotorsFeeClassAction.com/ The settlement provides
partial reimbursement of alleged overcharges to class members.

The class consists of eBay sellers who paid Final Value Fees for
selling items in the vehicle-related Parts and Accessories
categories on eBay Motors between April 21, 2005, and August 26,
2009.  eBay Store listings are not included in the settlement.

Two eBay sellers filed a class action lawsuit against eBay on
April 21, 2009 (and amended in June 2009), alleging that eBay
charged excessive fees for listing items in the "Parts and
Accessories" category.

"In particular, Plaintiffs allege that a web page known as the
eBay Motors Fee Page sets the second fee, which was called either
a Transaction Services Fee or Successful Listing fee; eBay instead
charged a Final Value Fee, which Plaintiffs claim applies only to
regular or "Core" eBay.com listings."

eBay denied the allegations and changed the fee page on August 26,
2009.

"eBay contends it correctly charged Final Value Fees on Parts and
Accessories listings, as it does for all other items listed on any
part of eBay that are not subject to specialized fees.  eBay
further contends that it has consistently and clearly disclosed to
its users in several ways that it charged Final Value Fees for
Parts and Accessories."

The parties reached a tentative agreement to settle the case in
November.  The plaintiffs' lawyers are entitled to legal fees up
to 25% of the settlement amount, and Class Representative will
seek $15,000 as incentive compensation.

Based upon information in eBay's records, it is expected that
after payment of all fees and expenses, each Class Member shall be
entitled to reimbursement of approximately 6.67% of all Final
Value Fees paid for Parts and Accessories listed on eBay Motors
during the Class Period, excluding listings on eBay Stores.

The administrator will calculate the amount owed to eBay sellers
based on eBay's records and will mail the payment to the address
associated with the eBay user ID under which the covered sales
were made.

Sellers can update their address on the settlement Web site by
March 28, 2011, otherwise, it is not necessary for them to do
anything if their legal name and address on file with eBay is
correct.

eBay sellers who are members of the Class and wish to exclude
themselves from the Class must send a letter to the administrator
by sending a letter postmarked on or before February 14, 2011.
Any seller who fails to seek exclusion from the Class is bound by
the settlement.

A Final Fairness Hearing on final settlement approval is scheduled
for March 28, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. at the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose.

Class Members may appear at the Final Fairness Hearing in person
or by counsel and may be heard, to the extent allowed by the
Court, provided they file a notice with the Clerk of the Court
before February 14, 2011.


EMCORE CORP: IBEW's Renewed Motion to Select Lead Counsel Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A renewed motion filed by IBEW Local Union No. 58, the lead
plaintiff of a consolidated class action against EMCORE Corp., for
approval of its selection of counsel remains pending, according to
the Company's Jan. 10, 2011, Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2010.

On December 23, 2008, Plaintiffs Maurice Prissert and Claude
Prissert filed a purported stockholder class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 allegedly on behalf of a class
of Company shareholders against the Company and certain of its
present and former directors and officers in the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico captioned, Maurice
Prissert and Claude Prissert v. EMCORE Corporation, Adam Gushard,
Hong Q. Hou, Reuben F. Richards, Jr., David Danzilio and Thomas
Werthan, Case No. 1:08cv1190 (D.N.M.).  The Complaint alleges that
the Company and the Individual Defendants violated certain
provisions of the federal securities laws, including Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the
Company's disclosure regarding its customer Green and Gold Energy
and the associated backlog of GGE orders with the Company's
Photovoltaics business segment.  The Complaint in the Prissert
Class Action seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and other costs and expenses associated with
the maintenance of the action.  On or about February 12, 2009, a
second purported stockholder class action (Mueller v. EMCORE
Corporation et al., Case No. 1:09cv 133 (D.N.M.)) was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
against the same defendants named in the Prissert Class Action,
based on substantially the same facts and circumstances,
containing substantially the same allegations and seeking
substantially the same relief.

Plaintiffs in both class actions have moved to consolidate the
matters into a single action.  On September 25, 2009, the court
issued an order consolidating both the Prissert and Mueller
actions into one consolidated proceeding, but denied plaintiffs
motions for appointment of a lead plaintiff or lead plaintiff's
counsel.  On July 15, 2010, the court appointed IBEW Local Union
No. 58 Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiff, but denied,
without prejudice, IBEW's motion to appoint lead counsel.  On
August 24, 2010, IBEW filed a renewed motion for appointment as
lead plaintiff and for approval of its selection of counsel.  That
motion remains pending.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations
in the Class Actions.

EMCORE Corporation -- http://www.emcore.com/-- provides compound
semiconductor-based components, subsystems and systems for the
fiber optics and solar power markets.  EMCORE's Photonic Systems
segment is the leading developer and manufacturer of fiber-optic
systems and components for a wide range of commercial and military
applications including microwave fiber-optic signal transmission
and processing, satellite earth-stations, fiber-optic gyroscopes,
and terahertz sensing.  EMCORE's Fiber Optics segment offers
optical components, subsystems and systems that enable the
transmission of video, voice and data over high-capacity fiber
optic cables for high-speed data and telecommunications, cable
television (CATV) and fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) networks.
EMCORE's Solar Power segment provides solar products for satellite
and terrestrial applications.  For satellite applications, EMCORE
offers high-efficiency compound semiconductor-based gallium
arsenide (GaAs) solar cells, covered interconnect cells and fully
integrated solar panels.  For terrestrial applications, EMCORE
offers concentrating photovoltaic (CPV) systems for utility scale
solar applications as well as offering its high-efficiency GaAs
solar cells and CPV components for use in solar power concentrator
systems.


EMMIS COMMS: Obtains Dismissal of Going Private Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
Emmis Communications Corporation was dismissed from class actions
related to the Going Private Transaction after its termination,
according to the Company's Jan. 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 30, 2010.

On April 26, 2010, JS Acquisition, Inc., a corporation then owned
entirely by the company's Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
President, Mr. Jeffrey H. Smulyan, and Alden Global Capital
entered into a non-binding Letter of Intent with respect to a
series of transactions relating to the equity securities of
Emmis.  As a result of the proposed tender offer, a number of
purported class actions were filed against various combinations of
Emmis, JS Acquisition, Alden, and members of the board of
directors.

On September 9, 2010, the Going Private Transaction was
effectively terminated and the lawsuits filed against various
combinations of Emmis, JS Acquisition, Alden, and members of the
board of directors of Emmis were subsequently dismissed.

On September 15, 2010, Jeff Smulyan and JS Acquisition commenced a
lawsuit against Alden in Indiana State Court.  On December 24,
2010, Emmis, JS Acquisition and Bose McKinney and Evans LLP, a
business law firm, entered into an agreement whereby Bose would
coordinate the prosecution of certain litigation by JS Acquisition
against Alden. Under the terms of the agreement, Bose is
representing both Emmis and JS Acquisition in connection with the
litigation.

Headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, Emmis Communications
Corporation -- http://www.emmis.com/-- owns and operates radio
stations and magazine publications in the U.S. and in Europe.


HITACHI HOME: Judge Denies Motion to Certify Class in LCD Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Johnson at Courthouse News Service reports that customers
that purchased allegedly defective liquid crystal display, rear-
projection televisions from Hitachi may not sue the Japanese
corporation as a class, a California federal judge ruled.

California's southern district had previously consolidated three
class actions brought by seven lead plaintiffs in 2008 and 2010.
The complaints, which include allegations of unfair business
practices and breach of warranty, argue that their televisions'
optical blocks were defective upon delivery and "manifests itself
over time, render[ing] the televisions unsuitable for their
principal and intended purpose."

Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of U.S. buyers and a subclass
for California consumers, suing under the state's Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act.

U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw found that the plaintiffs failed
to satisfy the requirements to sue as a class.

California's consumer-protection and warranty laws conflict with
comparable laws in the other 49 states, Judge Sabraw found.  The
judge also concluded that the plaintiffs did not prove that
Hitachi products were designed or manufactured in California,
although defendants Hitachi Home Electronics (America) and Hitachi
America both have a corporate presence in the state.

A copy of the Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in In re Hitachi Television Optical Block Cases,
Case No. 08-cv-01746 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/12/hitachi.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert I. Lax, Esq.
          ROBERT I. LAX & ASSOCIATES
          122 E 42nd Street #31
          New York, NY 10168-3100
          Telephone: (212) 818-9150

Defendants Hitachi Home Electronic (America), Inc., Hitachi
America, Ltd. and Hitachi Ltd. are represented by:

          Seth E. Pierce, Esq.
          MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
          11377 W. Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-3221


IMMUCOR INC: Discovery Begins in Price-Fixing Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a price-fixing lawsuit filed against Immucor, Inc.,
has commenced, according to the Company's Jan. 7, 2011, Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended November 30, 2010.

Beginning in May 2009, a series of class action lawsuits was filed
against the Company, Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., and Johnson
& Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., alleging that the defendants
conspired to fix prices at which blood reagents are sold,
asserting claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages, costs, and
attorneys' fees.  All of these complaints make substantially the
same allegations.  The cases have been consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The defendants' motions to dismiss were denied and discovery began
in December 2010.  No determination has been made whether any of
the plaintiffs' claims have merit or should be allowed to proceed
as a class action.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
against these cases.  At this time the Company cannot reasonably
assess the timing or outcome of this litigation or its effect, if
any, on its business.

Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com/-- manufactures and sells
a complete line of reagents and systems used by hospitals,
reference laboratories and donor centers to detect and identify
certain properties of the cell and serum components of blood prior
to transfusion.  Immucor markets a complete family of automated
instrumentation for all of its market segments.


IMMUCOR INC: Continues to Face Private Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Immucor, Inc., continues to defend itself against a private
securities lawsuit that seeks to proceed as a class action,
according to the Company's Jan. 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 30, 2010.

Private securities litigation in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia against Immucor, Inc., and
certain of its current and former directors and officers asserts
federal securities fraud claims on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the Company's Common Stock between October 19, 2005
and June 25, 2009. The case alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, by failing to disclose that Immucor had violated the
antitrust laws, and challenges the sufficiency of the Company's
disclosures about the results of FDA inspections and the Company's
quality control efforts. There has been no discovery and no
determination has been made whether any of the plaintiffs' claims
have merit or should be allowed to proceed as a class action. The
Company will defend the case vigorously. At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably assess the timing or outcome of this litigation
or its effect, if any, on its business.

Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com/-- manufactures and sells
a complete line of reagents and systems used by hospitals,
reference laboratories and donor centers to detect and identify
certain properties of the cell and serum components of blood prior
to transfusion.  Immucor markets a complete family of automated
instrumentation for all of its market segments.


INDIVIDUAL DEV'T: Class Suit Court Monitor Gives Critical Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at Washington City Paper by Alan
Suderman, a court monitor in a class-action case involving the
District's care of the disabled has filed a report sharply
critical of the group homes operated by well-connected lobbyist
David Wilmot.

Monitor Elizabeth Jones, writing in her quarterly report for the
Evans v. Fenty class-action case in U.S. District Court, wrote
last month of a "serious concern" about the low weight of certain
clients of Wilmot's Individual Development Inc., the group homes
that serve some of the District's most developmentally disabled.
Those clients are considered "to be at high-risk," Ms. Jones
writes.

Ms. Jones also writes that IDI, which operates a total of 11 group
homes, has made gains in some areas, including hiring a well-
regarded medical director, nurse practitioner and nutritionist,
but there are still plenty of other problems.

They include (taken verbatim from the report):

    * Environmental deficiencies (e.g., need for painting, broken
      furniture) in at least four residences.

    * Poor positioning and broken or missing adaptive equipment in
      at least seven residences.

    * Negligible interaction between staff and clients in at least
      one residence.

    * Medication errors in two residences.

    * Infection control problems in one residence.

Ms. Jones goes on to say that she and other monitors -- IDI had to
hire Liberty Healthcare Corporation as a monitor as part of a 2009
settlement agreement with the city -- and various city agencies
are "concerned whether future efforts to correct longstanding
deficiencies will be sustained, especially once the period of
intensive monitoring is ended."

Liberty's monitoring of IDI ended last month.

"Although remedial action has been taken by IDI when informed of
deficient practices . . . the correction actions have not been
sustained over time," Ms. Jones writes.

IDI was the subject of intense scrutiny from former Attorney
General Peter Nickles just before he left office.  Mr. Nickles
slapped IDI with a $240,000 fine and began the process of taking
away six of IDI's group homes for allegedly breaking the terms of
the 2009 settlement.  Mr. Nickles also asked a D.C. Superior Court
judge to hold IDI in contempt for not paying the fines.

Not to be outdone, IDI filed a motion earlier this month saying
the District is the one breaking terms of the settlement by
improperly levying fines and should be held in contempt.  IDI also
wants the District to cover IDI's legal fees.  IDI's attorney
wasn't immediately available for comment, but in court papers
writes that court monitor Ms. Jones "gratuitously disparages IDI
by making unsupported conclusory and inaccurate statements about
IDI."

No hearing date has yet been set in the Superior Court case.  The
federal judge has already received the court monitor's report in
the Evans v. Fenty case.


LAWSON SOFTWARE: Awaits Court Decision on De-Certification Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson Software, Inc., is awaiting a court ruling on its request
to de-certify a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the Company's Jan. 7, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended November 30, 2010.

On May 20, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of current and former business,
systems, and technical consultants.  The suit, Cruz, et. al., v.
Lawson Software, Inc. et. al., alleged that the Company failed to
pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
state law, and alleged violations of state record-keeping
requirements.  The suit also alleged certain violations of ERISA
and unjust enrichment.  Relief sought includes back wages,
corresponding 401(k) plan credits, liquidated damages, penalties,
interest and attorneys' fees.  The Company successfully moved the
case from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the District of Minnesota.  The Minnesota
Federal District Court conditionally certified the case under the
FLSA as a collective action and granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the two ERISA counts and the state wage and hour claims.
Plaintiffs moved for Rule 23 class certification but the Court
denied their motion.

At the present time, the size of the class is limited to the 68
consultants who elected to participate in the lawsuit by filing
opt-in forms.  The overtime period at issue is two years, which
would be increased to three years if the plaintiffs proved that
the Company intentionally violated the applicable wage and hour
laws.  The plaintiffs' damages expert claims total aggregate
damages of $10.3 million for a two year period for the 68
consultants and an additional $2.9 million in aggregate damages if
the overtime period is three years.  Given the inherent
unpredictability of litigation and jury trials, the Company cannot
at this time estimate the possible outcome of this lawsuit.

On June 30, 2010, Lawson filed a motion to de-certify the FLSA
collective action, which, if granted, would limit the action to
the five named plaintiffs.  On September 15, 2010, the Company
filed a motion for summary judgment asking for dismissal of
remaining class members based on their performance of exempt
duties and/or making more than $100,000 per year.  The court heard
both of these motions on November 12, 2010, and the Company is
waiting to receive a decision which is expected during the early
part of 2011.  If the court does not grant that dismissal, the
Company has alternatively requested that the limitation period be
two years instead of three.  In the event of an unfavorable
outcome in this matter, it could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's future results of operations or cash flows.

Lawson Software, Inc. -- http://www.lawson.com/-- is a global
provider of enterprise software.  The company provides business
application software, maintenance and consulting to customers
primarily in specific services, trade and manufacturing/
distribution industries.  The company specializes in and target
specific industries including healthcare, services, public sector,
equipment service management & rental, manufacturing &
distribution and consumer products industries.  The company's
software solutions include Enterprise Financial Management, Human
Capital Management, Business Intelligence, Asset Management,
Enterprise Performance Management, Supply Chain Management,
Service Management, Manufacturing Operations, Business Project
Management and industry-tailored applications.  The company's
applications help automate and integrate critical business
processes, which enable customers to collaborate with their
partners, suppliers and employees, reduce costs and enhance
business or operational performance.  Lawson is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minn., and has offices around the world.


LIVEDEAL INC: Discussing Settlement of 2008 Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Active litigation of a class action lawsuit against LiveDeal,
Inc., is temporarily suspended as the parties are engaged in
settlement discussions, according to the Company's Jan. 7, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010.

On June 6, 2008, Global Education Services, Inc., filed a consumer
fraud class action lawsuit against the Company in King County
(Washington) Superior Court.  GES has alleged in its complaint
that the Company's use of activator checks violated the Washington
Consumer Protection Act.  GES seeks injunctive relief against the
Company's use of the checks, as well as judgment in an amount
equal to three times the alleged damages sustained by GES and the
members of the class.  LiveDeal has denied the allegations.  Early
in 2010, the Court denied both parties' dispositive motions after
oral argument.  Active litigation is temporarily suspended and the
parties are engaged in settlement discussions.

LiveDeal, Inc. -- http://www.livedeal.com/-- delivers best of
breed local customer acquisition services for small and medium-
sized businesses combined with a classified and Internet Yellow
Pages directory platform technology to deliver an affordable way
for businesses to extend their marketing reach to local, relevant
customers via the Internet.  Through its online property,
LiveDeal delivers local search engine marketing (SEM) through its
LiveAdvisor(TM) and LiveClicks(TM) products that combine best-of-
breed technology with a strong partnership model and an inside
sales team to create an efficient platform local businesses need
to create and optimize their Internet search advertising
campaigns.  Livedeal partners with Google, Yahoo!, MSN, ASK,
Miva, Looksmart, Superpages.com and others. LiveDeal, Inc., is
headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.


MCGRATH'S PUBLICK: Employee Class Claim Loses Priority Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class of former employees of McGrath's Publick Fish House, Inc.,
certified in a California state court proceeding, filed a claim
for $185,496.  The claimants assert that the entire claim is
entitled to priority under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 507(a)(4).  The
Reorganized Debtor objected to the claim to the extent it asserts
any priority.

Chief Bankruptcy Judge Frank R. Alley, III, sustained the Debtor's
objection.  The claim will be allowed as a general unsecured claim
for $185,496.  Although the claim was filed by the claimant's
attorney, payment should be made to CPT Group, Inc., the claims
administrator designated by the Superior Court.

Salem, Oregon-based McGrath's Publick Fish House, Inc., fdba
McGrath's Properties LLC, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection (Bankr. D. Ore. Case No. 10-60500) on February 3, 2010.
The Company estimated assets and debts at $10 million to
$50 million as of the petition date.  The Debtor was represented
by Leon Simson, Esq., Timothy J. Conway, Esq., and Haley B. Bjerk,
Esq., at Tonkon Torp LLP, in Portland, Oregon, as counsel.
McGrath's Plan of Reorganization was confirmed on November 15,
2010.


MERRILL LYNCH: N.Y. Pension Fund Settles Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Virtanen, writing for The Associated Press, reports the
state's public worker pension fund has settled a federal
securities fraud lawsuit against Merrill Lynch & Co. and two
former company officials for $4.25 million.

The New York State Common Retirement Fund had opted out of a
similar class action suit and negotiated the settlement with Bank
of America, which bought Merrill Lynch in 2008.

"The Fund was misled about the extent of Merrill Lynch's
participation in the subprime mortgage fiasco; that is
unacceptable," said state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, the fund's
sole trustee.

Mr. DiNapoli, a Democrat, on Jan. 13 said he was confident the
settlement "makes up for a large part of the fund's losses" from
Merrill Lynch.

Bank of America spokesman Bill Halldin confirmed the settlement
but declined to comment further.

The suit claimed the now-$133 billion fund lost money because of
Merrill Lynch's role in the mortgage-backed securities market,
saying it was deliberately covered up and artificially inflated
the company's stock value.  That value plummeted when the exposure
became known publicly.

The settled lawsuit also had named E. Stanley O'Neal and Jeffrey
N. Edwards, the company's former chief executive and chief
financial officers.

The fund has more than 1 million members, employees and retirees
from state and local governments.  Its value dropped from its
historic high of about $154 billion in spring 2008 to $110 billion
a year later as the economy stopped growing and the stock market
tumbled, in part from losses in mortgage-backed securities.

Fund lawyers in July filed a separate federal suit, claiming
investor losses from the merger between Bank of America and
Merrill Lynch.  That suit is pending.

As of March 31, the fund held 36,845,430 shares of Bank of
America, Mr. DiNapoli spokesman Olayinka Fadahunsi said.  He
declined to provide a copy of the agreement or disclose the fund's
estimated losses from Merrill Lynch's actions, saying that
information was confidential.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Awaits Court Approval of Price-Fixing Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., is still awaiting final court approval of
its settlement of certain price-fixing lawsuits, according to the
Company's Jan. 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 2, 2010.

At least sixty-eight purported class action price-fixing lawsuits
have been filed against the Company and other DRAM suppliers in
various federal and state courts in the United States and in
Puerto Rico on behalf of indirect purchasers alleging price-fixing
in violation of federal and state antitrust laws, violations of
state unfair competition law, and/or unjust enrichment relating to
the sale and pricing of DRAM products during the period from April
1999 through at least June 2002.  The complaints seek joint and
several damages, trebled, in addition to restitution, costs and
attorneys' fees.  A number of these cases have been removed to
federal court and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California for consolidated pre-trial
proceedings.  In July, 2006, the Attorneys General for
approximately forty U.S. states and territories filed suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
complaints allege, among other things, violations of the Sherman
Act, Cartwright Act, and certain other states' consumer protection
and antitrust laws and seek joint and several damages, trebled, as
well as injunctive and other relief.  On October 3, 2008, the
California Attorney General filed a similar lawsuit in California
Superior Court, purportedly on behalf of local California
government entities, alleging, among other things, violations of
the Cartwright Act and state unfair competition law.

On June 23, 2010, the Company executed a settlement agreement
resolving these purported class-action indirect purchaser cases
and the pending cases of the Attorneys General relating to alleged
DRAM price-fixing in the United States.  Subject to certain
conditions, including final court approval of the class
settlements, the Company agreed to pay a total of approximately
$67 million in three equal installments over a two-year period.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- provides
advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its worldwide
operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash
memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and
memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer,
networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal of Quebec Price-Fixing Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., continues to defend itself against
price-fixing lawsuits in Canada, according to the Company's
Jan. 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 2, 2010.

Three purported class action lawsuits alleging price-fixing of
DRAM products also have been filed against the Company in Quebec,
Ontario, and British Columbia, Canada, on behalf of direct and
indirect purchasers, asserting violations of the Canadian
Competition Act.  The substantive allegations in these cases are
similar to those asserted in the DRAM antitrust cases filed in the
United States.  Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
denied in the British Columbia and Quebec cases in May and June
2008, respectively.  Plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal of
each of those decisions.  On November 12, 2009, the British
Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the denial of class
certification and remanded the case for further proceedings.  The
appeal of the Quebec case is still pending.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- provides
advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its worldwide
operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash
memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and
memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer,
networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Awaits Court Approval of Idaho Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., discloses in its Jan. 11, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 2, 2010, that it is still awaiting final
court approval of its settlement of a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit in Idaho.

On February 24, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho alleging claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Four
substantially similar complaints subsequently were filed in the
same Court.  The cases purport to be brought on behalf of a class
of purchasers of the company's stock during the period
February 24, 2001 to February 13, 2003.  The five lawsuits have
been consolidated and a consolidated amended class action
complaint was filed on July 24, 2006.  The complaint generally
alleges violations of federal securities laws based on, among
other things, claimed misstatements or omissions regarding alleged
illegal price-fixing conduct.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.  On
December 19, 2007, the Court issued an order certifying the class
but reducing the class period to purchasers of the company's stock
during the period from February 24, 2001 to September 18, 2002.
On August 24, 2010, the Company executed a settlement agreement
resolving these purported class-action cases.  Subject to certain
conditions, including final court approval of the class
settlement, the Company agreed to pay $6 million as contribution
to the settlement.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- provides
advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its worldwide
operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash
memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and
memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer,
networking and mobile products.


MONSANTO CO: Aug. 1 Trial for "Bibb" Chemical Contamination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The chemical contamination lawsuit filed against Monsanto Company
in Putnam County, West Virginia, will go on trial on Aug. 1, 2011,
according to the Company's Jan. 7, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Nov. 30, 2010.

On Dec. 17, 2004, 15 plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit, styled Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al., in the
Putnam County, West Virginia, state court against Monsanto,
Pharmacia and seven other defendants.  Monsanto is named as the
successor in interest to the liabilities of Pharmacia.  The
alleged class consists of all current and former residents,
workers, and students who, between 1949 and the present, were
allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans contamination in counties
surrounding Nitro, West Virginia.  The complaint alleges that the
source of the contamination is a chemical plant in Nitro, formerly
owned and operated by Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a joint
venture between Solutia and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. (Akzo
Nobel).  Akzo Nobel and Flexsys were named defendants in the case
but Solutia was not, due to its then pending bankruptcy
proceeding.  The suit seeks damages for property cleanup costs,
loss of real estate value, funds to test property for
contamination levels, funds to test for human exposure, and future
medical monitoring costs.  The complaint also seeks an injunction
against further contamination and punitive damages.  Monsanto has
agreed to indemnify and defend Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys
defendant group.  The class action certification hearing was held
on Oct. 29, 2007.  On Jan. 8, 2008, the trial court issued an
order certifying the Allen (now Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et
al., because Bibb replaced Allen as class representative) case as
a class action.  The court has set a trial date of Aug. 1, 2011,
for the Bibb class action.

Monsanto Company -- http://www.monsanto.com/-- is a global
provider of technology-based solutions and agricultural products
that improve farm productivity and food quality.


MONSANTO CO: Review of Age Discrimination Suit Decision Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs of an age discrimination lawsuit against Monsanto
Company have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision
entered in favor of Monsanto, according to the Company's Jan. 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2010.

On June 23, 2004, two former employees of Monsanto and Pharmacia
filed a purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois against Monsanto and the
Monsanto Company Pension Plan.  The suit claims that the Pension
Plan has violated the age discrimination and other rules under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 from Jan. 1, 1997
(when the Pension Plan was sponsored by Pharmacia, then known as
Monsanto Company) and continuing to the present.  In January 2006,
a separate group of former employees of Pharmacia filed a similar
purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois against Pharmacia, the Pharmacia
Cash Balance Plan, and other defendants.  On July 7, 2006, the
plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to add Monsanto and the Pension
Plan as additional defendants.  On Sept. 1, 2006, the Court
consolidated these lawsuits with two purported class action
lawsuits also pending in the same Court against the Solutia
Company Pension Plan, under Walker v. Monsanto, the first filed
case.  The court conducted a class certification hearing on
Sept. 12, 2007.  Prior to the hearing, all parties agreed the case
should proceed as a class action and also agreed on a definition
of the respective classes.  The classes were certified by court
order on May 22, 2008.  On July 11, 2008, all parties filed
dispositive motions on the issue of liability, which motions were
heard by the court on May 6, 2009.  On June 11, 2009, the Court
granted summary judgment in favor of Monsanto and the other
defendants on the age discrimination claims.  The Court granted
summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on a separate claim
regarding post-termination interest, which was subsequently
settled for an immaterial amount.  The Court entered judgment on
the entire case on Sept. 29, 2009.  On Oct. 27, 2009, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the summary judgment order
on the age discrimination claims.  The Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals heard oral argument in the case on April 20, 2010, and on
July 30, 2010, the Court issued its decision affirming the
decision of the District Court in all respects.  The plaintiffs'
subsequent petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en
banc was denied in an order of the Court of Appeals issued on
Sept. 14, 2010.

On Dec. 13, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari
with the United States Supreme Court.  Monsanto's brief in
opposition to the petition was due Jan. 14, 2011.

Monsanto Company -- http://www.monsanto.com/-- is a global
provider of technology-based solutions and agricultural products
that improve farm productivity and food quality.


MONSANTO CO: Jan. 31 Deadline Set for Filing Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff of a federal securities class action lawsuit
against Monsanto Company has until January 31, 2011, to file an
amended complaint, according to Monsanto's Jan. 7, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Nov. 30, 2010.

On July 29, 2010, a purported class action suit, styled Rochester
Laborers Pension Fund v. Monsanto Co., et al., was filed against
the Company and three of its past and present executive officers
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by making false or misleading statements between Jan. 7,
2009, and May 27, 2010, regarding the Company's earnings guidance
for fiscal 2009 and 2010 and the anticipated future performance of
its ROUNDUP business.  The alleged class consists of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Monsanto common stock between
Jan. 7, 2009, and May 27, 2010.  Plaintiff claims that these
statements artificially inflated the price of the company's stock
and that purchasers of the company's stock during the relevant
period were damaged when the stock price later declined.
Plaintiff seeks the award of unspecified amount of damages on
behalf of the alleged class, counsel fees and costs.

The Company believes it has meritorious legal positions and will
continue to represent its interests vigorously in this matter.

On Sept. 27, 2010, three members of the alleged class moved to be
appointed the lead plaintiff in the action.  On Nov. 1, 2010, the
Court appointed the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as lead
plaintiff in the action, and the Court thereafter extended the
lead plaintiff's time to file an amended complaint until Jan. 31,
2011.

Monsanto Company -- http://www.monsanto.com/-- is a global
provider of technology-based solutions and agricultural products
that improve farm productivity and food quality.


NATIONAL BEEF: NBL Dismissed From Wastewater Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
National Beef Leathers LLC, or NBL, a subsidiary of National Beef
Packing Company LLC, was dismissed from two class action lawsuits
alleging that it spread cancerous wastewater sludge to a community
in Missouri, according to NBP's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
November 27, 2010, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 7, 2011.

NBL has been a named defendant in two purported class actions
involving NBL's tannery located in St. Joseph, Missouri, which NBL
purchased in March 2009.  These lawsuits were filed on July 22,
2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri.  The lawsuits alleged that NBL spread wastewater sludge
containing hexavalent chromium in four counties in northwest
Missouri.  The plaintiffs were seeking an unspecified amount of
damages for economic damages, punitive damages, diminished
property values and medical monitoring.  The claims against NBL in
these lawsuits were dismissed on December 2, 2010 and December 10,
2010.  As a result of these dismissals, NBL is no longer a party
to these lawsuits.


NEW ENGLAND MINT: Accused in Calif. of Defrauding Consumers


-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action accuses
the New England Mint of defrauding consumers by selling "normal
$2 bills at grossly inflated prices."  The class claims the
company is "tricking consumers into believing that the 'National
Park $2 Bills' they sell are unique bills with decorative print
produced by the U.S. government and that they are rate.  In
reality, they are just normal $2 bills that are commonly
available, with a cheap sticker placed on one side."

The complaint continues: "In an effort to further deceive
consumers . . . defendants offer their 'National Park $2 Bills'
with another 'free' product, typically a second $2 bill with a
'National Park' sticker.  In addition, defendants have
artificially 'lowered' the price of their 'products,' only to make
an inflated profit by charging excessive and illegal shipping and
handling fees, and tricking consumers into thinking they are
getting something for free.  This practice is illegal."

Named plaintiff Heidi Walker asks the Superior Court to "enjoin
the ongoing defrauding of thousands of California consumers by
defendants, and to recover the money taken by this deceptive
practice."

The class sues The New England Mint, of Connecticut, and its
corporate parent, Lippenwald, Inc.

Among the alleged "deceptive and unethical practices" are the
defendants' claims that their deal is a "once in a lifetime
opportunity," that "$2 bills are among the rarest U.S.
currencies," that "these crisp uncirculated $2 bills are not being
released through this special offer from the New England Mint,"
and that they "come with a 'certificate of authenticity.'"

The class claims that the truth is that the "defendants simply
place a sticker on normal, common $2 bills."  They offer a $2 bill
for sale for $10, with a second $2 bill for "free," but charge
$5.95 for "shipping and handling" for each bill, so the suckers
actually have to pay $21.90, according to the complaint.

The class seeks restitution, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains,
punitive and statutory damages, and an injunction.

A copy of the Complaint in Walker v. The New England Mint, et al.,
Case No. 1100156 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Bernardino Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/12/Mint.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over Lack of Taxis for Disabled
------------------------------------------------------------
United Spinal Association disclosed that a class action lawsuit
filed on Jan. 13 in Federal District Court in the Southern
District of New York alleges that the New York City Taxi and
Limousine Commission violates applicable Federal and City law by
failing to provide yellow taxis that men, women, and children who
use wheelchairs are able to access.  The suit is the first of its
kind in the country.

The suit is significant, in part, because the TLC is on the verge
of selecting a new model for New York's entire fleet of taxis.
The taxi fleet will start to be replaced with the new model during
the next two years.

If the TLC fails to choose an accessible taxi, men, women and
children who use wheelchairs will, for the next decade, continue
to be unable to access New York taxis.

New York City has more taxis than any city in America.  Yet only
around 200 (1.8%) of the 13,237 taxis are accessible to people who
use wheelchairs, and at any given time only a fraction of the
accessible taxis are on the road.

The suit is brought by a coalition of individuals and
organizations including: United Spinal Association, 504 Democratic
Club, Taxis for All Campaign, and Disabled In Action.  All these
organizations advocate on behalf of people with disabilities and
each has been lobbying for an accessible taxi fleet for years.

The lawsuit seeks no damages.  Plaintiffs are represented by
Disability Rights Advocates, which is a non-profit organization
that specializes in impact litigation on behalf of people with
disabilities.  Plaintiffs are also represented by Outten & Golden,
which is a leader in individual and class action employment
discrimination litigation in New York City.

"The lack of accessible taxis means that men, women, children, and
the elderly who use wheelchairs are excluded from participating in
the city community and are deprived of utilizing this vital mode
of transportation," says James Weisman, United Spinal Association
senior vice president and general counsel.

"Not being able to use taxis limits the jobs that people who use
wheelchairs can take.  It limits the social events they can
attend," Plaintiffs' attorney, Julia Pinover, from Disability
Rights Advocates' New York office, said.  She continued, "New York
experiences extreme and hazardous weather conditions.  It leaves
vulnerable populations such as people with disabilities and the
elderly out in the cold, snow, or rain for intolerable periods of
time.  TLC's failure to make its taxi fleet accessible is shameful
and unnecessary."

Chris Noel, who is an individual plaintiff, said, "I have been
using a wheelchair for almost ten years.  I remember how easy it
was for me to hail a cab when I was not using my wheelchair.  But
now, because there are so few taxis I can use, I often wait for an
hour or more before an accessible taxi even passes me."  Jean Ryan
of organizational Plaintiff Disabled in Action echoed this
sentiment saying, "I used to be able to get a taxi before I used a
wheelchair.  Now, forget about it."

Plaintiff Simi Linton, Ph.D., is a lifelong New Yorker and power
wheelchair user who works primarily in New York City.  Dr. Linton
said, "New York City needs a taxi system that is accessible for
all its citizens, including people with disabilities. On a recent
trip to London, I was able to use any of London's taxis.  I was
able to get around that city independently and with dignity.
London's fully accessible taxis should be a model for New York
City."

"This is a golden opportunity for the TLC to transition the taxi
fleet to an accessible car model with minimal administrative
burden and at minimal cost to drivers and medallion holders," said
Edith Prentiss of the Plaintiff organization, the Taxi's for All
Campaign. "If this transition is not implemented now, it would be
a disaster."

A copy of the Complaint can be found at http://www.dralegal.org/

United Spinal -- http://www.unitedspinal.org/-- is a national
501(c)(3) nonprofit membership organization formed in 1946 by
paralyzed veterans and is dedicated to improving the quality of
life for all Americans with spinal cord injuries and disorders
(SCI/D), including multiple sclerosis, spina bifida, ALS and
post-polio.

Disability Rights Advocates -- http://www.dralegal.org/-- is a
nonprofit legal organization which, for nearly twenty years, has
specialized in law reform and impact class action litigation on
behalf of people with all kinds of disabilities.  Disability
Rights Advocates litigates nationally and has offices in New York
City and Berkeley, California.


NVIDIA CORP: Payouts in Notebook GPU Class Action Starts
--------------------------------------------------------
Electronista reports that the list of potentially affected
notebooks has now gone up in the class-action lawsuit NVIDIA is
facing.  Owners of 15- and 17-inch notebooks from Apple, HP and
Dell with NVIDIA graphics hardware that malfunctioned.  The
potentially affected Apple models are those MacBook Pro models
made between May of 2007 and September of 2008.  Dell and HP
notebooks made between 2005 and 2010 may also be affected.

In all, 21 different models from Dell could be affected, the same
amount from HP and two Apple MacBook Pro models.  The claim period
starts on January 13, and ends on March 14.  Plaintiffs with Apple
and Dell computers are eligible to get replacement parts and
related repairs covered, while HP notebooks are eligible for
replacement models.

Issues that came as a result of these faulty graphics components
are said to include distortions, scrambled video and others on
their displays.

The issue was originally caused by NVIDIA's decision to use non-
eutectic material in building some of its GeForce 8 series desktop
and notebook graphics chips.  Although it has never publicly
touched on the extent of the problems, the design is believed to
have been inherently flawed and to have guaranteed that every
GeForce 8400 and 8600, and some 8800 models, would fail
prematurely.


PHILIP MORRIS: Judge Dismisses Medical Monitoring Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court Eastern District of New York on
Jan. 13 dismissed a lawsuit by a group of New York plaintiffs
seeking class certification in a medical monitoring lawsuit filed
against Philip Morris USA.

"This decision recognizes that the plaintiffs were unable to
establish that the defendant's tortious conduct 'is what caused
them to be exposed to harmful smoke sufficient to require medical
monitoring. . .'"

The Court ruled that there was no legal basis for claims made by
plaintiffs in Caronia v. Philip Morris USA requesting that the
company pay for annual low-dose CT scans for long-term smokers to
determine whether they have lung cancer.  The court dismissed the
lawsuit finding that plaintiffs' medical monitoring and implied
warranty claims were legally invalid.

"This decision recognizes that the plaintiffs were unable to
establish that the defendant's tortious conduct 'is what caused
them to be exposed to harmful smoke sufficient to require medical
monitoring. . .'," said Murray Garnick, Altria Client Services
senior vice president and associate general counsel, speaking on
behalf of Philip Morris USA.  "We believe the Court's sound
reasoning applies to other medical monitoring cases brought
against Philip Morris USA."

Although noting that the dismissal of the medical monitoring and
implied warranty claims rendered plaintiffs' class certification
request moot, the Court commented, "Although the certification
motion is no longer before the Court, the Court does note its
concern that individual issues, especially questions of
comparative fault -- a defense that seems to be available to
Philip Morris notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiffs are
asking only for equitable relief -- would likely defeat any effort
to certify a class in this litigation."


PRAIRIE MOUNTAIN: Recalls 6,200 Youth Hooded Wind/Rain Jackets
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Prairie Mountain Inc., of Lockwood, Missouri, announced a
voluntary recall of about 6,200 youth hooded wind/rain jackets.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The jackets have a drawstring through the hood which poses a
strangulation hazard to children.  In February 1996, CPSC issued
guidelines to help prevent children from strangling or getting
entangled on the neck and waist by drawstrings in upper garments,
such as jackets and sweatshirts.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves Youth Rip Stop hooded wind rain jackets are
lightweight jackets sold in sizes 2/4, 6/8, 10/12 and 14/16 in
red, Royal (blue), and Leaf (green).  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11097.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
vacation gift shops nationwide from February 2010 through July
2010 for about $20.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstring from the jacket
hood to eliminate the hazard, or contact Prairie Mountain for
instructions on how to receive a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Prairie Mountain at (800) 370-4941 between
7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.prairiemountain.net/or
e-mail the firm at mikegaler@prairiemountain.net


RED HAT: Appeals From IPO Lawsuit Settlement Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Appeals are still pending regarding the approval of a settlement
resolving a class action lawsuit against Red Hat, Inc., according
to the Company's Jan. 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 30, 2010.

Commencing on or about March 2001, the Company and certain of its
officers and directors were named as defendants in a series of
purported class action suits arising out of the Company's initial
public offering and secondary offering.  Approximately 310 other
IPO issuers were named as defendants in similar class action
complaints.  On August 8, 2001, Chief Judge Michael Mukasey of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued
an order that transferred all of the IPO Allocation Actions,
including the complaints involving the Company, to one judge for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings (Case No. 21 MC 92).  The
plaintiffs contend that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing registration statements and prospectuses that
contained materially false and misleading information and failed
to disclose material information.  Plaintiffs also challenge
certain IPO allocation practices by underwriters and the lack of
disclosure thereof in initial public offering documents.  On
April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in each of the
310 consolidated actions, including the Red Hat action.  The
relief sought consists of unspecified damages, attorneys' and
expert fees and other unspecified costs.  In October of 2002, the
individual director and officer defendants of the Company were
dismissed from the case without prejudice.  In October of 2004,
the District Court certified a class in six of the 310 actions and
noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance to
all parties regarding class certification in the remaining cases.
The Company's action is not one of the focus cases.

On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit vacated the District Court's class certification with
respect to the focus cases and remanded the matter for further
consideration.  In September 2007, discovery moved forward in the
focus cases and plaintiff filed an amended complaints against the
focus case issuer and underwriter defendants.  Defendants in the
focus cases filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaints
in November 2007 and filed their oppositions to plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in December 2007.  The motions to dismiss
in the focus cases were granted in part.

On April 2, 2009, the plaintiffs' executive committee on behalf of
the proposed class filed a motion for preliminary approval of a
settlement agreement to resolve the lawsuit, to which the Company
has consented and for which payments called for by the settlement
agreement are to be paid by the defendant insurers.  The trial
court heard arguments on September 10, 2009, on the fairness of
the settlement.  In an opinion and order filed October 5, 2009,
the trial court approved the class, granted plaintiffs' motion for
approval of the settlement and directed the clerk of the court to
close the action.  Notices of appeal in the matter have been
filed, and the appeal is pending before the Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

Red Hat, Inc. -- http://www.redhat.com/-- is the world's leading
open source solutions provider and a component of the S&P 500, is
headquartered in Raleigh, NC with over 65 offices spanning the
globe.


RED HAT: Obtains Final Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Red Hat, Inc., obtained final approval of a settlement agreement
resolving a class action lawsuit against it, according to the
company's Jan. 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2010.

In the summer of 2004, 14 class action lawsuits were filed against
the Company and several of its former officers on behalf of
investors who purchased the Company's securities during various
periods from June 19, 2001 through July 13, 2004.  All 14 suits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina. In each of the actions, plaintiffs sought to
represent a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during some or all of the period from June 19, 2001 through
July 13, 2004.  All of the claims arose in connection with the
Company's announcement on July 13, 2004 that it would restate
certain of its financial statements.  One or more of the
plaintiffs asserted that certain former officers and the Company
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by issuing the
financial statements that the Company subsequently restated.  One
or more of the plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, interest,
costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, an accounting of certain
profits obtained by the Individual Defendants from trading in the
Company's common stock, disgorgement by the Company's former chief
executive officer and former chief financial officer of certain
compensation and profits from trading in the Company's common
stock pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
and other relief.  As of September 8, 2004, all of these class
action lawsuits were consolidated into a single action referenced
as Civil Action No. 5:04-CV-473BR and titled In re Red Hat, Inc.
Securities Litigation.  On May 6, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated class action complaint.

On July 29, 2005, the Company, on behalf of itself and the
Individual Defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the action for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  Also
on that date, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, another defendant, filed
a separate motion to dismiss.  On May 12, 2006, the Court issued
an order granting the motion to dismiss the Securities Exchange
Act claims against several of the Individual Defendants, but
denying the motion to dismiss the Securities Exchange Act claims
against the Company, its former chief executive officer and former
chief financial officer.  The Court dismissed the claims under the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act in their entirety, and also granted PwC's
motion to dismiss.  On November 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification.  Subsequent to the filing of that
motion, several plaintiffs withdrew as potential class
representatives, and the Company opposed the certification of the
remaining proposed class representatives.  On May 11, 2007, the
Court entered an order denying class certification and denying all
other pending motions as moot.

Thereafter, on July 13, 2007 Charles Gilbert filed a renewed
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection
of lead counsel.  On November 13, 2007, the Court entered an Order
allowing Gilbert's motion, appointing him lead plaintiff, adding
him as a party plaintiff and appointing lead counsel.  On
January 14, 2008, Gilbert's counsel filed a motion to certify the
action as a class action.  On August 28, 2009, the Court entered
an Order certifying the action as a class action, appointing
Gilbert as the class representative, and defining the class as
"all purchasers of the common stock of Red Hat, Inc. between
December 17, 2002, and July 12, 2004, inclusive and who were
damaged thereby," excluding Company insiders.  On December 15,
2009, the Company announced that it had reached an agreement in
principle to settle this matter, subject, among other matters, to
completion of a final written settlement agreement and court
approval.

The Company recorded, for its quarter ended November 30, 2009, an
estimated liability in the amount of $8.8 million for its portion
of the proposed settlement.  On March 29, 2010, counsel for the
class filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement
and, on June 11, 2010, a United States Magistrate Judge issued a
Memorandum and Recommendation to the presiding judge that the
motion be approved.  On July 8, 2010, the presiding judge approved
the motion and set the hearing for the final fairness hearing on
December 7, 2010.  The settlement was approved by the District
Court in an order dated December 10, 2010.

Red Hat, Inc. -- http://www.redhat.com/-- is the world's leading
open source solutions provider and a component of the S&P 500, is
headquartered in Raleigh, NC with over 65 offices spanning the
globe.


ROYAL BANK: Judge Uses Morrison Ruling in Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that if
there's an MVP award for global securities class actions
defendants, it has to go to George Conway III, Esq., of Wachtell,
Lipton, Rosen & Katz, who last year argued at the U.S. Supreme
Court on behalf of the National Australia Bank.  The Court's
ruling in Conway's case, Morrison v. NAB, is fast becoming the
bane of the plaintiffs bar, with judges continuing to reject
shareholders' attempts to evade the Supreme Court's prohibition on
U.S. securities suits against foreign issuers.

On Tuesday Manhattan federal district court judge Deborah Batts
dismissed most of a securities class action against the Royal Bank
of Scotland, in a 29-page ruling that for the first time extends
the Supreme Court's Morrison reasoning to claims based on the
Securities Act of 1933.

The plaintiffs, led by the Massachusetts Pension Reserves
Investment Management Board and the Public Employees Retirement
System of Mississippi, alleged that RBS and a long list of related
defendants misrepresented RBS's subprime exposure in the lead-up
to a series of write-downs that caused enormous declines in the
bank's share price.  Motions to dismiss were pending before Judge
Batts when the Supreme Court ruled in Morrison; the judge
requested additional briefing and both sides agreed that she
should rule on the Morrison issues before considering other
dismissal arguments.

In their supplemental Morrison brief, co-lead class counsel from
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Wolf Popper; and Labaton Sucharow
made an argument similar to the one advanced by Vivendi
shareholders last summer: Because RBS common shares are "listed"
on the New York Stock Exchange via American Depository Receipts,
claims against RBS are not barred by Morrison.

Judge Batts was equally unpersuaded, in the first ruling that
squarely addresses the argument that common shares are "listed" on
domestic exchanges via ADRs.  "The idea that a foreign company is
subject to U.S. securities laws everywhere it conducts foreign
transactions merely because it has 'listed' some securities in the
United States is simply contrary to the spirit of Morrison," she
concluded.  "Plaintiffs seize on specific language without at all
considering, or properly presenting, the context. . . .
Plaintiffs' interpretation would be utterly inconsistent with the
notion of avoiding the regulation of foreign exchanges."

The judge found that because the Massachusetts and Mississippi
pension funds owned only common shares and thus had no claims
against RBS under Morrison, they could not serve as lead
plaintiffs.  She dismissed the funds from the case with prejudice.
The ruling does not address claims of a subclass of investors in
RBS preferred shares, whose case is going forward.

Co-lead class counsel Thomas Dubbs of Labaton told The American
Lawyer that the judge's ruling on Securities Act claims was
"disappointing."  He said the plaintiffs are considering an appeal
of Judge Batt's conclusions with regard to the 1933 Act claims, as
well as the potential for bringing suit in the U.K. courts.

Mr. Dubbs was on the losing end of the Morrison case at the
Supreme Court, so The American Lawyer asked him about the ruling's
deep impact on district courts overseeing securities class
actions.  "It's not surprising, given the tone of the Supreme
Court's opinion, that district courts are rigorously applying
Morrison," Mr. Dubbs said.  "That leads to the question of whether
a legislative or administrative fix is necessary so U.S. investors
can obtain redress for fraudulent activity by foreign issuers."

Mr. Dubbs may be reached at:

          Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: 212-907-0871
          Facsimile: 212-883-7071
          E-mail: tdubbs@labaton.com

Paul Engelmayer of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr was
counsel to RBS.  He didn't return The American Lawyer's call for
comment.

Mr. Engelmayer may be reached at:

          Paul A. Engelmayer, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          399 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 212-230-8820
          Facsimile: 212-230-8888
          E-mail: paul.engelmayer@wilmerhale.com


SABA SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Against IPO Lawsuit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
In a Jan. 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2010, Saba
Software, Inc., disclosed that it continues to defend against a
class action lawsuit relating to its initial public offering, as
well as that of Centra Software, Inc.'s.  Saba acquired Centra
Software, Inc., in January 2006.

In November 2001, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering. The
complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of a class of certain
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between April 6,
2000 and December 6, 2000. The complaint alleges violations by the
Company and its officers and directors of Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and other related
provisions in connection with certain alleged compensation
arrangements entered into by the underwriters in connection with
the initial public offering. An amended complaint was filed in
April 2002. Similar complaints have been filed against hundreds of
other issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998.
The complaints allege that the prospectus and the registration
statement for the initial public offering failed to disclose that
the underwriters allegedly solicited and received "excessive"
commissions from investors and that some investors in the initial
public offering agreed with the underwriters to buy additional
shares in the aftermarket in order to inflate the price of the
Company's stock. The complaints were later consolidated into a
single action. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorney
and expert fees, and other unspecified litigation costs.

Centra, certain of its former officers and directors and the
managing underwriters of Centra's initial public offering were
named as defendants in an action filed in the District Court. The
plaintiffs filed an initial complaint on December 6, 2001, and
purported to serve the Centra defendants on or about March 18,
2002. The original complaint has been superseded by an amended
complaint filed in April 2002. The action, captioned in re Centra
Software, Inc., Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No.
01 CV 10988, is purportedly brought on behalf of the class of
persons who purchased Centra's common stock between February 3,
2000 and December 6, 2000. The complaint asserts claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that, in
connection with Centra's initial public offering in February 2000,
the underwriters received undisclosed commissions from certain
investors in exchange for allocating shares to them and also
agreed to allocate shares to certain customers in exchange for the
agreement of those customers to purchase additional shares in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices. The complaint asserts that
Centra's registration statement and prospectus for the offering
were materially false and misleading due to their failure to
disclose these alleged arrangements. The complaint seeks damages
in an unspecified amount against Centra and the named individuals.
Similar complaints have been filed against hundreds of other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998; the
complaints have been consolidated into an action captioned in re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92.

On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants in the consolidated
actions moved to dismiss all of the actions, including the action
involving the Company. On July 15, 2002, the Company, Centra,
along with other non-underwriter defendants in the coordinated
cases, moved to dismiss the litigation.

On October 9, 2002, pursuant to agreements tolling the statute of
limitations for claims related to the litigation, the plaintiffs
dismissed, without prejudice, the claims against the named Centra
officers and directors.  Subsequent addenda to the agreements
extended the tolling period through August 27, 2010.

On February 19, 2003, the District Court ruled on the motions. The
District Court granted the Company's and Centra's motions to
dismiss the claims against the Company and Centra under Rule
10b-5.  The District Court also granted the motion of the
individual defendants, Bobby Yazdani and Terry Carlitz, the
Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board and
former Chief Financial Officer and a member of the Company's Board
of Directors, to dismiss the claims against them under Rule 10b-5
and Section 20 of the Exchange Act. The motions to dismiss the
claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act were denied as to
virtually all of the defendants in the consolidated cases,
including the Company and Centra.

In June 2003, a proposed collective partial settlement of this
litigation was structured between the plaintiffs, the issuer
defendants in the consolidated actions, the issuer officers and
directors named as defendants, and the issuers' insurance
companies. In June 2004, an agreement of partial settlement was
submitted to the District Court for preliminary approval.  The
District Court granted the preliminary approval motion on
February 15, 2005, subject to certain modifications. On August 31,
2005 the District Court issued a preliminary order further
approving the modifications to the settlement and certifying the
settlement classes. The District Court also appointed the notice
administrator for the settlement and ordered that notice of the
settlement be distributed to all settlement class members by
January 15, 2006. The settlement fairness hearing occurred on
April 24, 2006, and the court reserved decision at that time.
While the partial settlement was pending approval, the plaintiffs
continued to litigate against the underwriter defendants. The
District Court directed that the litigation proceed within a
number of "focus cases" rather than in all of the 310 cases that
have been consolidated. The Company's and Centra's cases are not
part of these focus cases. On October 13, 2004, the District Court
certified the focus cases as class actions. The underwriter
defendants appealed that ruling, and on December 5, 2006, the
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District
Court's class certification decision. On April 6, 2007, the Second
Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing. In light of the
Second Circuit opinion, counsel for the issuer defendants informed
the District Court that this settlement could not be approved
because the defined settlement class, like the litigation class,
could not be certified. On June 25, 2007, the District Court
entered an order terminating the settlement agreement.  On
August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their second consolidated
amended class action complaints against the focus cases and on
September 27, 2007, again moved for class certification. On
November 12, 2007, certain of the defendants in the focus cases
moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended class action
complaints. On March 26, 2008, the District Court denied the
motions to dismiss 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 class
certification motion 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 among
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 5,
2009, the Court entered an opinion granting final approval to the
settlement and directing that the Clerk of the Court close these
actions. Appeals of the opinion granting final approval have been
filed.

On August 26, 2010, based on the expiration of the tolling period
stated in the agreements between the plaintiffs and the named
Centra officers and directors, the plaintiffs filed a notice to
terminate the tolling agreement and recommence litigation against
the named Centra officers and directors. The plaintiffs stated to
the Court that they do not intend to take any further action
against the named Centra officers and directors at this time.

The Company intends to dispute these claims and defend the lawsuit
vigorously. However, due to the inherent uncertainties of
litigation and because the settlement remains subject to appeal,
the ultimate outcome of the litigation is uncertain. An
unfavorable outcome in litigation could materially and adversely
affect the Company's business, financial condition and results of
operations.


TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Still Defending "Chrome 6" Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of Texas Industries, Inc., continue to defend
themselves from various lawsuits filed by plaintiffs asserting
injuries caused by chrome 6 emissions, according to the Company's
Jan. 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2010.

In late April 2008, a lawsuit was filed in Riverside County
Superior Court of the State of California styled Virginia
Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al.  The
lawsuit against three of the Company's subsidiaries purports to be
a class action complaint for medical monitoring for a putative
class defined as individuals who were allegedly exposed to chrome
6 emissions from the company's Crestmore cement plant.  The
complaint alleges an increased risk of future illness due to the
exposure to chrome 6 and other toxic chemicals.  The suit
requests, among other things, establishment and funding of a
medical testing and monitoring program for the class until their
exposure to chrome 6 is no longer a threat to their health, as
well as punitive and exemplary damages.

Since the Shellman lawsuit was filed, five additional putative
class action lawsuits have been filed in the same court.  The
putative class in each of these cases is the same as or a subset
of the putative class in the Shellman case, and the allegations
and requests for relief are similar to those in the Shellman case.
As a consequence, the court has stayed four of these lawsuits
until the Shellman lawsuit is finally determined.

Since August 2008, additional lawsuits have been filed in the same
court against Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of the
Company's subsidiaries containing allegations of personal injury
and wrongful death by over 2,800 individual plaintiffs who were
allegedly exposed to chrome 6 and other toxic or harmful
substances in the air, water and soil caused by emissions from the
Crestmore plant.  The court has dismissed Texas Industries, Inc.
from the suits, but most of its subsidiaries operating in
California remain as defendants.

Since January 2009, additional lawsuits have been filed against
Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of its subsidiaries in the
same court involving similar allegations, causes of action and
requests for relief, but with respect to the Company's Oro Grande,
California cement plant instead of the Crestmore plant.  The suits
involve approximately 300 individual plaintiffs.  The court has
also dismissed Texas Industries, Inc. from these suits.  Prior to
the filing of the lawsuits, the air quality management district in
whose jurisdiction the plant lies conducted air sampling from
locations around the plant.  None of the samples contained chrome
6 levels above 1.0 ng/m3.

The plaintiffs allege causes of action that vary somewhat from
suit to suit, but typically include, among other things,
negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional
distress, trespass, public and private nuisance, strict liability,
willful misconduct, fraudulent concealment, wrongful death and
loss of consortium.  The plaintiffs generally request, among other
things, general and punitive damages, medical expenses, loss of
earnings, property damages and medical monitoring costs.  At the
date of this report, none of the plaintiffs in these cases has
alleged in their pleadings any specific amount or range of
damages. Some of the suits include additional defendants, such as
the owner of another cement plant located approximately four miles
from the Crestmore plant or former owners of the Crestmore and Oro
Grande plants.

The Company will vigorously defend all of these suits but it
cannot predict what liability, if any, could arise from them.  The
Company also cannot predict whether any other suits may be filed
against it alleging damages due to injuries to persons or property
caused by claimed exposure to chrome 6.

Texas Industries, Inc. -- http://www.txi.com/-- is a supplier of
heavy construction materials in the United States through its
three business segments: cement, aggregates and consumer products.
The company's cement segment produces gray Portland cement and
specialty cements.  Its cement production and distribution
facilities are concentrated primarily in Texas and California.
The company's aggregates segment produces natural aggregates,
including sand, gravel and crushed limestone, and specialty
lightweight aggregates.  Its consumer products segment produces
primarily ready-mix concrete and, to a lesser extent, packaged
products.  The company is a supplier of natural aggregates and
ready-mix concrete in Texas and northern Louisiana, and to a
lesser extent, in Oklahoma and Arkansas.


VCG HOLDING: Receives "Doyle" Complaint in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------
On January 7, 2011, VCG Holding Corp. was served with a complaint
filed by Andrew Doyle in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.  In the Complaint, Plaintiff purports to
bring a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated against the Company, each of the individual
members of the Company's Board of Directors, certain former
members of the Company's Board of Directors and certain entities
owned or controlled by Troy Lowrie, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman of the Board.

The Complaint arises out of the proposed going private transaction
disclosed in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on
November 10, 2010.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that
the price of $2.25 per share payable to the Company's shareholders
upon the closing of the Transaction, if any, is inadequate, Mr.
Lowrie has conflicts of interest with respect to the Transaction,
the individual defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
under Colorado law in connection with the Transaction, and the
proxy statement filed by the Company on December 23, 2010
contained certain omissions and misleading statements.  The
Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the
Plaintiff as class representative, an injunction directing the
members of the Company's Board of Directors to comply with their
fiduciary duties and enjoining the Board members from consummating
the Transaction, an accounting of alleged damages suffered by
Plaintiff and the class, an award of the costs and disbursements
of maintaining the action, including reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees, and such other relief the court deems just and
proper, VCG Holding disclosed in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 12, 2011.


WD-40 CO: Continues to Defend "Burns" Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
WD-40 Company continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit filed by Andrea Burns over the company's automatic toilet
bowl cleaner products, according to the Company's Jan. 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended November 30, 2010.

On June 18, 2010, a legal action was filed against the Company in
the Superior Court of California for the County of Orange (Andrea
Burns v. WD-40 Company).  The complaint seeks class action status
and alleges that the Company misrepresented that its 2000 Flushes
Bleach and 2000 Flushes Blue Plus Bleach automatic toilet bowl
cleaners are safe for plumbing systems and unlawfully omitted to
advise consumers regarding the allegedly damaging effect the use
of the ATBCs has on toilet parts made of plastic and rubber.  This
action is substantively similar to the Drimmer v. WD-40 Company
case that was filed by the same plaintiff law firm in April 2006
in the United States District Court, Southern District of
California.  In August 2008, the Company defeated class
certification in that case, a decision that was upheld by the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in September 2009, and the case was
dismissed with prejudice in March 2010.

As in the Drimmer case, the Company intends to vigorously defend
against the Burns case.  If, however, class action certification
is granted in the Burns case, it is reasonably possible that the
outcome could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash
flows.  There is not sufficient information available at this time
to determine the likelihood that class certification will be
granted or the extent of possible loss if class certification is
granted.

WD-40 Company -- http://www.wd40company.com/-- is a global
consumer product company dedicated to delivering unique, high-
value and easy-to-use solutions for a wide variety of maintenance
needs of "doer" and "on-the-job" users by leveraging and building
the brand fortress of the company.  The company markets three
multi-purpose maintenance product brands -- WD-40(R), 3-IN-ONE(R)
and BLUE WORKS(TM) -- and eight homecare and cleaning product
brands: X-14(R) mildew stain remover and automatic toilet bowl
cleaners, 2000 Flushes(R) automatic toilet bowl cleaners, Carpet
Fresh(R) and No Vac(R) rug and room deodorizers, Spot Shot(R)
aerosol and liquid carpet stain removers, 1001(R) carpet and
household cleaners and rug and room deodorizers, and Lava(R) and
Solvol(R) heavy-duty hand cleaners.  WD-40 Company markets its
products in more than 160 countries worldwide and recorded sales
of $292 million in fiscal year 2009.


* Credit Unions Face Class Actions Over ATM Fee Disclosure Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Rubenstein, writing for Credit Union Times, reports that
Regulation E compliance on credit union ATM fee disclosure has
apparently spawned a flurry of class action suits against CUs,
CUNA Mutual Group reported on Jan. 13.

Likened to "ambulance chasers" which seek out personal injury
clients, a handful of law firms, which were not identified, have
brought a surprising 12 suits filed since mid-December against
CUs, many alleging failure to abide by signage rules.

Of the recent cases, a number have been settled with no dollar
amount listed, said Ken Otsuka, senior analyst-risk management, in
detailing the class action trend.

CUs must state on ATM signs, he said, that fees are attached, but
there is no need to actually state the amount of the fee, which
has been the source of the lawsuits.

"We've found some credit unions failed to change the amounts on
signs or some credit unions in remote shared locations were not
properly serviced," said Mr. Otsuka of CUNA Mutual's Credit Union
Protection Claims Division.

In a memo sent to state leagues last week, Mr. Otsuka wrote that
Reg E requirements for disclosing ATM fees "has triggered a
significant risk concern for credit unions" with lawsuits filed
alleging violation of section 205.16 of the regulation, "which
applies when a consumer initiates an electronic funds transfer or
a balance inquiry at an ATM owned or operated by an institution
that does not hold the account to or from which the transfer is
made, or about which an inquiry is made."

CUNA Mutual said there are currently 35 of the lawsuits now open
over the past several months with two or three law firms
identified as lead plaintiffs.

"When credit unions charge a fee to a consumer using a non-credit
union ATM network card or debit card, the regulation requires
posting a sign in a prominent and conspicuous location on or at
every ATM owned or operated by the credit union stating that a fee
will or may apply," the statement said.

That means disclosing the fee on the terminal screen or on paper
notice before the consumer is committed to paying the fee "but it
is not necessary to include the amount of the fee on the sign,"
said Mr. Otuska, adding the class actions represent a fledgling
cottage industry of law firms going after CUs "like ambulance
chasers."

                             *********

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  * * *