CAR_Public/110208.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, February 8, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 27

                             Headlines

99 CENTS ONLY: Defends California Competition Law Violation Suits
AMERICAN EQUITY: Enters Into Settlement of "Stephens" Lawsuit
BBG COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Non-Disclosure of Telephone Rates
BEAZER HOMES: Settles Securities Class Action for $5.5 Million
BRIGGS & STRATTON: Recalls 50 V-Twin Engines

BRIGGS & STRATTON: Appeal on Horsepower Suit Settlement Pending
BRISTOW GROUP: Still Defending Suit Over Helicopter Services
COMPELLENT TECH: Parties Reach MOU in Merger-Related Class Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Rivera" Action Still Pending in California
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: 3 Former Employees Join in "Credille" Suit

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Still Defending "Reed" Suit in Texas
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend "Karam" & "Totten" Suits
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Seeks Arbitration in Former Students' Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend "Montgomery" Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Defends "Kimble" Suit in California

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces "Ferguson" Suit in California
DANIEL BOULUD: Bartender Files Class Action
DANVERS BANK: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims
DEVILBISS AIR: Recalls 460,000 Air Compressors
DIRECTBUY: Settles Class Action Over "Kickbacks"

DOMINION EAST: Faces Class Action Over Pipeline Surge & Fires
DYNEGY INC: April 4 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
FARMERS INSURANCE: Client Can Challenge Class Action Settlement
GATEWAY INC: Ill. Sup. Ct. Revives Suit Over Pentium Processors
HEADWATERS INC: Wins Dismissal of Claims in "Archstone" Suit

HILLENBRAND INC: Plaintiffs' Brief on Antitrust Suit Due Feb. 23
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Continues to Face "Perlmutter" Suit in Calif.
J.CREW GROUP: Wants to Pursue Settlement of Delaware Class Action
LIFE PARTNERS: Holzer Probes Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims
LIVE NATION: Class Action Settlement Prompts Income Forecast Cut

MAINE: Judge Grants Class Action Status to DHSS Suit
MANNKIND CORP: Holzer Files Class Action Over AFREZZA Drug
NEW YORK: NYPD's Bid to Dismiss Snooping Class Suit Junked
PAMLAB LLC: ClassAction.org Warns Patients of Metanx Generics
PHELAN HALLINAN: Faces Class action Over Foreclosure Procedures

RAYAN BROTHERS: Accused of Violations of Chicago RLTO
RHODE ISLAND: Class Suit Over Pell Bridge Tolls Under Advisement
RIDGELAND, SC: Seeks Dismissal of Traffic Camera Class Action
SAFEWAY INC: Sued Over Inadequate Notice of Product Recalls
SMURFIT-STONE: D&OS Face 4th Suit Over Rock-Tenn Buyout

SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Recalls 5,700 Convertible Clothes Iron
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Wins Dismissal of Mississippi Lawsuit
UNITED RENTALS: Petition for Rehearing En Banc Pending



                             *********

99 CENTS ONLY: Defends California Competition Law Violation Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
99c Only Stores is defending itself from two lawsuits filed by
certain parties who allege that the Company violated California's
unfair competition law, according to the Company's Feb. 2, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended December 25, 2010.

Leonard Morales and Steven Calabro filed a putative class action
complaint against the Company in July 2010 in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, claiming
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200) and Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (California Civil Code Section 1750, et seq.), as
well as unjust enrichment, arising out of the Company's September
2008 change in its pricing policy.  Plaintiffs seek restitution of
all amounts allegedly "wrongfully obtained" by the Company,
injunctive and declaratory relief, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and their attorney's fees and costs.  The Company filed
a demurrer to all of the causes of action in this complaint as
well as a motion to strike certain portions of it.  In response to
these motions, the plaintiffs amended their complaint.

Phillip Kavis, Debra Major, Barbara Maines, and Susan Jonas filed
a putative class action complaint against the Company, David Gold,
Jeff Gold, Howard Gold, and Eric Schiffer in July 2010, claiming
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200), False Advertising Law
(California Business & Professions Code Section 17500), and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (California Civil Code Section 1770),
as well as intentional misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, arising out of the
Company's September 2008 change in its pricing policy.  Plaintiffs
seek actual damages, restitution, including disgorgement of all
profits and unjust enrichment allegedly obtained by the Company,
statutory damages and civil penalties, equitable and injunctive
relief, exemplary damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
and their attorney's fees and costs.  The Company filed a demurrer
to all of the causes of action in this complaint as well as a
motion to strike certain portions of it.  In response to these
motions, the plaintiffs amended the complaint.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits
or of any action or lawsuit that may be brought against it or the
amount of potential loss, if any, the Company could face as a
result of such lawsuits or actions.  The Company believes its
pricing structure is lawful, and that its .99 cent pricing policy
has an established precedent similar to the .9 cent pricing policy
used for decades by gas stations across the country.  The Company
believes its .99 cent pricing policy has been well publicized with
items properly price-signed in the stores such that it would not
cause a reasonable consumer to be deceived, and the Company
intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits as well as any such
other lawsuit or action that may arise.


AMERICAN EQUITY: Enters Into Settlement of "Stephens" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
On January 27, 2011, American Equity Investment Holding Company
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle Stephens v.
American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company, et. al., a
class action lawsuit pending in the San Luis Obispo Superior
Court, California, according to a Form 8-K filed by the Company
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 1, 2011.

The lawsuit was filed on November 29, 2004, on behalf of a class
of individuals who are California residents and who either
purchased their annuity from the Company through a co-defendant
marketing organization or who purchased one of a defined set of
particular annuities issued by the Company.  American Equity
denies liability for the claims asserted by the class, but has
determined that it is in the best interest of all policyholders,
agents, shareholders and American Equity to resolve the dispute.

The settlement, which is subject to court approval, will provide a
total settlement benefit of $36 million to past and present
policyholders who are members of the class.  In addition, American
Equity has agreed not to oppose an application by plaintiffs'
counsel for attorneys' fees up to $11 million, litigation expenses
up to $950,000, and incentives of $25,000 each for the two class
representatives, and will pay up to those amounts if they are
awarded by the Court.  The net cost of the settlement (after
related reductions in amortization of deferred sales inducements
and deferred policy acquisition costs and income taxes) will be
included in the Company's consolidated financial statements for
the year ended December 31, 2010.  The net cost of the settlement
is currently estimated to be approximately $27.4 million.  The
settlement will also be included in American Equity Investment
Life Insurance Company's December 31, 2010, statutory Annual
Statement and is currently expected to reduce its Company Action
Level Risk-Based Capital ratio by 6-8 percentage points.


BBG COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Non-Disclosure of Telephone Rates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
BBG Communications "fails to disclose significant connection fees,
extraordinarily high per-minute long distance telephone rates, or
minimum charges for unconnected calls" at its telephones at
airports, hotels, train stations and elsewhere around the world.

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

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/03/Telecom.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart M. Eppsteiner, Esq.
          Andrew J. Kubik, Esq.
          EPPSTEINER & FIORICA ATTORNEYS, LLP
          12555 High Bluff Dr., Suite 155
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 350-1500
          E-mail: sme@eppsteiner.com
                  ajk@eppsteiner.com


BEAZER HOMES: Settles Securities Class Action for $5.5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, P.A., made an
announcement to all current and former employees concerning the
Beazer Homes USA, Inc. ERISA class action (Case No. 1:2007-CV-
00952-RWS) settlement agreement for the case filed in the US
District Court of the Northern District of Georgia. According to
Court documents, the settlement with employees who participated in
the Beazer Homes USA, Inc. 401(k) Plan was for $5.5 million.  The
class action lawsuit alleged the fiduciary of the 401(k) plan was
obligated to remove Beazer Homes USA, Inc. common stock as an
investment option, "when Beazer stock failed to constitute a
prudent retirement investment."  TGN urges current and former
employees who held Beazer Home USA Inc. stock with full-service
brokerage firms to consider what recourse is available to recover
their investment losses.  The Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, (FINRA) is a self regulating organization with sales
practice rules and regulations that govern the securities
industry's conduct and safeguard the investing public.  For
investors who accumulated shares in Beazer Homes USA, Inc., the
recent developments represent a significant loss in income and
investment.

According to TGN, many investors in Beazer Homes USA Inc. stock
represented a long term holding acquired through investment or as
an employee of the company.  Full-service brokerage firms are
obligated to give, and investors are entitled to rely upon,
brokerage firms for competent, suitable investment advice for
investments made in customer accounts.  Brokerage firms are
required to supervise the activities in brokerage accounts, losses
may be attributed to the failure to adequately supervise the
stockbroker and the brokerage account.  Recommendations of
unsuitable investments and/or failure to recommend appropriate
risk management strategies for unprotected concentrated stock
positions are both causes of action that may be available to
investors against their full-service brokerage firm in an
individual securities arbitration claim filed with FINRA.

The Securities Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA, is a
nationally recognized, Martindale Hubbell "AV" rated securities
law firm.  To request a confidential consultation from a TGN
attorney to determine whether you have a viable individual
securities arbitration claim for investment losses that exceed
$250,000 from a full service brokerage account, contact us on our
Web site.  To speak directly with an attorney, call (800) 578-0137
and ask for David Chacin, Esq.


BRIGGS & STRATTON: Recalls 50 V-Twin Engines
--------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Briggs & Stratton Corporation, Milwaukee, Wis., announced a
voluntary recall of about 50 Briggs & Stratton Model 40 V-Twin
Engine.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.

Wear on misrouted wiring may cause it to disconnect from the shut-
off device, allowing the engine to continue running when the key
is in the "OFF" position or when the operator gets off the seat
while the mower is engaged, posing an injury hazard to consumers.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves a Briggs & Stratton V-twin engine with the
date code 100201Y.  The engines can be found in the following lawn
mowers: Craftsman, model 247:289810; Husqvarna, model 960460016;
and Bad Boy, model BBM4826BS.  The engine date code is bottom-most
number located on the valve cover of the engine. The valve cover
is located at the front of the engine near the oil dipstick.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11719.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and
sold through Sears, under the Craftsman brand; The Home Depot,
under the Husqvarna brand; and Tractor Supply Company, under the
Bad Boy brand. The mowers were sold in February 2010 and March
2010 for between $1,500 and $3,500.

Consumers should immediately stop using the riding mowers and
contact a Briggs & Stratton Authorized Dealer for free inspection
and repair.  Consumers with affected Craftsman and Husqvarna
models were notified by letter from Sears and Briggs & Stratton.
Tractor Supply Company has not notified the purchasers of the
affected Bad Boy models.  For more information, contact Briggs &
Stratton Corporation at (866) 927-3349 between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web
site at http//www.briggsandstratton.com/engines/support/contact/


BRIGGS & STRATTON: Appeal on Horsepower Suit Settlement Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the final approval of a settlement resolving the
"horsepower" class action filed against Briggs & Stratton
Corporation is currently pending, according to the Company's
Feb. 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 26, 2010.

Starting with the first complaint in June 2004, various plaintiff
groups filed complaints in state and federal courts across the
country against the Company and other engine and lawnmower
manufacturers alleging that the horsepower labels on the products
they purchased were inaccurate and that the Company conspired with
other engine and lawnmower manufacturers to conceal the true
horsepower of these engines.  The Horsepower Class Actions sought
to certify unfair trade practice and common law claims for
separate classes of all persons in each of the 50 states, Puerto
Rico and the District of Columbia who purchased a lawnmower
containing a gasoline combustion engine up to 30 horsepower from
1994 to the present. In addition, the complaints sought injunctive
relief, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
included nationwide federal antitrust and RICO claims.  On
December 5, 2008, the Multidistrict Litigation Panel coordinated
and transferred the cases to Judge Adelman of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (In Re:
Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, Case No. 2:08-md-01999).

On January 27, 2009, Judge Adelman entered a stay of all
litigation so that the parties could conduct mediation in an
effort to resolve all outstanding litigation.  On February 24,
2010, the Company entered into a Stipulation of Settlement that
resolves all of the Horsepower Class Actions.  Other parties to
the Settlement are Sears, Roebuck and Co., Sears Holdings
Corporation, Kmart Holdings Corporation, Deere & Company, Tecumseh
Products Company, The Toro Company, Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
and Husqvarna Outdoor Products, Inc. (now known as Husqvarna
Consumer Outdoor Products, N.A., Inc.).  All other defendants
settled all claims separately.  The Settlement resolves all
horsepower-labeling claims brought by all persons or entities in
the United States who, beginning January 1, 1994 through the date
notice of the Settlement is first given, purchased, for use and
not for resale, a lawn mower containing a gas combustible engine
up to 30 horsepower provided that either the lawn mower or the
engine of the lawn mower was manufactured or sold by a Defendant.

As part of the Settlement, the Company denies any and all
liability and seeks resolution to avoid further protracted and
expensive litigation.  The Settling Defendants as a group agreed
to pay an aggregate amount of $51 million. However, the monetary
contribution of the amount of each of the Settling Defendants is
confidential.  In addition, the Company, along with the other
Settling Defendants, agreed to injunctive relief regarding their
future horsepower labeling, as well as procedures that will allow
purchasers of lawnmower engines to seek a one-year extended
warranty free of charge.

On August 16, 2010, Judge Adelman issued a final order approving
the Settlement as well as the settlements of all other defendants.
Judge Adelman's opinion found all settlements to be in good faith
and dismissed the claims of all class members with prejudice.
Prior to the time for filing appeals expired, one class member
filed a motion to modify or amend Judge Adelman's final approval
order.  This motion was denied on October 28, 2010.  In August and
September 2010, several class members filed a Notice of Appeal of
Judge Adelman's final approval order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  Those appeals are still
currently pending.  Under the terms of the Settlement, the balance
of settlement funds will not be due, and the one-year warranty
extension program will not begin, until all appeals from Judge
Adelman's final approval order are exhausted or otherwise
resolved.

As a result of the pending Settlement, the Company recorded a
total charge of $30.6 million in the third quarter of fiscal year
2010 representing the total of the Company's monetary portion of
the Settlement and the estimated costs of extending the warranty
period for one year. The timing of payments required as a result
of the Settlement is expected to be within the next twelve months.


BRISTOW GROUP: Still Defending Suit Over Helicopter Services
------------------------------------------------------------
Bristow Group, Inc., is still defending a complaint asserted
against it alleging improper increase in the price of certain
helicopter services, the Company disclosed in its Feb. 2, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On June 12, 2009, Superior Offshore International, Inc. v. Bristow
Group Inc., et al, Case No. 1:09-cv-00438, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.  The purported class
action complaint, which also named other providers of offshore
helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico as defendants, alleged
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Among other things,
the complaint alleged that the defendants unlawfully conspired to
raise and maintain the price of offshore helicopter services
between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2005.  The plaintiff was
seeking to represent a purported class of direct purchasers of
offshore helicopter services and was asking for, among other
things, unspecified treble monetary damages and injunctive relief.
In September 2010, the court granted the Company's and the other
defendants' motion to dismiss the case on several grounds.  The
plaintiff has since filed a motion seeking a rehearing and seeking
leave to amend its original complaint which was partially granted
to permit limited discovery.  The Company intends to continue to
defend against this lawsuit vigorously.  The Company says that it
is currently unable to determine whether it could have a material
effect on its business, financial condition and results of
operations.


COMPELLENT TECH: Parties Reach MOU in Merger-Related Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On January 31, 2011, a Memorandum of Understanding was reached
relating to several putative class action lawsuits that had been
filed and subsequently consolidated in the Delaware Court of
Chancery and the State of Minnesota District Court, Fourth
Judicial District in the County of Hennepin, against the members
of the board of directors of Compellent Technologies, Inc., Dell
Inc. and Dell's subsidiaries, Dell International, L.L.C., and Dell
Trinity Holdings Corp., and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dell
International, according to a Form 8-K filed by Compellent
Technologies with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 1, 2011.

In connection with the MOU, on January 31, 2011, Compellent, Dell
International and Merger Sub entered into an amendment to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 12, 2010, among
Dell International, Merger Sub and Compellent.

In the MOU, the Defendants agreed that:

   * Dell and Compellent will amend Section 4.2(e) of the Merger
     Agreement to eliminate the requirement that Compellent have a
     stockholder rights plan and Compellent will redeem the rights
     outstanding under the Rights Plan and that this amendment
     will not give Dell the right to terminate the Merger
     Agreement or receive a termination fee under the Merger
     Agreement.

   * Dell and Compellent will amend Section 4.3 (No Solicitation)
     of the Merger Agreement, which includes the following
     exemplary changes: (a) Compellent and Dell agree that
     Compellent will not be required to enter into a standstill
     agreement with future bidders, if any; (b) Compellent and
     Dell will agree to eliminate or shorten certain time periods
     regarding future bids, if any; (c) Compellent and Dell will
     agree to reword the determination that must be made in order
     for Compellent's board of directors to enter into discussions
     or negotiations or share confidential non-public information
     with a potential bidder; (d) Compellent and Dell will agree
     to modify the type of information that Compellent would be
     required to supply to Dell relating to a future bid, if any;
     and (e) Compellent and Dell agree to revise the applicability
     of subsection (g) relating to a breach of Sections 4.3 of the
     Merger Agreement.

   * Compellent and Dell will revise the definition in the Merger
     Agreement of "Triggering Event", which includes the following
     exemplary changes: (a) Compellent and Dell will agree to
     eliminate the reaffirmation of the board recommendation upon
     request provision; (b) Compellent and Dell will agree to
     delete the triggers relating to the Rights Plan and the
     standstill provision previously set forth in Section 4.3 (No
     Solicitation); and (c) Compellent and Dell will agree to add
     a materiality condition to subsection (f), relating to a
     breach of Section 4.3 (No Solicitation).

   * Compellent and Dell will amend the Merger Agreement to
     provide that the termination fee referred to in Sections
     8.3(c) and 8.3(d) of the Merger Agreement will be reduced to
     $31,100,000.

   * Compellent will agree to delay the meeting of the
     stockholders for the stockholder vote to approve the adoption
     of the Merger Agreement with respect to the merger so that it
     does not occur prior to 21 days from the date the terms set
     forth in the preceding bullet points are disclosed to the
     public on a Current Report on Form 8-K.

   * Compellent will make certain additional disclosures on a
     Current Report on Form 8-K which are required to be filed
     with the SEC no later than February 3, 2011.  These
     disclosures are attached as Exhibit 99.1 hereto and
     incorporated herein by reference.

As a result of the MOU, Compellent expects the special meeting
date to approve the adoption of the Merger Agreement to be
postponed until February 22, 2011 and intends to file a proxy
supplement advising stockholders of the details relating to this
postponement of the Special Meeting.

Compellent and the other Defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue to vigorously deny, any wrongdoing or liability with
respect to the facts and claims asserted, or which could have been
asserted, in the lawsuits.  The settlement contemplated by the MOU
is not, and should not be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing
or liability by any Defendant.  However, to avoid the risk of
delaying or otherwise imperiling the Merger, and to provide
additional information to Compellent's stockholders, Compellent
and its directors agreed to the MOU.  The parties considered it
desirable that these actions be settled to avoid the substantial
burden, expense, risk, inconvenience and distraction of continued
litigation and to fully and finally resolve the matter.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Rivera" Action Still Pending in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The matter captioned Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., remains pending in California,
according to Corinthian Colleges, Inc.'s Feb. 2, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2010.

On May 28, 2008, a putative class action demand in arbitration
captioned Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc., and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc., was filed with the American Arbitration
Association.  The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVAC
students from the Company's WyoTech Fremont campus.  The
arbitration demand alleges violations of California's Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, fraud and intentional
deceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment/restitution, all related to alleged deficiencies and
misrepresentations regarding the HVAC program at these campuses.
The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVAC
students in the Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland
campuses over the prior four years, and seek recovery of
compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company never operated any HVAC
programs at the Company's WyoTech Oakland campus during its
ownership of that campus.  The Company believes the complaint is
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against
these allegations.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89 schools
in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario, Canada.
The company offers a range of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelors and master's degrees.  The training programs include
healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical, trades, business and
information technology.  Since the company's formation in 1995, it
has acquired 74 colleges and has opened 32 branch campuses.  The
company offers online education to two categories of students,
including those attending online classes exclusively, and those
attending a blend of traditional classroom and online courses.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: 3 Former Employees Join in "Credille" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three former employees join in a class action lawsuit filed in
Illinois against Corinthian Colleges, Inc., according to the
Company's Feb. 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

On November 17, 2008, an action captioned Mary Credille and Roger
Madden, on behalf of all similarly situated current and former
employees, v. Corinthian Colleges et al., was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The two
named plaintiffs are former employees of the Company's Chicago
campus, and allege failure to receive proper compensation for all
overtime hours allegedly worked in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act. Plaintiff Credille has voluntarily dismissed her
claims against the Company.  On December 8, 2009, the Court
granted Plaintiff Madden's motion to conditionally certify a
collective action to include those current and former admissions
representatives at the Company's Chicago campus who also satisfy
additional requirements.  A total of three former employees,
including Madden, have elected to participate in the lawsuit.  The
Company believes the allegations are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89 schools
in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario, Canada.
The company offers a range of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelors and master's degrees.  The training programs include
healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical, trades, business and
information technology.  Since the company's formation in 1995, it
has acquired 74 colleges and has opened 32 branch campuses.  The
company offers online education to two categories of students,
including those attending online classes exclusively, and those
attending a blend of traditional classroom and online courses.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Still Defending "Reed" Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., is still defending a putative class
action complaint against its wholly owned subsidiary, Florida
Metropolitan University, Inc., according to the Company's Feb. 2,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

On April 20, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Reed, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. was filed in the District Court of Travis County,
Texas. Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company.  Plaintiff purports to be a former
student in the Company's Everest University Online operations.
The complaint claims violations of Texas Education Code Sections
132.051(a) and 132.059(a) for alleged failure of Everest
University Online to receive a Certificate of Approval or an
exemption from the appropriate Texas state licensing bodies to
offer online courses in the State of Texas and to register its
admissions representatives with the State of Texas.  The plaintiff
seeks to certify a class composed of all persons who contracted to
receive distance education from Everest University Online while
residing in Texas, and seeks damages on behalf of such persons,
pre- and post-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive
relief, cost of suit, and such other relief as the court deems
proper.  On July 26, 2010, the Court ordered the matter to binding
arbitration, and the plaintiff has filed a putative class action
demand in arbitration.  The Company believes the complaint is
without merit and intends to defend itself and its subsidiary
vigorously.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89 schools
in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario, Canada.
The company offers a range of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelors and master's degrees.  The training programs include
healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical, trades, business and
information technology.  Since the company's formation in 1995, it
has acquired 74 colleges and has opened 32 branch campuses.  The
company offers online education to two categories of students,
including those attending online classes exclusively, and those
attending a blend of traditional classroom and online courses.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend "Karam" & "Totten" Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., continues to defend itself from two
identical purported class action lawsuits naming the company and
several executive officers as defendants, according to the
Company's Feb. 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

On August 31, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Jimmy Elias Karam v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al., was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the Company's common stock from October 30,
2007 through August 19, 2010, against the Company and Jack
Massimino, Peter Waller, Matthew Ouimet and Kenneth Ord, all of
whom are current or former officers of the Company.  The complaint
alleges that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the defendants made certain
material misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain
material facts about the condition of the Company's business and
prospects during the putative class period, causing the plaintiffs
to purchase the Company's common stock at artificially inflated
prices.  The plaintiffs further claim that Messrs. Massimino,
Waller, Ouimet and Ord are liable under Section 20(a) of the Act.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts in damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, as well as other relief.

On October 29, 2010, another putative class action complaint
captioned Neal J. Totten v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was
filed by the same law firm that filed the Karam matter in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  The Totten
complaint is substantively virtually identical to the Karam
complaint.  Several other plaintiffs have intervened in the
lawsuit and have petitioned the Court to appoint them to be the
lead plaintiffs.

The Company believes the complaints are without merit and intends
to defend itself and its current and former officers vigorously.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89 schools
in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario, Canada.
The company offers a range of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelors and master's degrees.  The training programs include
healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical, trades, business and
information technology.  Since the company's formation in 1995, it
has acquired 74 colleges and has opened 32 branch campuses.  The
company offers online education to two categories of students,
including those attending online classes exclusively, and those
attending a blend of traditional classroom and online courses.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Seeks Arbitration in Former Students' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., is seeking to compel arbitration of a
purported class action lawsuit in Utah filed by former students,
according to the Company's Feb. 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2010.

On September 24, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Chelsi Miller, Daniel Marty and Christie Cotton, on behalf of
themselves and all persons similarly situated v. Corinthian
Colleges, Inc., et al. was filed in the Third Judicial District of
Utah State Court. The named plaintiffs are former students of the
Company's Everest College in Salt Lake City, Utah, and seek to
represent a class of all persons who completed courses and/or
received credits from Everest College in Salt Lake City during the
four year period ending on the date the action was filed. The
complaint alleges that the Company made fraudulent and negligent
misrepresentations and violated the Utah Sales and Consumer
Practices Act in connection with statements to students about
accreditation and transfers of credit and the amount of costs and
fees. The plaintiffs seeks an order certifying a class,
declaration that the arbitration provisions in the plaintiffs'
enrollment agreements are unconscionable, injunctive relief,
restitution, disgorgement and other injunctive relief, imposition
of a constructive trust, actual and punitive damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs of suit. The
Company has removed the case to federal court and has filed a
motion to compel arbitration. The Company believes the complaint
is without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89 schools
in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario, Canada.
The company offers a range of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelors and master's degrees.  The training programs include
healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical, trades, business and
information technology.  Since the company's formation in 1995, it
has acquired 74 colleges and has opened 32 branch campuses.  The
company offers online education to two categories of students,
including those attending online classes exclusively, and those
attending a blend of traditional classroom and online courses.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend "Montgomery" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., is defending itself from a lawsuit in
Illinois alleging unjust enrichment and breach of contract,
according to the Company's Feb. 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2010.

On November 23, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Alisha Montgomery, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and Corinthian
Schools, Inc. d/b/a Everest College and Olympia College, was filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  Corinthian
Schools, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.
Plaintiffs are thirty-three individuals who purport to be current
and/or former students of the Company's Medical Assistant Program
at the Everest College campus in Merrionette Park, Illinois.  The
complaint alleges breach of contract, violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and unjust
enrichment, all related to alleged deficiencies and
misrepresentations regarding the Company's medical assisting
program at the Merrionette Park campus.  The plaintiffs seek to
certify a class composed of all persons who enrolled in the
Company's Medical Assisting program at the Everest College
Merrionette Park campus during the four years preceding the filing
of the lawsuit, and seek actual and compensatory damages on behalf
of such persons, costs and attorneys' fees, punitive damages,
disgorgement and restitution of wrongful profits, revenue and
benefits to the extent deemed appropriate by the court, and such
other relief as the court deems proper.  The Company has removed
the case to federal court.  The Company believes the complaint is
without merit and intends to defend itself and its subsidiary
vigorously.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89 schools
in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario, Canada.
The company offers a range of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelors and master's degrees.  The training programs include
healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical, trades, business and
information technology.  Since the company's formation in 1995, it
has acquired 74 colleges and has opened 32 branch campuses.  The
company offers online education to two categories of students,
including those attending online classes exclusively, and those
attending a blend of traditional classroom and online courses.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Defends "Kimble" Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., is defending itself from a lawsuit
filed by a former student in California, according to the
Company's Feb. 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

On December 20, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Jacquel Kimble, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Rhodes College, Inc., d/b/a Everest College, Rhodes
Business Group, Inc. d/b/a Everest College, and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. Rhodes Colleges, Inc. and Rhodes
Business Group, Inc. are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company.
Plaintiff purports to be a former student of the Company's Everest
College campus in Hayward, California.  The complaint seeks
restitution and injunction relief, as well as such other relief as
the court deems proper, pursuant to California's Unfair
Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code Sections
17200, et seq., and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
California Civil Code Sections 1750, et. seq. on behalf of all
persons who, during the applicable statutes of limitations, were
enrolled as students at any Everest College campus in the United
States. The Company believes the complaint is without merit and
intends to defend itself and its subsidiary vigorously.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89 schools
in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario, Canada.
The company offers a range of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelors and master's degrees.  The training programs include
healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical, trades, business and
information technology.  Since the company's formation in 1995, it
has acquired 74 colleges and has opened 32 branch campuses.  The
company offers online education to two categories of students,
including those attending online classes exclusively, and those
attending a blend of traditional classroom and online courses.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces "Ferguson" Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., is defending itself from a lawsuit
filed by a former student of its Miami Everest Institute,
according to the Company's Feb. 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2010.

On January 24, 2011, a putative class action complaint captioned
Kevin Ferguson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges, Inc.
d/b/a Everest College, Corinthian Colleges, Inc. d/b/a Everest
University, Corinthian Colleges, Inc. d/b/a Everest Institute,
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. d/b/a Everest College of Business,
Technology and Health Care, Heald College, LLC and Heald Capital,
LLC was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.  Heald College, LLC and Heald Capital, LLC are
wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company.  Plaintiff purports to
be a former student of the Company's Everest Institute campus in
Miami, Florida.  The complaint alleges breach of implied contract,
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
violation of California's Business and Professions Code Sections
17200, et seq., violation of California's Business and Professions
Code Sections 17500, et seq., violation of California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, negligent misrepresentation and fraud, and
seeks a declaration that the action is proper under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23, injunctive relief, restitution,
disgorgement, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and cost of suit,
on behalf of all persons who attended any Everest institution in
the United States or Canada from January 24, 2005 to the present,
and all persons who attended any Heald institution from the period
of January 24, 2009 to the present.  The Company believes the
complaint is without merit and intends to defend itself and its
subsidiaries vigorously.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post-
secondary education company in the United States and Canada.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the
company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89 schools
in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario, Canada.
The company offers a range of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelors and master's degrees.  The training programs include
healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical, trades, business and
information technology.  Since the company's formation in 1995, it
has acquired 74 colleges and has opened 32 branch campuses.  The
company offers online education to two categories of students,
including those attending online classes exclusively, and those
attending a blend of traditional classroom and online courses.


DANIEL BOULUD: Bartender Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------
Gothamist reports a lawyer for a former bartender at Cafe Boulud
is filing a class action lawsuit against the restaurant's parent
company and famed chef/restaurateur Daniel Boulud, claiming that
his client was fired after he voiced concerns about unsanitary
conditions behind the bar.  Specifically, Arie Ohayon says he
witnessed a bar manager putting ice in customers' drinks with her
bare hands.  The lawsuit also alleges that the same manager put
tools inside clean ice bins.

The NYC Health Department requires bar workers to use tongs when
handling ice and even wear gloves when handling bar fruit, and
Cafe Boulud's current A grade could have been jeopardized had
inspectors witnessed that.  But instead of being lauded for his
concern, Mr. Ohayon says he was terminated not long after
reporting what he saw to the higher-ups.  The lawsuit also alleges
that Cafe Boulud did not meet minimum wage and overtime
requirements, and allowed non-top employees to share in the
servers' tip pool.

"I just think it's sad that at such a high end restaurant someone
who complains about a health and safety violation would be treated
with such disrespect," says Mr. Ohayon's attorney, Maimon
Kirschenbaum.  The lawsuit seeks an undisclosed sum, which Ohayon
and company may very well get -- some of it, at least.  In 2007,
Mr. Boulud settled a federal lawsuit accusing him of
discriminating against non-white employees at his restaurant
Daniel.


DANVERS BANK: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim Danvers
Bank is selling itself too cheaply to People's United Financial,
for $493 million, or $23 per share or 1.624 shares of People's
United for each Danvers share.

A copy of the Complaint in Knudsen v. Danvers Bancorp, Inc., et
al., Case No. 6163 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/03/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARQUI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330

               - and -

          James C. Strum, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          20 Montchanin Rd., Suite 145
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482-3182


DEVILBISS AIR: Recalls 460,000 Air Compressors
----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
DeVilbiss Air Power Company of Jackson, Tenn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 460,000 Air compressors.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The air compressor motor can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

DeVilbiss received nine reports of motors overheating, including
three reports of fire damage to surrounding property.  No injuries
have been reported.

This recall involves compressors sold under the Craftsman, Delta
Shopmaster, DeVilbiss, Husky and Porter-Cable brand names. The
model number and manufacture date on each unit is located on the
unit name plate on the tank.  The model numbers, brands, tank
size, orientation and color are shown below:

                                          Tank        Manufacture
  Brand    Model Number    Tank           Color       Date Range
  -----    ------------    ----           -------     -----------
Craftsman   919-16644   15 gal vertical      Red  5/2004 - 3/2005
Craftsman   919-16724   15 gal. horizontal   Red  9/2000 - 3/2003
Craftsman   919-16724-1 15 gal. horizontal   Red  9/2002 - 12/2003
Craftsman   919-16724-2 15 gal. horizontal   Red  7/2003 - 5/2005
Craftsman   919-16724-3 15 gal. horizontal   Red  5/2004 - 1/2005
Craftsman   919-16725   15 gal. horizontal   Red 12/2002 - 12/2003
Craftsman   919-16725-1 15 gal. horizontal   Red  7/2003 - 8/2004
Porter-Cable C2000-WK    6 gal. pancake      Red  1/2004 - 5/2004
Porter-Cable C3001       4 gal. stacked      Red  1/2004 - 7/2004
Delta
Shopmaster   CP503      12 gal. horizontal  Gray  6/2002 - 3/2003
Delta
Shopmaster   CP503-1    12 gal. horizontal  Gray  5/2003 - 3/2004
DeVilbiss
Impact
Series       HFAC 3030   3 gal. horizontal  Blue  1/2003 - 7/2004
Husky        Y6010-WK   25 gal. vertical    Red   2/2003 - 9/2003
Husky        Y6010-WK-1 25 gal. vertical    Red   7/2003 - 9/2003
Husky        Y6020-WK   25 gal. vertical    Red   5/2003 - 3/2004

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11117.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
through DeVilbiss, Porter-Cable, Husky, and Delta Shopmaster brand
compressors were sold at home centers nationwide from January 2003
through December 2004 for between $199 and $299.  Craftsman-brand
compressors were sold at Sears stores nationwide from September
2000 through December 2005 for between $199 and $229.

Consumers should immediately stop using and unplug the recalled
compressors and call DeVilbiss or Sears for a free inspection and
repair.  For additional information, consumers with DeVilbiss,
Porter-Cable, Husky and Delta compressors should contact DeVilbiss
toll-free at (866) 220-5627 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.porter-cable.com/or http://www.devap.com/
Consumers with Craftsman-brand compressors should call Sears toll-
free at (888) 279-8013, Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00
p.m., Central Time, and Saturday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Central
Time, or visit their website at http://www.sears.com/


DIRECTBUY: Settles Class Action Over "Kickbacks"
------------------------------------------------
James R. Hood, writing for ConsumerAffairs.com, reports the
DirectBuy buying club chain has reached a preliminary settlement
of a class action lawsuit that claimed the club's members were
wrongfully excluded from "kickbacks" and other promotional
payments allegedly made by manufacturers of products sold by the
clubs.

Earlier last week, West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw
sued DirectBuy, alleging it uses coercion, deception and high-
pressure sales tactics and sell memberships that cost $3,995 or
more.

The class action charged that members of the 145 franchised
DirectBuy centers pay thousands of dollars to join and are
promised that they will be able to buy furniture, appliances,
carpeting and other products at the "direct" price -- the price
actually charged by the manufacturer or supplier, thus avoiding
the usual retail mark-up.

But the lawsuit alleges that DirectBuy's promises are "false and
misleading" because the company does not report the "kickbacks" --
volume rebates, cooperative advertising funds and early payment
discounts.  The plaintiffs alleged that, therefore, they were
paying more than the "direct" price they had been promised.

$6 million

In support of the plaintiffs' claims, the lawsuit says that during
the fiscal year ended July 31, 2007, DirectBuy and its affiliates
received about $8,000,000 in "kickbacks."  During the same time,
it generated income of about $87 million, including $77 million
from the sale of memberships and about $2 million from the
financing of memberships.

DirectBuy denied that it had broken any laws or misrepresented its
service and said it agreed to the settlement only to avoid the
cost of litigation.

The settlement applies to anyone who was a DirectBuy member during
a specific time period and to certain former members.  Those who
are current members will receive a 28-month DirectBuy membership
renewal for the price of 24 months, or a 13-month renewal for the
price of 12.

Former members will be eligible for a two-month free membership at
their most recent membership level.

What to do

Court documents indicate that more details of the settlement will
be made available at http://www.settlement.direct.com/ although
the link was not operating at the time of this writing.

Potential class members may also contact the law firm representing
the plaintiffs:

          Jeffrey S. Nobel, Esq.
          IZARD NOBEL LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 215
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292

The preliminary settlement was reached before United States
Magistrate William I. Garfinkel of Connecticut U.S. District Court
in December 2010. It remains subject to final approval by the
Court.


DOMINION EAST: Faces Class Action Over Pipeline Surge & Fires
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Funk, writing for The Plain Dealer, reports a Mentor law firm
has filed what it hopes will be certified as a class action
lawsuit against Dominion East Ohio gas company on behalf of all
Fairport Harbor residents whose homes were destroyed or damaged by
a gas line pressure surge.

The spike, which occurred Jan. 24 after a pair of pressure
regulators failed, led to fires and explosions that destroyed or
badly damaged at least eight homes and damaged furnaces and other
appliances in other homes.

Dominion spokesman Neil Durbin on Feb. 3 said that the company
doesn't comment about pending suits.

Dominion has been accepting damage claims from residents since the
day of the incident, he said, and anyone who has not contacted the
company can still call 1-800-362-7557.

Dominion does not plan to ask other rate payers to pay for the
damage at Fairport Harbor, Mr. Durbin said.  "The cost of the
initial response to the incident will not be borne by rate
payers."

The suit in Lake County Common Pleas Court is filed on behalf of
two homeowners on New Street in the village, but lawyer
Mark DiCello argues in the 10-page complaint that 50 to 60
property owners and 70 to 80 renters were affected and should be
treated as a class.

The suit notes that the gas company estimated in a published
report that about 1,500 people were affected.

Dominion's pipeline system within Fairport Harbor operates at low
pressure -- less than half a pound per square inch -- while the
transmission pipeline that brings gas to the village runs at high
pressure, about 150 pounds per square inch.  There are three
connections between the two systems.

The initial investigation by the Dominion engineers and inspectors
from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio indicated that a
pressure regulator and its twin backup in one regulator station
failed, allowing high-pressure gas into the low-pressure system.

The gas company has since installed automatic monitoring equipment
in the remaining two stations.  The equipment charts and records
24-hour operating pressure.

The suit argues that Dominion was "negligent as a result of its
distribution system being improperly designed, constructed,
maintained and or inspected" and that the company "failed to keep
the pressure regulators in proper working order."

Dominion inspection records obtained from the PUCO showed the
village's three regulator stations had been inspected over the
last four years, with no problems found.

The company and PUCO engineers have been trying to determine what
caused both pressure regulators to fail -- a highly unusual event.

In their initial inspection of the regulator station where both
pressure regulators failed, the company said Dominion and state
regulators found debris and a liquid in the pipeline.  The company
has not identified either the liquid or the debris.


DYNEGY INC: April 4 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven disclosed that the firm filed on
February 1, 2011 a class action in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, on
behalf of all persons who own shares of the common stock of Dynegy
Inc., against Dynegy and members of its Board of Directors for
violations of Sections 14 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934  and for breaches of fiduciary duties to Dynegy shareholders
in connection with a tender offer by IEH Merger Sub LLC, which is
owned and controlled by Icahn Enterprises Holdings LP, to purchase
Dynegy for $5.50 per share.

Dynegy produces and sells electric energy, capacity and ancillary
services in the US.  The complaint alleges that in August 2010,
Dynegy told investors to accept a buyout offer from The Blackstone
Group LP or the company would face dire consequences.  However,
the complaint alleges that Dynegy's investors had a drastically
different view about the company's future.  For example, the
complaint alleges that Icahn and hedge fund Seneca Capital
Investments LP, the two largest stakeholders of Dynegy, rejected
Blackstone's original offer of $603 million (or $4.50 per share)
citing gross undervaluation, and the company's excellent position
to reap the benefits of a recovery in electricity prices.  The
complaint alleges that even though Blackstone raised its offer to
a "best and final" $5 per share on November 16, 2010, the deal
collapsed on November 23, 2010 after it failed to gain enough
shareholder support.  That same day, the complaint states, Dynegy
told investors that it "intends to immediately commence an open
strategic alternatives process to solicit proposals from
potentially interested parties and carefully review its standalone
restructuring alternatives."  However, the complaint alleges that
Dynegy's Board of Directors quickly abandoned its promise of a
"careful standalone review" in favor of yet another sale agreement
and ill-timed auction for Dynegy during the middle of the holiday
season.  The complaint states that on December 15, 2010, Dynegy
announced that it had accepted a buyout offer of $665 million
($5.50 per share), excluding debt, from Icahn.  The complaint
states that Dynegy publicly disclosed that the Board of Directors
had approved a definitive agreement under which IEH will acquire
Dynegy in a tender offer followed by a merger for $5.50 cash per
share.  However, the complaint alleges that the Board's pledge to
form a special committee and then engage an independent
restructuring advisor to explore standalone, value-enhancing
options, including asset sales, debt restructuring, and cost-
cutting amounted to nothing more than lip service.  The complaint
alleges that senior management at Dynegy stands to benefit from
$38 million in change-of-control severance payments (approximately
6% of Dynegy's equity value) that are largely irrespective of the
deal price.

The complaint alleges that Dynegy failed to disclose material
information in Tender Offer materials filed with the SEC and
publicly disseminated in connection with the Tender Offer by IEH
for Dynegy.  According to the complaint, the Tender Offer
materials were materially false and misleading because they fail
to provide shareholders with adequate disclosure about the sales
process or the financial calculations used to justify the merger
price.  Specifically, according to the complaint, the Tender Offer
materials omit and/or misrepresent material information in
contravention of Sections 14 and 20 of the 1934 Act and/or
defendants' fiduciary duty of disclosure under state law.

Not later than April 4, 2011, any member of the purported class
may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported
class.  If you are a Dynegy shareholder and you wish to serve as
lead plaintiff, wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Brower Piven, at 410/415-6616 or by e-mail at
hoffman@browerpiven.com

If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven
without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain
other counsel of your choice.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages and secure other relief on
behalf of all holders of Dynegy common stock.  The plaintiff is
represented by Brower Piven, whose attorneys have combined
experience litigating securities and class action cases of over 60
years.  The Brower Piven Web site http://www.browerpiven.com/has
more information about the firm.

CONTACT: Charles J. Piven, Esq.
         Brower Piven
         Stevenson, Maryland
         Telephone: (410)415-6616


FARMERS INSURANCE: Client Can Challenge Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Los Angeles Superior Court on February 3 granted a former
Farmers Insurance customer, represented by Consumer Watchdog's
attorneys, the right to challenge portions of a $455 million
settlement of a national class action lawsuit against Farmers
Group, Inc.

The case, known as Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc., charges that
Farmers required its policyholders to pay too much for a
management fee that Farmers builds into its auto, home, and
business insurance premiums.  The company earns a 50% profit on
the fee.  Last October, the plaintiff and defendants announced a
settlement of the case, which includes $455 million to affected
consumers and $90 million paid to the plaintiffs' attorneys, but
the settlement details were not filed in court until two weeks
ago.

Representing a former Farmers customer, Consumer Watchdog
attorneys asked the court for permission to intervene in order to
object to key provisions of the settlement.  Over the objections
of the insurance companies and the plaintiffs, Superior Court
Judge William F. Highberger granted the Farmers customer's request
to intervene in the case and postponed the preliminary settlement
approval hearing until March 2, 2011.

Consumer Watchdog's legal papers raised the following objections
to the settlement:

   1. Consumers would be required to fill out a complex form in
order to collect the estimated $20 refund; courts are increasingly
skeptical of such settlements because very few customers end up
submitting a claim.

   2. Any unclaimed settlement funds would go to insurance
entities that are controlled by Farmers and were originally
defendants in this case.  The settlement provides no guarantee
that the unclaimed funds will be used to benefit current
policyholders, and giving the money to a Farmers affiliate clearly
will not benefit policyholders who are no longer with the company.

   3. The settlement bars a wide array of future legal claims by
policyholders against Farmers, Zurich and the insurance affiliates
for issues entirely unrelated to the management fee issue targeted
by the lawsuit.  As a result, even if virtually none of the
settlement is paid to actual policyholders, Farmers will be
released from liability nationwide for a range of possibly illegal
conduct that has nothing to do with the lawsuit.

Download Consumer Watchdog's court brief opposing the settlement
at:

   http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/intervenorrc2-2-11.pdf

"We are pleased that we will have the opportunity to pursue fair
terms for class members, including actual refunds, before the
court," said Consumer Watchdog lawyer and founder Harvey
Rosenfield.  "Class action lawsuits are an important tool for
justice when consumers get ripped off and fixing the terms of this
settlement will benefit Farmers' policyholders nationwide."

Consumer Watchdog -- http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org/-- is a
nonprofit, nonpartisan organization with offices in California and
Washington, D.C.


GATEWAY INC: Ill. Sup. Ct. Revives Suit Over Pentium Processors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
half of Stephen Tillery's class action over the speed of Pentium
processors died at the Illinois Supreme Court, but the other half
has gained new life there.

On Feb. 3, all seven Justices agreed that Tillery client William
Carr can pursue a claim against processor maker Gateway Inc. in
Madison County.

They found Gateway can't enforce an arbitration clause in a sales
contract because the arbitrator that the clause required no longer
accepts consumer cases.

Tillery sued Gateway and Intel in 2002, for Mr. Carr and others,
claiming the companies falsely represented that Pentium 4 worked
faster than Pentium 3.

Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn severed the cases in 2003, taking
one as Carr v. Gateway and the other as Barbara's Sales v. Intel.

He certified the Intel suit as a class action, but the Justices
reversed him in 2007.

They held that Intel's alleged representations were not actionable
under Illinois law.

In the other case, Gateway asked Judge Mendelsohn to send Mr. Carr
to the National Arbitration Forum in accordance with the contract.

Judge Mendelsohn held a hearing in 2007, denied arbitration, and
sealed the transcript.

Gateway appealed to the Fifth District in Mount Vernon.

As Gateway awaited resolution, the National Arbitration Forum
dropped out of the business of consumer complaints.

Gateway persisted in the appeal, arguing it could pick a
substitute.

Fifth District judges denied the appeal, finding the designation
of the forum integral to the contract.

Supreme Court Justices agreed, though they suggested Gateway
should have found a new arbitrator who would follow the old
arbitrator's rules.

"Neither party has indicated whether an arbitrator could be
appointed who would be allowed to conduct arbitration under NAF
rules," Justice Rita Garman wrote.

"Nor is it known whether NAF rules could be used in a consumer
arbitration, given the fact that NAF no longer accepts such
arbitrations," she wrote.

"Thus, any finding by this court concerning the use of NAF rules
by a substitute arbitrator would be based on speculation," she
wrote.


HEADWATERS INC: Wins Dismissal of Claims in "Archstone" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Headwaters Incorporated's subsidiary, Eldorado Stone LLC, won
dismissal of all claims, except one, in a class action lawsuit in
New York, according to the Company's Feb. 2, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended December 31, 2010.

Archstone owns an apartment complex in Westbury, New York.
Archstone alleges that moisture penetrated the building envelope
and damaged moisture sensitive parts of the buildings which began
to rot and grow mold. In 2008, Archstone evicted its tenants and
began repairing the twenty-one apartment buildings.  Also in 2008,
Archstone filed a complaint in the Nassau County Supreme Court of
the State of New York against the prime contractor and its
performance bond surety, the designer, and Eldorado Stone, LLC
which supplied architectural stone that was installed by others
during construction.  The prime contractor then sued over a dozen
subcontractors who in turn sued others.  Archstone claims as
damages approximately $36.0 million in repair costs, $15.0 million
in lost lease payments, $7.0 million paid to tenants who sued
Archstone, and $7.0 million for class action defense fees, plus
prejudgment interest and attorney's fees.

Eldorado Stone answered denying liability and tendered the matter
to its insurers who are paying for the defense of the case.  The
court has dismissed all claims against Eldorado Stone, except the
claim of negligence. Because the resolution of the action is
uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion
concerning the likely outcome of this matter, the liability of
Eldorado Stone, if any, or the insurers' obligation to indemnify
Eldorado Stone against loss, if any.


HILLENBRAND INC: Plaintiffs' Brief on Antitrust Suit Due Feb. 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the antitrust class action lawsuit against
Hillenbrand, Inc., and others have until Feb. 23, 2011, to file
their brief appealing two District Court orders dismissing their
lawsuit and denying class certification, according to the
Company's Feb. 2, 2011 Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010.

In 2005 the Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc., and a number of
individual consumer casket purchasers filed a purported class
action antitrust lawsuit on behalf of certain consumer purchasers
of Batesville(R) caskets against the Company and its former parent
company, Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., now Hill-Rom Holdings,
Inc., and three national funeral home businesses.  A similar
purported antitrust class action lawsuit was later filed by
Pioneer Valley Casket Co. and several so-called "independent
casket distributors" on behalf of casket sellers who were
unaffiliated with any licensed funeral home.  Class certification
hearings in the FCA Action and the Pioneer Valley Action were held
before a Magistrate Judge in early December 2006. On November 24,
2008, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the plaintiffs'
motions for class certification in both cases be denied.  On
March 26, 2009, the District Judge adopted the memoranda and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and denied class
certification in both cases.  On April 9, 2009, the plaintiffs in
the FCA case filed a petition with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for leave to file an appeal of the
Court's order denying class certification.  On June 19, 2009, a
three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit denied the FCA plaintiffs'
petition.  On July 9, 2009, the FCA plaintiffs filed a request for
reconsideration of the denial of their petition.  On July 29,
2009, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit denied the FCA
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and their alternative
motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing en banc.

The Pioneer Valley plaintiffs did not appeal the District Court's
order denying class certification and, on April 29, 2009, pursuant
to a stipulation among the parties, the District Court dismissed
the Pioneer Valley Action with prejudice (i.e., Pioneer Valley
cannot appeal or otherwise reinstitute the case).  Neither the
Company nor Hill-Rom provided any payment or consideration for the
plaintiffs to dismiss this case, other than agreeing to bear their
own costs rather than pursuing plaintiffs for costs.

Plaintiffs in the FCA Action have generally sought monetary
damages on behalf of a class, trebling of any such damages that
may be awarded, recovery of attorneys' fees and costs, and
injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs in the FCA Action filed a
report indicating that they were seeking damages ranging from
approximately $947.0 million to approximately $1.46 billion before
trebling on behalf of the purported class of consumers they seek
to represent, based on approximately one million casket purchases
by the purported class members.

Because Batesville continues to adhere to its long-standing policy
of selling Batesville caskets only to licensed funeral directors
operating licensed funeral homes, a policy that it continues to
believe is appropriate and lawful, if the case goes to trial, the
plaintiffs are likely to claim additional alleged damages for
periods between their reports and the time of trial.  At this
point, it is not possible to estimate the amount of any additional
alleged damage claims they may make.  The defendants are
vigorously contesting both liability and the plaintiffs' damages
theories.

Despite the ruling denying class certification, the FCA plaintiffs
continued to pursue their individual injunctive and damages
claims.  Their individual damages claims are limited to the
alleged overcharges on the plaintiffs' individual casket purchases
(the complaint currently alleges a total of eight casket purchases
by the individual plaintiffs), which would be trebled, plus
reasonable attorneys fees and costs.
      
In June 2010, co-defendant Stewart Enterprises, Inc., announced a
settlement with the plaintiffs.  On July 16, 2010, the District
Court granted the remaining defendants' motion for leave to file a
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  On
August 2, 2010, the District Court heard argument on the motion
and ordered full dismissal of the lawsuit on September 24, 2010,
concluding that "plaintiffs shall take nothing by their suit."  In
light of this decision, defendants filed a motion requesting that
the Court order plaintiffs to pay costs incurred by Batesville and
SCI in the approximate amount of $0.7 million.  The Court denied
this motion on October 22, 2010.

Plaintiffs had 30 days to declare their intent to appeal the
dismissal of their lawsuit, and they did so by way of a Notice of
Appeal filed on October 19, 2010. Plaintiffs' Notice indicates
that they intend to appeal both the Court's final judgment of
dismissal entered on September 24, 2010 and the Court's order
denying class certification entered on March 26, 2009.  The appeal
is to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Plaintiffs recently requested an enlargement of time to file their
brief appealing the denial of the two District Court orders.  The
request was granted by the Court of Appeals on January 3, 2011;
therefore, plaintiffs' brief must now be filed by February 23,
2011.  Defendants' brief will be due 30 days after receiving
plaintiffs' brief, unless an enlargement of time is requested and
granted. Plaintiffs will then have an opportunity to file a reply
brief. Once all briefs are submitted, the Court of Appeals may
hear oral argument by the parties' attorneys and will then issue
its ruling as to whether or not the District Court's decisions
should be reversed or affirmed.  It should be noted, however, that
the appellate schedule is only approximate and is subject to
change dependent upon a number of factors, including the granting
of any extensions of time and the relative congestion of the
docket of the Court of Appeals.

If plaintiffs succeed in overturning the judgment, reversing the
District Court order denying class certification, and a class is
subsequently certified in the FCA Action filed against Hill-Rom
and Batesville, and if the plaintiffs prevail at a trial of the
class action, the damages awarded to the plaintiffs, which would
be trebled as a matter of law, could have a significant material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial
condition, and/or liquidity.  In antitrust actions such as the FCA
Action, the plaintiffs may elect to enforce any judgment against
any or all of the co-defendants, who have no statutory
contribution rights against each other.  The Company and Hill-Rom
have entered into a judgment sharing agreement that apportions the
costs and any potential liabilities associated with this
litigation between the Company and Hill-Rom.

As of December 2010, the Company had incurred approximately $27.8
million in cumulative legal and related costs associated with the
FCA matter since its inception.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Continues to Face "Perlmutter" Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc., is still facing a purported securities
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

On August 6, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Perlmutter v. Intuitive Surgical et al., No. CV10-3451, was filed
against the Company and seven of the Company's current and former
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 1,
2008 and January 7, 2009.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making allegedly
false and misleading statements and omitting certain material
facts in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 1, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

Intuitive Surgical, Inc. -- http://www.intuitivesurgical.com/--
headquartered in Sunnyvale, California, is the global technology
leader in robotic-assisted, minimally invasive surgery.  Intuitive
Surgical develops, manufactures, and markets robotic technologies
designed to improve clinical outcomes and help patients return
more quickly to active and productive lives.  The company's
mission is to extend the benefits of minimally invasive surgery to
the broadest possible base of patients.


J.CREW GROUP: Wants to Pursue Settlement of Delaware Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a February 1, 2011 Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, J.Crew Group, Inc, issued this statement:

"J.Crew said that the memorandum of understanding with the
Delaware plaintiffs announced on January 18th is a binding
agreement and the company will challenge any attempt to change or
revoke it. J.Crew said it has honored its obligations under the
agreement, including by extending the go-shop period until
February 15th.  The agreement, subject to court approval, settles
the putative class action lawsuit pending in Delaware chancery
court against the Company and others in connection with the
proposed acquisition of J.Crew by affiliates of TPG Capital, L.P.
and Leonard Green & Partners, L.P.  The Company said it intended
to move forward with its planned shareholder vote on March 1."

Also on February 1, 2011, the Company and the other defendants in
In re J.Crew Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 6043
submitted a letter to the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware responding to the letter submitted by plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Delaware Action that alleged breach by the defendants
of the terms of the previously announced Memorandum of
Understanding, dated January 16, 2011.  That Memorandum of
Understanding contemplated, among other things, payment of $10
million to be made to a class of J.Crew shareholders, under the
circumstances described therein.  In the January 31 Plaintiff
Letter, the plaintiffs stated that they were no longer willing to
pursue a settlement in accordance with the Memorandum of
Understanding.

In the February 1 Letter, the Company and the other defendants
reaffirmed their commitment to move forward with the settlement
process and stated their intent to file a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Delaware Action on the basis that there is a binding
agreement to settle the claims that were or could have been
asserted in the Consolidated Delaware Action.  In addition, as the
defendants indicate in the February 1 Letter, the defendants
believe that they (i) have honored fully their obligations due
under the Memorandum of Understanding to date, including by
entering into Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated January 18, 2011, which amends the Agreement and Plan of
Merger by and among the Company, Chinos Holdings, Inc. and Chinos
Acquisition Corporation, dated November 23, 2010, to implement
certain terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, including, among
other things, the extension of the "go shop" period by 31 days
through February 15, 2011 and (ii) have taken the necessary steps
to honor any remaining obligations under the Memorandum of
Understanding.


LIFE PARTNERS: Holzer Probes Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel LLC on February 3 disclosed that it is
investigating potential breaches of fiduciary duties by certain
officers and directors of Life Partners Holdings, Inc.  On
February 2, 2011, an investor filed a class action lawsuit in the
Western District of Texas alleging that Life Partners violated the
federal securities laws between May 29, 2007 and January 19, 2011.
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Life Partners used
unrealistic life expectancy data to price and sell its "life
settlement policies."  According to the complaint, these improper
pricing methods rendered the Company's Class Period statements
about its financial well being and future business prospects false
and misleading.  Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC's investigation seeks
to determine if the allegations contained in the class action
complaint give rise to separate claims for breaches of fiduciary
duties.

If you have continuously held shares since at least May 29, 2007,
and plan to continue to hold at least some shares of Life
Partners, and would like to discuss your legal rights, you may
contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com
                  mdees@holzerlaw.com
          Toll-free Telephone: (888) 508-6832.

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that
dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders
and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder
class action and derivative litigation.  More information about
the firm is available through its Web site,
http://www.holzerlaw.com/and upon request from the firm.  Holzer
Holzer & Fistel, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Michael I. Fistel, Jr. is the
attorney responsible for its content.


LIVE NATION: Class Action Settlement Prompts Income Forecast Cut
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports concert and ticketing giant Live
Nation Entertainment Inc. on Feb. 2 cut its annual profit forecast
by 7% after agreeing to settle a class-action lawsuit against its
Ticketmaster division over online fees charged to customers.

The company, which merged with Ticketmaster last year, said in a
securities filing that its adjusted operating income will be about
$362 million for the year through December, down from the $389
million it had earlier estimated.

The charges include $22.3 million to settle the class-action suit
against Ticketmaster over ticket-delivery and order-processing
fees for online customers and $4.9 million for restructuring its
North American concert business.

The company said the new forecast also includes a $6 million
negative impact from foreign exchange movements.

Live Nation said that it did not acknowledge wrongdoing in the
lawsuit, filed in 2003, but agreed to pay the plaintiffs' legal
bills and give certain customers cash refunds or discounts off
future ticket purchases.  It will also change certain disclosures
on its website, the filing said.

The company expects to file the settlement with a court, seeking
its approval, around the end of February.  It declined to comment
further.

Live Nation shares rose 6 cents to close at $10.70 in the regular
session Wednesday before it announced its reduced outlook.  The
company is due to report its fourth-quarter earnings on Feb. 28.


MAINE: Judge Grants Class Action Status to DHSS Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Judy Harrison and Eric Russell, writing for Bangor Daily News,
report more than 40 Maine residents with cerebral palsy, epilepsy
and other related conditions will join a lawsuit seeking to force
the Maine Department of Health and Human Services to provide
opportunities for them to live independently outside of nursing
homes.

U.S. District Judge John Woodcock on Jan. 31 granted class-action
status to a lawsuit filed more than a year ago by three men with
cerebral palsy who want to live on their own but retain support
services.

Filed in December 2009 in U.S. District Court in Bangor, the
lawsuit alleges that DHHS, in the operation of its Medicaid
program, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Nursing Home Reform Act because it failed to offer people with
cerebral palsy, epilepsy and other related conditions
opportunities to live out-side of nursing homes.

In addition, the plaintiffs have claimed that for those who do
live in nursing homes, DHHS has failed to provide necessary
services required under federal law.

"If the [supposed] class members were to proceed on an individual
basis, they might obtain the individual service they seek without
obtaining systemic changes to DHHS's conduct that would benefit
the class as a whole, a result that could lead to countless
individual claims seeking the exact same relief," Judge Woodcock
wrote in his decision.  Obtaining relief on a classwide basis
ensures an efficient judicial remedy to any deficiency in DHHS's
conduct."

Eric Reeves, 34, of Penobscot is one of the three named
plaintiffs.  He lives in Penobscot Nursing Home.  The other named
plaintiffs are Jake Van Meter, 27, who lives in a nursing home in
Ellsworth, and Adam Fletcher, 29, who lives in a similar facility
in Braintree, Mass.

A trial date has not been set.

"Judge Woodcock's decision represents a landmark victory for
people with disabilities unnecessarily confined to nursing
facilities," attorney Jeffrey Neil Young of Topsham, who
represents the plaintiffs, said in an e-mail on Feb. 1.  "All
individuals, regardless of age, should be able to elect to live in
the community, not in nursing facilities, if they so desire.
Regardless of where individuals with disabilities choose to live,
they are entitled to obtain the services they need to allow them
to live as independently as possible.

"For over 20 years, Maine has shirked its responsibilities to
individuals with cerebral palsy, epilepsy and similar conditions,"
he continued.  "Judge Woodcock's ruling is the first step in a
journey to compel the state to live up to its responsibilities to
its citizens with disabilities."

Efforts on Feb. 2 to reach attorneys in the Maine Attorney
General's Office representing DHHS were unsuccessful due to
inclement weather.  However, it is the practice of the office not
to comment on cases until they have concluded.

Assistant Attorney General James Fortin argued against class
certification on several grounds including that there were not
more than 40 class members in Maine -- the number required for
class certification -- and that by the time the case was
concluded, it would be moot because of a current construction
project.

In recent months, Jake Van Meter's mother, Linda Elliott of
Ellsworth, has partnered with Community Housing of Maine and the
Charlotte White Center in Bangor to renovate the former Knights of
Columbus headquarters on Court Street in Bangor.

Ms. Elliott said last week the housing project was moving steadily
ahead and could be completed within a year, about the time the
lawsuit might be ready for trial.

"I'm happy that there are a lot of other people we are
representing and fighting for," Mr. Reeves said when told of
Woodcock's decision.

Mr. Young, Reeves' attorney, said that it "makes no sense to fix
the problem for some, but not fix it for everyone.

"This ruling will allow the type of broad relief our clients want
for themselves and for others," Mr. Young said.  "Nursing homes
are not places for young people.  If you have to be there, you
want to make sure you get the services you need."

Mr. Young's co-counsels in the case include attorneys from Maine
Equal Justice Partners, the Disability Rights Center and the
National Health Law Program.


MANNKIND CORP: Holzer Files Class Action Over AFREZZA Drug
----------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC on February 3 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Mannkind Corp. common stock who purchased shares between June 25,
2010 and January 19, 2011 (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit
alleges, among other things, that the Company knew but failed to
disclose that its experimental drug AFREZZA faced issues with its
clinical utility that might inhibit approval by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration.

If you purchased shares of Mannkind common stock during the Class
Period, you have the legal right to petition the Court to be
appointed a "lead plaintiff."  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Any such request must satisfy certain
criteria and be made no later than April 1, 2011.  Any member of
the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you are a Mannkind investor and
would like to discuss a potential lead plaintiff appointment, or
your rights and interests with respect to the lawsuit, you may
contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          HOLZER HOLZER & FISTEL, LLC
          Toll-free Telephone: (888) 508-6832
          E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com
                  mdees@holzerlaw.com

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that
dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders
and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder
class action and derivative litigation.  More information about
the firm is available through its Web site,
http://www.holzerlaw.com/and upon request from the firm.


NEW YORK: NYPD's Bid to Dismiss Snooping Class Suit Junked
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge denied the New York City Police Department's attempt to
dismiss a landmark 1971 class action limiting its surveillance of
private citizens.  And, in the case originally brought by
Abbie Hoffman, Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Haight Jr.
awarded plaintiffs attorney's fees for the NYPD's "indulgence in
meaningless litigation."

The class action, which opposed the NYPD's practice of maintaining
videotapes and photographs of private citizens, was originally
filed by attorney Barbara Handschu.

The original plaintiffs, who included Abbie Hoffman and Anette T.
Rubenstein, settled with the Police Department, which agreed to
abide by rules governing its surveillance of private citizens that
came to be known as the "Handschu Guidelines."

In 2007, Judge Haight allowed police to modify the guidelines,
citing new security concerns after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"The plaintiff class and the NYPD dwelt together under the
Original Handschu Guidelines with a degree of amity and a lack of
acrimony that, I am frank to confess, I had neither anticipated
nor hoped for.  But then the dreadful and tragic events of 9/11
occurred.  The NYPD, viewing the circumstances in respect of
intelligence gathering as having been materially changed, moved
this Court for a modification of the Original Handschu
Guidelines," Judge Haight wrote in his Feb. 25, 2007 opinion.

In that document, Judge Haight allowed the NYPD to videotape and
photograph political demonstrations, so long as the department's
methods conformed to the Handschu Guidelines.

He ruled on how those restrictions would be altered in what came
to be known Handschu VIII and Handschu IX, according to a new
opinion filed in January this year.

Handschu IX gave the plaintiffs class permission to pursue relief
-- and contempt actions -- against the NYPD for violating rights
in ways the modifications did not allow, Judge Haight wrote.

The NYPD subsequently argued that the guidelines have changed so
much that the plaintiff class could no longer be considered the
"prevailing party," Judge Haight wrote.

The judge rejected that.

"Had the NYPD's contention prevailed, much of the combined efforts
of counsel and Court over years of litigating this case would have
become 'sound and fury, signifying nothing,' Macbeth, V. v. 17, 'a
consummation devoutly to be wish'd' by the NYPD, Hamlet, III. i.
56," Judge Haight wrote, incorporating the Shakespearean citations
in his ruling.
Judge Haight refused to drop the curtain on the case.

Citing LaRouche v. Kezer, he wrote: "A party need not succeed on
every issue raised by him, nor even the most crucial one.  Victory
on a significant claim will suffice to give him prevailing party
status.  The degree of success on the merits does not alter
plaintiffs' eligibility for a fee award, although it may decrease
the amount of the award."

Judge Haight added: "In consequence, and contrary to the NYPD's
contention, the plaintiff class's lack of success on its initial
claims . . . does not preclude prevailing party status, so long as
the class achieved victory on a significant claim which brought
about a material alteration of the legal relationship between the
parties and was which was judicially sanctioned.  In the
particular circumstances of the case at bar, it is entirely clear
that the plaintiff class satisfies all three criteria."

Judge Haight compared the continuing importance of the Handschu
Guidelines with Perez v. Westchester County Department of
Corrections, a recent 2nd Circuit decision that forced Westchester
County prisons to serve Muslim inmates halal meat.

In that case, "The Court reasoned that during the litigation the
County defendants repeatedly acknowledged that 'they did not serve
Halal meat to Muslim inmates as often as they served Kosher meat
to Jewish inmates and did not want to do so.'  Judge Haight wrote
that the NYPD regarded the plaintiff class as Westchester prisons
did Muslim inmates.

"After the so-ordered opinions in Handschu VIII and Handschu IX,
the NYPD is no longer free to disregard the plaintiff class
because it wanted to, just as after the so-ordered agreement in
Perez, Westchester County officials were no longer free to serve
or withhold Halal meat whenever they wanted to," Judge Haight
wrote.

In awarding attorney's fees, Judge Haight wrote, "Corporation
Counsel's indulgence in meaningless litigation imposed a cost on
their client, it did not confer a profit."

Judge Haight has filed at least 10 opinions since 2007, according
to a database search.

The literary-minded wrote in a Feb. 15, 2007 opinion: "To
paraphrase Longfellow, this is the class action eternal."


PAMLAB LLC: ClassAction.org Warns Patients of Metanx Generics
-------------------------------------------------------------
Class Action.org is alerting patients to recent complaints which
claim that pharmacies have been substituting Metanx with Folast,
Neurpath-B and Duleek-Met, which may not be suitable substitutes
for the prescription medical food.  Metanx is marketed as having a
unique formulation providing active forms of folate and certain B
vitamins, a precise formulation which may not be found in medical
foods being supplied as Metanx generics.  If you have been given a
Metanx substitute, you may be entitled to financial compensation.
Visit http://www.classaction.org/metanx-substitutes.htmltoday and
complete the free case evaluation form to find out if you can
recover the cost of these products.

Metanx is a prescription medical food used to nutritionally manage
endothelial dysfunction associated with tingling, numbness and
burning sensations in patients suffering from diabetic neuropathy.
Made by Pamlab LLC, Metanx works to maintain blood flow in the
vessels which transport oxygen and nutrients to the nerves.
According to its maker, there is no true Metanx generic available
in the U.S. marketplace.

If you've been given a Metanx substitute, such as Folast,
Neurpath-B or Duleek-Met, you may be able to recover the cost of
these products, as you were not given the product for which you
paid. Visit Class Action.org to learn more about the complaints
regarding Metanx substitutes and to receive a free case evaluation
which can help determine whether you are eligible for financial
compensation.  The consumer product attorneys working with Class
Action.org are offering this online legal review at no cost and
remain committed to protecting the rights of patients who were
given Metanx substitutes.

Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers and
investors in class actions and complex litigation throughout the
United States.  Class Action.org keeps consumers informed about
product alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them
take action against the manufacturers of defective products,
drugs, and medical devices.  Information about consumer fraud
issues and environmental hazards is also available on the site.
Visit http://www.classaction.orgtoday for a no cost, no
obligation case evaluation and information about your consumer
rights.


PHELAN HALLINAN: Faces Class action Over Foreclosure Procedures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Craig, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports
John Narkin's firm, BHN Law in Philadelphia, filed a 113-page
class-action suit against Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg on behalf of
distressed homeowners.

In addition to demanding that well-known culprits in the lending
business pay up for the pain they caused, BHN also comes down hard
on a law firm that worked with Wells Fargo, N.A., Countrywide, and
others.  It describes the firm in the documents filed as "a
foreclosure mill" with a Gordon Gecko "greed is good" attitude.

"Obviously this is a national disgrace," says Mr. Narkin, whose
firm specializes in hunting down boogie men involved in everything
from securities fraud to consumer protection law.

"The tentacles of the foreclosure mess are amazing," says
Mr. Narkin.  "The mess created by predatory lending is one thing,
but consider also what an awful investment collateralized debt
lending turned out to be."

Mr. Narkin's firm has devoted hundreds of hours to a class-action
complaint that alleges that Countrywide, Wells Fargo and a "high-
volume law firm," Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg, engaged in fraudulent
schemes to collect inflated and manufactured foreclosure fees from
financially troubled families in danger of losing their homes.

Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg are fighting the allegations.

The class action outlines the situation as applied to several
families, including Charles Giles and his wife.  Mr. Giles is a
first responder with serious health problems that make him unable
to work.

"He was on the short end of one of these foreclosure actions,"
says Mr. Narkin.  "The foreclosure action was brought by Phelan
Hallinan & Schmieg in the name of Wachovia.  But Wachovia had
transferred all legal ownership two years prior to this action,
and a falsified mortgage assignment was used to establish or
attempt to establish standing."

"This whole thing nearly destroyed Charles Gilles," says
Mr. Narkin.  "He was forced to sell his house at far below its
actual price.  This was a situation where he was told they were
trying to work out a deal for him and then he ended up facing a
foreclosure and sheriff's sale."

The Giles finally hired another lawyer to help them.  Phelan
Hallinan & Schmieg sent the Giles a bill for legal expenses in
excess of $7,000.

You don't make serious allegations against another law firm unless
you think you're right, and Mr. Narkin clearly believes the law
will ultimately reveal itself to be favorable to the plaintiffs.

The class action is in fact an appeal of a lower court's ruling of
a narrower complaint that Mr. Narkin argues was dismissed on a
technicality involving US bankruptcy laws that the suit argues is
unrelated to the more serious allegations.

The suit asks for an injunction to prevent Phelan Hallinan &
Schmieg from engaging in further foreclosure procedures and seeks
damages for injuries sustained by the homeowners due to violations
of the Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Act (RICO), and
violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA).

Mr. Narkin's clients are seeking both statutory and actual damages
(which allows for treble damages under RICO), as well as the costs
of the suit and reasonable attorney fees.

John Narkin is a graduate of the Rutgers University School of Law
and New York University.  He has been an integral part of the
successful prosecution of numerous class actions on behalf of
consumers and investors.  In 1992, Mr. Narkin was invited to the
White House to discuss reforms of the federal rules governing
shareholder class actions.  Mr. Narkin is known as an outstanding
brief writer whose work has led to numerous multi-million dollar
suits.


RAYAN BROTHERS: Accused of Violations of Chicago RLTO
-----------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Murphy, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Rayan Brothers Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No.
2011-CH-03949 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. February 1, 2011), brings
this complaint pursuant to the Chicago Residential Landlord and
Tenant Ordinance, Chapter 5-12.

Ms. Murphy, a previous tenant of the rental apartment located at
934 West Windsor Avenue, 2nd Floor, City of Chicago, County of
Cook and State of Illinois, charges the owners and managing agents
of aforesaid apartment with mismanagement of tenant security
deposit property, failure to return tenant security deposit
property and failure to attach a written summary of the RLTO to
each and every rental agreement as required under Section 5-12-
170.

Ms. Murphy says that on November 13, 2006, she entered into a
written lease agreement with defendants to rent the apartment for
$796.00 per month.

The Plaintiff is represented by the law firm of:

          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550


RHODE ISLAND: Class Suit Over Pell Bridge Tolls Under Advisement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Landis, writing for The Providence Journal, reports a
federal judge took under advisement a class-action suit accusing
the state Turnpike and Bridge Authority of discriminating against
out-of-state drivers who cross the Pell Bridge by charging them
higher tolls than R.I. residents.

Judge William Smith said he'll issue a written ruling on the case,
where a Connecticut woman is accusing the authority of violating
Constitutional rules protecting interstate commerce.  The
authority maintains that it has a right to charge non-Rhode
Islanders more to cross the bridge that connects Newport and
Jamestown.

Rhode Islanders with electronic E-ZPass transponders pay 83 cents
to cross the bridge while non-Rhode Island residents and cash
customers pay $4 per crossing.

A ruling against the authority could upend the Pell Bridge toll
structure, throwing more of the burden for maintaining the bridge,
and also the Mount Hope Bridge, onto Rhode Island residents.
Lawyers in the case said it's not clear how much money could be
involved.

The plaintiffs want the authority to make up the difference
between the discounted rate for residents and the rate for non-
residents.

The plaintiffs include all non-Rhode Island residents who crossed
the bridge after the authority instituted a new toll structure in
September 2009, creating the discount for residents and
eliminating non-residents' ability to pay a discounted price for
the tokens the authority used previously.


RIDGELAND, SC: Seeks Dismissal of Traffic Camera Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Stanton, writing for SCNOW, reports attorneys for Ridgeland
and iTraffic, the company that helped the town launch its traffic
camera system on Interstate 95, both have asked a federal judge to
dismiss a class-action lawsuit filed against them.

Ridgeland's lawyer Timothy Domin of Charleston last week
challenged the suit's accusation that using "unauthorized mail
service" to deliver tickets to violators -- many of whom live
outside Ridgeland's jurisdiction -- amounts to an illegal arrest.

Mr. Domin argued that issuing the tickets is not an arrest, as
defined by the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unlawful
searches and seizures.

"While a custodial arrest without probable cause can constitute a
deprivation of federally protected rights . . . the (lawsuit)
accurately notes that the town of Ridgeland does not stop or
detain motorists for the purposes of handing them a ticket,"
Mr. Domin wrote in his motion to dismiss filed on Jan. 31.
"Plaintiffs were never detained by police, not even temporarily."

The class-action lawsuit, filed Dec. 20 by two drivers from
Florida and one from South Carolina, alleges various aspects of
Ridgeland's use of automated cameras to ticket speeders on its
stretch of I-95 are unconstitutional.  Columbia attorney Pete
Strom filed the lawsuit on behalf of the three drivers and
"several thousand" others who have been mailed tickets since the
system was deployed in August.

In a separate response, iTraffic attorney Morgan Templeton of
Charleston requested the suit be dismissed because the plaintiffs
paid their traffic fines.  By doing that, they admitted guilt and
lost their right to sue, Templeton argued.

Mr. Domin said paying the fine prevents the drivers from
complaining about how they were ticketed.

"Plaintiffs mailing a fine and forfeiting bond constitutes a
general appearance and precludes them from asserting some defect
in the service of process," Mr. Domin wrote.  "Plaintiffs had
available no less rights than those persons who are pulled over by
police and handed a ticket.  Plaintiffs were not deprived of due
process, they simply failed to avail themselves of that process."

U.S. District Judge Sol Blatt has yet to rule on either motion,
according to court records.

The lawsuit asks that the town refund all fines and that it stop
issuing tickets using the camera system.

Attempts on Feb. 3 to reach Mr. Strom were unsuccessful.


SAFEWAY INC: Sued Over Inadequate Notice of Product Recalls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Superior Court class action
claims Safeway does not provide adequate notice of recalls of
dangerous food to Club Card customers who bought recalled
products.

A copy of the Complaint in Hensley-Maclean, et al. v. Safeway,
Inc., et al., Case No. C-11559119 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/03/Safeway.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel T. LeBel, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW PRACTICE OF DANIEL T. LEBEL
          601 Van Ness Avenue,
          Opera Plaza, Suite 2080
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 513-1414

               - and -

          Stephen Gardner, Esq.
          Seema Rattan, Esq.
          CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
          5646 Milton Street, Suite 211
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 827-2774

               - and -

          Steven A. Skalet, Esq.
          Craig L. Briskin, Esq.
          MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 822-5100


SMURFIT-STONE: D&OS Face 4th Suit Over Rock-Tenn Buyout
-------------------------------------------------------
John M. Marks, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, et al., Case No. 6164-
(Del. Ch. Ct. February 2, 2011), brings claims against the
directors and officers of Smurfit-Stone, aided and abetted by
Rock-Tenn Company, for breach of their fiduciary duties owed to
Smurfit-Stone's shareholders in connection with the proposed
acquisition of the Company by Rock-Tenn and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Sam Acquisition, LLC, in a cash-and-stock transaction
valued at $3.5 billion.

Under the terms of the merger, Smurfit-Stone shareholders will
receive approximately $35.00 in consideration for their Smurfit-
Stone shares, consisting of $17.50 in cash and 0.30605 shares of
Rock-Tenn common stock.  Mr. Marks, a shareholder of the Company,
says that both the value to Smurfit-Stone shareholders
contemplated in the merger and the process by which defendants
propose to consummate the merger are fundamentally unfair to
Plaintiff and the other shareholders of the Company.

Smurfit-Stone is an integrated manufacturer of paperboard and
paper-based packaging, including containerboard and corrugated
containers, and is also a paper recycler.

Rock-Tenn is one of North America's leading manufacturers of
paperboard, containerboard and consumer and corrugated packaging,
with annual net sales of $3 billion.


The Complaint alleges that the per share consideration offered in
the proposed transaction is unfair and grossly inadequate because,
among other things, the intrinsic value of Smurfit-Stone's common
stock is materially in excess of the amount offered given the
Company's recent financial performance together with its prospects
for future growth and earnings.

Moreover, according to Mr. Marks, the proposed transaction
represents a mere 27% premium based on the closing price of
Smurfit-Stone stock the last trading day prior to the announcement
of the proposed transaction.  Mr. Marks says that this premium is
well below the average premium of 56% in mergers and acquisitions
in 2009 "in which U.S. companies were the buyer and seller."

In addition, Mr. Marks states that the process that led to the
proposed transaction suffers from "disabling" conflicts of
interest.  First, the sale of Smurfit-Stone just seven months
after emerging from bankruptcy is conveniently timed to create a
windfall for certain individual Defendants and other Company
insiders.  For one, outgoing CEO, defendant Patrick J. Moore,
including stock and options that will vest automatically with the
sale of the Company, "will now walk away with total gains of $59.5
million with the consummation of the proposed transaction."

Moreover, according to Mr. Marks, the Board agreed to several
preclusive deal protection devices as part of the merger agreement
that operate "conjunctively" to make the proposed transaction a
"fait accompli" and ensure that no competing offers will emerge
for the Company, including: (i) a no solicitation provision; (ii)
a matching rights provision; (iii) a provision that requires the
Company to maintain all standstill agreements to which the Company
or any of its respective subsidiaries is a party; and (iv) a
termination fee of $120 million payable to Rock-Tenn if the
Company decides to pursue another offer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Strum, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482-3182

               - and -

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          Shane Rowley, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330


SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Recalls 5,700 Convertible Clothes Iron
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sunbeam Products Inc., Boca Raton, Fla., announced a voluntary
recall of about 5,700 Convertible Clothes Iron. Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The iron can overheat and cause a fire because of a wiring issue,
posing a risk of burn injury to consumers.

Sunbeam has received 17 reports of irons overheating and three
reports of irons catching on fire.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled product is the Sunbeam(R) Convertible Iron with a
model number of GCSBRS - 103.  It is a blue and gray, hand-held
garment iron that converts to a garment steamer.  The model number
can be found on the bottom of the iron's plastic base.  The
recalled irons have date codes C235 or C237 imprinted on the blade
of the plug and on the bottom of the packaging.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11118.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Bed Bath & Beyond stores nationwide from June 2010 to November
2010 for about $60.

Consumers should immediately stop using the irons and contact
Sunbeam for a free replacement.  For additional information, call
Sunbeam at (800) 656-9708 anytime or visit the firm's website at
http://www.sunbeamconvertible.com/


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Wins Dismissal of Mississippi Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit in Mississippi filed by residents allegedly
injured by Hurricane Katrina against Tennessee Valley Authority
has finally ended, according to the Company's Feb. 2, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010.

In April 2006, TVA was added as a defendant to a class action
lawsuit brought in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi by 14 Mississippi residents
allegedly injured by Hurricane Katrina.  The plaintiffs sued seven
large oil companies and an oil company trade association, three
large chemical companies and a chemical trade association, and 31
large companies involved in the mining and/or burning of coal,
alleging that the defendants' greenhouse gas emissions contributed
to global warming and were a proximate and direct cause of
Hurricane Katrina's increased destructive force.  The plaintiffs
seek monetary damages among other relief.  The district court
dismissed the case for lack of standing.  The plaintiffs appealed
the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit which, in October 2009, reversed the dismissal of the
public and private nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims,
affirmed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment, fraudulent
misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy claims, and remanded the
case to the district court for further proceedings.  TVA and the
other defendants filed a petition seeking a rehearing by the
entire Fifth Circuit, which the Fifth Circuit granted.  However,
on April 30, 2010, the Fifth Circuit issued an order stating that
it lost the necessary quorum to rehear the appeal and, on May 28,
2010, the court determined that it had no viable way to rehear the
case and vacated its original decision.  As a result, the district
court's dismissal was reinstated.  On August 26, 2010, the
plaintiffs served a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for an
order requiring the Fifth Circuit to rehear the case, or to return
it to the district court.  The Supreme Court denied this petition
on January 10, 2011, ending the case.


UNITED RENTALS: Petition for Rehearing En Banc Pending
------------------------------------------------------
A petition for rehearing en banc remains pending as to the
affirmation of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on
the ruling dismissing the matter First New York Securities,
L.L.C., et al. v. United Rentals, Inc., et al.

Subsequent to the Company's November 14, 2007 announcement that
affiliates of Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., had notified the
Company that they were not prepared to proceed with the purchase
of the Company on the terms set forth in their merger agreement,
three putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut.  The Court subsequently entered an order
consolidating the three actions and appointed First New York
Securities, L.L.C. and Omni Partners LLP as lead plaintiffs for
the purported class.  The actions were consolidated under the
caption First New York Securities, L.L.C., et al. v. United
Rentals, Inc., et al. Lead plaintiffs filed their second
consolidated amended complaint on April 16, 2009.  The second
consolidated amended complaint seeks to sue on behalf of a
purported class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's securities between August 30, 2007 and November 14,
2007.  The second consolidated amended complaint names as
defendants the Company, its chief executive officer and its former
general counsel and alleges, among other things, that the named
plaintiffs and members of the purported class suffered damages
when they purchased or otherwise acquired securities issued by the
Company, as a result of false and misleading statements and/or
material omissions relating to the contemplated merger with
affiliates of Cerberus, contained in certain of the Company's
filings with the SEC and other public statements.  On the basis of
those allegations, plaintiffs asserted claims under Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and against the
individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  On
August 24, 2009, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the second consolidated amended complaint with prejudice and
subsequently entered judgment in favor of defendants.

On August 30, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of dismissal entered by the
District Court.  On September 13, 2010, plaintiffs filed a
petition for rehearing en banc or panel rehearing.  The Company
intends to continue to defend against the consolidated actions
vigorously.

No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 1, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

Greenwich, Connecticut-based United Rentals, Inc. --
http://www.unitedrentals.com/-- is the largest equipment rental
company in the world, with an integrated network of 568 rental
locations in 48 states, 10 Canadian provinces and Mexico.  The
company's 8,000 employees serve construction and industrial
customers, utilities, municipalities, homeowners and others.



                             *********

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  * * *