CAR_Public/110921.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 21, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 187

                             Headlines

BMW: Faces Class Action Over Defective Mini Cooper Transmission
BURLINGTON COAT: "Vang" Suit Settlement Payments Made in August
BYD CO: Employees File Class Action Over Recent Layoffs
CAPITAL HOLDINGS: Sued in Calif. Over Phony Land Sale Contracts
CHINA FIRE: Final Approval Hearing of "Broward" Deal on Nov. 18

CISCO SYSTEMS: Defends Two Securities Class Suits in California
CONAGRA FOODS: Sued Over Wesson Oils' "100% Natural" Labels
COSTCO WHOLESALE: 9th Circuit Junks Discrimination Class Action
CREDIT SUISSE: AOL Investors' Class Action Set for Trial
CUMULUS MEDIA: Unit Awaits Approval of Settlement in California

DEERE & CO: Recalls 36,500 Lawn Tractors Powered by Kawasaki
DIAGEO PLC: Thalidomide-Related Suits Remain Pending
GLOBAL TRAFFIC: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to GTCR Unit
GOV'T OF GREECE: Greeks Mull Class Action Over Property Tax
GOV'T OF INDONESIA: Faces Class Action Over Poor Water Services

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in Calif.
JBI INC: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
LINN STATE: Students File Class Action Over Drug Testing Policy
MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Lawsuit in Florida Over Infuse Side Effects
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Ga. Court Tosses MERS Class Action

OILSANDS QUEST: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
OPENLANE INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
SOLYNDRA LLC: Faces 2 Class Suits Over WARN Act Violations
VAUGHAN FOODS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit
VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE: Faces Class Action Over Gaz Metro Buyout

WPCS INT'L: Awaits Decision on Motion to Transfer "McKean" Suit
WVS FINANCIAL: Obtained Final OK of "Dragotta" Settlement in June

* Tuscarawas County Residents File Mobile Home Class Action




                             *********

BMW: Faces Class Action Over Defective Mini Cooper Transmission
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
the continuously variable automatic transmission fails in BMW's
2002-2006 Mini Coupes and 2005-2008 Mini Cooper convertibles.

A copy of the Complaint in Aarons v. BMW of North America, LLC,
Case No. 11-cv-07667 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/16/Cooper.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roland Tellis, Esq.
          Mark Pifko, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 3450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 860-0476
          E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com
                  mpifko@baronbudd.com


BURLINGTON COAT: "Vang" Suit Settlement Payments Made in August
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc., on August 25,
2011, made payments for an immaterial amount under the settlement
agreement resolving the putative class action lawsuit commenced by
May Vang, according to the Company's September 13, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 30, 2011.

A putative class action lawsuit, entitled May Vang, and all others
similarly situated, v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse
Corporation, Case No. 09-CV-08061-CAS, was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California on September 17, 2009, and was
amended and refiled on November 16, 2009, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California - Western Division.
The named plaintiff purported to assert claims on behalf of all
current, former, and future employees in the United States and the
State of California for the relevant statutory time period.  The
amended complaint asserted claims for failure to pay all earned
hourly wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
failure to pay all earned hourly wages in violation of the
California Labor Code, providing compensatory time off in lieu of
overtime pay, forfeiture of vacation pay, failure to provide meal
and rest periods, secret payment of lower wages than that required
by statute or contract, failure to provide accurate, written wage
statements, and unfair competition.  The complaint sought
certification as a class with respect to the FLSA claims,
certification of a class with respect to California law claims,
appointment of class counsel and class representative, civil
penalties, statutory penalties, declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, actual damages, liquidated damages, restitution, pre-
judgment interest, costs of lawsuit and attorney's fees.  On
March 7, 2011, the United States District Court for the Central
District of California - Western Division granted preliminary
approval to a settlement agreement pursuant to which the Company
will pay class members an immaterial amount in settlement of
claims on a class basis.

On June 27, 2011, the District Court granted final approval of the
parties' settlement agreement.  Payment pursuant to the settlement
agreement was made on August 25, 2011.  The Company says this
settlement was included in the Company's $7.1 million legal
reserve.


BYD CO: Employees File Class Action Over Recent Layoffs
-------------------------------------------------------
Yan Pei at China.org.cn, citing Yangcheng Evening News, reports
that about 300 employees of BYD Co. have signed onto a class-
action lawsuit against the automaker over recent layoffs.

BYD, the Chinese battery and auto maker backed by billionaire
Warren Buffett, recently started to "redeploy" employees in its
auto sales unit.  However, rumors have been circulating that the
"redeployment" strategy is just a cover-up for the company's
layoff moves.

BYD has been avoiding using terms like "layoff" in its official
statements and the personnel redeployment will not be limited to
the auto sales unit, Caixin Magazine quoted a BYD employee as
saying.

However, according to Yangcheng Evening News, BYD chairman Wang
Chuanfu confirmed the recent layoffs at a temporary shareholders
meeting on September 9.  Executives at BYD's auto sales company
continued to deny the layoff rumors.

BYD employees involved in the "personnel deployment" have called
on their co-workers to petition to protect their rights.  "Based
on our preliminary statistics, over 200 people have signed up,"
said one BYD employee.  Twenty employee representatives have
already joined a class-action lawsuit, the report said.

In the first half of this year, BYD sold 220,000 cars, down 23.4%
year-on-year.  As a result, its net profits dropped 88.6% to
CNY275 million.


CAPITAL HOLDINGS: Sued in Calif. Over Phony Land Sale Contracts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action
claims a real estate broker conspired to bilk more than 1,300
investors of $32 million through phony land sale contracts for
property that never was sold, fraudulent transfers for trade
secrets that do not exist, and taxes that were not owed.

Lead plaintiffs Chi Pham and Frank Nguyen say real broker Edith
"Jet" Sison, of Rancho Cucamonga, and her cohorts have run the
game since July 2004, using the veneer of Capital Holdings, an
Ontario, Calif.-based corporation whose seven operators include
five members of the Sison family.

Ms. Pham and Mr. Nguyen say the scam began with Sison and
associates "making false claims in person and through other media
including the Internet to being a 'private lender' and 'one of the
largest land owners in the High Desert Region' when in truth and
fact Capital Holdings, Inc. never made any loans nor did it own
any land."

The "final phase of the fraud scheme" involved the transfer of at
least $32 million of investors' money from Capital Holdings and
another defendant, Season's Land Corp., through two LLCs, CJ
Intellect and Season's Intellect, "pursuant to phony 'trade
secret' licensing agreements," according to the complaint.

The complaint continues: "Edith 'Jet' Sison's husband and co-
conspirator, Cornelio Sison, has admitted under oath that he
'knows nothing about' the 'trade secrets' he and Edith 'Jet' Sison
jointly claimed to have '. . . created, designed, and massively
organized through technological and mechanical acquisition, trade
experience, research and development, a process known as the Sison
Land Acquisition Process . . .' and '. . . Sison Land Sale and
Note Servicing Process . . ..'

"Under the pretext of their phony trade secret licensing
agreements, Edith 'Jet' Sison and Cornelio Sison have admittedly
transferred at least $32 million from Capital Holdings Inc. and
Season's Land Corp. to two limited liability entities they created
and control, i.e. CJ Intellect LLC and Season's Intellect LLC,
purportedly pursuant to the licensing of phony trade secrets but
without valid consideration, thereafter transferring those
millions without consideration to trusts and other entities
identified hereinafter, which they control, to impede and prevent
fraud victims from recovering their losses."

Ms. Pham and Mr. Nguyen say these "predatory and phantom loans,
land sale fraud, threats of economic harm and transfers of the
proceeds in fraud . . . culminated in threats against the
defrauded 'investors' to damage their credit and pursue further
collection action against them unless they agreed to abandon any
claims: (1) against the defendants herein; (2) to the real estate;
and (3) for any refund of the money they paid and lost to Edith
'Jet' Sison and her cohorts."

They say that more than 1,312 unsophisticated investors were duped
of more than $40 million "for property never actually sold, loans
which never were made, and taxes which were never owed."

They seek actual and punitive damages, nullification of the cash
transfers, disgorgement, restitution, and injunctive relief for
intentional misrepresentation, fraud by concealment, constructive
fraud, false promise, unfair and deceptive business practices,
violation of state codes and fraudulent transfers.

A copy of the Complaint in Pham, et al. v. Capital Holdings, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 37-2011-00097871 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego
Cty.) (Pressman, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/16/LandSales.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William A. Cohan, Esq.
          WILLIAM A. COHAN PC
          P.O. Box 3448
          Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
          Telephone: (858) 832-1632
          E-mail: alicia@williamacohan.com

               - and -

          Brad Nakase, Esq.
          NAKASE LAW CORPORATION
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 550-1321
          E-mail: brad@nakaselaw.com


CHINA FIRE: Final Approval Hearing of "Broward" Deal on Nov. 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on the final approval of China Fire & Security Group,
Inc.'s settlement of a merger-related lawsuit known as the Broward
Consolidated Action is set for November 18, 2011, according to the
Company's September 15, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On May 20, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Amber Parent Limited ("Parent"), an exempted company
incorporated in the Cayman Islands and an affiliate of Bain
Capital Asia Fund, L.P. (the "Guarantor") and Bain Capital Fund X,
L.P., and Amber Mergerco, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a Florida
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent, providing for
the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company, with the
Company surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Parent.

The Company says it is aware of nine putative class action
complaints related to the merger (each a "Shareholder Action")
filed in various Florida state and federal courts against, among
others, the Company and certain officers and directors of the
Company.  Six Shareholder Actions were filed in the Circuit Court
for the 17th Judicial Circuit In and For Broward County, Florida,
and have been consolidated under the caption In re China Fire &
Security Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 11745 (07)
("Broward Consolidated Action").  One of the Shareholder Actions,
Kashef v. China Fire & Security Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 50-
2011 CA 007884, is currently pending in the Circuit Court for the
15th Judicial Circuit in and For Palm Beach County, Florida ("Palm
Beach Action").  The final two Shareholder Actions, Fuller v.
China Fire & Security Group, Inc., et al., 11-cv-61400-WPD, and
James P. Tessitore v. China Fire & Security Group, Inc. et al. 11-
cv-61580-WPD, are currently pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The two federal
Shareholder Actions were consolidated by an order of the federal
court issued on August 2, 2011 ("Federal Consolidated Action").

All the complaints generally allege, among other things, that the
Company and certain officers and directors of the Company breached
their fiduciary duties, and seek, among other things, to enjoin
consummation of the merger.  The operative complaints also allege
aiding and abetting claims against the Sponsors, Parent and Merger
Sub.

On September 2, 2011, counsel for the parties in the Broward
Consolidated Action entered into a stipulation of settlement in
which they agreed on the terms of a settlement of all claims
relating to the merger, known and unknown, that were or could have
been asserted in that action.  Plaintiffs in the Kashef, Fuller
and Tessitore actions are not parties to the proposed settlement.
The terms of settlement include the dismissal with prejudice of
all claims against all defendants, and their affiliates and
agents, held by plaintiffs in the Broward Consolidated Action and
class members (including those claims asserted in the Kashef,
Fuller and Tessitore actions).  Pursuant to the agreements among
counsel for the parties in In re China Fire & Security Group, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, the Company will make certain supplemental
disclosures concerning the merger which are contained in a Form 8-
K, and has made other supplemental disclosures subsequent to the
June 10, 2011 Preliminary Proxy Statement in response to the
Broward Consolidated Action.  The proposed settlement is
conditioned upon, among other things, consummation of the merger
and final approval of the proposed settlement by the court.  In
addition, in connection with the settlement and as provided in the
stipulation of settlement, the parties contemplate that lead
plaintiff's counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses as part of the settlement in the amount of $575,000.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the merger will be
consummated, or that the court will approve the settlement
contemplated by the stipulation.  In such event, the proposed
settlement may be terminated.  The settlement will not affect the
amount of the merger consideration that Company shareholders are
entitled to receive in the merger.  The proposed settlement does
not provide a right for members of the putative class to opt out;
however, class members will retain their right to seek appraisal
pursuant to Sections 607.1301 to 607.1333 of the Florida Business
Corporation Act, as well as their right to object to any aspect of
the settlement.  If the settlement is not approved and the
aforementioned conditions are not satisfied, the Company and the
individual defendants will continue to vigorously defend these
actions.

On September 9, 2011, a hearing to preliminarily approve the
settlement was held in the Broward Consolidated Action and the
Court issued an order that, among other provisions, preliminarily
approved the settlement, set a final approval hearing for
November 18, 2011, at 3 p.m., and enjoined all members of the
putative class from commencing or prosecuting claims in any action
in any state or federal court that relate broadly to the proposed
merger.  Subsequently, on September 9, 2011, a voluntary dismissal
without prejudice of the Fuller action was filed in federal court
and, on September 12, 2011, a voluntary dismissal without
prejudice of the Tessitore action was likewise filed in federal
court.  These voluntary dismissals terminated the Federal
Consolidated Action.  Defendants expect the Palm Beach Action will
also be dismissed, either voluntarily or following final approval
of the settlement presented in the Broward Consolidated Action.

The defendants deny all liability with respect to the facts and
claims alleged in the lawsuits and specifically deny that any
further supplemental disclosure was required under any applicable
rule, statute, regulation or law.  However, to avoid the risk of
delaying or adversely affecting the merger and the related
transactions, to minimize the expense of defending the lawsuits,
and to provide additional information to the Company's
shareholders at a time and in a manner that would not cause any
delay of the special meeting or the merger, the defendants have
agreed to the terms of the proposed settlement.  The parties
further considered it desirable to settle the In re China Fire &
Security Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation proceeding, to avoid
the expense, risk, inconvenience and distraction of continued
litigation and to fully and finally resolve the settled claims.

As contemplated by the proposed settlement, the Company is
providing certain additional disclosures that are supplemental to
those contained in the proxy statement previously mailed.  As
noted, none of the defendants has admitted wrongdoing of any kind,
including but not limited to inadequacies in any disclosure, the
materiality of any disclosure that the plaintiffs contend should
have been made, any breach of any fiduciary duty, or aiding or
abetting any of the allegations.


CISCO SYSTEMS: Defends Two Securities Class Suits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
On March 31, 2011, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Cisco Systems, Inc., and certain of
its officers and directors.  A second lawsuit with substantially
similar allegations was filed with the same court on April 12,
2011, against Cisco and certain of its officers and directors.
The lawsuits are purportedly brought on behalf of those who
purchased Cisco's publicly traded securities between May 12, 2010,
and February 9, 2011, and between February 3, 2010, and
February 9, 2011, respectively.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants
made false and misleading statements during quarterly earnings
calls, purport to assert claims for violations of the federal
securities laws, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 14,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended July 30, 2011.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
defend the actions vigorously.  While the Company believes there
is no legal basis for liability, due to the uncertainty
surrounding the litigation process, it is unable to reasonably
estimate a range of loss, if any, at this time.


CONAGRA FOODS: Sued Over Wesson Oils' "100% Natural" Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lil Marie Virr on behalf of herself and a class of all others
similarly situated v. ConAgra Foods Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-04607
(N.D. Calif., September 16, 2011) is brought on behalf of a class
of persons, who purchased any of the cooking oils sold under the
Wesson brand name, Canola Oil, Vegetable Oil, Corn Oil and Best
Blend.  Wesson is a brand owned, developed, marketed and sold by
ConAgra.

The Plaintiff notes that ConAgra labels its Wesson Oils as "100%
Natural," which representation is central to ConAgra's marketing
of Wesson Oils, and is displayed prominently on the product label
itself, the Wesson Web site, and all Wesson Oils' advertisements.
Ms. Virr alleges that Wesson Oils are not "100% natural" for they
are made from genetically modified plants or organisms.

Ms. Virr is a resident of San Francisco, California.  She asserts
that she regularly purchased Wesson Canola Oil for her own and her
family's consumption because she believed the Defendant's
representation that Wesson Canola Oil was 100% natural.  She
contends that she would not have purchased Wesson Canola Oil, but
for the Defendant's misleading statements about the product being
100% natural.

ConAgra is a Delaware corporation located in Omaha, Nebraska.
ConAgra markets and distributes Wesson Oils.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julio J. Ramos, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JULIO J. RAMOS
          35 Grove Street, Suite 107
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 948-3015
          Facsimile: (415) 469-9787
          E-mail: ramoslawgroup@yahoo.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: 9th Circuit Junks Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 16 rejected a
class action for gender discrimination against Costco warehouse-
store chain, finding that a lower court had not examined the
plaintiffs' commonality rigorously enough in light of the recent
landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling favoring Wal-Mart.

The federal appeals court's unanimous ruling does not entirely
doom the claims of current and former Costco employees, who say
they were passed over for promotion because of their gender.  The
San Francisco-based court vacated a lower court's certification of
the proposed class and remanded the case for a harder look at the
plaintiffs' commonality.

In doing so, a three-judge panel of 9th Circuit judges cited the
Supreme Court's June ruling in Wal-Mart Stores. v. Dukes, which
sharpened the class-action certification game significantly by
prohibiting more than a million Wal-Mart employees from suing the
retail giant as one class.  Last year, the 9th Circuit had ruled
to send the massive class on to trial.

"Given this new precedent altering existing case law, we must
remand to the District Court," Judge N. Randy Smith wrote for the
panel.

"The District Court failed to conduct the required 'rigorous
analysis' to determine whether there were common questions of law
or fact among the class members' claims," he added.  "Instead it
relied on the admissibility of plaintiffs' evidence to reach its
conclusion on commonality."

In a small silver lining for the plaintiffs, the panel agreed that
Elaine Sasaki can represent the proposed class of female Costco
employees who were passed over for promotion because of their
gender.

Currently an assistant general manager with Costco in Visalia,
Calif, Ms. Sasaki filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission in 2005 after being passed over
for promotion several times.  She joined the proposed class action
in 2006 with two other named plaintiffs, but she's the only one of
them still working for the company.  This gives Ms. Sasaki some
incentive to seek change within at Costco, rather than just money,
the court found.

"As a current employee who continues to be denied promotion,
Sasaki has incentive to vigorously pursue injunctive relief as
well as monetary damages on behalf of all the class members," the
ruling states.

A copy of the Opinion in Ellis, et al. v. Costco Wholesale
Corporation, No. 07-15838 (9th Cir.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/4Z8TTD

Costco Wholesale Corporation was represented by:

          Kenwood C. Youmans, Esq.
          David D. Kadue, Esq.
          David B. Ross, Esq.
          Gerlad L. Maatman, Esq.
          Thomas J. Wybenga, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018-1405
          Telephone: (212) 218-5500

The Plaintiffs-Appellees were represented by:

          Brad Seligman, Esq.
          Jocelyn D. Larkin, Esq.
          THE IMPACT FUND
          125 University Avenue, Suite 102
          Berkeley CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 845-3473 ext. 301
          E-mail: impactfund@impactfund.org

               - and -

          Steve Stemerman, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Lawrence, Esq.
          Sarah Varela, Esq.
          DAVIS, COWELL & BOWE
          595 Market Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 597-7200
          E-mail: stem@dcbsf.com
                  eal@dcbsf.com
                  svarela@dcbsf.com

               - and -

          Bill Lann Lee, Esq.
          Lindsay Nako, Esq.
          Julia Campins, Esq.
          LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.
          476 9th Street
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 839-6824
          E-mail: contact@lewisfeinberg.com


CREDIT SUISSE: AOL Investors' Class Action Set for Trial
--------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a trove
of suspicious e-mails convinced a Boston federal judge to advance
a securities fraud class action alleging that Credit Suisse misled
investors about AOL-Time Warner's financial health.

AOL investors who bought stock between 2001 and 2002 say they
relied on research reports from Credit Suisse First Boston when
trading.  "These faulty recommendations, plaintiffs argue, were
the products not of naive optimism, or an honest disagreement, but
of calculated misdirection," according to the court's summary.

The class filed suit against the bank, its subsidiary, two
analysts and two managers.

They claim the analysts knowingly issued bogus research reports
with an eye toward generating business for Credit Suisse's
investment banking division.

In July 2002, The Washington Post published articles revealing
that AOL engaged in accounting gimmickry and was artificially
inflating its numbers to hide declining advertising revenues.
Investors say these revelations confirmed what Credit Suisse had
known all along.

U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner rejected motions for summary
judgment filed by each group of defendants.

"While in many securities cases, the parties rely on
circumstantial evidence to recreate what defendants must have
known, plaintiffs have provided striking direct evidence to
buttress their claims," Judge Gertner said.

Credit Suisse issued 35 research reports from January 2001 to July
2002 encouraging investors to purchase AOL stock, but
contemporaneous e-mails show that the analysts knew the company's
finances "to be far more precarious than their reports reflected,"
a 14-page ruling states.

Certain e-mails between Credit Suisse analysts show they knew
AOL's earnings projections were misleading, Judge Gertner found.
The e-mails also suggest that the bank negotiated with AOL about
what information it would release in its reports.

To avoid "pissing off the company," one analyst, defendant Laura
Martin, wrote that she "would NOT lower numbers on AOL, even
though they can't make them."

Ms. Martin warned that AOL's earnings projections were "not
honest" and explicitly referred to the company's "accounting
gimmickry."

Other defendants' e-mails referred to the importance of "muffling"
Ms. Martin's concerns.

Credit Suisse did not downgrade AOL's stock until September 2001,
and then only to a limited degree.  AOL stock plummeted when the
Post published its expose.

Judge Gertner balked at claims that the e-mails were "merely
internal professional disagreements," with analysts using
"provocative language" in pursuit of an "honest intellectual
debate" about AOL's financial prospects.

"Defendants' arguments, however, are just that, arguments
providing an alternative narrative, not dispositive as a matter of
law," Judge Gertner wrote.

Regarding whether they intentionally mislead investors, "a jury
could reasonably infer that they did so to curry favor with AOL in
the hopes of obtaining lucrative investment banking business," she
ruled.

The court concluded that summary judgment is inappropriate at this
stage because sorting out the plaintiffs' claims "requires more
than warring affidavits and strident briefs.  It requires an
evidentiary hearing."


CUMULUS MEDIA: Unit Awaits Approval of Settlement in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Cumulus Media Inc. is awaiting a court decision on
its settlement of a purported class action lawsuit pending in
California, according to the Company's September 15, 2011, Form 8-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On January 21, 2010, a former employee of Cumulus Media Partners,
LLC's indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, CMP Susquehanna Corp.
("CMPSC") filed a purported class action lawsuit, pending in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division (the "Court"), against CMPSC claiming (i)
unlawful failure to pay required overtime wages; (ii) late pay and
waiting time penalties; (iii) failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements; (iv) failure to indemnify for necessary expenses
and losses; and (v) unfair trade practices under California's
Unfair Competition Act.  On September 2, 2011, CMPSC and this
former employee entered into a Joint Stipulation re: Settlement
and Release of Class Action Claims (the "Settlement") with respect
to such lawsuit.  The Settlement, which remains subject to the
approval of the Court, provides for the payment by CMPSC of a
maximum of $0.9 million in full and final settlement of all of the
claims made in the lawsuit.


DEERE & CO: Recalls 36,500 Lawn Tractors Powered by Kawasaki
------------------------------------------------------------
About 36,500 units of John Deere X300, X300R and X304 series
tractors were voluntarily recalled by tractor manufacturer, Deere
& Company, of Moline, Illinois, and engine manufacturer, Kawasaki
Motors Corp., USA of Grand Rapids, Michigan, in cooperation with
the CPSC.  Consumers should stop using the product immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The cooling fan installed on top of the front mounted Kawasaki
engine in the lawn tractor can break.  If the cooling fan is not
operational, the engine can overheat causing the surrounding
plastic to melt, creating the risk of fire and serious injury.

There have been 163 reported failures, including 83 reports of
engine melting or engine fires and one report of a minor burn
injury following a fan failure fire.

This recall involves John Deere X300, X300R and X304 Select
Series(TM) Lawn Tractors with Kawasaki FS541V engines manufactured
between September 20, 2010, and July 21, 2011, within these serial
number ranges:

     1M0X300B++M180001 thru 1M0X300B++M180600
     1M0X300C++M180001 thru 1M0X300C++M208330
     1M0X300E++M180001 thru 1M0X300E++M180718
     1M0X300F++M180001 thru 1M0X300F++M180888
     1M0X300G++M180001 thru 1M0X300G++M183700
     1M0X300H++M180001 thru 1M0X300H++M180145
     1M0X300J++M180001 thru 1M0X300J++M180106
     1M0X304A++M180001 thru 1M0X304A++M184936
     1M0X304B++M180001 thru 1M0X304B++M180696
     1M0X304C++M180001 thru 1M0X304C++M180054

The model number is on both sides of the tractor hood, and the
serial number can be found on the machine frame near the front
right tire.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11752.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold nationwide at John Deere dealers in the U.S. from
September 2010 to August 2011 for between about $3,000 and $4,000.

Customers should stop using the mowers immediately and contact a
John Deere dealer to make arrangements to have the engine cooling
fan replaced.  All registered owners of the recalled mowers will
be directly notified by John Deere.  For additional information,
contact Deere & Company at (800) 537-8233 between 8:00 a.m. and
6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. on Saturdays Eastern Time or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.johndeere.com/


DIAGEO PLC: Thalidomide-Related Suits Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------
The lawsuits alleging injuries from thalidomide consumption
asserted against Diageo plc's subsidiaries remain pending,
according to the Company's September 13, 2011, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended June 30, 2011.

In Australia, a class action claim alleging product liability and
negligence for injuries arising from the consumption of the drug
thalidomide has been filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria
against Distillers Company (Biochemicals) Limited, its parent
Diageo Scotland Limited (formerly Distillers Company Limited), as
well as against Grunenthal GmbH, the developer of the drug.
Diageo Scotland is a Company subsidiary.  The size of the class
has not yet been specified.  In the United Kingdom, similar
proceedings have been commenced on behalf of one individual in
relation to alleged thalidomide injuries.  Distillers Company
(Biochemicals) Limited distributed the drug in Australia and the
United Kingdom for a period in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

Diageo says it is unable to quantify meaningfully the possible
loss or range of loss to which these lawsuits may give rise.  The
Company has worked voluntarily for many years with various
thalidomide organizations and has provided significant financial
support.  Diageo intends, however, to vigorously defend these
lawsuits.


GLOBAL TRAFFIC: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to GTCR Unit
----------------------------------------------------------
Global Traffic Network, Inc., is facing a putative shareholder
class action lawsuit over an offer from an affiliate of GTCR, LLC,
to acquire the Company, according to Global Traffic's
September 13, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended June 30, 2011.

On August 2, 2011, the Company entered into a definitive agreement
(the "Merger Agreement") to be acquired by an affiliate of GTCR,
LLC ("GTCR").  Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, GTCR
Gridlock Holdings, Inc., a newly formed entity affiliated with
GTCR, commenced a tender offer on August 9, 2011, to acquire all
of the Company's outstanding common stock for $14.00 per share in
cash (the "Offer"), to be followed by a merger (the "Merger") to
acquire all remaining outstanding shares at the same price paid in
the Offer.

On August 31, 2011, Broadbased Equities, a purported shareholder
of the Company, filed a complaint captioned Broadbased Equities v.
William L. Yde III, et al. on behalf of itself and as a putative
class action on behalf of the Company's public shareholders in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.  The
complaint names as defendants the members of the Company's board
of directors, as well as the Company, GTCR and certain of its
affiliated entities.  The plaintiff alleges, among other things,
that the Company board of directors breached its fiduciary duties
of care, loyalty, good faith and fair dealing to shareholders, and
that the Company board of directors and the Company breached their
fiduciary duties to disclose material facts to shareholders, in
each case, in connection with the Offer and the Merger.  The
complaint further claims that GTCR and certain of its affiliated
entities aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.  The complaint seeks (i) injunctive relief, including to
enjoin the Offer and the Merger, (ii) a determination that the
action is a proper class action and that the plaintiff is a proper
class representative, (iii) a declaration that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiff and other Company
shareholders and/or aided and abetted such breaches, (iv)
additional disclosures with respect to the Offer and the Merger,
(v) compensatory and/or rescissory damages and (vi) an award of
attorneys' and other fees and costs in addition to other
unspecified relief.

The defendants believe that the allegations in the complaint are
without merit and intend to vigorously contest the action.


GOV'T OF GREECE: Greeks Mull Class Action Over Property Tax
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthee Carassava, writing for Sky News, reports that crisis-weary
Greeks are striking back at added austerity, vowing to mount class
action suits in defiance of a new property tax.

The tax is being introduced by the government to meet deficit
reduction targets as nervous creditors consider the future
disbursement of multi-billion loan funds to Athens.

The Athens Bar Association says it is preparing to launch class
action suits against the state, arguing that the government's move
to charge the new tariff through homeowners' electricity bills is
unconstitutional.

"The public power corporation -- DEH -- is a public utilities
company," said lawyer Dimitris Varvaresos.

"It's not the state tax-collecting authority."

Streams of social networking sites and blogs have sprung up since
the property tax was announced over the weekend, marking a
humiliating climb-down for the socialist government and its pledge
to protect the households from further austerity measures.

The government hopes to collect more than EUR2 billion (GBP1.74
billion) from the new property tax -- the fourth to hit Greek
homeowners in under two years.

It has also warned it will switch off the lights of landowners who
dodge payment of the new tax.

Seven in 10 Greeks already face difficulty paying a rash of
austerity-imposed taxes, according to a recent opinion poll.

The public power corporation, DEH says, it, too, is having
financial problems, with 909,000 accounts in arrears.

In announcing the new property tax, finance minister Evangelos
Venizelos said homeowners would be charged a certain rate per
square meter between 50 cents and EUR10 (43p and GBP8.72p).

Four days later, when full details of the Bill -- due to be tabled
in parliament this week -- were disclosed, homeowners were slapped
with surcharges of up to EUR16 (GBP13.95p) per square meter,
stoking public anger even further.

While the measure aims to target high earners, the finance
ministry has moved to exempt hotels, factories, monasteries and
places of worship owned by the wealthy Greek Church, leaving
struggling social groups -- including unemployed and handicapped
Greeks -- to foot the bill.

"This is war for us," said Nikos Fotopoulos, the union leader of
DEH.

"We stand by the working class. We will block any attempt to have
this charge printed on our bills and to keep struggling Greeks in
the dark."

Failure to collect the targeted income could imperil Greece's
chance of getting further loans from its European peers and the
International Monetary Fund.


GOV'T OF INDONESIA: Faces Class Action Over Poor Water Services
---------------------------------------------------------------
Radio Australia reports that the problem of water access in the
Indonesian capital of Jakarta has gotten so bad that a group of
NGOs and residents have submitted a lawsuit against a slew of
authorities.

Those cited include the Water Service Department, the city of
Jakarta, the Indonesian government and a private French company
which manages the service.

The lawsuit is said to blame the 1997 privatization of water
supply for raising prices without improving the service.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience
representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud,
announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
Hewlett-Packard Company from November 22, 2010, and August 18,
2011.

The Complaint charges HP and certain of its officers and directors
violated the federal securities laws.  Specifically, defendants
concealed the following: (i) HP's business model was not working,
as the Company was unable to leverage its extensive portfolio and
scale of products and services in a strategically beneficial
manner; (ii) webOS, the TouchPad and the PC business were not
central to HP's business model and webOS would not be integrated
across HP's entire product line; (iii) the TouchPad hardware was
inefficient, limiting the degree of effectiveness of the webOS
operating system; and (iv) defendants lacked a reasonable basis
for positive statements about HP's turnaround, revenue growth
rates, market share, new product and introductions.

On August 18, 2011, HP announced disappointing third quarter
fiscal 2011 financial results and issued revised guidance for
2011.  HP also announced several major shifts in its long-term
business model, including that it "will discontinue operations for
webOS devices, specifically the TouchPad and webOS phones."  On
this news, HP's stock declined to $29.51, and to $23.60 the
following day.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than
November 14, 2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff of the class.  A lead plaintiff is a class member that
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by
the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead
plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions which could
affect the overall recovery for class members.

While Izard Nobel LLP has not filed a lawsuit against the
defendants, to view a copy of the Complaint initiating the class
action or for more information about the case, and your rights,
visit: http://www.izardnobel.com/hp/or contact Izard Nobel LLP
toll-free: (800)797-5499, or by e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com


JBI INC: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
---------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. reminds investors of the important
September 26, 2011 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of JBI, Inc. stock during the
period from August 28, 2009, through July 20, 2011.  You can join
the class action and seek to recover your investment losses.

To join the JBI class action, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.comor call Jonathan Horne, Esq., toll-free,
at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail jhorne@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.

The Complaint alleges that JBI materially overstated its income in
connection with its acquisition of JavaCo, Inc. in 2009.  On
May 21, 2010, JBI disclosed that its previously issued financial
statements for the 2009 fiscal year and third quarter should no
longer be relied upon.  On July 14, 2011, the Securities and
Exchange Commission advised the Company that it was recommending
enforcement action against it and possibly one or more of its
former officers as a result of the Company having issued
materially inaccurate financial statements.

News that JBI was required to restate its financial statements and
was subject to an SEC enforcement action for violation of the
federal securities laws has caused its stock price to drop
substantially, damaging investors.

You may participate in the securities class action lawsuit to
recover your investment losses.  If you purchased JBI stock,
please visit the Web site at http://rosenlegal.comto participate
in the class action and to obtain more information.  You may also
contact Jonathan Horne of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via e-mail at or jhorne@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


LINN STATE: Students File Class Action Over Drug Testing Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
requiring students at a public college to submit to mandatory drug
screening is an invasion of privacy, the American Civil Liberties
Union asserted in a class action filed on Sept. 14 of behalf of
six students at Linn State Technical College in Missouri.

The suit, filed in the U.S District Court for the Western District
of Missouri, asked the court to declare Linn State's drug testing
policy unconstitutional and to require the school to refund the
$50 fee students were charged for the testing.

Just hours after the suit was filed, U.S. District Judge Nanette
Laughrey issued a temporary restraining order to stop the testing
of student urine samples that had already been collected.

Kent Brown, a lawyer representing the college, did not respond to
requests for comment.

Linn State, located in Jefferson City Mo., was the first public
college in the United States to require students to submit to drug
testing as a condition of enrollment, according to the complaint.

"It is unconstitutional to force students to submit to a drug test
when there is zero indication of any kind of criminal activity,"
said Jason Williamson, a staff attorney with the ACLU Criminal Law
Reform Project.  "The college has demonstrated no legitimate need
to drug test its students that outweighs their constitutionally
protected privacy rights."

The two-year college implemented the drug screening policy for all
new students enrolling for the fall term and for students
returning after taking one or more semesters off.  Any student who
refuses must withdraw from the college, and any student testing
positive for drugs has 45 days to take a new test on pain of
expulsion.

The college adopted the testing to "prepare students for
profitable employment and a life of learning," the college said in
a document explaining the policy.  That same document said that
administrators don't believe the college has an unusually large
drug problem.

According to the ACLU, college officials told the organization
that drug testing was a safety measure to protect students using
heavy machinery.  None of the six plaintiffs use heavy machinery,
the ACLU said.

The suit names the president of the college and seven regents as
defendants.  The ACLU filed the suit with the assistance of the
ACLU of Eastern Missouri and Students for a Sensible Drug Policy.


MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Lawsuit in Florida Over Infuse Side Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy R. Fleishman of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, announced that Jennifer English
of Lake Worth, Florida, filed a personal injury lawsuit against
Medtronic, Inc.  In August 2007, Ms. English, a physical
therapist, was implanted with Medtronic's Infuse Bone Graft
("Infuse") during a posterior-approach lumbar spine surgery, a
type of surgery for which the Food and Drug Administration has not
approved Infuse.  Ms. English charges that Infuse caused her to
develop ectopic, or uncontrolled, bone growth in her spine,
compressing nerves and leading to chronic and ongoing severe pain.

"The complaint alleges that Medtronic fraudulently misrepresented
the risks and benefits of Infuse and improperly promoted and
marketed Infuse for non-FDA approved uses," stated Ms. Fleishman.
"When Infuse is implanted in off-label surgeries, medical research
shows that it can cause uncontrolled bone growth into or around
the spinal cord, often leading to intractable pain and difficult
and dangerous revision surgeries to remove unwanted bone."

Ms. English has been forced to undergo two revision surgeries so
far to remove the excessive bone growth, including an emergency
surgery.  She suffers continuous pain in her back and legs from
ordinary everyday activities, such as sitting or standing for
extended periods of time.

"I trusted Medtronic with my life," stated Ms. English.  "It is
disappointing to find out Medtronic is not looking out for the
best interests of the patient, but for own its financial
interests."

The complaint, entitled English v. Medtronic, Inc., Case No. 9:11-
cv-81054, was filed late Friday, September 17, 2011, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

           About the Infuse Bone Graft and Side Effects

Infuse is a bioengineered material (rhBMP-2) that spurs bone
growth.  It is often used in spinal fusion operations, a procedure
in which spinal vertebrae are fused together to reduce back pain.
Infuse is manufactured by Medtronic, the nation's largest maker of
medical devices.  Each year over 100,000 U.S. patients undergoing
spinal fusion surgery receive Infuse.

In 2002, the FDA approved Infuse for only one specific type of
spine surgery - anterior approach lumbar fusion.  Infuse was not
approved by FDA for (and still is not approved for) use in either
lateral or posterior approach lumbar fusion surgeries.

Infuse has never been approved by FDA for use in the cervical
spine (the portion of the spine that runs from the shoulders to
the head).  However, many patients have received Infuse in risky
off-label uses in either the lumbar or cervical spine.

When any drug or medical device, such as Infuse, is used by a
physician in an off-label use, the patient must be informed of
this off-label or experimental use.  The risks of the off-label
use must be fully disclosed prior to the surgery, so the patient
may make an informed decision as to whether or not he or she
wishes to receive the Infuse bone graft.

On June 28, 2011, The Spine Journal, a medical journal, criticized
research by Medtronic-funded physicians encouraging the widespread
off-label use of Infuse as "biased and corrupted research."  The
articles in The Spine Journal charge that the prior studies in
support of Infuse were authored by researchers with significant
financial ties to Medtronic, and that this prior research vastly
understated or failed to disclose Infuse's side effects and risks.

          Legal Resources for Injured Infuse Patients

Lieff Cabraser represents patients across America who have been
seriously injured by faulty medical devices and products, and the
families of loved ones who died from dangerous or defective drugs
and devices.  Learn more about Infuse bone problem side effects at
http://www.InfuseBoneProblemLawsuit.comand also see our video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSezoZqtI0Qon Infuse bone graft
complications and lawsuits.

                       About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a sixty-plus attorney
law firm founded in 1972 with offices in San Francisco, New York
and Nashville.  Described by The American Lawyer as "one of the
nation's premier plaintiffs' firms," Lieff Cabraser enjoys a
national reputation for professional integrity and the successful
prosecution of its clients' claims.

In the 2010 edition of its annual list of the top plaintiffs' law
firms, The National Law Journal again selected Lieff Cabraser.
Lieff Cabraser is one of only two plaintiffs' law firms in the
United States to receive this honor for the last eight years.

Learn more about the firm at www.lieffcabraser.com

Infuse is a registered trademark of Medtronic, Inc.  The uses of
this trademark is for product identification and informational
purposes only.  Lieff Cabraser is in no way affiliated with
Medtronic.


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Ga. Court Tosses MERS Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
MortgageOrb.com reports that the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia has dismissed all claims against
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. (MERS) and all other
defendants in the class-action lawsuit Jenkins v. McCalla Raymer.

District Judge Charles A. Pannell rejected the plaintiffs'
allegations of fraud and conspiracy, stating that the use of MERS
as grantee of the plaintiffs' security deeds is not fraudulent
because MERS is disclosed in that capacity even though the term
"nominee" is not defined in the security instrument.

In his ruling, Judge Pannell found no merit in the plaintiffs'
claims that the MERS assignments of the security deeds were
fraudulent or that MERS made misrepresentations to the plaintiffs
through the MERS assignments themselves.  The court noted that
MERS could not have made these misrepresentations to the
plaintiffs through the assignments because the plaintiffs were not
parties to the assignments, MERS reports.


OILSANDS QUEST: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oilsands Quest Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in a putative securities class
action lawsuit, according to the Company's September 14, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 31, 2011.

On February 24, 2011, a putative class action complaint (the
"Original Complaint") was filed against the Company and certain
current and former officers of the Company on behalf of investors
who purchased or sold the Company's securities between August 14,
2006, and July 14, 2009, alleging claims of securities fraud under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder, and control person liability for such
fraud under Section 20(a) of the same act, arising out of the
Company's accounting for its acquisition of an interest in
Oilsands Quest Sask Inc. ("OQI Sask") in August 2006.  On May 27,
2011, the plaintiffs in that putative class action filed an
amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint") alleging the same
legal causes of action but making the following changes from the
Original Complaint:  a) expanding the putative class period so
that it runs from March 20 2006 to January 13, 2011; b) naming as
additional defendants eight individuals who are current or former
directors of the Company as well as two additional corporate
defendants, McDaniel & Associates Consultants Ltd. and TD
Securities, Inc.; and c) basing the claimed fraud on a new theory
that the Company overstated the value of its mineral rights as a
result of misstatements about, among other things, the potential
for extracting bitumen from oil sands lands for which the Company
had exploration and development permits.  The Amended Complaint
seeks unspecified damages.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.  On June 6, 2011, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  On June 20, 2011, the
plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss.  The
Company filed its reply to the plaintiffs' opposition on June 27,
2011, and on July 29, 2011, the court heard oral arguments and
reserved decision.


OPENLANE INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the board of
directors of OPENLANE, Inc. on behalf of its shareholders and is
actively litigating claims concerning breaches of fiduciary duty
and other violations of law related to the Company's entry into an
agreement to be acquired by KAR Auction Services, Inc. and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, ADESA, Inc. in an all cash transaction
valued at approximately $210 million, plus an increase for some
indeterminate amount of "excess cash" on OPENLANE's balance sheet
at closing, representing an amount, according to the Company, of
"up to approximately $8.30 in cash, without interest, less any
applicable withholding taxes" per share.  The case is styled as
Treadway v. OPENLANE, Inc., C.A. No. 6849-VCN (Del. Ch.).

Click here to learn more and to view a copy of the Complaint:
http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/openlaneinc-opnn

Plaintiff has alleged that the Proposed Transaction is the product
of a flawed process that resulted from the Board's failure to
maximize shareholder value and deprived OPENLANE's public
shareholders of the ability to participate in the Company's long-
term prospects.  Furthermore, as alleged in the Complaint,
compounding the unfairness of the Proposed Transaction is the
Board's attempt to obtain shareholder ratification of its conduct
in connection with its approval of the Proposed Transaction
through materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in
OPENLANE's Proxy Statement filed with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission on Schedule DEFM14A on September 8, 2011.

If you own the common stock of OPENLANE and purchased your shares
before August 15, 2011, if you have information or would like to
learn more about these claims, or if you wish to discuss these
matters or have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact:

        Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
        Brian D. Long, Esq.
        Noah R. Wortman, Case Development Director
        Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
        919 N. Market Street, Suite 980
        Wilmington, DE 19801
        Telephone: 888-969-4242
                   302-295-5310
        E-mail: info@rigrodskylong.com
        Web site: http://www.rigrodskylong.com

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and
Garden City, New York, has extensive experience litigating
securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder
rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the
Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts
throughout the United States.


SOLYNDRA LLC: Faces 2 Class Suits Over WARN Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Peter M. Kohlstadt and Dan Bruan filed separate lawsuits in
bankruptcy court, on behalf of a class of similarly situated
former employees of Solyndra LLC and 360 Degree Solar Holdings
Inc. over mass layoffs and plant closing on Aug. 31, 2011, in
violation of the 60-day advance written notice under the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2101 et
seq.  Roughly 1,000 employees lost their jobs at facilities in the
Freemont, California area and elsewhere.

The Kohlstadt action also asserts violations of the California
Labor Code Sec. 1400 et seq.

The Plaintiffs seek class action certification and appointment as
class representative.

The Kohlstadt action was originally filed on Sept. 2, 2011, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case
No. C11-04403 JSC.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover 60 days wages and benefits,
pursuant to the WARN Acts, from the Defendants, as well as full
accrued paid time off.  The Plaintiffs assert their claims are
entitled to first priority administrative expense status pursuant
to the Sec. 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Counsel to the Kohlstadt Plaintiffs are:

         Frederick Rosner, Esq.
         THE ROSNER LAW GROUP LLC
         824 N. Market Street, Suite 810
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 777-1111
         E-mail: rosner@teamrosner.com

              - and -

         Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
         Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
         OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
         3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 245-1000
         E-mail: jar@outtengolden.com
                 rsr@outtengolden.com

Counsel to the Bruan Plaintiffs are:

         James E. Huggett, Esq.
         Stephanie Noble Tickle, Esq.
         MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
         750 Shipyard Drive, Suite 102
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Tel: 302-888-1112
         Fax: 302-888-1119
         E-mail: jhuggett@margolisedelstein.com

              - and -

         Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
         LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
         132 Nassau Street, Suite 423
         New York, NY 10038
         Tel: 212-581-5005
         Fax: 212-581-2122

              - and -

         Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
         M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
         THE GARDNER FIRM P.C.
         201 S. Washington Ave.
         Mobile, AL 36602
         Tel: 251-433-8100
         Fax: 251-433-8181
         E-mail: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com

                      About Solyndra LLC

Fremont, California-based Solyndra LLC and 360 Degree Solar
Holdings Inc. sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. D.
Del. Lead Case No. 11-12799) on Sept. 6, 2011.

Solyndra LLC is at least the third solar company to seek court
protection from creditors since August.

Solyndra LLC owed secured lenders $783.8 million, including $527.8
million to the U.S. government pursuant to a federal loan
guarantee, and held assets valued at $859 million as of the
Petition date.  The U.S. Federal Financing Bank, owned by the U.S.
Treasury Department, is the Company's biggest lender.

Founded in 2005, Solyndra is a U.S. manufacturer of solar
photovoltaic solar power systems specifically designed for large
commercial and industrial rooftops and for certain shaded
agriculture applications.  The Company had approximately 968 full
time employees and 211 temporary employees.  Solyndra has sold
more than 500,000 of its panels since 2008 and generated
cumulative sales of over $250 million.

In the Chapter 11 cases, the Debtors are pursuing a two-pronged
strategy to effectuate either a sale of their business to a
"turnkey" buyer who may acquire substantially all of Solyndra's
assets or, if the Debtors are unable to identify any such
potential buyers, an orderly liquidation of the Debtors' assets
for the benefit of their creditors.

The Company has tapped Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP as legal
adviser.


VAUGHAN FOODS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Vaughan Foods, Inc.'s September 13, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it reached
an agreement in principle to settle the purported class action
lawsuit, styled Kevin Wolters v. Herbert Grimes et al. (the
"Action"), challenging the proposed merger of Vaughan and Reser's
Fine Foods, Inc. (the "Merger").

Effective as of September 9, 2011, the parties to the Action
entered into a Memorandum of Agreement pursuant to which the
Action would be settled in consideration for Vaughan having made
certain additional disclosures relating to the Merger, which were
included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on
September 9, 2011, and the defendants' agreement to pay
plaintiff's reasonable legal counsel's fees and disbursements in
an amount to be negotiated or, if no agreement can be reached, an
amount determined by the United States District Court, Cleveland
County, Oklahoma, having jurisdiction over the Action (the
"Court").  The settlement is subject to the parties agreeing on,
executing and presenting to the Court within 60 days a formal
Stipulation of Settlement that will dismiss the Action with
prejudice against all the defendants.

                       About Vaughan Foods

Vaughan Foods is an integrated manufacturer and distributor of
value-added, refrigerated foods and is uniquely able to distribute
fresh-cut produce items along with a full array of value-added
refrigerated prepared foods multiple times per week.  Vaughan
sells to both food service and retail sectors.  Its products
consist of fresh-cut vegetables, fresh-cut fruits, salad kits,
prepared salads, dips, spreads, soups, sauces and side dishes.


VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE: Faces Class Action Over Gaz Metro Buyout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a union pension fund claims
Central Vermont Public Services, the state's largest utility, "in
bad faith and for self-interested reasons," rejected a $34 per
share buyout offer from Gaz Metro, of Quebec, in favor of a $30.27
per share offer from Fortis, also of Canada.

A copy of the Complaint in IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, et al. v.
Central Vermont Public Service Corp., et al., Case No. 11-cv-00222
(D. Vt.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/16/VCPS.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Philip C. Woodward, Esq.
          WOODWARD & KELLEY, PLLC
          1233 Shelbourne Road, Suite D-3
          South Burlington, VT 05403
          Telephone: (802) 652-9699

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Steven F. Marino, Esq.
          MARINO, CONROY & COYLE
          301 Wharton Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19147
          Telephone: (215) 462-3200
          E-mail: smarino@marinoconroy.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Julia J. Sun, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          1500 Broadway, Suite 1600
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          E-mail: racocelli@weisslurie.com
                  jsun@weisslurie.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street, NW Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4292
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com


WPCS INT'L: Awaits Decision on Motion to Transfer "McKean" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
WPCS International Incorporated is awaiting a court decision on
its motion to transfer the class action lawsuit commenced by Edwin
M. McKean to Chester County and consolidate it with the Rapozo vs.
WPCS case, according to the Company's September 14, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 31, 2011.

On June 22, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Court of
Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Chester County, against the Company
and its directors, by filing a Summons and Complaint.  The case is
Ralph Rapozo v. WPCS International Incorporated, et al., Docket
No. 11-06837.  In this action, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
proposed transaction in which Multiband Corporation would acquire
all of the outstanding shares of the Company.  The plaintiff
alleges, among other things, that the consideration to be paid for
such acquisition by Multiband is inadequate, and that the
individual board members failed to engage in an honest and fair
sales process for the Company and failed to disclose material
information for the purposes of advancing their own interests over
those of the Company and its shareholders.  To that end, the
plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the
Company's board of directors.  In the event that the proposed
transaction is consummated, the plaintiff seeks money damages.
The plaintiff also asserts a claim against the Company and
Multiband for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty for
which he seeks unspecified money damages.  WPCS' time to answer or
move with respect to the Complaint has not yet expired.  However,
the Company and its directors deny the material allegations of
this complaint and intend to vigorously defend this action.

On June 22, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Court of
Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Chester County, against the Company
and its directors, by filing a Summons and Complaint.  The case
was Robert Shepler v. WPCS International Incorporated, et al,
Docket No. 11-06838.  On August 11, 2011, the Shepler case was
consolidated into the Rapozo vs. WPCS case.

On June 30, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Court of
Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, against the
Company and its directors, by filing a Summons and Complaint.  The
case is Edwin M. McKean v. WPCS International Incorporated, et
al., Civil Action No. 3085.  WPCS has filed a motion to transfer
this case to Chester County and consolidate into the Rapozo vs.
WPCS case.  WPCS expects the motion to be granted as the plaintiff
has agreed to not oppose it.


WVS FINANCIAL: Obtained Final OK of "Dragotta" Settlement in June
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The court issued a final order in June 2011 approving the class
action settlement resolving the lawsuit commenced by Matthew
Dragotta against West View Savings Bank, according to WVS
Financial Corp.'s September 13, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended June
30, 2011.

A lawsuit was filed by Plaintiff Matthew Dragotta against West
View Savings Bank.  The Plaintiff alleged that West View Savings
Bank failed to comply with the notification requirements of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1693 et. Seq.
before a bank can impose a transaction fee for the use of an
automated teller machine.  On August 24, 2009, U.S. District
Judge, Terrance P. McVerry issued an order granting the Bank's
motion to Dismiss the lawsuit.

On September 3, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a motion for
Reconsideration of Judge McVerry's order granting the Bank's
motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

On October 16, 2009, Judge McVerry denied the Plaintiff's Motion
for Reconsideration.

On November 4, 2009, the Plaintiff provided a Notice of Appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit appealing
Judge McVerry's orders of September 3 and October 16, 2009.

On September 28, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit vacated Judge McVerry's orders and remanded the case
to the U.S. District Court for further proceedings.

During the quarter ended December 31, 2010, the Plaintiff and the
Savings Bank agreed to settle this lawsuit.  The settlement will
be structured as a class action.  In connection with the
settlement, the Savings Bank agreed to refund ATM fees collected
and to pay a negotiated amount of the Plaintiff's attorney's fees
and litigation costs.  The Savings Bank decided to settle this
lawsuit for $81 thousand in order to avoid the costs of protracted
litigation.  In connection with the settlement, the Savings Bank
recorded a non-recurring charge of $81 thousand during the quarter
ended December 31, 2010.

On March 7, 2011, U.S. District Judge Terrence F. McVerry issued
an order preliminarily approving a class action settlement,
directed the dissemination of notice and set a final settlement
hearing date for June 16, 2011.

On June 16, 2011, U.S. District Judge Terrence F. McVerry issued a
final order approving the class action settlement.


* Tuscarawas County Residents File Mobile Home Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
WTOV9.com reports that people in Tuscarawas County are trying to
organize people involved in a mobile home class-action lawsuit.

A suit has been filed against a man who is accused of selling
mobile homes without giving owners the title.  A New Philadelphia
law firm is handling the case.

Workers say several people have started coming forward.

Those who have come forward are planning to meet with the attorney
handling the lawsuit on Sept. 23 at Tuscarawaras Park at 1:00 p.m.
and they are inviting anyone involved with the case to attend.


                           *********

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, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Julie Anne
Lopez, 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  * * *