CAR_Public/111020.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, October 20, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 208

                             Headlines

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Signs MOU to Resolve Merger-Related Suits
CCA INDUSTRIES: Faces "Shirilla" Class Suit in California
COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Ellis" Suit Remanded to District Court
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals Court Affirms Order in "Verzani" Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Strike in "Medrano" Suit

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Amend "Kilano" Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Justice" Suit Dismissed in California
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Robles" Suit in Illinois
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Suit Over Organic Milk
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Certification in "Velazquez" Suit Denied
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Gets Prelim. Approval of Revised Fuel MDL Deal
DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Three Price-Fixing Class Actions
FURUKAWA ELECTRIC: Accused of Fixing Auto Wire Harness Prices
GENERAL MILLS: Misleads Consumers in California, Suit Claims

HECKMANN WATER: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
LTX-CREDENCE CORP: Board Says Pursuing Claims Not Good for LTX
ONLINE HOTEL BOOKING COS: Forsyth County Joins Class Action
OTTAWA, CANADA: May Face Class Action Over Treatment of Veterans
PHILIP MORRIS: Misrepresented Marlboro Lights Brand, Lawyer Says

RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action
SPI ELECTRICITY: January 2013 Bushfire Class Action Hearing Set
THOMAS M. COOLEY: Oct. 24 Hearing Set for Suit v. Ex-Student
UNITED STATES: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Elouise Cobell Dies
UNITED STATES: Opening Brief Filed in Cobell $3.4BB Settlement

UNITED STATES: Dec. 27 Claims Filing Deadline in Keepseagle Suit
WINDSTREAM CORP: Signs MOU to Settle Consolidated Suit




                          *********

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Signs MOU to Resolve Merger-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allos Therapeutics, Inc., entered into a memorandum of
understanding to resolve merger-related lawsuits, according to the
Company's October 14, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 19, 2011, Allos Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company"), AMAG
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("AMAG"), and Alamo Acquisition Sub, Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of AMAG ("Merger Sub"), entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, as amended on
August 8, 2011 (the "Merger Agreement").  In July 2011, putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado and the Jefferson County, Colorado District Court
challenging the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.
The plaintiffs in these lawsuits are purported holders of common
stock of the Company ("Company Stockholders") and are purportedly
acting on behalf of a putative class of Company Stockholders.
These lawsuits name as defendants the Company, the members of the
Company's Board of Directors, and in certain instances AMAG and
Merger Sub.

While the Company and the other defendants believe that each of
the aforementioned lawsuits is without merit and that they have
valid defenses to all claims, in an effort to minimize the cost
and expense of any litigation relating to such lawsuits, on
October 13, 2011, the Company and other defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding ("MOU") with the parties to the
actions pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery, pursuant to
which the Company and such parties agreed in principle, and
subject to certain conditions, to settle those stockholder
lawsuits.  Subject to approval of the Delaware Court of Chancery
and further definitive documentation, the MOU establishes a
framework to resolve the allegations against the Company and other
defendants in connection with the Merger Agreement and
contemplates a release and settlement by the Company Stockholders
of all claims against the Company and other defendants and their
affiliates and agents in connection with the Merger Agreement
(including release of those claims brought in the non-settling
actions).  In exchange for such release and settlement, pursuant
to the terms of the MOU, the parties agreed, after arm's-length
discussions, that the Company would file this Current Report on
Form 8-K amending and supplementing the applicable disclosure in
its joint proxy statement/prospectus and related press release.
The settlement is also contingent upon, among other things,
consummation of the Merger (as defined in the Merger Agreement).
In the event that the MOU is not approved and such conditions are
not satisfied, the Company will continue to vigorously defend
these actions.

                    About Allos Therapeutics

Allos Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALTH) is a biopharmaceutical
company committed to the development and commercialization of
innovative anti-cancer therapeutics.  Allos is currently focused
on the development and commercialization of FOLOTYN(R)
(pralatrexate injection), a folate analogue metabolic inhibitor.
FOLOTYN is approved in the U.S. for the treatment of patients with
relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma.  For additional
information, please visit http://www.allos.com.


CCA INDUSTRIES: Faces "Shirilla" Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
CCA Industries Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit in
California, according to the Company's October 14, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended August 31, 2011.

On September 27, 2011, a lawsuit, entitled Shirilla v. CCA
Industries, Inc., was instituted against the Company in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.  The
plaintiff named in the complaint relating to the lawsuit seeks to
have the case certified as a class action.  The complaint alleges
unfair or deceptive business practices by the Company and asserts
that the Company made false and misleading claims about its "Mega-
T" product line in violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and the California Business and Professions Code.
The complaint states that the plaintiff is seeking injunction and
other equitable remedies, and restitution, disgorgement and
unspecified monetary damages and expenses.  The Company denies the
allegations of wrongdoing and liability with regard to its
advertising and other business practices.  Moreover, the Company
believes that the claims asserted in the Shirilla matter are the
same as or similar to those asserted in the class action Wally v.
CCA Industries, Inc., which was filed in the same court in 2009
and was settled, without admission of any liability or allegations
made in the case, in 2010.  The court-approved settlement in Wally
dismissed all claims that were made, or could have been made, in
the case by members of the plaintiff class.

Accordingly, the Company believes the claims asserted in Shirilla
are without merit and should be dismissed.  There can be no
assurance, however, that the court will concur with the Company's
position.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Ellis" Suit Remanded to District Court
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the class certification order in, and remanded, the lawsuit
Shirley "Rae" Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp. to the San Francisco
District Court for further proceedings, according to the Company's
October 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended August 28, 2011.

Shirley "Rae" Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., United States
District Court (San Francisco), Case No. C-04-3341-MHP, was
brought as a class action on behalf of certain present and former
female managers, in which plaintiffs allege denial of promotion
based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and California state law.   Plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, interest and
attorneys' fees.  Class certification was granted by the district
court on January 11, 2007.  On September 16, 2011, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the order
of class certification and remanded to the district court for
further proceedings.

The Company says a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss cannot be made at this time for the matter.  The
Company does not believe that any pending claim, proceeding or
litigation, either alone or in the aggregate, will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position; however, it is
possible that an unfavorable outcome of some or all of the
matters, however unlikely, could result in a charge that might be
material to the results of an individual fiscal quarter.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals Court Affirms Order in "Verzani" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A court of appeals affirmed the rulings of a New York district
court denying plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction,
according to Costco Wholesale Corporation's October 14, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended August 28, 2011.

In Verzani, et ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 09 CV 2117
(United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York), a purported nationwide class action, the plaintiffs allege
claims for breach of contract and violation of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act, based on the failure of the Company to
disclose on the label of its "Shrimp Tray with Cocktail Sauce" the
weight of the shrimp in the item as distinct from the accompanying
cocktail sauce, lettuce, and lemon wedges.  The complaint seeks
various forms of damages (including compensatory and treble
damages and disgorgement and restitution), injunctive and
declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment
interest.  On April 21, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent the Company from
selling the shrimp tray unless the Company separately discloses
the weight of the shrimp and provides shrimp consistent with the
disclosed weight.  By orders dated July 29 and August 6, 2009, the
court denied the preliminary injunction motion and dismissed the
claim for breach of contract, and on July 21, 2010, the court of
appeals summarily affirmed these rulings.  On September 28, 2010,
the district court denied the motion of one plaintiff to file an
amended complaint.  On September 20, 2011, the court of appeals
affirmed the rulings of the district court.

The Company says a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss cannot be made at this time for the matter.  The
Company does not believe that any pending claim, proceeding or
litigation, either alone or in the aggregate, will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position; however, it is
possible that an unfavorable outcome of some or all of the
matters, however unlikely, could result in a charge that might be
material to the results of an individual fiscal quarter.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Strike in "Medrano" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to strike Manuel Medrano's amended complaint, according to
the Company's October 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended August 28,
2011.

On July 14, 2010, a putative class action captioned Manuel Medrano
v. Costco Wholesale Corp., and Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc.,
Superior Court of California (Los Angeles), Case No. BC441597, was
filed alleging that the Company unlawfully failed to pay overtime
compensation, denied meal and rest breaks, failed to pay minimum
wages, failed to provide accurate wage-itemization statements, and
willfully failed to pay termination wages allegedly resulting from
misclassification of certain California department managers as
exempt employees.  On September 3, 2010, the Company removed the
case to federal court.  The court remanded the action, and the
Company's petition to the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal
the remand order was denied.  On June 24, 2011, defendants filed a
motion to strike the class and certain other allegations from the
complaint.  On July 26, 2011, the court granted the motion in
part, without leave to amend, striking allegations predating
December 31, 2008, which are covered by a prior class settlement.
The Court also granted the motion with respect to allegations
post-dating December 31, 2008, but granted plaintiff leave to
amend.  On August 25, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
and on September 20, 2011, defendants renewed the motion to
strike.  The motion was set for hearing on October 13, 2011.

Claims in the action are made under various provisions of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code.  Plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory
damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest,
and attorneys' fees.

The Company says a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss cannot be made at this time for the matter.  The
Company does not believe that any pending claim, proceeding or
litigation, either alone or in the aggregate, will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position; however, it is
possible that an unfavorable outcome of some or all of the
matters, however unlikely, could result in a charge that might be
material to the results of an individual fiscal quarter.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Amend "Kilano" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation is awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint in the
lawsuit captioned Kilano, et. ano, v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
according to the Company's October 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
August 28, 2011.

Kilano, et. ano, v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:10-cv-11456-VAR-
DAS (United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan) was filed on April 12, 2010, as a purported class action
on behalf of certain Michigan Executive level-members who received
2% rewards.  Plaintiffs allege that the Company "guarantees" that
the member will receive rewards of no less than the fifty dollar
difference between Executive and Gold Star membership and that the
Company is required to but has failed to automatically reimburse
members whose rewards are less than this difference.  Plaintiffs
allege violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, breach
of contract, and unjust enrichment.  They seek compensatory and
statutory damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees.
The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of
the complaint.

On April 5, 2011, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  On July 22, 2011, plaintiffs sought leave to file
an amended complaint.

The Company says a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss cannot be made at this time for the matter.  The
Company does not believe that any pending claim, proceeding or
litigation, either alone or in the aggregate, will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position; however, it is
possible that an unfavorable outcome of some or all of the
matters, however unlikely, could result in a charge that might be
material to the results of an individual fiscal quarter.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Justice" Suit Dismissed in California
--------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit commenced by Suzanne Justice
against Costco Wholesale Corporation in Los Angeles, California,
has been dismissed, according to the Company's October 14, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended August 28, 2011.

On May 12, 2011, a putative class action captioned Suzanne Justice
v. Costco Wholesale Corp., United States District Court (Los
Angeles), Case No. LACV11-6563-ODW (JEMx), was filed on behalf of
California employees alleging that the Company failed to provide
its cashiers with seats, in violation of California law.  The
complaint also alluded to purported overtime violations and missed
meal periods and rest breaks.  On August 10, 2011, the Company
removed the case to federal court.  On August, 17, 2011, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint.  On
August 30, 2011, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case, and
a dismissal without prejudice was entered.

Claims in the action are made under various provisions of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code.  Plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory
damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest,
and attorneys' fees.

The Company says a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss cannot be made at this time for the matter.  The
Company does not believe that any pending claim, proceeding or
litigation, either alone or in the aggregate, will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position; however, it is
possible that an unfavorable outcome of some or all of the
matters, however unlikely, could result in a charge that might be
material to the results of an individual fiscal quarter.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Robles" Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation continues to defend a purported class
action lawsuit in Illinois filed on behalf of disabled persons,
according to the Company's October 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
August 28, 2011.

On March 15, 2011, Robles, et al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
was filed as a purported class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 11-
CV-1785.  Plaintiffs seek to represent a class composed of all
disabled persons with ambulatory impairments who depend upon the
use of a wheelchair and are allegedly unable to obtain optometry
services at the Company.  Plaintiffs allege that the Company has
failed to remove architectural barriers that prevent full and
equal enjoyment of and access to its eye examination services.
They allege violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  They seek
injunctive relief and compensatory damages, costs, and attorneys'
fees.  The Company has filed an answer denying the material
allegations of the complaint.

The Company says a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss cannot be made at this time for the matter.  The
Company does not believe that any pending claim, proceeding or
litigation, either alone or in the aggregate, will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position; however, it is
possible that an unfavorable outcome of some or all of the
matters, however unlikely, could result in a charge that might be
material to the results of an individual fiscal quarter.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Suit Over Organic Milk
------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation has been named as a defendant in two
purported class actions relating to sales of organic milk -- Hesse
v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. C07-1975 (W.D. Wash.); and Snell v.
Aurora Dairy Corp., et al., No. 07-CV-2449 (D. Col.).  Both
actions claim violations of the laws of various states,
essentially alleging that milk provided to Costco by its supplier
Aurora Dairy Corp. was improperly labeled "organic."  Plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint on July 18, 2008.  With respect to
the Company, plaintiffs seek to certify four classes of people who
purchased Costco organic milk.  Aurora has maintained that it has
held and continues to hold valid organic certifications.  The
consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, actual,
compensatory, statutory, punitive and/or exemplary damages in
unspecified amounts, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.  On
June 3, 2009, the district court entered an order dismissing with
prejudice, among others, all claims against the Company.  As a
result of an appeal by the plaintiffs, on September 15, 2010, the
court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the rulings
of the district court and remanded the matter for further
proceedings.  Plaintiffs have filed amended complaints.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 14,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended August 28, 2011.

The Company says a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss cannot be made at this time for the matter.  The
Company does not believe that any pending claim, proceeding or
litigation, either alone or in the aggregate, will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position; however, it is
possible that an unfavorable outcome of some or all of the
matters, however unlikely, could result in a charge that might be
material to the results of an individual fiscal quarter.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action captioned Mary Pytelewski v. Costco Wholesale
Corp., Superior Court for the County of San Diego, Case No. 37-
2009-00089654, was filed on May 15, 2009, on behalf of present and
former hourly employees in California, in which the plaintiff
principally alleges that Costco Wholesale Corporation's routine
closing procedures and security checks cause employees to incur
delays that qualify as uncompensated working time.  Claims in the
action are made under various provisions of the California Labor
Code and the California Business and Professions Code.  Plaintiffs
seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory damages, various
statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest, and attorneys'
fees.

The case was removed to the United States District Court, Southern
District of California (San Diego), Case No. 09-CV-02473-AJB
(BGS).  On December 14, 2010, the court certified two classes of
hourly non-exempt employees subject to the Company's closing
lockdown procedures: one under California law for California non-
union employees who were subject to the closing procedures between
May 15, 2005, and October 1, 2009; and a nationwide class under
federal law for full-time employees who were subject to the
closing procedures between March 1, 2008, and October 1, 2009.
The case has been renamed Eric Stiller v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
and the parties are conducting discovery.

A similar class action was filed on November 20, 2009, in the
State of Washington, Raven Hawk v. Costco Wholesale Corp., King
County Superior Court, Case No. 09-242196-0-SEA.  On December 3,
2010, the court granted in part plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit; the class certified consists of
people employed in Washington state warehouses from November 2006
through November 2009 who had clocked out and were detained during
closing procedures without compensation.  Trial has been scheduled
for February 13, 2012.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 14,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended August 28, 2011.

The Company says a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss cannot be made at this time for the matter.  The
Company does not believe that any pending claim, proceeding or
litigation, either alone or in the aggregate, will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position; however, it is
possible that an unfavorable outcome of some or all of the
matters, however unlikely, could result in a charge that might be
material to the results of an individual fiscal quarter.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Certification in "Velazquez" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California court denied class certification in the lawsuit
captioned Velazquez v. Costco, according to Costco Wholesale
Corporation's October 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended August 28,
2011.

In Velazquez v. Costco, filed April 4, 2011, now pending in U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Case No.
CV11-00508 JVS (RNBx), three former California Receiving Managers
seek class treatment for their claim that Costco misclassified
California Receiving Managers as exempt.

Claims in the action are made under various provisions of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code.  Plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory
damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest,
and attorneys' fees.

On October 11, 2011, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The Company says a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss cannot be made at this time for the matter.  The
Company does not believe that any pending claim, proceeding or
litigation, either alone or in the aggregate, will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position; however, it is
possible that an unfavorable outcome of some or all of the
matters, however unlikely, could result in a charge that might be
material to the results of an individual fiscal quarter.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Gets Prelim. Approval of Revised Fuel MDL Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A revised settlement in the multidistrict litigation against motor
fuel retailers, including Costco Wholesale Corporation, gained
preliminarily approval in September, according to the Company's
October 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended August 28, 2011.

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

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
On February 21, 2008, the court denied a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  On April 12, 2009, the Company
agreed to a settlement involving the actions in which it is named
as a defendant.  Under the settlement, which is subject to final
approval by the court, the Company agreed, to the extent allowed
by law, to install over five years from the effective date of the
settlement temperature-correcting dispensers in the States of
Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada,
New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, and Virginia.  Other than payments to class representatives,
the settlement does not provide for cash payments to class
members.  On August 18, 2009, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement.  On August 13, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of the settlement.  On February 3, 2011,
a revised settlement agreement was submitted for court approval.
On September 22, 2011, the court preliminarily approved the
revised settlement.

The Company says a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss cannot be made at this time for the matter.  The
Company does not believe that any pending claim, proceeding or
litigation, either alone or in the aggregate, will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position; however, it is
possible that an unfavorable outcome of some or all of the
matters, however unlikely, could result in a charge that might be
material to the results of an individual fiscal quarter.


DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Three Price-Fixing Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
David Shepardson, writing for The Detroit News, reports that three
class action lawsuits have been filed against several major auto
suppliers, alleging they engaged in a "massive decade-long
conspiracy to unlawfully fix and artificially raise the price" of
wire harness systems.

As a result, the suits argue the higher prices raised the price of
new vehicles, harming tens of millions of new car buyers.  The
suits seek the return of ill-gotten profits to car buyers.

The suits filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit name Troy-based
Delphi Automotive LLP, Southfield-based Lear Corp., Furukawa
Electric Co., Leoni AG, Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd., S-Y
Systems Technologies GmbH, Yazaki Corp and its North American unit
based in Canton Township.

Two of the suits were filed on Oct. 17, while the third was filed
earlier this month.

Automotive wire harness systems are electrical distribution
systems used to direct and control electrical components, wiring
and circuit boards -- and represents a multi-billion annual
business.

The suits note the U.S. Justice Department, European Union and
Japan have been investigating the market for wire harness systems
since at least February 2010.

The FBI has conducted raids of some auto supplier offices in
Michigan.  Authorities in the European Union have also conducted
raids.

Last month, Furukawa said it would plead guilty to price fixing
and pay a $200 million fine as part of a Justice Department
settlement.

Furukawa, a supplier of automotive wire harnesses based in Tokyo,
agreed to settle as part of the government's criminal price-fixing
and bid-rigging investigation.

Three executives, who are Japanese nationals, also have agreed to
plead guilty and to serve prison time in the United States ranging
from a year and a day to 18 months.

According to four separate one-count felony charges filed last
month in U.S. District Court in Detroit, Furukawa and its
executives engaged in a conspiracy to rig bids and to fix,
stabilize and maintain the prices of automotive wire harnesses and
related products sold to automakers in the United States and
around the world.

"As a result of this international price-fixing and bid-rigging
conspiracy, automobile manufacturers paid noncompetitive and
higher prices for parts in cars sold to U.S. consumers," said
Sharis A. Pozen, acting assistant attorney general in charge of
the Justice Department's antitrust division.  "We are going to
continue to pursue this."

The conspiracy started as early as January 2000 and lasted until
at least January 2010, the Justice Department said.

Honda Motor Co. said federal authorities informed it of the
investigation early last year.  Furukawa Electric supplies Honda
with electric wire harnesses.

A spokesman for Delphi, Lindsey Williams, said on Oct. 17 that the
company was aware of the suits, but had not been formally
presented with the complaints.

Lear denied any wrongdoing.

"The company believes that the claims against it alleging anti-
competitive behavior are completely without merit, and will
vigorously defend itself in any litigation related to such
claims," the company said.

In February 2010, Lear denied any wrongdoing as part of the
European Union's investigation.


FURUKAWA ELECTRIC: Accused of Fixing Auto Wire Harness Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
George Nicoud, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Furukawa Electric Company Ltd; Denso Corporation;
Denso International America, Inc.; Delphi Automotive LLP; Lear
Corporation; Yazaki Corporation; Yazaki North America, Inc.; Tokai
Rika Company, Ltd; Leoni AG; Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd.;
and S-Y Systems Technologies Europe GmbH, Case No. 4:11-cv-05057
(N.D. Calif., October 14, 2011) is brought on behalf of all
persons and entities in California, who purchased a new automobile
that was equipped with an automotive wire harness that was
manufactured by any Defendant, at any time from January 1, 2000,
to the present.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, which are the leading
manufacturers of Automotive Wire Harnesses, agreed, combined, and
conspired with each other to rig bids for and to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the prices and allocate market share and
customers of Automotive Wire Harnesses.  As a result of the
Defendants' unlawful conduct and conspiracy, the Plaintiff argues,
he and the other Class members have suffered antitrust injury and
are threatened with further antitrust injury.

Mr. Nicoud is a resident of California.  He purchased a new
automobile in California during the Class Period.

Delphi, Lear and Denso International are Delaware corporations,
while Yazaki North America is an Illinois corporation.  Furukawa,
Tokai Rika, Denso Corp., Sumitomo and Yazaki Corp. are Japanese
corporations.  Leoni and S-Y Systems are German corporations.  The
Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Automotive Wire Harness
Systems throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Susan G. Kupfer, Esq.
          Joseph Barton, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 760
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 972-8160
          Facsimile: (415) 972-8166
          E-mail: skupfer@glancylaw.com
                  jbarton@glancylaw.com


GENERAL MILLS: Misleads Consumers in California, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Lam, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. General Mills, Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-05056 (N.D. Calif.,
October 14, 2011) is a proposed class action against General Mills
for misleading consumers about the nutritional and health
qualities of its fruit snacks, namely Fruit Roll-Ups(R) and Fruit
by the Foot(R) as well as other similar products.

During the period October 15, 2005, to the present, the Defendant
made misleading statements that its Products were nutritious,
healthful to consume, and better than similar fruit snacks, the
Plaintiff alleges.  She contends that the Fruit Snacks contained
trans fat, added sugars, and artificial food dyes; lacked
significant amounts of real, natural fruit; and had no dietary
fiber.

Ms. Lam is a resident of Daly City, California.  During the Class
Period, she asserts that she purchased the Defendant's products
for herself and her children at a premium price from various
grocery and retail stores near her neighborhood.

General Mills is a Fortune 500 Company primarily concerned with
food products and the marketing of many well-known brands, such as
Betty Crocker.  General Mills is headquartered in Golden Valley,
Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          Belinda L. Williams, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN LLP
          875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com
                  krichman@reeserichman.com
                  bwilliams@reeserichman.com

               - 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
          Facsimile: (214) 827-2787
          E-mail: SGardner@cspinet.org
                  SRattan@cspinet.org


HECKMANN WATER: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Keahey, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports
that workers for a Carthage business have filed a class action
which alleges they were not paid for the hours they worked in
excess of 40 per workweek.

Claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Kevin
Johnson, Brad Smith and Tommy Higgins, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, filed suit against Heckmann Water
Resources Inc., Complete Vacuum and Rental and Steven Kent Jr. on
Oct. 14 in the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division.

The lawsuit is filed as an "opt-in" class action which will
represent all worked employed by the defendants, who worked in
excess of 40 hours in any workweek since Oct. 14, 2008, and who
did not receive overtime wages at one-and-one-half times their
regular hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 in any workweek.

The former employees are asking for an award of unpaid or
underpaid overtime, plus liquidated damages, interest, attorney's
fees and court costs.

The plaintiffs are represented by Lufkin attorney Charles R.
Dendy.

Case No. 9:11-cv-00170


LTX-CREDENCE CORP: Board Says Pursuing Claims Not Good for LTX
--------------------------------------------------------------
The independent members of LTX-Credence Corporation's Board of
Directors have determined that pursuing claims asserted in a
demand letter filed by Joel Krieger, a shareholder, is not in the
best interest of the Company, according to LTX-Credence's October
14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended July 31, 2011.

As previously disclosed, the Company, its directors, Lobster-1
Merger Corporation, and Lobster-2 Corporation, were named as
defendants in these putative class action complaints:

   * Carneau v. LTX-Credence Corp., et. al., 110-cv-188153, filed
     on November 22, 2010, in the Superior Court of the State of
     California;

   * Khan v. LTX-Credence Corp., et.al,, 1-10-cv188773 filed
     December 1, 2010, in Santa Clara Superior Court,

   * Snitily v.Tacelli, et.al., No 1-10-cv-188922 filed on
     December 6, 2010, in Santa Clara Superior Court;

   * Shah v. Tacelli, et. al., No. 10- 4580, filed on
     November 23, 2010, in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth
     of Massachusetts;

   * Krieger v. LTX-Credence Corp., et. al., No. 10-04713, filed
     on December 3, 2010, in the Superior Court for the
     Commonwealth of Massachusetts;

   * Keuler v. LTX-Credence Corp., et. al., 1:10-cv-12058, filed
     on November 30, 2010, in the United States District Court
     for the District of Massachusetts; and

   * Brookshire v. LTX-Credence Corp., et. al., CV 10 5773 filed
     on December 17, 2010, in the United States District Court
     for the Northern District of California.

As of July 31, 2011, all of these actions have been dismissed
without costs.

                       Verigy Transaction

On November 17, 2010, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Verigy Ltd., a
corporation organized under the laws of Singapore ("Verigy").  In
March 2011, prior to the closing of the Company's merger with
Verigy, the board of directors of Verigy determined that a
proposal from Advantest Corporation to acquire all of the
outstanding ordinary shares of Verigy for $15.00 per share in
cash, on the terms and conditions set forth in a definitive
implementation agreement proposed by Advantest, constituted a
"Superior Offer" within the meaning of the Merger Agreement, the
Verigy board of directors withdrew its recommendation in favor of
the pending merger transaction between Verigy and the Company and,
as a result the Company then terminated the Merger Agreement.

On April 19, 2011, the Company received a demand letter pursuant
to Massachusetts General Laws ch. 156D, Section 7.42 sent on
behalf of Joel Krieger, a purported LTX-Credence shareholder,
whose putative class action complaint, Krieger v. LTX-Credence
Corp., et. al., No. 10-04713, filed on December 3, 2010, in the
Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, was recently
dismissed.  The letter demands the Company commence legal
proceedings against the Company's directors and senior officers
for breaches of their fiduciary duties, gross negligence and
mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and abuse of control,
all arising out of the Company's pursuit of a merger transaction
with Verigy.  On October 12, 2011, the independent members of the
Company's Board of Directors determined that pursuing the claims
asserted in the demand letter was not in the best interest of the
Company.


ONLINE HOTEL BOOKING COS: Forsyth County Joins Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aldo Nahed, writing for Appen Newspapers, reports that the Forsyth
County Board of Commissioners has agreed to support a class action
lawsuit against online hotel booking companies.

The litigation arises out of how much money online booking
companies, among them hotels.com, hotwire.com, expedia.com,
orbitz.com and travelocity.com, pay in hotel excise taxes.

"The allegation is that [online hotel booking companies] receive a
hotel room by way of a discounted rate and they base their payment
of the hotel excise tax on that discounted rate, but then they
charge the consumer and additional rate, but don't base their
taxes on the additional rate," said Forsyth County Attorney
Ken Jarrard.

The class action lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Rome,
Ga. in 2005.

In one example in the suit, an online hotel booking company
negotiates a room for $60, but sells to a consumer for $100.

The online booking company charges the consumer tax on $100, but
only pays taxes to a municipality on the $60 it paid for the room,
pocketing the difference, the lawsuit alleges.

"Defendant's unlawful practice in this example would result in a
sales tax deficiency of 40 percent," the complaint says.

Forsyth County does not drive a tremendous amount of money from
hotels, but Mr. Jarrard told commissioners they have a stake in
the issue.

The lawyers for the plaintiff have made a request to all the
jurisdictions in the state to provide estimates to the courts of
punitive damages, meaning how much money has been collected from
various hotels.

"They will then use that in the courtroom as a method to trying to
assess how much is owed," Mr. Jarrard said.  "I don't expect there
to be a windfall recovery at the end of this, on the other hand,
if we do nothing, our recovery will be even less."

Commissioners voted unanimously to give permission to give all the
information that is being requested by the plaintiffs -- "City of
Cartersville, City of Rome and all other similarly situated."

Commissioner Jim Boff said that if an online hotel booking company
does not have a contract with a Forsyth County hotel, than it's
not really going to help the county.

Mr. Jarrard said that a listing of all the county hotels will be
provided to the lawyers representing the lawsuit and they will go
through the list and find out if there are contracts with the
online providers.

"They have a financial incentive to do all that," Mr. Jarrard
said.  "Our job will be fairly cheap -- provide the addresses,
provide a spreadsheet with all that we collected."

Mr. Jarrard said it's going to cost the county less than $5,000 to
provide the information and the recovery may be worth pursuing.

"The only downside I heard and I don't have much to base this on,
is that some of the hotels in municipalities aggressively pursuing
this may be taken off their online databases," Mr. Jarrard said.
"If you are a big tourist town, that may impact them adversely.
But I can't see that having a big impact here."


OTTAWA, CANADA: May Face Class Action Over Treatment of Veterans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Campion-Smith, writing for Toronto Star, reports that the
federal government could be hit with a class action lawsuit,
accused of shortchanging badly wounded veterans.

A national law firm has agreed to launch a constitutional
challenge on behalf of wounded and injured soldiers, arguing that
the financial benefits they get are significantly less than the
damages they'd be entitled to if they had suffered similar
injuries in a car crash or workplace accident.

"Anyone who sits in a room and talks to these guys . . . is going
to know it's just not fair," said Donald Sorochan, a senior
partner with the Vancouver office of Miller Thomson.

It's not the first time the government has faced criticism over
its controversial New Veterans Charter, which introduced sweeping
changes to the benefits for injured soldiers.

But the prospect of a class action lawsuit raises the stakes for a
Conservative government that has staked part of its political
fortunes on its treatment of the military.

Mr. Sorochan said the veterans' charter "smells of bureaucrats
cutting costs."

"I just can't imagine how politicians allowed this to happen," he
said in an interview on Oct. 17.

Faced with criticism, the government tinkered with its benefits
package, including the promise of at least C$40,000 a year for
veterans in rehabilitation, or until age 65 if they cannot be
employed.

As well, there was expanded eligibility for additional monthly
allowances -- up to C$1,632 a month for seriously injured veterans
-- and a new C$1,000 monthly payment for the most seriously
injured.

But critics say the benefits still don't ensure financial security
for wounded veterans whose livelihood has been threatened by their
injuries.

"It's not an improvement," Mr. Sorochan said.  "I don't believe
there's a politician in Parliament who would agree with that if
they knew it was happening."

Rather than challenge the treatment of individual soldiers, the
law firm decided the best route would be a class action suit to
"challenge the whole structure."

The law firm has offices nationwide able to help wounded soldiers
"all across the country," Mr. Sorochan said.

"We've got a group of young people and some older ones in each of
our offices that are ready to throw themselves into this.

"But what surprises me is that it's necessary."

He said the law firm is also hoping to work with its many clients
to get career help for wounded soldiers as they make the
transition to civilian jobs.

"We want to bring assistance to the soldiers beyond the legal.  A
lot of them are still clinging to the military but they don't have
a career there," he said.

"We'll do whatever is necessary to work with others that want to
do the right thing for these veterans."

Challenged on the topic of veterans benefits in Parliament on
Oct. 17, Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney defended the
government's record, saying it has invested billions of dollars in
veterans benefits.


PHILIP MORRIS: Misrepresented Marlboro Lights Brand, Lawyer Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Cronin Fisk and Joe Whittington, writing for Bloomberg
News, report that Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris unit deceived
Missouri consumers by marketing Marlboro Lights as safer than
regular cigarettes, a lawyer told a St. Louis jury.

"Philip Morris made two promises -- to provide lower tar and
nicotine to smokers," Stephen Swedlow, who represents Missouri
smokers suing the company, said on Oct. 17 in closing arguments in
the state-court trial.  "They did not deliver on this."

In the lawsuit, a class action, or group case, filed in 2000 on
behalf of all buyers of Marlboro Lights in Missouri, the smokers
claim Philip Morris misrepresented that the brand was lower in tar
and nicotine, a violation of state merchandising law.  The
cigarettes are no safer than others, the consumers said in court
papers.

The smokers, who are seeking about $700 million plus punitive
damages, don't claim any personal injuries.  The class, which was
certified in 2005, includes as many as 400,000 current and former
Marlboro Lights smokers.  The trial began with opening statements
last month.

Mr. Swedlow asked the jury to award $696 million.  "I know that is
a big number, but this comes to about 99 cents a pack," he said.

The jury of three men and nine women began deliberations on
Oct. 17.

"There was no deception on our part," Beth Wilkinson, a Philip
Morris attorney, said in her closing argument.

                          "Did Not Prove"

"Did they prove that Marlboro Lights didn't deliver less tar and
nicotine? Did they prove that Marlboro Lights withheld
information?" she asked.  "They did not prove their case."

Philip Morris didn't tout Marlboro Lights as safer and its
packages contain the same warnings as other cigarettes,
Ms. Wilkinson said.  "What other product in the United States has
a warning that you're taking your life in your own hands if you
smoke these?"

Missouri smokers sustained no damages, George Lombardi, another
Philip Morris attorney, said in his closing on Oct. 17.

"Nobody in this class paid a penny more for Marlboro Lights than
Marlboro Reds or any other cigarette," he told the jury.  "In the
real world, there was no ascertainable loss."

The smokers claim that Philip Morris "willfully deceived consumers
regarding the nature and effect of Marlboro Lights," according to
the complaint.

                     "Fraudulently Represented"

Philip Morris owes damages because the company "fraudulently
represented" that there was less tar and nicotine in Marlboro
Lights, Mr. Swedlow, the plaintiffs' attorney, said on Oct.17.
The smokers didn't get what they were promised and this made their
purchases worth less than what they paid, he said.

Philip Morris convinced the plaintiffs that it was better for
their health to smoke Marlboro Lights than other cigarettes,
Mr. Swedlow said.  "They delivered the same tar and nicotine as
Marlboro Reds."

The class covers all purchasers of Marlboro Lights in Missouri
from 1995 through 2003.  Philip Morris sold $1.9 billion Marlboro
Lights to the class members, Mr. Swedlow said on Oct. 17.

                           Second Trial

This is the second lawsuit to go to trial this year in Missouri
against the tobacco industry over marketing practices.  Missouri
hospitals lost a jury verdict in April in their claim that Philip
Morris, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Lorillard Tobacco Co. and other
cigarette makers manipulated the nicotine content in cigarettes
and misrepresented the health effects of smoking.

The hospitals, which were seeking more than $455 million in
damages, claimed the industry's actions boosted spending for
unreimbursed and uncompensated tobacco-related health care.

The tobacco companies denied any responsibility for patient-care
costs at the hospitals or any financial losses by the hospitals.
A state-court jury in St. Louis sided with the cigarette makers.

The case is Larsen v. Philip Morris Cos., 002-00406-02, Circuit
Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri.


RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlyn Kolker, writing for Reuters, reports that current and
former female employees of Ruth's Chris Steak House have sued the
company alleging gender discrimination and seeking class-action
status.

Last week's filing came after U.S. District Judge Barbara
Rothstein in Washington, D.C., ruled that a smaller lawsuit
alleging gender discrimination against the company could be
amended to seek class action status.

The lawsuit had previously been limited to three individual
plaintiffs.  The class action lawsuit would be on behalf of all
female employees at the company's headquarters and restaurants
from September 2006 to the present.

The women allege that the restaurant operator conducted a pattern
and practice of gender discrimination, including compensating men
more than women, subjecting women to sexist comments, and
disciplining women more harshly than men.

"The work environment at RCSH is one that is demeaning to women,
reflects a culture of male domination and female subjugation, and
is a causative factor in the discrimination against women in
compensation, promotion, and termination," the lawsuit said.

A spokeswoman for Ruth's Chris was not immediately available for
comment.

The company had asked that the original case be dismissed.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to large group
lawsuits when it threw out a sex discrimination class action
against Wal-Mart Stores Inc, the biggest ever such case.

While Ruth's Chris had argued that this decision should knock out
the plaintiffs' ability to file a class action, Judge Rothstein
ruled the decision did not apply because the case against Ruth's
Chris is at an earlier procedural stage.

The case is Bush v. Ruth's Chris Steak House, U.S. District Court,
District of Columbia, No. 10-01721.


SPI ELECTRICITY: January 2013 Bushfire Class Action Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Whitelaw, writing for Banyule & Nillumbik Weekly, reports
that the multi-million dollar Black Saturday class action will now
go to trial in January 2013.  In a directions hearing held on
October 14, Supreme Court Justice Jack Forrest agreed to delay the
trial for six months.

With the trial date now set, bushfire victims and their families
affected by the Kilmore bushfire have until January 31 next year
to register their interest in joining the class action as
plaintiffs.

Law firm for the plaintiffs Maurice Blackburn are bringing the
personal injury lawsuit against power company SPI Electricity on
behalf of more than 900 Black Saturday bushfire victims and their
families.

The plaintiffs, led by St. Andrews resident Carol Ann Matthews,
whose 22-year-old son Sam died defending their family home on
Black Saturday, allege a failure in SPI's 43-year-old powerline
started the Kilmore-Kinglake West bushfire on February 7, 2009.
That fire left 119 people dead and destroyed more than 1200 homes.

SPI have denied any allegation of negligence, and are suing
maintenance company Utility Services Corporation, the Country Fire
Authority, the Department of Sustainability and Environment, and
Victoria Police.

Justice Forrest has yet to decide whether the trial will be heard
before a jury.  The trial is now set to start on January 29, 2013.


THOMAS M. COOLEY: Oct. 24 Hearing Set for Suit v. Ex-Student
------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that it
started as a way to warn prospective law students to read the fine
print.  The second-year law student known by the Internet handle
Rockstar05 founded a blog in February called Thomas M. Cooley Law
School Scam, after the school issued a press release proclaiming
itself the second-best law school in the country.

The blog's title aptly summed up how Rockstar05 felt about his
school, which has four Michigan campuses and a Florida location on
the way.  The student used the site to pick apart Cooley's
admission standards, graduate employment record and student
retention rate, among other complaints.

"The blog was to serve a strong buyer-beware message to students
considering Cooley as an option for law school," Rockstar05 said
in an interview with The National Law Journal that he granted only
on condition of anonymity.

Now, Rockstar05 -- a 3L who has since transferred -- is locked in
a court battle with his former law school, which is attempting to
publicly unmask and sue him for defamation.  The school succeeded
in learning his name and including it for a brief while in court
documents, before a judge sealed that information.  The NLJ did
not learn his identity before the information was sealed and
contacted him through his attorney.

A court hearing scheduled for Oct. 24 may well decide whether
Cooley's case against Rockstar05 and three other anonymous
commenters moves forward.

The suit has generated interest beyond the realm of the
"scambloggers" -- people who take to the Internet anonymously to
urge others to steer clear of a law school.  The Washington-based
consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen has filed an amicus
brief asking the Michigan trial judge to apply the rule
established in Dendrite International Inc. v. Doe No. 3 for
weighing the First Amendment rights of anonymous Internet
commenters against the rights of plaintiffs who seek to unmask
them.

"The mere fact that a plaintiff has filed a lawsuit over a
particular piece of speech does not create a compelling government
interest in taking away the defendant's anonymity," said Public
Citizen attorney Paul Alan Levy.  "Setting the bar too low for
disclosure would have a chilling effect on free speech.  It is
especially disconcerting here that a law school is the plaintiff
trying to suppress one of its students' voices."

PLENTY AT STAKE

There's plenty at stake for Rockstar05.  Cooley still has his
transcripts, and he worries that his employment prospects could
suffer should his name go public.  "Many 3L students do not budget
in the time commitments, effort or the emotional investment
attributed to being harassed by lawsuits into their normal
workload," he said.

For their part, Cooley administrators insist they are standing up
for the school's reputation in the face of unfair and untrue
allegations.  Cooley has an outsized target on its back partly
because it's the largest law school in the country with nearly
4,000 students, which increases the odds of some disgruntled
students airing their complaints.  Supporters counter that the
large size of its classes has helped expand the accessibility and
diversity of legal education.  Critics have also seized on the
school's bottom-tier status on the annual U.S. News & World Report
rankings, though Cooley tends to be singled out more often than
the other 39 unranked law schools on the list.

"The bloggers' statements damage our reputation because today's
law school applicant looks online for information about the law
schools he or she may attend," said Cooley Associate Dean for
Legal Affairs and General Counsel James Thelen.  "As a law school
that emphasizes professionalism and ethics, we are particularly
harmed by false statements that are dishonest."

Cooley raised the stakes on July 14, when it sued Rockstar05 and
the three John Does who posted comments on the Thomas M. Cooley
Law School Scam blog.  The school filed a parallel defamation suit
against the New York law firm Kurzon Strauss (which has since
split); the firm was using Internet postings to seek plaintiffs
for a class action against the school.  Kurzon Strauss filed that
action on Aug. 10.

Cooley seeks monetary damages, a retraction of the statements and
their removal from the Internet, and a court order barring the
defendants from any future defamation against the school.

Rockstar05 said he had never considered the possibility of being
sued over the blog, and initially thought someone was playing a
prank on him.  Once convinced that the suit was real, he posted a
message on his blog defending his statements as personal opinions.
He then connected with Michigan solo practitioner John Hermann
through the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights
advocacy organization based in San Francisco.  Mr. Hermann had
represented online John Doe clients against recording and movie
industry plaintiffs, and is handling Rockstar05's case pro bono.

That Rockstar05 retained counsel and is fighting back is somewhat
unusual; most online John Doe defendants lack the resources to
respond and often capitulate to plaintiffs' demands, said Lyrissa
Lidsky, a professor at the University of Florida Levin College of
Law who is an expert on online anonymity.

"It's very easy to bring a libel suit against someone when you are
criticized, if you have the resources," she said.  "The unmasking
of anonymity is often enough to chill the speech."

Hermann initially spent a week trying to negotiate with Cooley to
resolve the suit, but said the law school's demands were "too
onerous."  The school wanted Rockstar05 to retract his statements
and turn the blog over to Cooley "to use as counterpropaganda,"
Mr. Hermann said.

Cooley's legal team, led by Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone
principal Michael Coakley, issued a subpoena seeking information
about Rockstar05's identity from Weebly Inc., the California
company that hosts his blog.

WEB HOST'S 'BLUNDER'

Mr. Hermann immediately moved to quash the subpoena in Michigan,
and received an e-mail from Weebly on Aug. 9 saying that it
considered the subpoena dead.  However, Mr. Coakley obtained a
separate subpoena from a California court on Aug. 3, seeking the
information from Weebly by Aug. 25.  Weebly informed Mr. Hermann
that he had until Aug. 22 to have the new subpoena quashed.
However, a miscommunication between Weebly administrators led the
company to disclose Rockstar05's e-mail address to Cooley's
attorneys on Aug. 17, and the school used that information to
cross-reference its computer records to identify him.

"We have actually always been very strongly on the side of our
users, but we made a blunder this time around, which we regret and
have apologized for," said Weebly Chief Executive Officer David
Rusenko.

A day after the disclosure, Mr. Coakley wrote to inform Hermann
that Cooley knew the identity of Rockstar05 and that his motion to
quash was moot.  Mr. Coakley added that he would amend Cooley's
complaint to include Rockstar05's name unless he agreed to a
retraction and turned over identifying information about the other
three John Does.

Hermann responded that Weebly's disclosure had been inadvertent
and asked Mr. Coakley to return the information.  Instead,
Mr. Coakley on Aug. 29 filed an amended complaint against
Rockstar05, using his real name.  Mr. Coakley referred questions
about the case to Mr. Thelen, who noted that the judge never said
that Mr. Coakley had acted inappropriately.

Both sides met in court for a hearing on Sept. 7. Hermann argued
that the court should limit the use of the information that Weebly
had accidentally disclosed.  Mr. Coakley argued that the matter
was moot, since Rockstar05's identity had already been revealed
and Weebly's disclosure was not inadvertent.

"I don't think Cooley should hold all his e-mail addresses and be
able to go around and see what he has talked to the other people
(sic) without coming to the court," said Ingham County, Mich.,
Circuit Judge Clinton Canady III, according to a transcript of the
hearing.  "I think that's clearly an invasion of his privacy. I
don't think anybody would want that."

Mr. Coakley responded that the law school had no hope of defending
itself without access to the identity of the central figure in the
case.  "We will be defenseless to this kind of defamation if
[Hermann] is allowed to sequester that kind of information,"
Mr. Coakley said.

Judge Canady agreed with Mr. Hermann that the disclosure was
unintended and ordered the information provided by Weebly turned
over to the court and Rockstar05's name struck from the record.
Public Citizen filed its amicus brief on Sept. 20, asking the
court to apply the Dendrite rule, which would require Cooley's
lawyers to offer evidence that their defamation claims have merit
before the court can compel the identification of Rockstar05.
That's a standard Cooley has yet to meet, according to the amicus
brief.

If Cooley has a strong defamation case, it's likely to come out
during the Oct. 24 hearing, Mr. Levy said.  If not, Rockstar05's
identity probably would stay under wraps and Cooley would face an
uphill legal battle.  "They're pushing hard," he said of Cooley's
legal team.  "They're not giving in. It's hardball litigation.
I'll put it that way."

Even if Cooley wins in court, it may well lose the public
relations contest, Ms. Lidsky said.  "Most of these suits are
brought, namely, as a symbolic announcement that, 'Our critics are
wrong,' " she said.  "But they run the risk of backlash.  There's
a chance that people will become a lot more critical of your
practices if you sue a disgruntled former student.  People might
look at it as a David-and-Goliath fight."

The lawsuit has certainly put a spotlight on Thomas M. Cooley Law
School Scam, which was pulling in about 30 hits per day before it
was filed.  Rockstar05 estimates that traffic shot up 500% in the
days after.

Despite the headaches the blog has caused him, he doesn't regret
starting it.  "My ultimate advice is to do your research, exercise
your right to free speech, continue being critical on matters of
public concern, and remember that consumers have a right to access
information," he said.


UNITED STATES: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Elouise Cobell Dies
--------------------------------------------------------------
T. Rees Shapiro, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
Elouise Cobell, a Blackfeet tribal member who led a class-action
lawsuit on behalf of 500,000 Indians against the Interior
Department that yielded one of history's largest government
settlements -- a payout worth $3.4 billion -- died on Oct. 16 at a
hospital in Great Falls, Mont.  She was 65 and had been diagnosed
with cancer.

The death was confirmed by Bill McAllister, a family spokesman.

Mrs. Cobell spent nearly 15 years advancing the lawsuit, which was
finally settled in 2010.  The suit claimed that the Interior
Department had stolen or squandered billions of dollars in
royalties owed to individual tribal members, mostly in the West,
in exchange for oil, gas and other leases.

Mrs. Cobell, an accountant who grew up on a reservation in Montana
without electricity, a telephone or running water, was all too
familiar with stories of the government's mistreatment of tribes.
She said the federal mismanagement of the land trusts dated back
to the 19th century and had contributed to a pattern that had left
her tribe with high poverty and unemployment rates.

"The issue we're dealing with," she told the New York Times in
2004, "is the fact that we don't know how much land we own, we
don't know what the resources are on that land because the
government has gotten away with not reporting to the trust
beneficiaries."

The landmark settlement was ratified by Congress and signed into
law last year by President Obama, who called it an "important step
towards a sincere reconciliation."

Eric Eberhard, an Indian law expert at the Seattle University law
school, said there was "no doubt that Elouise Cobell changed the
legal landscape when it comes to Indian law and the federal
government's trust responsibilities."

He said Mrs. Cobell was "able to demonstrate in court that the
mismanagement was profound -- that, in some instances, monies
which should have been credited to accounts never showed up."

Mrs. Cobell served as treasurer of her Montana tribe and helped
found the first Indian-owned national bank, where she spoke with
fellow Blackfeet distressed by the paltry income their acreage
seemed to bring in from Washington.

By the time she filed the far-reaching lawsuit in 1996, she had
grown convinced that the federal government was not moving swiftly
enough to address problems with the land trusts.

Almost nothing had happened, she said, even though Congress passed
a trust reform act in 1994, following a scathing report two years
earlier by the House Committee on Government Operations called
"Misplaced Trust: The Bureau of Indian Affairs' Mismanagement of
the Indian Trust Fund."

She thought that no action by the government would likely occur
without legal pressure from Indian Country.

Mrs. Cobell was aided over the years by foundation money.  That
included a "genius award" of $310,000 in 1997 from the John D.
MacArthur Foundation, which called Mrs. Cobell "an advocate for
Native American self-determination and financial independence
whose work has inspired many Native American women to seek
influence and leadership within their own communities."


UNITED STATES: Opening Brief Filed in Cobell $3.4BB Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at PointofLaw.com by Ted Frank, the
Center for Class Action Fairness LLC filed its opening brief on
Oct. 17 in the DC Circuit in Cobell v. Salazar, No. 11-5205.  The
case, relating to the $3.4 billion government settlement of Indian
trust mismanagement claims, raises important issues regarding
class members' rights in class action settlements; whether it is
permissible to abrogate some class members' individual rights
while giving other class members a windfall; whether one can
impose a mandatory class upon a wholly monetary settlement by
characterizing the monetary relief as "equitable"; the
appropriateness of certifying a unitary class involving dozens of
different types of claims; the extent to which Congress can
abrogate the protections of Rule 23; and whether it is an
impermissible conflict of interest for a class representative to
request an incentive award of $13 million.  It's an important case
for delineating the scope of Wal-Mart v. Dukes.

Which raises an interesting issue.  The plaintiffs' attorneys,
Kilpatrick Townsend, hoping to defend a fee award between $99 and
$111 million (some of which will be shared with other attorneys),
are now placed in the position of arguing for a narrow
construction of Wal-Mart v. Dukes -- so narrow that they will need
the D.C. Circuit to essentially find that that precedent has no
effect, because plaintiffs cannot possibly win an affirmance
consistent with Wal-Mart.  Kilpatrick's clients include Adidas,
BellSouth, British Petroleum, Chrysler, Delta Air, Dupont, General
Electric, Google, Office Depot, Pepsi, and Sony -- all of whom
would be adversely affected if Kilpatrick Townsend wins this case
in the DC Circuit.  "I've previously complained that Fortune 500
companies are more concerned about political correctness in their
law firms than whether those firms are taking litigation positions
harmful to their own long-term interests, and this case provides
another remarkable example of a BigLaw firm putting its own
financial interests ahead of its clients.  General counsel should
pay much more attention to whom they're giving their business to:
they should do more to insist that their outside defense firms are
really defense firms that believe in their clients' rights, rather
than mercenaries that happen to represent defendants in a
particular case," Mr. Frank said.


UNITED STATES: Dec. 27 Claims Filing Deadline in Keepseagle Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Snyder, writing for K2 Radio, reports that Keepseagle vs
Vilsack class action lawsuit stems from a more than a decade-old
lawsuit claiming that the US Department of Agriculture
discriminated against Native Americans by denying them equal
access to credit in the USDA Farm Loan Program.

"The claims period will close December the 27th."

USDA Senior Advisor for Tribal Relations, Janie Hipp, is
encouraging those who think they may qualify to get information on
how to file.

"Get your name in to the system, get a claims package, and then
make an analysis on you own whether or not you wish to file a
claim.  Claimants can then talk one-on-one with a lawyer,
paralegal, a claims assistant and get some guidance."

Ms. Hipp says there is around $760 million available in monetary,
debt and tax relief for successful claimants.

For more information log on to https://www.indianfarmclass.com/


WINDSTREAM CORP: Signs MOU to Settle Consolidated Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Windstream Corporation entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle a consolidated merger-related lawsuit, according to the
Company's October 14, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On October 14, 2011, Windstream Corporation, a Delaware
corporation ("Windstream"), entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") with plaintiffs and other named
defendants regarding the settlement of two putative class action
lawsuits filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
in response to the announcement of the execution of an agreement
and plan of merger, dated as of July 31, 2011, among Windstream,
Peach Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiary of Windstream ("Merger Sub"), and PAETEC Holding Corp.,
a Delaware corporation ("PAETEC" or the "Company"), pursuant to
which, among other things, Merger Sub will be merged with and into
PAETEC, with PAETEC surviving the merger as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Windstream.

As described in greater detail in the proxy statement/prospectus
(the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus") dated September 19, 2011, and
forming a part of the registration statement on Form S-4 filed
with the SEC by Windstream and declared effective by the SEC on
September 19, 2011, purported stockholders of PAETEC filed a
complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware and a second complaint styled as
a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, Monroe County.  The plaintiff in the New York action also
filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  The lawsuits were consolidated in Delaware under the
caption In re PAETEC Holding Corp. Shareholders Litigation, C.A.
No. 6761-VCG (Del. Ch.), filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (the "Consolidated Lawsuit").

Under the terms of the MOU, Windstream, PAETEC, the other named
defendants, and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the
Consolidated Lawsuit and release the defendants from all claims
relating to the merger, subject to court approval.  If the court
approves the settlement contemplated by the MOU, the Consolidated
Lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice.  Pursuant to the terms
of the MOU, Windstream and PAETEC have agreed to make available
additional information to PAETEC's stockholders.  In addition, the
defendants in the Consolidated Lawsuit have agreed to negotiate in
good faith with plaintiffs' counsel regarding an appropriate
amount of fees, costs and expenses to be paid to plaintiffs'
counsel by PAETEC or its successor.

The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid
to PAETEC's stockholders in connection with the proposed merger or
the timing of the special meeting of PAETEC's stockholders,
scheduled for October 27, 2011, in New York, New York, to, among
other things, consider and vote upon a proposal to adopt the
agreement and plan of merger by and among Windstream, Merger Sub
and PAETEC.

Windstream, PAETEC and the other defendants deny all of the
allegations in the Consolidated Lawsuit and believe the
disclosures in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus are adequate under
the law.  Nevertheless, Windstream, PAETEC and the other
defendants have agreed to settle the Consolidated Lawsuit in order
to avoid costly litigation and reduce the risk of any delay to the
completion of the merger.


                           *********

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  * * *