---

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

            Monday, August 23, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 165

                             Headlines

99 CENTS ONLY: Defends Two Suits in Calif. Over Pricing Policy
99 CENTS ONLY: Faces "Palencia" Wage Violations Suit in Calif.
ABM SECURITY: Accused of Not Paying Employees for All Hours Worked
ALMOST FAMILY: Accused in Ky. Suit of Committing Medicare Fraud
BDO SEIDMAN: 3rd Cir. Upholds Denial of Certification in Malack

BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Settlement Approval Hearing Set for September
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Approval of Settlement in Wage Suit Pending
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Defends Suit Over "On-Call Time" Wages
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Second Amended Complaint in California
BLUELINX HOLDINGS: Sued for Selling Itself Too Low

BOUCHARD TRANS: Nov. 4 Final Hearing Set for $11.45MM Settlement
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY: Employees' Suit Gets Class Status
CAREER EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Amador" Suit in Calif.
CAREER EDUCATION: "Adams" Suit in California Remains Stayed
CAREER EDUCATION: Conference in "Lilley" Suit Set for August 25

CAREER EDUCATION: Court Limits Class in "Schuster" Lawsuit
CAREER EDUCATION: Defends "Vasquez" Suit in California
CENDANT CORP: N.J. Sup. Ct. Certifies Century 21 Franchisees' Suit
CERRO WIRE: Recalls 1,000 THHN Electrical Wire
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Md. Court Narrows Securities Class Suit

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Aug. 31 Injunction Hearing in Merger Suit
DIAMOND FOODS: Calif. App. Ct. Upholds Class Action Waiver
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Pays Settlement Amount to Claims Admin.
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss "Freudenberg" Suit Denied
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Securities Suit

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Wants "Roling" Suit Transferred to New York
ENBRIDGE INC: Plaintiff Lawyers Hold 2nd Meeting on Aug. 18
FEDEX CORP: Truck Drivers Seek "Employee" Status in Class Suit
LOWE'S COS: Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Nov. 9; Criticisms Mount
MEDICAID PROGRAM: Payments Begin in $16-Mil. Class Action

PACTIV CORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Ill. Suit Claims
PARKCENTRAL GLOBAL: Del. Sup. Ct. Directs Investors' Coordination
PG&E CORP: Lawsuit Against Pacific Gas Remains Stayed
PG&E CORP: SmartMeter Suppliers Face Suit in San Francisco
POM WONDERFUL: Sued in Fla. Over Misleading Marketing Campaign

QUIZNOS FRANCHISE: Ill. Judge Dismisses Suit After $206MM Accord
RAYMOND JAMES: Judge Dismisses Woodward Suit on Lack of Facts
SLM CORPORATION: Removes "Bottoni" Penalty Lawsuit to N.D. Calif.
STEEL DYNAMICS: Antitrust Lawsuits by Direct Purchasers Ongoing
SYNOVUS FIN'L: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Sea Island Deals

TELETECH HOLDINGS: Settlement Gets NY Court's Final Approval
TRUBION PHARMA: Being Sold for Too Little, Wash. Suit Claims
UNITED STATES: War Veterans Have Until Nov. 10 to Join PTSD Suit
WHITE CAP: Recalls 15,000 Hickory Handle Sledge Hammers

* 5 Labor & Employment Seyfarth Attorneys Join Sheppard Mullin
* Hagens Berman Opens New Office in Washington D.C.
* Sarasota Firm Mulls Suit Over Unfair Collection Practices

                            *********

99 CENTS ONLY: Defends Two Suits in Calif. Over Pricing Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
99 Cents Only Stores defends two putative class action complaints
in connection with its 99-cent pricing policy, according to the
company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 26, 2010.

In the matter Leonard Morales and Steven Calabro vs. 99c Only
Stores, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint
against the company in July 2010, claiming violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law (California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act
(California Civil Code Section 1750, et seq.), as well as unjust
enrichment, arising out of the company's September 2008 change in
its pricing policy.  Plaintiffs seek restitution of all amounts
allegedly "wrongfully obtained" by the Company, injunctive and
declaratory relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
their attorney's fees and costs.

In the matter Phillip Kravis, Debra Major, Barbara Maines, and
Susan Jonas v. 99c Only Stores, David Gold, Jeff Gold, Howard
Gold, and Eric Schiffer, Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, plaintiffs filed a putative
class action complaint against the company in July 2010, claiming
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200), False Advertising Law
(California Business & Professions Code Section 17500), and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (California Civil Code Section 1770),
as well as intentional misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, arising out of the
company's September 2008 change in its pricing policy.  Plaintiffs
seek actual damages, restitution, including disgorgement of all
profits and unjust enrichment allegedly obtained by the company,
statutory damages and civil penalties, equitable and injunctive
relief, exemplary damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
and their attorney's fees and costs.

99c Only Stores(R) -- http://www.99only.com/-- operates 276
extreme value retail stores with 206 in California, 33 in Texas,
25 in Arizona and 12 in Nevada.  99c Only Stores(R) emphasizes
quality name-brand consumables, priced at an excellent value, in
convenient, attractively merchandised stores.  Over half of the
company's sales come from food and beverages, including produce,
dairy, deli and frozen foods, along with organic and gourmet
foods.


99 CENTS ONLY: Faces "Palencia" Wage Violations Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
99 Cents Only Stores faces a suit styled Luis Palencia v. 99c Only
Stores, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Sacramento, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 26, 2010.

Plaintiff, a former assistant manager for the company, who was
employed with the company from June 12, 2009 through Sept. 9,
2009, filed the action in June 2010, asserting claims on behalf of
himself and all others allegedly similarly situated under the
California Labor Code for alleged unpaid overtime due to "off the
clock" work, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide meal
and rest periods, failure to provide proper wage statements,
failure to pay wages timely during employment and upon termination
and failure to reimburse business expenses.  Mr. Palencia also
asserts a derivative claim for unfair competition under the
California Business and Professions Code.

Mr. Palencia seeks to represent three sub-classes: (i) an "unpaid
wages subclass" of all non-exempt or hourly paid employees who
worked for the Company in California within four years prior to
the filing of the complaint until the date of certification, (ii)
a "non-compliant wage statement subclass" of all non-exempt or
hourly paid employees of the Company who worked in California and
received a wage statement within one year prior to the filing of
the complaint until the date of certification, and (iii) an
"unreimbursed business expenses subclass" of all employees of the
Company who paid for business-related expenses, including expenses
for travel, mileage expenses, or cell phones in California within
four years prior to the filing of the complaint until the date of
certification.

Plaintiff seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, interest,
attorney's fees and costs, declaratory relief, restitution,
statutory penalties and liquidated damages.  He also seeks to
recover civil penalties as an "aggrieved employee" under the
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

99c Only Stores(R) -- http://www.99only.com/-- operates 276
extreme value retail stores with 206 in California, 33 in Texas,
25 in Arizona and 12 in Nevada.  99c Only Stores(R) emphasizes
quality name-brand consumables, priced at an excellent value, in
convenient, attractively merchandised stores.  Over half of the
company's sales come from food and beverages, including produce,
dairy, deli and frozen foods, along with organic and gourmet
foods.


ABM SECURITY: Accused of Not Paying Employees for All Hours Worked
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyrone Davis, LaToya James, Jamie Thomas, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. ABM Security Services,
Inc., Case No. 10-CH-34934 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. August 13,
2010), accuses the security services company of not paying class
members for all hours worked, not paying class members for all
worked performed in excess of 40 hours per workweek at overtime
rates, and forcing class members to work "off-the-clock", in
violation of Illinois wage and hour laws.

Plaintiffs Davis, James, and Thomas worked as hourly non-exempt
uniformed security guards for defendant in the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
          35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 726-3400

               - and -

          Glenn J. Dunn, Jr.
          GLENN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES
          35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 546-5056


ALMOST FAMILY: Accused in Ky. Suit of Committing Medicare Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News Service reports that
shareholders claim that Almost Family, which runs home health-care
services in 11 states, committed Medicare fraud to "increase
revenues and inflate company stock."  The federal class action
also claims that CFO C. Steven Guenthner dumped 20,000 shares at
inflated prices for $840,000 before the price collapsed.

Louisville-based Almost Family Inc. offers two types of services,
the complaint states.  Personal Care is more of a "custodial
rather than a skilled" service, and its Visiting Nurse program
provides "skilled medical services" at home so patients can
"reduce or avoid periods of hospitalization."

Ninety percent of the company's Visiting Nurse revenue comes from
Medicare, the complaint states.

Shareholders say the company "artificially inflated" its revenue
and sales by "billing patients for the more profitable in-home
services -- for which the company would receive a higher
reimbursement rate from Medicare -- regardless of patients' need
for those more expensive services."

It adds: "Defendants took advantage of Medicare incentives that
provide extra fees for increasing numbers of at-home therapy
visits," and increased "the number of in-home visits for patients
regardless of their needs."

In April, the Wall Street Journal published an article about home
health-care companies, including Almost Family, that questioned
where some were "taking advantage of the Medicare reimbursement
system."

Several months later, the complaint continues, the SEC started
investigating Almost Family and others for securities fraud. A
U.S. Senate committee investigation then revealed "materially
adverse truth about Almost Family's fraudulent conduct and
business prospects," according to the complaint.

Shareholders also sued CEO William B. Yarmuth, citing, among other
things, statements he made during the brouhaha set off by the
Journal article.

Named plaintiff Blaze B. Huston says he bought common stock of
Almost Family based on the defendants' "false and misleading
statements," which, when disclosed, caused the share price to drop
by nearly 30%: from $44.12 to $31.05.

A copy of the Complaint in Houston v. Almost Family, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-00540 (W.D. Ky.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/18/AlmostFamily.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles W. Miller, Esq.
          MILLER & FALKNER
          Waterfront Plaza, Suite 2104
          325 West Main St.
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: 502-583-2300
          E-mail: cmiller@millerfalknerlaw.com

               - and -

          Kim Miller, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1810
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: 212-696-3730
          E-mail: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com

               - and -

          Lewis Kahn, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          206 Covington St.
          Madisonville, LA 70447
          Telephone: 504-455-1400
          E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com


BDO SEIDMAN: 3rd Cir. Upholds Denial of Certification in Malack
---------------------------------------------------------------
In John A. Malack; Michael R. Rosati; Virgil Magnon; S. S.
Rajaram, M.D.; Hayward Pediatrics, Inc.; Henry Munster, v. BDO
Seidman, LLP, case no. 09-4475 (3rd Cir., August 16, 2010), Malack
et al. took an appeal from the denial of class certification in a
securities fraud class action.  John Malack purchased notes issued
by American Business Financial Services, Inc., a subprime mortgage
originator, and those notes were later rendered worthless during
the subprime mortgage meltdown.  He now seeks compensation from
BDO Seidman LLP, an accounting firm that assisted American
Business in allegedly defrauding him and other investors by
providing American Business clean audit opinions that were used to
register the notes with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Mr. Malack filed a putative securities fraud class action against
BDO based on Sec. 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5.  The District Court denied class certification,
holding that Mr. Malack did not satisfy the predominance
requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) because he did not establish a
presumption of reliance under the fraud-created-the-market theory.

Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith, writing for a three-man panel, said
the case turns on the application vel non of the fraud-created-
the-market theory of reliance.  Without the presumption of
reliance afforded by that theory, Mr. Malack cannot receive class
certification, Judge Smith said.  "The theory's validity is an
issue of first impression for this Court, and other Courts of
Appeals are split over whether it should be recognized. We join
the Seventh Circuit in rejecting the theory and will affirm the
District Court's denial of class certification," Judge Smith
wrote.

Judge Smith is joined by Circuit Judges D. Michael Fisher and
Morton Greenberg.

A copy of the Third Circuit's decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100816074

Malack et al.'s counsel may be reached at:

          Todd S. Collins, Esq.
          Elizabeth W. Fox, Esq.,
          Neil F. Mara, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          E-mail: tcollins@bm.net

               - and -

          Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          E-mail: jgoldberg@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Kurt B. Olsen, Esq.
          KLAFTNER, OLSEN & LESSNER LLP
          1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20035

BDO Seidman is represented by:

          Jill M. Czeschin, Esq.
          Matthew A. Goldberg, Esq.
          Timothy E. Hoeffner, Esq.
          DLA PIPER
          1650 Market Street
          One Liberty Place, Suite 4900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          E-mail: jill.czeschin@dlapiper.com
                  matthew.goldberg@dlapiper.com
                  timothy.hoeffner@dlapiper.com


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Settlement Approval Hearing Set for September
---------------------------------------------------------------
The approval hearing on the proposed settlement of a class action
complaint against BJ's Restaurants, Inc., is currently scheduled
for September 2010, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 29, 2010.

On Feb. 5, 2004, a former employee of the company, on behalf of
herself, and allegedly other employees, filed a class action
complaint in Los Angeles County, California Superior Court, Case
Number BC310146, and on March 16, 2004, filed an amended
complaint, alleging causes of action for:

     (1) failure to pay reporting time minimum pay;
     (2) failure to allow meal breaks;
     (3) failure to allow rest breaks;
     (4) waiting time penalties;
     (5) civil penalties;
     (6) reimbursement for fraud and deceit;
     (7) punitive damages for fraud and deceit; and,
     (8) disgorgement of illicit profits.

On June 28, 2004, the plaintiff stipulated to dismiss her second,
third, fourth and fifth causes of action.

During September 2004, the plaintiff stipulated to binding
arbitration of the action.

On March 2, 2008, and on March 19, 2008, one of Plaintiff's
attorneys filed a notice with the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency, alleging failure to keep adequate pay records
and to pay Plaintiff minimum wage.

To the company's knowledge, the Agency has not responded to either
of these notices.

The parties met for mediation on a non-binding basis.

In November 2008, the parties agreed to settle this matter
subject to approval from the arbitrator and/or the court.

In November 2008, the parties agreed to settle this matter subject
to final approval from the arbitrator and confirmation from the
court.

The approval hearing is currently scheduled for September 2010.

The company relates that the terms of the proposed settlement are
not considered to be material to its consolidated financial
position.

BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned
and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007.  A
licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui.  Each of
the company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant
& Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's
Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one
of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its
recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is
a smaller format, full-service restaurant.  The company's menu
features the BJ's signature deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted
beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas,
sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie
cookie.  The company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants
feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers
are produced and sold.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Approval of Settlement in Wage Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The approval of a settlement agreement entered into by BJ's
Restaurants, Inc., to resolve a class action complaint filed by an
employee on behalf of himself and allegedly other employees, is
pending, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 29, 2010.

On April 6, 2009, an employee filed a class action complaint in
Orange County, California, Superior Court, Case Number 30-
2009,00259460, on behalf of himself and allegedly other employees.

The complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay
plaintiff and other alleged class members regular wages and
overtime pay, failure to maintain the designated wage scale and
secret payment of lower wages, the greater of actual damages or
penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, and
restitution of wages and injunction for violation of California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200.

The complaint also seeks interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

In February 2010, the parties agreed in principle to settle this
case, subject to approval of the court.

BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned
and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007.  A
licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui.  Each of
the company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant
& Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's
Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one
of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its
recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is
a smaller format, full-service restaurant.  The company's menu
features the BJ's signature deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted
beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas,
sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie
cookie.  The company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants
feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers
are produced and sold.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Defends Suit Over "On-Call Time" Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc., continues to defend a class action
complaint alleging failure to pay wages for on-call time.

The complaint was filed on Feb. 4, 2009, in the Fresno County,
California, Superior Court, by an employee, on behalf of himself
and allegedly other employees, Case Number 09 CE CG 00374DRF.  The
class action complaint was served on the company in the second
quarter of 2009.

The complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay wages
for on-call time, for violation of California Business and
Professional Code section 17200, and for penalties for unpaid
wages.

The complaint also seeks a constructive trust on money found
unlawfully acquired, an injunction against failure to pay wages,
restitution, interest, attorney's fees and costs.

On Aug. 14, 2009, a first amended complaint was filed, in which
two other employees joined the action as plaintiffs.

The parties have begun discovery, the company has filed an answer
to the amended complaint.

No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 29, 2010.

BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned
and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007.  A
licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui.  Each of
the company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant
& Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's
Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one
of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its
recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is
a smaller format, full-service restaurant.  The company's menu
features the BJ's signature deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted
beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas,
sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie
cookie.  The company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants
feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers
are produced and sold.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Second Amended Complaint in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc., faces a second amended complaint alleging
failure to reimburse employees for business expenses, according to
the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29,
2010.

On Aug. 25, 2009, a former employee of the company filed a lawsuit
in Los Angeles County, California, Superior Court, Case Number
BC420459, on behalf of himself and allegedly other employees,
namely the company's California restaurant assistant managers,
kitchen managers and managers.

The complaint alleges the company's California restaurant
assistant managers are not exempt for compensation purposes and
alleges causes of action for failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to provide meal breaks and rest periods, failure to pay
wages timely, penalties for unpaid wages, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, failure to keep accurate payroll records
and for violation of California Business and Professions Code
Section 17200. The complaint also seeks unspecified damages,
restitution, an injunction against unfair practices, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

In October 2009, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging
the class to be all California assistant kitchen managers, kitchen
managers, and managers and adding to plaintiff's claims for
penalties alleged to be due under the California Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act.

On Oct. 8, 2009, plaintiff's attorneys filed a notice with the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, alleging
failure by the company to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
meal breaks and rest periods, failure to pay wages due on
plaintiff's and other employees' termination, failure to pay
wages timely, failure to provide accurate wage statements and
failure to keep accurate payroll records.

On Dec. 8, 2009, the Agency responded that it does not intend to
investigate the allegations.

Discovery has begun.

In January 2010, on the company's motion, the Court ordered the
venue of the case moved to Orange County.

In May 2010, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
alleging, in addition to the previous allegations, failure to
reimburse class members for business expenses and seeking
penalties for the alleged failure.

The company has not yet responded to the second amended complaint.

BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned
and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007.  A
licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui.  Each of
the company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant
& Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's
Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one
of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its
recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is
a smaller format, full-service restaurant.  The company's menu
features the BJ's signature deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted
beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas,
sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie
cookie.  The company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants
feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers
are produced and sold.


BLUELINX HOLDINGS: Sued for Selling Itself Too Low
--------------------------------------------------
Kyle Habiniak, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Howard S. Cohen, et al., Case No. 5720- (Del. Ch. Ct.
August 13, 2010), accuses the Board of Directors of Bluelinx of
breaching its fiduiciary duties to the Company's public
shareholders, in connection with the proposed acquisition of the
Company by Cerberus ABP Investor LLC, the Company's controlling
shareholder, through a tender offer for all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of the Company not owned by CAI, at a
purchase price of $3.40 per share in cash, to be followed by a
back-end merger at the same price.  Mr. Habiniak, a BlueLinx
investor, says that the proposed transaction is inherently unfair,
undervalues the Company (given the Company's  "demonstrated growth
potential and recent trading prices) and that the tender offer
omits many material details to enable shareholders to make an
informed decision whether to tender their shares or not.

The tender offer is set to expire on August 27, 2010

BlueLinx is a distributor of building products in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel Friedlander, Esq.
          Sean M. Brennecke, Esq.
          BOUCHARD MARGULES & FRIEDLANDER, P.A.
          222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1400
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 573-3500

               - and -

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Cullin A. O'brien, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000

               - and -

          David Wissbroecker, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
          995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (877) 316-3218


BOUCHARD TRANS: Nov. 4 Final Hearing Set for $11.45MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Reagle, writing for GateHouse News Service, reports that
plaintiffs in a multi-million class action lawsuit against
Bouchard Transportation Company of Melville, N.Y., are closer to
receiving their shares of a $11.45 million settlement for the 2003
barge accident that spilled approximately 98,000 gallons of No. 6
industrial grade fuel oil into Buzzards Bay, fouling more than 96
miles of coastline, and killing hundreds of sea and shore birds.

U.S. District Court Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton ruled Aug. 3 in
Boston that the agreement between the litigants to compensate
property owners for the April 27, 2003 environmental disaster had
his approval and was ready to move forward.  The proposed
settlement, when approved, will be dispersed among approximately
2,500 property owners rimming Buzzards Bay.

Information on how to file claims was scheduled to be sent to
property owners in nine Buzzards Bay communities, including
Marion, involved in the class-action lawsuit by Friday, Aug. 20.
This lawsuit doesn't cover Mattapoisett, where litigants sued
Bouchard Transportation in state court independently of other
communities affected by the oil spill. Plaintiffs will have until
Monday, Oct. 25, to file claims.  A Thursday, Nov. 4, hearing will
be held regarding final approval of the financial settlement.

In 2004, Bouchard plead guilty to violating the federal Clean
Water Act and the Migratory Bird Treat Act and agreed to pay a $9
million fine. About $7 million of that was to go toward
conservation projects in and around Buzzards Bay.

On the Net: http://www.bouchardsettlement.com/


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY: Employees' Suit Gets Class Status
------------------------------------------------------------
QMI Agency reports that Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Perell
has granted a group of Canadian National Railway Co. employees
class action status in a dispute for unpaid overtime.

Michael McCracken brought the class action forward on behalf of
approximately 1,500 current and former CN first line supervisors.

Mr. McCracken alleges CN has misclassified first line supervisors
as managers and they are entitled, like other employees, to
receive overtime pay.

"On behalf of all my colleagues at CN, I am very happy that the
court ruled that the case is permitted to go forward," Mr.
McCracken said.

Mr. McCracken is represented by Roy Elliott O'Connor LLP and Sack
Goldblatt Mitchell LLP. Both firms are also counsel in overtime
cases against CIBC and the Bank of Nova Scotia.

"This is a very significant decision, not only for the 1,500
members of the class, but for non-unionized employees across the
country," said Louis Sokolov of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell.


CAREER EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Amador" Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation continues to defend the suit
captioned Amador, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career
Education Corporation, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On Sept. 27, 2007, Allison Amador and 36 other current and former
students of the California Culinary Academy filed a complaint in
the California Superior Court in San Francisco.

Plaintiffs plead their complaint as a putative class action and
allege four causes of action:

     (1) fraud;

     (2) constructive fraud;

     (3) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; and

     (4) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies
         Act.

Plaintiffs contend that CCA made a variety of misrepresentations
to them, primarily oral, during the admissions process.  The
alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school's
reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of the
admissions process, the students' employment prospects upon
graduation from CCA and CCA's ability to arrange beneficial
student loans.

Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on or about Sept. 3,
2009, that alleges claims for fraud (misrepresentations); fraud
(omissions), violations of the Unfair Competition Law and
Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs' class is
defined as students who enrolled in the four years prior to the
filing of the initial complaint in the Le Cordon Bleu Culinary
program and/or the Baking and Pastry program.  Students who
enrolled in the Hotel and Restaurant Management program are not
included in the class.

The parties have conducted discovery on class certification issues
in the Amador action, but the Court has not yet set a briefing
schedule or a hearing date on a motion for class certification.

Plaintiffs recently filed a fifth amended complaint alleging the
same causes of action, but including new claims based on:

    (1) violations of the California Education Code, which was
        recently reinstated by the California legislature; and

    (2) violations of the Le Cordon Bleu license agreement.

The company will be filing a motion to dismiss these new claims.
The motion is expected to be heard in August 2010.

The parties have also been engaged in mediation sessions and
settlement discussions regarding the Amador action.  These
discussions are ongoing.

The colleges, schools and universities that are part of the Career
Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/-- family offer
high-quality education to a diverse student population of over
116,000 students across the world in a variety of career-oriented
disciplines.  The approximately 90 campuses that serve these
students are located throughout the U.S. and in France, Italy, the
United Kingdom and Monaco, and offer doctoral, master's,
bachelor's and associate degrees and diploma and certificate
programs.  Approximately 40% of the students attend the web-based
virtual campuses of American InterContinental University, Colorado
Technical University, International Academy of Design & Technology
and Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts.  CEC is an industry
leader whose brands are recognized globally.  Those brands
include, among others, American InterContinental University;
Brooks Institute; Colorado Technical University; Harrington
College of Design; INSEEC Group Schools, including the
International University of Monaco; International Academy of
Design & Technology; Istituto Marangoni; Le Cordon Bleu North
America; and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges.  Through its
schools, CEC is committed to providing quality education, enabling
students to graduate and pursue rewarding careers.


CAREER EDUCATION: "Adams" Suit in California Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The suit filed against Career Education Corporation captioned
Adams, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education
Corporation, remains stayed, according to the company's Aug. 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On April 3, 2008, the counsel representing plaintiffs in the
matter Amador, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career
Education Corporation, filed an action on behalf of Jennifer Adams
and several other unnamed members of the Amador putative class.

The Adams action also is styled as a class action and is based on
the same allegations underlying the Amador action and attempts to
plead the same four causes of action pled in the Amador action.
The Adams action has been deemed related to the Amador action and
is being handled by the same judge.  The Adams action has been
stayed.

The parties have been engaged in mediation sessions and settlement
discussions regarding the Adams action.  These discussions are
ongoing.

The colleges, schools and universities that are part of the Career
Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/-- family offer
high-quality education to a diverse student population of over
116,000 students across the world in a variety of career-oriented
disciplines.  The approximately 90 campuses that serve these
students are located throughout the U.S. and in France, Italy, the
United Kingdom and Monaco, and offer doctoral, master's,
bachelor's and associate degrees and diploma and certificate
programs.  Approximately 40% of the students attend the web-based
virtual campuses of American InterContinental University, Colorado
Technical University, International Academy of Design & Technology
and Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts.  CEC is an industry
leader whose brands are recognized globally.  Those brands
include, among others, American InterContinental University;
Brooks Institute; Colorado Technical University; Harrington
College of Design; INSEEC Group Schools, including the
International University of Monaco; International Academy of
Design & Technology; Istituto Marangoni; Le Cordon Bleu North
America; and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges.  Through its
schools, CEC is committed to providing quality education, enabling
students to graduate and pursue rewarding careers.


CAREER EDUCATION: Conference in "Lilley" Suit Set for August 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, has scheduled a
case management conference in the matter Lilley, et al. v. Career
Education Corporation, et al., on Aug. 25, 2010, according to
Career Education Corporation's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

On Feb. 11, 2008, a class action complaint was filed naming as
defendants Career Education Corporation and Sanford-Brown College,
Inc.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Sept. 5, 2008.

The five plaintiffs named in the amended complaint are current or
former students who allegedly attended a medical assistant program
at Sanford-Brown College located in Collinsville, Illinois, and
the class is alleged to be all persons who enrolled in that
program.  The amended class action complaint asserts claims for
unfair conduct and deceptive conduct under the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, as well as common law
claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent omission.

The amended complaint alleges that defendants made
misrepresentations and omissions relating to the quality of
education, quantity of financial aid, fixed tuition, graduate
employability and salaries and clinical externships.  Plaintiffs
seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims of unfair
practices under the Act and fraudulent omission.

By Order dated June 24, 2009, the Court granted Defendants' motion
to dismiss Plaintiffs' fraudulent omission claim (Count IV of the
Amended Complaint), and denied Defendants' motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' Illinois Consumer Fraud Act Claim.

Defendants have filed answers and affirmative defenses in response
to the amended complaint.

The parties have exchanged written discovery and document
production is underway.  The case is set for a case management
conference on Aug. 25, 2010.

The colleges, schools and universities that are part of the Career
Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/-- family offer
high-quality education to a diverse student population of over
116,000 students across the world in a variety of career-oriented
disciplines.  The approximately 90 campuses that serve these
students are located throughout the U.S. and in France, Italy, the
United Kingdom and Monaco, and offer doctoral, master's,
bachelor's and associate degrees and diploma and certificate
programs.  Approximately 40% of the students attend the web-based
virtual campuses of American InterContinental University, Colorado
Technical University, International Academy of Design & Technology
and Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts.  CEC is an industry
leader whose brands are recognized globally.  Those brands
include, among others, American InterContinental University;
Brooks Institute; Colorado Technical University; Harrington
College of Design; INSEEC Group Schools, including the
International University of Monaco; International Academy of
Design & Technology; Istituto Marangoni; Le Cordon Bleu North
America; and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges.  Through its
schools, CEC is committed to providing quality education, enabling
students to graduate and pursue rewarding careers.


CAREER EDUCATION: Court Limits Class in "Schuster" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah
County has limited the class in the matter Schuster, et al. v.
Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation.
The class will consist of students who enrolled at WCI between
March 5, 2006 and March 1, 2010, excluding those who dropped out
or were dismissed from the school for academic reasons, according
to Career Education Corporation's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

On March 5, 2008, original named plaintiffs Shannon Gozzi and
Megan Koehnen filed a complaint in Portland, Oregon.

Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a putative
class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief:

     (1) violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act and
     (2) unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2008, which
added two claims for money damages: fraud and breach of contract.

Plaintiffs allege that Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. made a
variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's
placement statistics, students' employment prospects upon
graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI,
and the amount of tuition students could expect to pay as compared
to salaries they may earn after graduation.

On May 21, 2008, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in
which they simply changed the statement "Claims Subject to
Mandatory Arbitration" on the caption to "Claims Not Subject to
Mandatory Arbitration" (emphasis added).  WCI and CEC filed an
answer on June 13, 2008 and WCI subsequently moved to dismiss
certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's Unlawful Trade
Practices Act; that motion was granted on Sept. 12, 2008.

Shannon Gozzi subsequently withdrew as a named plaintiff and is
now asserting claims merely as an absent class member, and former
named plaintiff Meghan Koehnen's claims have been dismissed.
Jennifer Schuster is now the sole named Plaintiff, and she filed a
third amended complaint on Nov. 20, 2008.

Defendants filed an answer on Dec. 5, 2008.

Plaintiffs filed their most recent operative pleading, a fourth
amended complaint, on Sept. 2, 2009, and Defendants filed an
answer on Oct. 15, 2009.

The parties completed written discovery on class issues.
Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on Aug. 31,
2009, and oral argument on the motion was heard on Oct. 29, 2009.

On Feb. 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting class
certification on part of the UTPA and fraud claims purportedly
based on omissions, denying certification of the rest of those
claims and denying certification of the breach of contract and
unjust enrichment claims.  The class will consist of students who
enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and Feb. 5, 2010, excluding
those who dropped out or were dismissed from the school for
academic reasons.

The parties are currently engaged in merits discovery.

On Feb. 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting class
certification on part of the UTPA and fraud claims purportedly
based on omissions, denying certification of the rest of those
claims and denying certification of the breach of contract and
unjust enrichment claims.  On April 30, 2010, the Court addressed
the issue of whether the class should include students who
enrolled prior to March 5, 2006, provided that they were attending
the school on or after March 6, 2006.

Defendants argued that the class cannot include pre-March 6, 2006
enrollees (two years prior to the filing of the lawsuit,
corresponding with the two year statute of limitations on the
fraud claim) because of the individual questions associated with
determining whether the statute of limitations may be tolled.
The Court agreed with Defendants' position and limited the class
as Defendants suggested.  Because Schuster was not a member of the
certified class (she enrolled before March 5, 2006), Plaintiff's
counsel is proposing to substitute in a new class representative
for her named Nathan Surrett.  The parties are negotiating the
terms of that potential substitution, allowing WCI the right to
challenge whether the new class representative is adequate (with
Plaintiff retaining the burden of proof on that issue).  Class
notice has not been sent due to the complications associated with
the impending withdrawal of the named Plaintiff and potential
substitution of a new plaintiff.

The parties are currently engaged in merits discovery.  The class
will consist of students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006
and March 1, 2010, excluding those who dropped out or were
dismissed from the school for academic reasons.

The colleges, schools and universities that are part of the Career
Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/-- family offer
high-quality education to a diverse student population of over
116,000 students across the world in a variety of career-oriented
disciplines.  The approximately 90 campuses that serve these
students are located throughout the U.S. and in France, Italy, the
United Kingdom and Monaco, and offer doctoral, master's,
bachelor's and associate degrees and diploma and certificate
programs.  Approximately 40% of the students attend the web-based
virtual campuses of American InterContinental University, Colorado
Technical University, International Academy of Design & Technology
and Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts.  CEC is an industry
leader whose brands are recognized globally.  Those brands
include, among others, American InterContinental University;
Brooks Institute; Colorado Technical University; Harrington
College of Design; INSEEC Group Schools, including the
International University of Monaco; International Academy of
Design & Technology; Istituto Marangoni; Le Cordon Bleu North
America; and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges.  Through its
schools, CEC is committed to providing quality education, enabling
students to graduate and pursue rewarding careers.


CAREER EDUCATION: Defends "Vasquez" Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation continues to defend the matter
Vasquez, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and
Career Education Corporation, pending in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court.

On June 23, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Daniel Vasquez and
Cherish Herndon v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and
Career Education Corporation.

The plaintiffs allege causes of action for fraud, constructive
fraud, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  The
plaintiffs allege improper conduct in connection with the
admissions process during the alleged class period.

The alleged class is defined as including "all persons who
purchased educational services from California School of Culinary
Arts, Inc., or graduated from CSCA, within the limitations periods
applicable to the herein alleged causes of action (including,
without limitation, the period following the filing of the
action)."

Defendants successfully demurred to the constructive fraud claim
and the Court has dismissed it.

The parties are engaged in class discovery.

The Court has not yet set a briefing schedule or a hearing date on
a motion for class certification.

No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The colleges, schools and universities that are part of the Career
Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/-- family offer
high-quality education to a diverse student population of over
116,000 students across the world in a variety of career-oriented
disciplines.  The approximately 90 campuses that serve these
students are located throughout the U.S. and in France, Italy, the
United Kingdom and Monaco, and offer doctoral, master's,
bachelor's and associate degrees and diploma and certificate
programs.  Approximately 40% of the students attend the web-based
virtual campuses of American InterContinental University, Colorado
Technical University, International Academy of Design & Technology
and Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts.  CEC is an industry
leader whose brands are recognized globally.  Those brands
include, among others, American InterContinental University;
Brooks Institute; Colorado Technical University; Harrington
College of Design; INSEEC Group Schools, including the
International University of Monaco; International Academy of
Design & Technology; Istituto Marangoni; Le Cordon Bleu North
America; and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges.  Through its
schools, CEC is committed to providing quality education, enabling
students to graduate and pursue rewarding careers.


CENDANT CORP: N.J. Sup. Ct. Certifies Century 21 Franchisees' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A New Jersey Superior Court judge has certified a class of current
and former Century 21 real estate franchisees in a lawsuit
alleging breach of contract and other claims against their
franchisor, Century 21 Real Estate Corp., as well as its parent
company, consumer and business services provider, Cendant Corp.

The lawsuit, filed in 2002 by attorneys from New York's Zwerling,
Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, details how Cendant misused franchisee
proceeds and resources after purchasing Century 21 in 1995.
Century 21 is currently owned by Cendant spin-off Realogy Corp.

On Aug. 17, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Robert J. Brennan
issued the ruling certifying a nationwide class of current and
former Century 21 franchisees during the period from August 1995
to April 2002, whose franchise agreements contain a New Jersey
jurisdiction clause. The class is estimated to include no fewer
than 1,000 franchisees, but could exceed 4,000 franchisees.

Under a Master Franchise Agreement, Century 21 franchisees were
required to contribute 2 percent of their gross revenue to the
central National Advertising Fund (NAF) in addition to a 6 percent
franchise service fee.

According to the lawsuit, Cendant failed to provide the level of
services to Century 21 franchisees required by their agreements.
Additionally, the lawsuit claims that NAF proceeds, which topped
more than $40 million annually, were misappropriated and diverted
to uses other than the benefit of Century 21, including the
promotion of Century 21's Cendant-owned real estate competitors.
Shortly after the purchase of Century 21, Cendant also acquired
Coldwell Banker and ERA.

"When Cendant purchased Century 21, they were the unquestioned
leader of the real estate industry, however, by 2002 the ranking
dropped to sixth in the country," says Dan Drachler of Zwerling,
Schachter & Zwerling, one of the attorneys who represents the
plaintiffs. "As a result of Cendant's actions, Century 21
franchisees have suffered damages which may total in the hundreds
of millions of dollars," adds Robert S. Schachter, also of
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling.

Plaintiffs are also represented by New Jersey-based Keefe Bartels
LLC and the Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., office of Adorno & Yoss.

Zwerling Schachter may be reached at:

          Rhonda Reddick, Esq.
          ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP
          Telephone: 800-559-4534
          E-mail: rhonda@androvett.com

Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP -- http://www.zsz.com/--
represents clients nationwide in financial-related class action
lawsuits.  With offices in New York City; Garden City, N.Y.; and
Seattle, the firm currently plays a leading role in numerous major
securities and complex commercial litigations pending in federal
and state courts.


CERRO WIRE: Recalls 1,000 THHN Electrical Wire
----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cerro Wire Inc., of Crothersville, Ind., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,000 THHN Electrical Wire.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

While the actual electrical wire has "14 gauge" printed on it, the
packaging incorrectly labels the electrical wire as 12 gauge.  If
used as a 12 gauge wire, it can overload, posing a fire hazard to
consumers.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves THNN electrical wire labeled on its packaging
as 12 gauge solid white 100' UPC 48243982721 and 12 gauge stranded
red 50' UPC 48243229215.  The actual wire has "THHN Cerro Wire 14
gauge" printed on it.  The UPC number and 12 gauge is found on the
plastic wrap and on a label at the bottom of the reel.  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10319.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
through Home Depot & Menards stores in the following states:
Colo., Iowa, Idaho, Ill., Ind., Kan., Ky., Mich., Minn., Mo.,
Mont., N.D., Neb., Ohio, Ore., Pa., S.D., Utah, Wash., Wis., Wyo.
from December 2009 through April 2010. The 50-foot wire spools
were sold for $9 and the 100-foot spools for about $16.

Consumers should immediately stop using any switches, outlets or
electrical devices using this wire and contact Cerro Wire for
instructions on returning the product for a refund.  Any
contractor or subcontractor who used this wire should inspect
their work to see that their work meets local electrical wiring
code.  For additional information, contact Cerro Wire toll-free at
(866) 572-3776 ext. 269 between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's website at
http://www.cerrowire.com/


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Md. Court Narrows Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Ulman at The Daily Record in Maryland reports that a
federal judge in Baltimore has dismissed fraud allegations and
eliminated all claims by common stockholders in litigation over a
2008 calculation error that sent Constellation Energy's share
price tumbling, weakening it ahead of the financial markets'
collapse.  The Aug. 13 ruling by Judge Catherine C. Blake
significantly narrowed the securities class action against
Constellation Energy Group.

As reported in prior editions of the Class Action Reporter, three
federal securities class-action lawsuits were filed against
Constellation Energy Group in the U.S. District Courts for the
Southern District of New York and the District of Maryland between
September 2008 and November 2008.

The cases were filed on behalf of a proposed class of persons who
acquired publicly traded securities, including the Series A
Junior Subordinated Debentures, of Constellation Energy between
Jan. 30, 2008, and Sept. 16, 2008, and who acquired Debentures in
an offering completed in June 2008.

The securities class-action lawsuits generally allege that
Constellation Energy, a number of its present or former officers
or directors, and the underwriters violated the securities laws
by issuing a false and misleading registration statement and
prospectus in connection with Constellation Energy's June 27,
2008 offering of Debentures.

The securities class-action suits also allege that Constellation
Energy issued false or misleading statements or was aware of
material undisclosed information which contradicted public
statements including in connection with its announcements of
financial results for 2007, the fourth quarter of 2007, the first
quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2008 and the filing of
its first quarter 2008 Form 10-Q.

The securities class-action lawsuits seek, among other things,
certification of the cases as class actions, compensatory
damages, reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees,
and rescission damages.

The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion
to transfer the securities class actions filed there to the
District of Maryland, and the actions have since been transferred
for coordination with the securities class action filed there.

On June 18, 2009, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, who filed
a consolidated amended complaint on Sept. 17, 2009.

On Nov. 17, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in its entirety.

Constellation Energy Group Inc. -- http://www.constellation.com/
-- a FORTUNE 125 company with 2007 revenues of $21 billion, says
it is the nation's largest competitive supplier of electricity to
large commercial and industrial customers and the nation's
largest wholesale power seller.  Constellation Energy also
manages fuels and energy services on behalf of energy intensive
industries and utilities.  It owns a diversified fleet of 83
generating units located throughout the United States, totaling
approximately 9,000 megawatts of generating capacity.  The
company delivers electricity and natural gas through the
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., its regulated utility in Central
Maryland.


CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Aug. 31 Injunction Hearing in Merger Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Pletz, writing for Crain's Chicago Business, reports that
United Airlines CEO Glenn Tilton and Continental Airlines CEO
Jeffery Smisek are scheduled to give depositions later this month
in a lawsuit challenging the merger of the two airlines.

A federal judge in San Francisco has set an Aug. 31 hearing on a
preliminary injunction to stop the merger.  A group of passengers
is opposing the merger on antitrust grounds, claiming it will
result in less competition and higher fares.

Mr. Smisek was scheduled to be deposed Thursday; Mr. Tilton's
deposition is set for Aug. 27.  Both CEOs are scheduled to testify
at the hearing.

The case is a long shot, says Brian Havel, a professor at DePaul
University's College of Law and director of its International
Aviation Law Institute.  So far, the deal has encountered little
opposition from regulators because there is little overlap between
the airlines' route networks.

"Unless a court grants (an injunction), private plaintiffs have
very little leverage to negotiate a settlement," Mr. Havel says.
"And history has shown that private plaintiffs have a very
difficult time persuading courts to block mergers when neither
federal nor state authorities oppose it."

The antitrust suit is one of two lawsuits that Chicago-based
United and Houston-based Continental faced after announcing the
deal in May.  They recently resolved one lawsuit that was brought
by shareholders who claimed Continental board members didn't hold
out for a high enough price in the $3.2-billion merger.


DIAMOND FOODS: Calif. App. Ct. Upholds Class Action Waiver
----------------------------------------------------------
In Walnut Producers of California et al., v. Diamond Foods, Inc.,
case no. C060346 (Calif. App. Ct., San Joaquin, August 16, 2010),
Plaintiffs, producers of walnuts, appeal a trial court's order
striking all class action allegations from their complaint.
Plaintiffs claim that a class action waiver in their arbitration
agreements with defendant, a walnut processor, was unconscionable.
The trial court disagreed with Plaintiffs' argument.

Plaintiffs filed the action in 2008, alleging Diamond Foods
breached their 2005 Walnut Purchase Agreement by failing to pay
them the reasonable market value for their walnuts, the price
plaintiffs alleged the Agreement required.  Plaintiffs sought
damages, reformation and declaratory relief.  Despite the
Agreement's class action waiver, plaintiffs brought the action as
a class action on behalf of all California walnut growers who
executed the Agreement with Diamond Foods, a class of growers in
excess of 1,600 persons and entities.

The trial court granted Diamond Foods' motion to strike the class
allegations, and it sustained the demurrer with leave to amend.
The trial court did not state its reasoning.

The appeal concerns the Agreement's dispute resolution
requirements and, in particular, its prohibition of class actions.
The Agreement in general requires all disputes to be resolved by
binding arbitration.  It specifically prohibits any type of class
action as follows: "Each dispute will be resolved based upon its
own facts and merits, and no procedure in the nature of class
actions will be permitted."

Acting Presiding Judge George Nicholson concludes plaintiffs have
not pleaded sufficient facts showing the class action waiver's
unconscionability to survive Diamond Foods's motion to strike the
class action allegations in the complaint.

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100816021

Walnut Producers et al., are represented by:

          BARTKO ZANKEL TARRANT & MILLER
          Charles G. Miller, Esq.
          Howard I. Miller; Esq.


               - and -

          TUTTLE & VAN KONYNENBURG
          Therese Tuttle, Esq.
          Frank Van Konynenburg, Esq.

               - and -

          LOVITT & HANNAN
          J. Thomas Hannan, Esq.
          Ronald Lovitt, Esq.
          Henry Bornstein, Esq.

               - and -

          MACDONALD & ASSOCIATES
          Iain A. MacDonald, Esq.

Diamond Foods is represented by:

          WINSTON & STRAWN
          Jeffrey J. Lederman, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Bosley, Esq.
          Leda M. Mouallem, Esq.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Pays Settlement Amount to Claims Admin.
----------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation has paid the settlement amount as
part of the agreement resolving a state class action filed in the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

On Oct. 11, 2006, a state class action was filed by Nikki
Greenberg on her own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly
situated plaintiffs, in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Los Angeles on behalf of all customers or
consumers who allegedly made or received telephone calls from the
company that were recorded without their knowledge or consent.

On Feb. 7, 2008, class certification was granted and the class
defined to consist of:

     (1) all persons in California who received telephone calls
         from the company and whose calls were recorded without
         their consent within three years of Oct. 11, 2006, and

     (2) all persons who made calls from California to the
         Beverly Hills branch of the company on Aug. 8, 2006.

Plaintiffs sought to recover unspecified monetary damages plus
injunctive relief, including punitive and exemplary damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.  On Oct. 16, 2009, the court
granted final approval of the parties' proposed settlement
agreement.  Objectors to the court's order granting final approval
of the parties' settlement agreement filed notices of appeal which
were subsequently dismissed on Jan. 26, 2010.

The company paid the settlement amount to the Claims Administrator
on March 5, 2010.  The action is substantially concluded but will
remain open through final administration of the settlement.

E*TRADE Financial Corporation -- http://www.etrade.com-- is a
financial services company that provides online brokerage and
related products and services primarily to individual retail
investors, under the brand "E*TRADE Financial."  The company is
headquartered at New York, New York.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss "Freudenberg" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
denied E*Trade Financial Corporation's motion to dismiss a
consolidated amended securities class action complaint captioned
Freudenberg v. E*Trade Financial Corporation et al., according to
the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

On Oct. 2, 2007, a class action complaint alleging violations of
the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the company and its
then Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Mitchell
H. Caplan and Robert J. Simmons by Larry Freudenberg on his own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated (Freudenberg
Action).

On July 17, 2008, the trial court consolidated this action with
four other purported class actions, all of which were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and
which were based on the same facts and circumstances.

On Jan. 16, 2009, plaintiffs served their consolidated amended
class action complaint in which they also named Dennis Webb, the
company's former Capital Markets Division President as a
defendant.

Plaintiffs contend, among other things, that the value of the
company's stock between April 19, 2006 and Nov. 9, 2007 was
artificially inflated because defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose that the company
was experiencing a rise in delinquency rates in its mortgage and
home equity portfolios; failed to timely record an impairment on
its mortgage and home equity portfolios; materially overvalued its
securities portfolio, which included assets backed by mortgages;
and based on the foregoing, lacked a reasonable basis for the
positive statements made about the Company's earnings and
prospects.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages in an amount to be proven at
trial, including interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on April 2, 2009, and
briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss was completed on
Aug. 31, 2009.

On May 11, 2010, the Court issued an order denying defendants'
motion to dismiss.

The company filed an Answer to the Complaint on June 25, 2010.
Discovery is expected to continue until June 17, 2011.

The suit is Freudenberg v. E*Trade Financial Corporation et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-08538-RWS, (S.D.N.Y.) (Sweet, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: 631-367-7100
          Facsimile: 631-367-1173
          E-mail: drosenfeld@csgrr.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Dennis E. Glazer, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-450-4900
          Facsimile: 212-450-3900
          E-mail: dennis.glazer@dpw.com


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
E*Trade Financial Corporation has filed a motion to dismiss an
amended securities class action complaint by John W. Oughtred,
according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

On April 2, 2008, a class action complaint alleging violations of
the federal securities laws was filed by John W. Oughtred on his
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the company.

Plaintiff contends, among other things, that the company committed
various sales practice violations in the sale of certain auction
rate securities to investors between April 2, 2003, and Feb. 13,
2008 by allegedly misrepresenting that these securities were
highly liquid and safe investments for short term investing.

On Dec. 18, 2008, plaintiffs filed their first amended class
action complaint.

Defendants filed their pending motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
amended complaint on Feb. 5, 2009, and briefing on defendants'
motion to dismiss was completed on April 15, 2009.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages in an amount to be proven at
trial, or, in the alternative, rescission of auction rate
securities purchases, plus interest and attorney's fees and costs.

On March 18, 2010, the District Court dismissed the complaint
without prejudice.  Plaintiff has an opportunity to amend the
complaint.

On April 22, 2010, Plaintiff amended their complaint.

E*TRADE Financial Corporation -- http://www.etrade.com/-- is a
financial services company that provides online brokerage and
related products and services primarily to individual retail
investors, under the brand "E*TRADE Financial."  The company is
headquartered at New York, New York.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Wants "Roling" Suit Transferred to New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation requests that the venue of the class
action complaint against E*TRADE Securities LLC be transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

On Feb. 3, 2010, a class action complaint was filed by Joseph
Roling on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The lead plaintiff alleges that E*TRADE Securities LLC unlawfully
charged and collected certain account activity fees from its
customers.

Claimant, on behalf of himself and the putative class, asserts
breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of California
Civil Code Section 1671 and seeks equitable and injunctive relief
for alleged illegal, unfair and fraudulent practices under
California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and
Professional Code Section 17200 et seq.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, certification of the
class action on behalf of alleged similarly situated plaintiffs,
unspecified damages and restitution of amounts allegedly
wrongfully collected by E*TRADE Securities LLC, attorneys fees and
expenses and injunctive relief.

The company has moved to transfer venue on the case to the
Southern District of New York.

E*TRADE Financial Corporation -- http://www.etrade.com-- is a
financial services company that provides online brokerage and
related products and services primarily to individual retail
investors, under the brand "E*TRADE Financial."  The company is
headquartered at New York, New York.


ENBRIDGE INC: Plaintiff Lawyers Hold 2nd Meeting on Aug. 18
-----------------------------------------------------------
According to a report by Freedom Communications, Inc.'s
NewsChannel 3, Wednesday night saw the second meeting held by
lawyers with a class action lawsuit going against Enbridge Energy.

Wednesday's meeting was in Springfield, an area hit hard by the
spill.

The big concern at Wednesday's meeting was about the meaning of
the lawsuit and how it will impact people affected by the
environmental disaster.

Many of those in attendance don't have much experience with the
legal system and aren't sure of what moves to make, and what
signing on to a class action lawsuit will mean.  They aren't
necessarily neighbors, but they share similar concerns about
living along the Kalamazoo River.

"I've had to move my family out of the home," said Andrew
Griffith.

Mr. Griffith worries about what will happen when school starts and
he's still not comfortable moving his kids back home.

"You can smell it at my house," said Mr. Griffith, "morning, noon
and night."

Patricia Warren also owns property near the river.  "I intended to
stay there the rest of my life for my grandchildren," said Ms.
Warren, "within walking distance of school and park."

Now Ms. Warren wants to know what recourse she and her son across
the river have. She says the oil spill has changed her life
forever.

"I'm probably going to leave Battle Creek," said Ms. Warren, "and
I've been a lifelong resident."

Attorneys from the Detroit-area firm putting together the class
action suit advised people to pay close attention to Enbridge
paperwork that could prevent them from suing.  Attorneys told
people not to sign anything without having a lawyer look at it.
The lawyers couldn't tell people how long it might take for a
lawsuit to be resolved.

"Going to take every step we can to do everything as quickly as
possible," said attorney Liz Thomson, "get claims process in
place, going to adequately compensate people for what they are
entitled to."

Now folks are left to make difficult decisions about what legal
move to make.

The attorneys did say the results of an independent study do not
show any elevated levels of chemicals in the soil or air. Still,
they say that can change over time. They say they have served
Enbridge with two lawsuits already.

Chad Halcom, writing for Crain's Detroit Business, reported that
the oil spill in a pipeline belonging to Calgary, Alberta-based
Enbridge Inc. is not yet four weeks old, but has already sparked
prospective class action lawsuits -- including one in Detroit --
that seek $20 million and involve three metro Detroit law firms.
(Class Action Reporter, August 19, 2010)

The plaintiffs' lawyers can be reached at:

    Elizabeth C. Thomson, Esq.
    Patricia A. Stamler, Esq.
    HERTZ SCHRAM P.C.
    1760 South Telegraph Road, Suite 300
    Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0183
    Telephone: 248-335-5000
    Facsimile: 248-335-3346
    E-mail: lthomson@hertzschram.com
            pstamler@hertzschram.com

         - and -

    Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
    David R. Dubin, Esq.
    MACUGA, LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
    975 East Jefferson Avenue
    Detroit, Michigan 48207-3101
    Telephone: 313-392-0015
    Facsimile: 313-392-0025

         - and -

    Barry Conybeare, Esq.
    CONYBEARE LAW OFFICE PC
    519 Main St.
    Saint Joseph, MI 49085
    Telephone: 269-983-0561


FEDEX CORP: Truck Drivers Seek "Employee" Status in Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Malone at Reuters reports that 31 current and former truck
drivers at FedEx Corp. (FDX.N) sued the U.S. package delivery
company on Tuesday, claiming it improperly classifies them as
independent contractors rather than employees.

The suit is the latest in a long-running dispute between FedEx and
some of its truck drivers, who are seeking union representation.
Truck drivers at larger rival United Parcel Service Inc (UPS.N)
are represented by the Teamsters.

The suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Boston and
seeks class-action status, contends the degree of control FedEx
exerts over its drivers -- including setting rules on uniforms and
equipment -- amounts to an employer-employee relationship, not a
customer-contractor relationship.

Currently, only the roughly 4,200 pilots employed by the Memphis,
Tennessee-based company's air express unit are unionized. Overall,
FedEx employs about 125,000 people in the United States.

Analysts say the independent contractor model for truckers
provides FedEx a competitive advantage over UPS.

The lead plaintiff in the suit is David Duval of Acushnet,
Massachusetts. The suits seeks an injunction changing the
independent contractor classification and monetary damages.

A FedEx spokesman could not be reached for immediate comment, but
in the past the company has said it believes the independent
contractor model is justified.

The week before last, a U.S. district court in the Northern
District of Indiana agreed with FedEx.  In an opinion applicable
to the class-action cases filed against the company in federal
court, Judge Robert Miller Jr. said that while FedEx may control
the days the drivers work, enforce appearance and vehicle
standards and monitor performance, the workers were still
independent contractors -- not employees.

"When all reasonable inferences are drawn in plaintiffs' favor,
the evidence is insufficient to show that FedEx retained the right
to control the plaintiffs and direct the manner in which they
performed their work," Judge Miller wrote.

"Accordingly, while there are facts pointing to FedEx's right to
control, they don't raise to the level of control necessary to
show employee status."

The latest case is David Duval v. FedEx Ground Package System,
case no. 10-11409 (D. Mass.).


LOWE'S COS: Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Nov. 9; Criticisms Mount
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joaquin Sapien at ProPublica, and Aaron Kessler at Sarasota
Herald-Tribune, report that criticism of a Lowe's Companies Inc.
settlement in a class action lawsuit over defective drywall is
mounting as details emerge about the plan, which has been given
preliminary approval by a Georgia state court.

Consumer advocates say the agreement sets aside too much money for
the plaintiffs' attorneys and has an inadequate plan for alerting
Lowe's customers to the nationwide settlement.

The lawyers who negotiated the deal with Lowe's represent about 40
people who say they bought drywall from the North Carolina-based
chain.  Lowe's has said it does not believe the drywall it sold
was defective and that its vendors have assured it that they never
supplied Lowe's with any of the Chinese drywall that is the focus
of a much larger drywall case that's being heard in federal court
in New Orleans.

Lowe's is one of a long list of defendants in that case, which has
thousands of plaintiffs and includes lawsuits brought by scores of
attorneys all over the country against drywall manufacturers,
distributors, builders and insurers.

The settlement in the Georgia case would give people who allegedly
bought defective drywall at Lowe's a maximum of $4,500 in cash and
gift cards and a minimum of a $50 gift card, even if they spent
far more than that on their drywall. It would also require them to
waive their right to sue the company for property damage or
medical claims. Repairing a house with defective drywall requires
not only removing and replacing the drywall but also the
electrical wiring, air-conditioning systems and other appliances,
a job that has cost some homeowners $100,000 or more.

Lowe's customers who don't like those terms have until Nov. 9 to
file a formal letter saying they've chosen to opt out of the
agreement. If they don't meet that deadline, they'll automatically
be included in the settlement and lose their right to sue Lowe's.

According to the agreement, the letters must be sent to a single
mailing address to be considered valid for opting out. But the
plaintiffs' attorneys have yet to establish such a mailing
address, saying they won't be doing so until later this month.
That's when they'll also begin notifying Lowe's customers of the
settlement by placing information on the receipts of current
Lowe's customers and by hiring a company to set up a website and
place ads in publications like Parade Magazine. They will not,
however, send notices directly by mail.

Ed Mierzwinski, consumer product director for the U.S. Public
Interest Research Group, a nonprofit consumer advocacy
organization, said the notification plan is inadequate because
many Lowe's customers may not learn of the settlement and could
lose their right to sue without even knowing it.

"I cannot believe the judge would approve these notice
disclosures," Mr. Mierzwinski said. "When people get their Sunday
paper, a lot of them throw away Parade Magazine along with all of
the other inserts that come in the paper."

Consumer advocates say notification plans for class action
lawsuits customarily involve contacting potential claimants
directly by mail, using a list of all the people who bought the
type of product that may be defective. But Don Barrett, the lead
plaintiffs' attorney, said Lowe's hasn't provided a list of its
drywall customers.

Chris Ahearn, a Lowe's spokeswoman, said Lowe's doesn't have
contact information for customers who paid for their drywall in
cash.  For those who paid with a credit card, she said "there
would be some information potentially available, but we can't
generate a complete and accurate list."

Ira Rheingold, executive director of the National Association of
Consumer Advocates, said directly contacting potential claimants
is essential.

"I find it hard to believe that it's that hard for them to figure
out who bought what," Mr. Rheingold said. "I mean, that's part of
their business model, right? It may be more expensive for them to
figure that out and send them notices in the mail, but that really
is the appropriate thing for them to do."

Brian Wolfman, a visiting professor at the Georgetown University
Law Center, said too much of the Lowe's settlement money is going
to the plaintiffs' attorneys.

Mr. Barrett, the lead attorney in the case, said the attorneys
would get about 23% of the total $9.6 million settlement, which
provides $6.5 million for the victims, $1 million for the cost of
administering the settlement, and $2.1 million for the attorneys.
He defended the agreement and said 23% is "on the lower end of
fees paid in settlements."

But a close reading of the settlement shows that percentage could
grow, because the agreement stipulates that if the plan doesn't
draw enough claimants to pay out at least $2.5 million in cash and
gift cards, Lowe's would keep the remaining $4 million that was
set aside for the plaintiffs. If that happens, the lawyers would
still be paid $2.1 million, which means they would receive almost
as much as their clients.

If Lowe's received more than $6.5 million in claims, the amounts
that individual claimants can receive would shrink.

An agreement that allows a defendant to keep money that is left
over from a settlement is called a reversionary settlement, Mr.
Wolfman said.

"Reversionary settlements provide the class lawyers no incentive
to put money in their clients' pockets and make it possible for
the lawyers to walk away with far too much of the goodies," said
Mr. Wolfman, referring to reversionary settlements in general.
Mr. Wolfman previously worked as director of the litigation group
for Public Citizen, a public interest law firm.  "Reversionary
settlements are particularly problematic when notice to the class
is not robust, because then it is more likely that there will be
left-over money that reverts to the defendant."

Messrs. Wolfman and Mierzwinski criticized the $1 million set
aside to administer the settlement as being too high in comparison
to what the claimants are likely to receive.  Under the agreement,
the plaintiffs' lawyers will choose the settlement administrator.

Mr. Barrett said the $1 million fee is reasonable.  It's unclear
whether any money left over from the administrator fund would be
returned to Lowe's or be made available to its customers.

The Lowe's settlement is also being slammed by the lead lawyers in
the multi-district litigation being heard in New Orleans.  They
have filed a motion seeking to block the settlement, claiming it
provides only minimal compensation to drywall victims, overly
generous fees to the attorneys who negotiated it, and is an
attempt to circumvent the federal court's effort to deal with the
issue globally.

On August 12, during a status hearing in the federal case, Judge
Eldon E. Fallon said, "I'm particularly interested in whether any
settlement in state court interferes with" the multi-district
litigation.

Judge Bobby Peters, who is presiding over the Lowe's case in the
Superior Court of Muscogee County, Ga., told ProPublica and the
Sarasota Herald-Tribune that he would be willing to extend the
Nov. 9 deadline for plaintiffs to opt out of the settlement.

"If anybody felt like they needed more time, I'd take that under
consideration, but that's what the parties agreed upon," Judge
Peters said. "Both plaintiffs and defendants requested that date."


MEDICAID PROGRAM: Payments Begin in $16-Mil. Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In two cases that will have far-reaching implications for the way
the Medicaid program is administered, Washington, DC and Maryland
have begun to make comprehensive changes in the way they
administer payments for nursing home residents -- a major sector
of the Medicaid program.  The two cases are Janigian v. District
of Columbia (in the District) and E. Smith, et al. v. John
Colmers, et al. (in Maryland).  Both alleged violations of federal
and state law by overcharging Medicaid recipients for co-payments
for their nursing home care, and they were the first such lawsuits
brought in the United States.

The agreements affect residents who are in debt to nursing homes
when they qualify for Medicaid. Federal law requires that
residents' Medicaid co-payments be reduced by the amount of that
debt so that residents will have income available to pay their
nursing home for pre-Medicaid services. Under their old rules, the
District and Maryland ignored that law and set individual co-
payments without regard to nursing home debt, leaving residents
with no money to pay pre-Medicaid nursing home bills. Under the
new agreements, the District and Maryland must comply with federal
law and reduce the residents' co-payments so that they can use
some of their income to pay the old debts. Medicaid will cover the
entire cost of nursing home care until those old debts are paid
off.

Maryland has also agreed to pay $16 million over three years in
adjusted Medicaid reimbursement claims, half of which will be
reimbursed by the federal government. In return for the payments,
which began today, up to $64 million in unpaid nursing home
charges owed by Medicaid recipients will be forgiven by nursing
homes. In addition, both the Smith and Janigian cases have already
resulted in modifications to the way the District and Maryland
calculate recipients' co-payments on an ongoing basis. The
agreements were approved by the Washington, DC and Maryland courts
earlier this year.

Cy Smith and William Meyer of Zuckerman Spaeder LLP in Baltimore,
with co-counsel Ron Landsman, have represented the plaintiffs in
this case since 2005. As Smith put it, "This is a great day for
Maryland and Washington, DC citizens who need nursing home care
but can't afford to pay for it, as well as the nursing homes who
have provided that care for years without payment. We have
succeeded in bringing Maryland and the District into compliance
with federal law for the benefit of their neediest citizens, both
now and for the future."

Mr. Landsman, who sought and obtained a federal agency ruling that
Maryland's old rules for co-payments violated federal law, also
hailed the arrangement: "It is unfortunate that it took almost
five years of aggressive litigation to get Maryland to comply with
federal law, but this ends three decades in which Maryland shirked
its obligations under the Medicaid statute."

On the Net: http://www.MarylandPEMESettlement.com/

Founded in 1975, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP's --
http://www.zuckerman.com/-- attorneys practice in the areas of
complex commercial, civil and criminal litigation, as well as in
appellate, bankruptcy, food and drug law, government ethics,
insurance, legal profession and ethics, public clients, real
estate, securities, tax and white collar.  The firm is "AV" rated
by Martindale-Hubbell and has offices in Washington, DC; New York;
Tampa; Baltimore; and Wilmington, DE. In 2009, the firm was named
a finalist for "Litigation Boutique of the Year" by The American
Lawyer. The same year, Washingtonian magazine named Zuckerman
Spaeder one of the Washington, DC area's "50 Great Places to
Work."


PACTIV CORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Ill. Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim Pactiv,
which makes Hefty plastic bags, is selling itself too cheaply to
Reynolds Group Holdings, through an unfair process, for $33.25 a
share or $6 billion, in a class action in Cook County Chancery
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Stein v. Pactiv Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 10CH35455 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/18/Hefty.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leigh R. Lasky, Esq.
          Norman Rifkind, Esq.
          Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
          Heidi Vonderheide, Esq.
          LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
          350 North LaSalle St., Suite 1320
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312-634-0057

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Telephone: 619-231-1058

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: 561-750-3000

               - and -

          Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL
          273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: 610-600-8000


PARKCENTRAL GLOBAL: Del. Sup. Ct. Directs Investors' Coordination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys from Houston's Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anaipakos helped a
hedge fund investor earn an important ruling at the Delaware
Supreme Court that will allow investors in failed hedge funds to
investigate their losses as a group while coordinating potential
legal actions.

The law firm represents Brown Investment Management, L.P., a
limited partner that lost every penny of an investment with Plano,
Texas-based Parkcentral Global in less than 90 days.  Parkcentral
Global is now a liquidated hedge fund run by affiliates of
billionaire and former presidential candidate H. Ross Perot.
Court documents show Parkcentral Global's loses at approximately
$2.6 billion.

Brown Investment sued Parkcentral Global after the company refused
to release a list of its investors based on the argument that the
list was protected by federal law.  However, in the ruling,
Delaware's highest civil court ruled that fellow investors have
the right to know each other's identities.

"Hedge funds exploded in the last decade because pooled
investments provide a largely unregulated way for hedge fund
managers to make money for themselves.  This ruling helps those
who lost money in poorly-managed funds to find other investors and
join together to take legal action," says attorney Amir H. Alavi,
with Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anaipakos who tried the case for Brown
Investment.  "Hedge funds where managers lacked diligence and
proper risk analysis can no longer use divide-and-conquer tactics
to avoid responsibility for losses."

Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the Delaware Supreme Court's Aug. 12 en banc ruling in Parkcentral
Global L.P. v. Brown Investment Management L.P. affirmed a May 11
Delaware Court of Chancery ruling.  In the lower court, Vice
Chancellor Travis Laster ordered defunct hedge fund Parkcentral to
give Brown Investment the names and addresses of the fund's other
limited partners.

The National Law Journal relates that, according to court records
in an unrelated Northern District of Texas class action, In Re
Parkcentral Global Litigation, The Perot Family Trust wholly owns
and controls Parkcentral Capital Management L.P.  Parkcentral
Capital is the general partner to and investment adviser for
Parkcentral Global. The fund lost between $2 billion and $3
billion in November 2008 due to devaluation of its commercial
mortgage-backed securities investments.

Chief Justice Myron Steele wrote that federal regulations
implementing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act of
1999, which protects the privacy of financial institution
customers, do not bar Parkcentral from disclosing the shareholder
list to Brown Investment.

The regulations do not pre-empt a Delaware law that "entitles
limited partners to access partnership information and records if
they make a reasonable demand for a purpose reasonably related to
their interest as a limited partner," Judge Steele wrote,
according to The National Law Journal.

"Disclosure of the list of the limited partners' names and
addresses to another limited partners falls within that exception
because [Delaware law] requires it," Judge Steele wrote. "[W]e
also conclude that Parkcentral's limited partners are not
'unaffiliated third parties' whose identities the Privacy
Regulations would protect from disclosure."

The ruling "changes the playing field so that individual investors
can get together, pool their resources and determine whether there
was any mismanagement at the fund," said Mr. Alavi, according to
The National Law Journal.

An individual investor who lost $1 million in a hedge fund, for
example, wouldn't want to spend $200,000 to $300,000 on forensic
accounting to see whether there's a legal claim, Mr. Alavi said.

"There will be a fundamental change in the way investors and hedge
fund managers deal with each other when there are catastrophic
losses in a fund," Mr. Alavi said.

The ruling has "far reaching implications outside of Delaware"
because many U.S. companies are incorporated there, Mr. Alavi
said. Delaware is known for its business-friendly corporate laws
and most state supreme courts look to Delaware for guidance on
corporate issues.

The ruling may also help the plaintiffs in the Texas class action,
Mr. Alavi said. "If those plaintiffs decide to request a list of
investors, they're now free to do so because of the Delaware
ruling," he said.

The National Law Journal reports that Texas District Judge Barbara
Lynn on Aug. 5 dismissed the class action against the Parkcentral
defendants, which include The Perot Family Trust, several related
entities and two trust officers, but gave the plaintiffs leave to
re-plead breach-of-fiduciary-duty, joint-enterprise and other
claims.

The Texas plaintiffs had no comment regarding the Delware ruling,
said James Jaconette, a partner at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in
San Diego.

Parkcentral's lawyer on the case -- R. Judson Scaggs Jr., a
partner at Wilmington, Del.-based Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell
-- declined comment, as did David Radunsky, chief operating
officer and general counsel of Parkcentral Capital.

Timothy McCormick, a partner at Dallas-based Thompson & Knight and
a defense lawyer in the Texas case, declined to comment on either
the Texas or Delaware cases.

Mr. Alavi and Demetrios Anaipakos have been handling disputes
against hedge funds and private equity firms for more than a
decade.  Mr. Alavi says Brown Investment has not participated in
the class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas against Parkcentral Global, but is
investigating the hedge fund's auditors and other third parties.

The Delaware Supreme Court opinion affirmed an earlier ruling from
the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The ruling in Parkcentral Global,
L.P. v. Brown Investment Management, L.P., No. 288,2010, was
issued Aug. 12, 2010.

Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anaipakos represents plaintiffs and defendants
in securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and other commercial
litigation matters.  More information about the firm can found at
http://www.azalaw.com/index.html

For more information, contact Mary Flood at 800-559-4534 or
mary@androvett.com


PG&E CORP: Lawsuit Against Pacific Gas Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
remains stayed pending the results of the California Public
Utilities Commission's investigation relating to SmartMeter(TM)
devices, according to PG&E Corporation's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On June 17, 2010, the City and County of San Francisco filed a
petition requesting the CPUC to impose a temporary moratorium on
the installation of additional SmartMeter(TM) devices until the
CPUC has completed its independent assessment.  The CPUC has not
yet ruled on this request.

Several other municipalities and counties in Pacific Gas and
Electric's service territory support CCSF'S request for a
moratorium or have indicated that they are considering taking
other action to regulate or prohibit the installation of
SmartMeter(TM) devices in their communities.  The CPUC is also
considering a request for a moratorium filed by a private group on
April 15, 2010 until the CPUC conducts an evidentiary hearing on
the potential health, environmental, and safety impacts of the
radio frequency technology used in the Utility's SmartMeter(TM)
program.

The class action lawsuit filed against Pacific Gas and Electric in
the Superior Court in Bakersfield, California, containing
allegations that the new meters, wireless network, and software
and billing system have led to electric bill overcharges, remains
stayed pending the results of the CPUC's investigation.

PG&E Corporation -- http://www.pgecorp.com/-- is a holding
company whose primary purpose is to hold interests in energy-based
businesses.  The company conducts its business through Pacific Gas
and Electric Company (Utility), a public utility operating in
northern and central California.  The Utility engages in the
businesses of electricity and natural gas distribution;
electricity generation, procurement, and transmission; and natural
gas procurement, transportation, and storage.  As of Dec. 31,
2009, the Utility served approximately 5.1 million electricity
distribution customers and approximately 4.3 million natural gas
distribution customers.


PG&E CORP: SmartMeter Suppliers Face Suit in San Francisco
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against suppliers of
SmartMeter(TM) devices.  Pacific Gas and Electric Company however
is not named as a defendant, according to PG&E Corporation's Aug.
4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On June 1, 2010, a federal class action complaint was filed in San
Francisco federal court alleging that the new meters report
electric consumption in amounts materially greater than the
electricity that the class members actually consumed, resulting in
electric bill overcharges.  The lawsuit names the various
companies that have supplied SmartMeter(TM) devices, components,
and software to Pacific Gas and Electric but does not name Pacific
Gas and Electric as a defendant.  The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint.

Pacific Gas and Electric is continuing to install the new meters.

The outcome, according to the company, of the matters discussed
may have an effect on Pacific Gas and Electric's ability to
recover costs to implement advanced metering if the California
Public Utilities Commission finds that the costs are not
reasonable or are otherwise disallowed.  Further, the company adds
that if Pacific Gas and Electric is prohibited from continuing to
install the new meters or if Pacific Gas and Electric otherwise
fails to recognize the expected benefits of its advanced metering
infrastructure, the company's and Pacific Gas and Electric's
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows could be
materially adversely affected.

PG&E Corporation -- http://www.pgecorp.com/-- is a holding
company whose primary purpose is to hold interests in energy-based
businesses.  The company conducts its business through Pacific Gas
and Electric Company (Utility), a public utility operating in
northern and central California.  The Utility engages in the
businesses of electricity and natural gas distribution;
electricity generation, procurement, and transmission; and natural
gas procurement, transportation, and storage.  As of Dec. 31,
2009, the Utility served approximately 5.1 million electricity
distribution customers and approximately 4.3 million natural gas
distribution customers.


POM WONDERFUL: Sued in Fla. Over Misleading Marketing Campaign
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that POM Wonderful pushes
pomegranate juice by making unproven and false claims about its
"special health benefits," consumers say in a class action.  The
class claims the misleading ads, which include the slogans "Cheat
death" and "Pure science," are so egregious that the FDA called
the product "an unapproved/misbranded drug and a misbranded food
product."

POM Wonderful has filed several lawsuits accusing rival
juicemakers of trying to piggy back on its successful, years-long
promotion of pomegranate juice.

Now lead plaintiff Mary Giles claims that POM deceived consumers
in an "extensive and comprehensive marketing campaign" that
claims, falsely, that its products can prevent diseases and help
people stay "young forever."

Ms. Giles claims that POM has claimed that its "special health
benefits" include "the prevention, mitigation, and/or treatment of
the following: (a) atherosclerosis; (b) blood flow/pressure; (c)
prostate cancer; (d) erectile function; (e) cardiovascular
disease; (f) reduce LDL cholesterol; (g) and other age-related
medical conditions."

The complaint continues: "This extensive marketing campaign goes
so far that on Feb. 23, 2010, the FDA labeled PWP an unapproved
drug and a misbranded food product."

PWP stands for POM Wonderful pomegranate juices, blends, teas and
extracts.

"Pom Wonderful's misleading marketing campaign begins with
language on their Web site and other advertising stating that the
product is health in a bottle," the complaint states.  "Pom's
exhaustive advertising campaign builds on this deception."

The complaint adds: "Pom claims that they have over $34 million
dollars in funding to support scientific research, which implies
that PWP delivers the claimed health benefits."  It also creates
the misleading impression that the products "are backed by
science," though there is "no reasonable basis" to make the claim,
according to the complaint.

"The Federal Trade Commission rules require that Pom has competent
and reliable scientific evidence for its health claims at the time
the claims were made," the complaint states.  "However, Pom did
not and has never possessed the requisite clinical
substantiation."

Ms. Giles seeks class damages for breach of warranty and
violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Giles v. POM Wonderful, LLC, Case No.
1032192 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/18/Pom.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
          Mark Dearman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: 561-750-3000
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  cobrien@rgrdlaw.com
                  mdearman@rgrdlaw.cm


QUIZNOS FRANCHISE: Ill. Judge Dismisses Suit After $206MM Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Sparks, writing for Blue MauMau, relates that Quiznos
encountered a franchisee revolt so vast that it has been forced to
settle, following years of litigation brought by literally
thousands of its franchise owner-operators.  On August 13, Judge
Rebecca R. Pallmeyer filed an order and dismissal in federal court
that brings to a close the lawsuit.  The deal promises to provide
over $206 million to Quiznos sub sandwich shop owners and to the
system as a whole, one of the highest recorded settlement amounts
among restaurant franchisors.

The settlement offers a variety of monetary payments to individual
plaintiffs as well as discounts on food and other supplies,
depending on their status with the company. It will also provide
debt forgiveness regarding royalty payments, advertising fees, and
other monies owed.  As part of the offer, Quiznos will make
changes to its method of operations. It is also required to create
an independent franchisee association to represent the self-
interests of store owner-operators and to push back on Quiznos'
aggressive maneuverings with franchisees.

The court gave franchisees the opportunity to opt out of the
settlement and to voice their objections prior to a January 29,
2010 deadline.  According to Quiznos outside counsel Fredric "Ric"
Cohen, Esq., of Cheng Cohen LLC there was only a single objection,
which was insubstantial.  When asked if the majority of
franchisees did not respond one way or the other to the settlement
offer, which automatically placed them as approving the
settlement, Mr. Cohen responded, "That is always the case in class
action litigation.  However, in our case the participation rate
was significantly higher than what is typical in these types of
cases."

One former franchisee spoke out about the final settlement.  Chris
Bray, founder and former president of the current independent
Toasted Subs Franchisee Association, who now acts as consultant to
the group, said, "The end result is a far cry from what was hoped
for when this litigation was initiated.  It fails to address or
resolve, in any significant way, any of the issues for which the
lawsuit was originally filed.  It gives temporary relief to some,
and only partial restitution to others."

Mr. Bray quickly added, "Given, however, that franchisees who are
most affected by this litigation failed to express a level of
dissatisfaction required to change the end result, it should come
as no surprise to anyone that the court ruled accordingly. Justice
may be blind, but not always fair."

In past litigation, franchisees have accused the franchisor of
operating deceptive business practices since 2000.  Operators
alleged that the franchisor induced unwitting prospects to
purchase Quiznos sandwich shops.  Thousands didn't even receive a
shop for their money.  In the lawsuit, these were referred to as
SNO, or sold but not opened shops.  Plaintiff franchisees depicted
a franchisor that exploited its control and power "in order to
extract exorbitant and unjustifiable payments from franchisees."
Quiznos is accused of implementing slick sales tactics to market
the American dream of business ownership in what was referred to
as the fastest growing franchise in the United States.

These franchise practices have cost Quiznos a settlement with its
thousands of aggrieved franchisees worth $206 million. Its network
has also seen dramatic shrinkage.

The settlement arrangement allows Quiznos to deny the guilt of all
claims in the Ilene Siemer v Quizno's Franchise Company LLC
lawsuit, avoiding any admission of liability.

Attorney Justin Klein, Esq., of Marks & Klein, who represented the
franchise owners in class lawsuits through the years, said the
final version is the same as the preliminary settlement presented
to Judge Pallmeyer on June 30.  He said, "We are very pleased with
the settlement.  It is the result of extremely hard work by not
only the lawyers but the franchisees.  We are optimistic about the
future of the Quiznos franchisees.  We are also encouraged by the
message that this case sends to the franchise community and the
ultimate goal of fairness in franchising that we are working
towards."

Judge Pallmeyer's final settlement will pay Mr. Klein's firm and
Kravit, Hovel & Krawczyk a total of $10.8 million in legal fees
and cost reimbursement in representing the franchisee plaintiffs.

                     Analyzing the Settlement

Chain restaurant analyst and management consultant John A. Gordon
said to his knowledge this is the largest or one of the largest
legal settlements for franchised restaurant chains in U,S.
history. "Ultimately, in America, money talks.  The size and
breadth of the agreement will send notice to others. My belief is
that this settlement will be an impetus for future reform."

Mr. Gordon, principal of Pacific Management Consulting Group,
said, "As is well documented, Quiznos' franchise strategy, its
store level economics and business model were deeply flawed. This
can be seen in the decline of Quiznos Average Unit Sales (AUV)
year by year and the large number of U.S. store closures (end of
year count 2009, 3696 units versus 4636 at the end of 2007), a
decrease of almost 20% or 1,000 units in two years.  Quiznos'
supply chain strategy of capturing large markups for itself is
inherently unsound."

Mr. Gordon said Ray Kroc, the milkshake salesman who became a
founder of the McDonald's hamburger empire, figured out in the
1950s that franchising works best when franchisors help
franchisees profit.  Quiznos did not follow franchising best
practices, such as focusing on small, single unit franchises for
franchise development instead of larger, multiunit investors.

Mr. Gordon said the most important thing in the agreement is that
over time there will be the creation of a franchisee advisory
council, franchisee marketing committee and franchisee supply-
chain price-auditing board.

"Quiznos will have to reform its business and franchising model
before it can go public," the analyst said. "The current intensity
of chain restaurant competition, paucity of capital funds and
scarcity of refranchising buyers make it difficult for even high
performing franchisors."

Representatives from Quiznos could not be reached prior to
publishing.

A final approval hearing concerning the fairness of the settlement
of four franchisee class action lawsuits filed against the Quiznos
Franchise Company and others was scheduled for June 30, 2010,
beginning at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2119 of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern
Division), 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.  (Class
Action Reporter, July 2, 2010)

More information on the settlement is available at:

                 http://qnationalsettlement.com/

The Class is represented by:

    Gerald A. Marks, Esq.
    Justin M. Klein, Esq.
    MARKS & KLEIN, LLP
    63 Riverside Avenue
    Red Bank, New Jersey 07701
    Telephone: (732) 747-7100
    Facsimile: (732) 219-0625
    E-mail: Jerry@MarksKlein.com
            Justin@MarksKlein.com

        - and -

    Stephen E. Kravit, Esq.
    Mark M. Leitner, Esq.
    Joseph S. Goode, Esq.
    KRAVIT, HOVEL & KRAWCZYK S.C.
    825 North Jefferson Street, Suite 500
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-3737
    Telephone: (414) 271-7100
    Facsimile: (414) 271-8135
    E-mail: kravit@kravitlaw.com
            leitner@kravitlaw.com
            goode@kravitlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

    Fredric A. Cohen, Esq.
    Amy C. Haywood, Esq.
    CHENG COHEN LLC
    311 North Aberdeen Street, Suite 400
    Chicago, Illinois 60607
    Telephone: (312) 243-1701
    Facsimile: (312) 277-3961
    E-mail: fredric.cohen@chengcohen.com
            amy.haywood@chengcohen.com

         - and -

    Leonard H. MacPhee, Esq.
    PERKINS COIE LLP
    1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 700
    Denver, Colorado 80202-1043
    Telephone: (303) 291-2300
    Facsimile: (303) 291-2400
    E-mail: LMacphee@perkinscoie.com


RAYMOND JAMES: Judge Dismisses Woodward Suit on Lack of Facts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel at Reuters reports that Raymond James Financial
Inc. last week won dismissal of a lawsuit accusing the brokerage
of reserving too little for loan losses, and the judge rebuked the
plaintiff's law firm for filing too long a complaint.

In an August 16 ruling, U.S. District Judge Robert Patterson in
Manhattan said the class-action complaint did not set forth enough
facts to suggest that Raymond James intended to defraud investors
by purposely underfunding and then misleading investors about the
adequacy of its reserves.

Raymond James and a lawyer for the plaintiff, a New York investor
named John Woodward, did not immediately return calls seeking
comment.

The class period ran from April 22, 2008 to April 14, 2009, when
Raymond James said an abnormally high level of bad loans would
nearly wipe out profit in its just-completed quarter.  Shares of
the St. Petersburg, Florida-based company fell 13.5% the next day.

Judge Patterson said most of the alleged misstatements by Raymond
James and its executives were too general to mislead investors,
which he called "classic puffery," and some simply reflected
"mistakes in some of their forward-looking projections."

The judge also said the "extreme length" of the plaintiff's
112-page, 356-paragraph complaint was also grounds for dismissal,
under a federal rule requiring that a pleading contain "a short
and plain statement" of a claim.

"This appears to be a trend in complaints filed in securities
actions," Judge Patterson wrote, "and emphasizes that the federal
rules do not require this sort of kitchen-sink complaint in order
to survive a motion to dismiss."

Raymond James has more than 5,300 financial advisers.

The case is Woodward v. Raymond James Financial Inc. et al., case
no. 09-05347 (S.D.N.Y.).


SLM CORPORATION: Removes "Bottoni" Penalty Lawsuit to N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angelo Bottoni, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. SLM Corporation et al., Case No.
CGC-10-501519 (Calif. Super. Ct. San Francisco Cty.), was filed on
July 13, 2010.  Plaintiffs bring claims against SLM, commonly
known as Sallie Mae, for violation of the California Civil Code
Section 1671, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
violation of the Unfair Competition Law, breach of contract, and
declaratory relief.  Mr. Bottoni says that SLM assessed, in
connection with its Signature Student Loan program, unreasonable
collection penalties from its borrowers approximating 24% of the
principal and interest due, regardless of actual collection costs.

Through its subsidiaries, SLM Corp. provides educational finance
throughout the United States.

On the basis of diversity of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332(d)(2), SLM Corporation, et al., on August 16, 2010, removed
the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 10-cv-3602 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ray E. Gallo, Esq.
          Dominic Valerian, Esq.
          GALLO & ASSOCIATES
          1101 Fifth Avenue, Suite 205
          San Rafael, CA 94901
          Telephone: (415) 397-1205
          E-mail: rgallo@gallo-law.com
                  dvalerian@gallo-law.com

The defendants are represented by:

          Susan L. Germaise, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 315-8200
          E-mail: sgermaise@mcguirewoods.com


STEEL DYNAMICS: Antitrust Lawsuits by Direct Purchasers Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Dynamics, Inc. and other steel manufacturing companies
continue to defend direct purchaser class action antitrust
lawsuits.

On Sept. 17, 2008, the company and eight other steel manufacturing
companies were served with a class action antitrust complaint,
filed in the Court in Chicago by Standard Iron Works of Scranton,
Pennsylvania, alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price at which steel products were sold
in the United States, starting in 2005, by artificially
restricting the supply of such steel products.

Six additional lawsuits, each of them materially similar to the
original, have also been filed in the same federal court, each of
them likewise seeking similar class certification.

All but one of the Complaints purport to be brought on behalf of a
class consisting of all direct purchasers of steel products
between Jan. 1, 2005 and the present.

The other Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all indirect purchasers of steel products within the
same time period.

All Complaints seek treble damages and costs, including reasonable
attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and injunctive
relief.

On Jan. 2, 2009, Steel Dynamics and the other defendants filed a
Joint Motion to Dismiss all of the direct purchaser lawsuits.

On June 12, 2009, however, the Court denied the Motion.

The parties are currently conducting limited discovery.

No updates regarding the case were reported in the company's
Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Steel Dynamics, Inc. -- http://www.steeldynamics.com/-- is a
steel producer and metals recycler. The Company has three
segments: steel operations, steel fabrication operations, and
metals recycling and ferrous resources operations.  The company's
products in its steel segment include hot rolled, cold rolled,
galvanized, Galvalume and painted sheet steel; various structural
steel beams and rails; special bar quality steel, and various
merchant steel products, including beams, angles, flats and
channels. Its products in the metals recycling segment include
ferrous and nonferrous scrap processing, scrap management,
transportation, and brokerage and trading products and services.
The steel fabrication segment produces steel joists and decking
materials.


SYNOVUS FIN'L: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Sea Island Deals
------------------------------------------------------------
McClatchy-Tribune Information Services reports that Synovus
Financial Corp. has filed a motion to dismiss a class-action
lawsuit against it and top executives, saying no one misled
investors in the company's dealings with Sea Island Co.

The motion, filed August 13 with the U.S. District Court's
Northern Division in Atlanta, defends the banking firm and says
stock sales by two of its officers were not "unusual or
suspicious."

In an interview Monday, Samuel Hatcher, Synovus general counsel,
called allegations by the lawsuit's attorneys a "distortion."

"They're trying to make it look like insiders were using their
knowledge to reward themselves or to do better than shareholders
when that isn't really what happened," he said.

Columbus-based Synovus, which employs more than 1,500 locally,
faced an August 13 deadline to file the motion to dismiss the
suit, which claims the company violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The plaintiffs are essentially anyone who held a share of Synovus
stock between the period Oct. 26, 2007, and April 22, 2009.
Synovus has more than 81,000 shareholders (as of Dec. 31),
including 300 institutional investors such as mutual funds.

The lawsuit alleges Synovus and its top management -- particularly
in a series of conference calls with stock market analysts
following the release of quarterly earnings reports -- misled
investors and failed to disclose the severity of Sea Island's
financial problems and its negative impact on the company's loans
to the coastal Georgia resort.

The suit also accuses two Synovus executives, Thomas J. Prescott,
chief financial officer, and Mark G. Holladay, chief risk officer,
of using knowledge of Sea Island's deteriorating condition to time
the exercise of stock options and profit from their sale before
Synovus shares plunged $3 per share over a few days in April 2009.

The sell-off came after the banking firm reported its non-
performing loans had increased by $519 million in the first
quarter of the year.  That number included money it loaned to Sea
Island.

Two other executives named in the lawsuit, Richard Anthony,
chairman and chief executive officer, and Fred Green, the firm's
former president and chief operating officer, did not exercise
stock options during the period of question, the firm said.

"Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate
the company's stock price by concealing from the market its true
lending relationship with the Sea Island Company," the class-
action suit alleges.

In its court filing, Synovus chipped away at the allegations,
saying they were "flawed for numerous reasons" and that plaintiffs
were conjuring up misstatements by its executives.  Synovus said
its lending relationship with Sea Island began in 2000 and that
loans to the resort during the time in question were less than 1%
of the banking firm's total outstanding loan portfolio -- well
within the company's borrowing limits and in line with existing
market and credit conditions.


TELETECH HOLDINGS: Settlement Gets NY Court's Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York gave
its final approval to the settlement agreement in the matter In
re: TeleTech Litigation, according to TeleTech Holdings, Inc.'s
Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On Jan. 25, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed entitled
Beasley v. TeleTech Holdings, Inc., et al. against TeleTech,
certain current directors and officers and others alleging
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act,
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act.

The complaint alleges, among other things, false and misleading
statements in the Registration Statement and Prospectus in
connection with:

     (i) a March 2007 secondary offering of common stock and

    (ii) various disclosures made and periodic reports filed by
         the company between Feb. 8, 2007 and Nov. 8, 2007.

On Feb. 25, 2008, a second nearly identical class action
complaint, entitled Brown v. TeleTech Holdings, Inc., et al., was
filed in the same court.

On May 19, 2008, the actions were consolidated under the caption
In re: TeleTech Litigation and lead plaintiff and lead counsel
were approved.

On Oct. 21, 2009, the company and the other defendants named
executed a stipulation of settlement with the lead plaintiffs to
settle the consolidated class action lawsuit.

The Court has preliminarily approved the settlement and has set a
hearing on final approval on June 11, 2010.

On June 11, 2010, the Court issued final approval of the
settlement.

The company paid $225,000 of the total settlement amount, which is
included in Other accrued expenses in the Consolidated Balance
Sheet at Dec. 31, 2009, and the rest of the settlement amount will
be covered by the company's insurance carriers.

TeleTech Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.teletech.com/-- is a global
provider of onshore, offshore and work-from-home business process
outsourcing services focusing on customer and enterprise
management, and technology enabled solutions.  The company
provides around the clock integrated global solution that spans
people, process, technology and infrastructure for governments and
private sector clients in the automotive, broadband, cable,
financial services, government, healthcare, logistics, media and
entertainment, retail, technology, travel, wireline and wireless
communication industries.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company
provided services from nearly 35,600 workstations across 68
delivery centers in 16 countries. TeleTech Holdings, Inc. has
approximately 90 global clients.  The company performs a variety
of BPO services for its clients and support approximately 270 BPO
programs.


TRUBION PHARMA: Being Sold for Too Little, Wash. Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Trubion Pharmaceuticals is
selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Emergent
BioSolutions, for $4.55 a share plus 0.1641 shares of Emergent
stock for each Trubion share, a $97 million deal, shareholders say
in King County Court, Seattle.

A copy of the Complaint in Sharma v. Trubion Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-2-29637-9 (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/18/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Karl P. Barth, Esq.
         Steve W. Berman, Esq.
         Karl P. Barth, Esq.
         Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: 206-623-7292
         E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                 karlb@hbsslaw.com
                 toml@hbsslaw.com

              - and -

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

              - and -

         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
         RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
         995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
         Wayne, PA 19087
         Telephone: 484-588-5516


UNITED STATES: War Veterans Have Until Nov. 10 to Join PTSD Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Dvorak, writing for Examiner.com in San Diego, Calif.,
reports that a lawsuit was established to get much-needed care and
monetary compensation for veterans who suffered Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder in the Middle East Wars has extended the deadline
allowing more veterans to sign on to the pending litigation.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Operation Enduring Freedom
and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) veterans by the National
Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) and pro-bono counsel
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.  Military veterans who were
discharged between December 17, 2002 and October 14, 2008 are
eligible to join the class-action lawsuit if they think they were
short-changed with their military separation benefits.

Judge George W. Miller of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims signed
an order giving eligible veterans who served in Iraq or
Afghanistan until November 10, 2010 to join (or "opt-in to") Sabo
v. United States.

The agreement reached with the military services could establish
veterans who join the lawsuit a disability rating upgrade and
expedited records review which could result in improved health
care for veterans and their families.

There are approximately, 42%, or 1,835 veterans, who signed and
sent in "Opt-in Forms" before the extension.  At least 2,623 other
veterans are eligible to join the lawsuit and become class
members, according to NVLSP.

While the extension was welcome news for the law firm that brought
class-action lawsuit against the government, other veterans
questioned the need for any deadlines when it comes to treatment
and care combat veterans.

Since the Veteran Affairs has relaxed its rules on PTSD/TBI, this
case should be held in abeyance until Department of Defense and VA
get their act together and then use it to force compliance if long
delays continue to plague veterans, one Marine said.

"More than a third of the eligible veterans are severely disabled,
with VA disability ratings for PTSD of 70 to 100 percent," said
Bart Stichman, co-executive director of the NVLSP.  "It's not easy
for them to understand the legal notice and what are the
advantages of joining the lawsuit, even though they stand to
potentially gain significant lifetime financial and health care
benefits for themselves and their families."

Mr. Stichman also said NVLSP plans to continue calling eligible
veterans for the next three months, and is encouraging families
and friends of eligible veterans to get involved on behalf of
OIF/OEF veterans.

"Anyone who knows an Iraq or Afghanistan veteran discharged
between December 17, 2002 and October 14, 2008 because of PTSD
should ask if he or she has received a legal notice and opted into
this lawsuit," said Mr. Stichman.  "These veterans and their
families were treated unjustly and denied the benefits to which
they were entitled.  This is about getting them the lifetime
military benefits that they have earned and deserve.  More
information is available at www.ptsdlawsuit.com."

Eligible veterans who join the lawsuit are entitled to review of
their PTSD disability rating by the military on a priority basis,
a guaranteed correction of military records to show a higher
military disability rating for PTSD for the six-month period
following the date of release from military service, as well as a
determination of whether the new rating should be permanently
increased, decreased, or remain the same after the six-month
period, a NVLSP statement read.

As a result of an increase in their military rating for PTSD,
class members could receive back pay of disability benefits,
reimbursement for healthcare expenses the military should have
covered, as well as a higher amount of future benefits to which
they and their families are entitled -- the judgment could
potentially provide millions of dollars in additional benefits
over time.

"The disability ratings which are the subject of the lawsuit are
critically important to ensuring veterans receive the benefits
which they have earned and deserve," NVLSP explains. "For years,
the law has required the military to assign a disability rating of
at least 50% to all veterans discharged for PTSD. A permanent
disability rating of 30% or more entitles a veteran to monthly
disability benefits for the rest of the veteran's life, to free
lifetime health care for the veteran and his or her spouse, and to
free health care for their minor children."

Requirements veterans must meet to join the class-action lawsuit
include;

1. Veterans who served on active duty in the U.S. Army, Navy,
Marine Corps, or Air Force.

2. Veterans who were found by a Physical Evaluation Board to be
unfit for continued service due to or at least in part, to PTSD.

3. Veterans who were assigned a disability rating for PTSD of less
than 50%.

4. Veterans who were released, separated, retired, or discharged
from active duty after December 17, 2002, and prior to October 14,
2008 (regardless of whether such release, separation, retirement,
or discharge resulted in the individual's placement on the
Temporary Disability Retirement List).

The case is Sabo, et al. v. United States, case no. 08-899C (Fed.
Cl.).


WHITE CAP: Recalls 15,000 Hickory Handle Sledge Hammers
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
White Cap Construction Supply Inc., of Costa Mesa, Calif.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 15,000 Hickory handle sledge
hammers.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The head of the sledge hammer can loosen and detach, posing a risk
of impact injury to consumers.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves Brigade sledge hammers with a hickory wood
handle.  There are 11 models included in this recall, ranging in
size from 2 to 20 lbs.  A green and white label with the word
"Brigade" and the model name is affixed to the head of the sledge
hammer, and "Genuine Hickory" is printed on the handle.  Model and
UPC information are printed on the label.

    Model         UPC                   Part Description
    -----         ---                   ----------------

   444BR10675   847044060535    8LB 36 double Face Sledge Hammer
   444BR10677   847044060559    12LB 36 Double Face Sledge Hammer
   444BR10685   847044060634    4LB 16 Engineers Hammer
   444BR10678   847044060566    16LB 36 Double Face Sledge Hammer
   444BR10679   847044060573    20LB 36 Double Face Sledge Hammer
   444BR10688   847044060665    4LB 10-1/2 Drilling Hammer
   444BR10687   847044060658    3LB 10-1/2 Drilling Hammer
   444BR10674   847044060528    6LB 36 Double Face Sledge Hammer
   444BR10676   847044060542    10LB 36 Double Face Sledge Hammer
   444BR10686   847044060641    2LB 10-1/2 Drilling Hammer
   444BR10684   847044060627    3LB 16 Engineers Hammer

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10320.html

The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold through
White Cap Construction Supply distributors nationwide from April
2009 through May 2010 for between $12 and $47.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled sledge
hammers and return the product to White Cap Construction Supply
for a full refund or exchange.  For additional information,
contact White Cap Construction Supply toll-free at (877) 281-4831
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's website at http://www.whitecap.com/


* 5 Labor & Employment Seyfarth Attorneys Join Sheppard Mullin
--------------------------------------------------------------
Five more labor and employment attorneys join Sheppard, Mullin,
Richter & Hampton LLP from Seyfarth Shaw LLP.  Special counsel
David Van Pelt and associates Jennifer Abramowitz, Laurie Barnes,
Paul Berkowitz and Kate Visosky and class action clerk Erica Ibsen
reunite with partners Thomas Kaufman, Michael Gallion and Gregg
Fisch who joined Sheppard Mullin last month.  The group joins
Sheppard Mullin's Los Angeles/Century City office from Seyfarth
Shaw's LA office, where Mr. Kaufman was co-chair of Seyfarth's
national wage/hour class action practice group and Mr. Gallion was
a former hiring partner.

"The new team's wage-and-hour and discrimination class action
expertise enhances Sheppard Mullin's already prestigious practice
in California," said Labor and Employment practice group co-chair,
Kelly Hensley. "The group is top notch and has hit the ground
running."

"We are thrilled these top-ranked attorneys from Seyfarth's Los
Angeles office decided to join us at Sheppard Mullin," Mr. Gallion
stated. "Our team has amazing talent at all levels, from partners
to staff. Our efficiency and personal attention to clients is
consistent with Sheppard Mullin's emphasis on client service."

"Our entire team is excited to join Sheppard Mullin's exceptional
labor and employment practice -- with the combined ranks, I
believe we have the strongest labor and employment practice in
California," Mr. Kaufman commented.

Mr. Van Pelt is a seasoned labor and employment attorney with over
15 years experience representing management. He has been ranked as
a leading labor and employment lawyer by Chambers & Partners.
Currently, Mr. Van Pelt devotes most of his time to providing
advice and counsel to employers on all aspects of employment law,
including terminations and discipline, wage-hour issues,
reductions in force, employee leave matters, accommodation of
disabilities, employee relations and the myriad of employment law
issues surrounding mergers and acquisitions. He has considerable
experience in drafting employment policies, agreements, and
handbooks.  Mr. Van Pelt also handles both single plaintiff and
significant wage-hour matters. He received a J.D. and L.L.M from
Duke University in 1992 and a B.A., High Honors, cum laude, from
Davidson College in 1987.

Ms. Abramowitz is a senior associate with significant experience
defending companies in wage and hour class actions. She has
defended virtually every type of claim in these cases, including
misclassification, overtime pay, meal and rest period violations,
vacation pay, reporting time pay, and unpaid business expenses.
With a number of dismissals and class certification denials under
her belt, Ms. Abramowitz has enjoyed an impressive record of
success in fighting these cases on behalf of employers.  Ms.
Abramowitz also has extensive experience defending employers in
single plaintiff lawsuits. She received a J.D. from the University
of Southern California in 2004 and a B.A., summa cum laude, from
the University of Arizona in 2001.

Ms. Barnes is a senior associate who specializes in defending
management in single-plaintiff litigation.  Ms. Barnes also
frequently provides advice and counsel to employers on the gamut
of employment law issues. Her practice includes representation of
a broad array of employers in single-plaintiff and multi-plaintiff
wrongful termination, employment discrimination, harassment,
retaliation and breach of contract cases.  Recently, Ms. Barnes
obtained several impressive victories for clients, including
summary judgment and an award of attorneys' fees in a high profile
case.  Ms. Barnes was very active in Seyfarth's Women's Affinity
Group before joining Sheppard Mullin.  Ms. Barnes received her
J.D. from the University of Southern California in 2003 and a
B.S., cum laude, from Northwestern University in 1997.

Mr. Berkowitz is a junior associate who has experience handling
class actions, single-plaintiff cases and traditional labor
matters. He has litigated and obtained summary judgment, as well
as favorably resolved cases involving allegations of sexual
harassment, age, race, gender, national origin, and disability
discrimination, and claims of wrongful termination, harassment,
and retaliation.  Mr. Berkowitz has extensive experience with wage
and hour matters involving claims relating to overtime, meal and
rest breaks, misclassification, violations of the Los Angeles
Living Wage Ordinance, and improper wage statements.  Mr.
Berkowitz received a J.D., Order of the Coif, from the University
of California, Los Angeles in 2007 and a B.A., cum laude, from the
University of Arizona in 2004.

Ms. Visosky is a mid-level associate who represents employers in
both single-plaintiff and class action litigation. She has
litigated and obtained dismissal, as well as favorably resolved
cases involving allegations of sexual harassment, age, race,
gender, national origin, military, and pregnancy discrimination,
and claims of wrongful termination, harassment, and retaliation.
Ms. Visosky's experience with wage and hour matters involves
claims relating to overtime, meal and rest breaks,
misclassification, and improper wage statements, qui tam actions,
and matters involving collective bargaining agreements.  She
received a J.D. from the University of Southern California in 2006
and a B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1997.

Sheppard Mullin -- http://www.sheppardmullin.com/-- is a full
service AmLaw 100 firm with 550 attorneys in 11 offices located in
the United States and Asia. Since 1927, companies have turned to
Sheppard Mullin to handle corporate and technology matters, high
stakes litigation and complex financial transactions.  In the
U.S., the firm's clients include more than half of the Fortune
100.


* Hagens Berman Opens New Office in Washington D.C.
---------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro announced the opening of a Washington,
D.C. office that will be led by class-action attorney Jennifer
Fountain Connolly, Of Counsel at HBSS.

HBSS Managing Partner Steve Berman views Washington, D.C. as the
next logical step in building out HBSS' growing national presence.

"Washington, D.C. represents a significant opportunity for the
firm to expand its reach," Mr. Berman said. "The new office will
also make it easier for us to work more closely with clients in
the area. It's our intent to place offices wherever we think we
can best help our clients' interests."

HBSS currently has offices in Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago,
Phoenix and San Francisco.

Ms. Connolly's practice focuses on pharmaceutical pricing fraud
cases, qui tam litigation and antitrust class actions.

"HBSS is extremely excited to have someone with Jennifer's deep
experience in antitrust law and class action litigation on board,"
Mr. Berman said. "She will play a critical role in expanding the
firm's presence in Washington, D.C."

Ms. Connolly was a key member of the HBSS-led team that
successfully tried the Average Wholesale Price litigation against
four pharmaceutical companies, obtaining a verdict that was
subsequently affirmed in all respect by the First Circuit Court of
Appeals.

"I'm honored to get this chance to head up Hagens Berman's newest
office," Ms. Connolly said. "I look forward to working with the
firm's clients in the D.C. area and expanding our presence there."

Ms. Connolly has experience leading antitrust practices and has
held leadership positions in numerous complex class actions,
including In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation as interim co-
lead counsel for indirect purchasers; In re Live Concert Antitrust
Litigation as co-lead counsel, and In re Actimmune Marketing
Litigation as a member of the Interim Executive Committee.

The Washington, D.C. office is located at 1629 K Street N.W.

HBSS has tackled numerous antitrust and class-action cases over
the years. Some of the firm's current antitrust cases include:
Aaron Wagner v. Sony, Toshiba, Hitachi and other consumer
electronics companies, a class-action suit that alleges several
consumer-electronics companies manipulated the prices of optical
disk drives; Allen Hale v. Guitar Center, a class-action suit that
alleges Guitar Center conspired to fix pricing on fretted
instruments; and Geoffrey Pecover and Jeffrey Lawrence v.
Electronic Arts Inc., a class-action suit that alleges the video-
game giant engaged in unlawful and anticompetitive agreements that
nearly doubled the price of its popular and ubiquitous Madden NFL
game.

Seattle, Wash.-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com/-- is a consumer-rights class-action law
firm with offices in San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles,
Phoenix and Washington, D.C.  The firm was founded in 1993.


* Sarasota Firm Mulls Suit Over Unfair Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Todd Ruger, writing for The Herald Tribune in Sarasota, Fla.,
reports that Gulfcoast Legal Services is working with people who
have been dumped from loan modification programs, and is preparing
to file its class-action lawsuit alleging unfair collection
practices.

In hopes of saving their homes, troubled homeowners in the
Sarasota area worked out deals with their lenders to reduce their
monthly mortgage payments.  The idea was to prove their commitment
to avoiding foreclosure by paying what they could to keep money
flowing to the lender.  But after paying for months, local
attorneys say, homeowners have been told that, despite having a
signed contract, the lender would foreclose anyway.

The companies are backing out and simply foreclosing when it
better suits their bottom line, attorneys say.

Gulfcoast Legal Services -- http://www.gulfcoastlegal.org/-- is a
non-profit corporation providing free legal aid to income eligible
residents of the greater Tampa Bay area.  GLS has offices in
Pinellas, Manatee, Sarasota and Hillsborough Counties.  GLS also
provides immigration services to residents of Pasco County as well
as in the other four counties where it has offices.

                           *********

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.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda, Rousel Elaine Fernandez,
Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline
Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2010.  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  * * *