---

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

          Wednesday, September 8, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 177

                             Headlines

APOLLO GROUP: Receives Copy of "Gaer" Complaint
ARES CAPITAL: Awaits Court Approval of Settlement Agreement
ATLAS ENERGY: Defends Merger-Related Consolidated Suit
AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over Presence of Lyme Disease
BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Seeks Sanctions Against Class Action Lawyers

BURGER KING: Franchisees File Consolidated Class Action Complaint
CALIFORNIA: Antioch Section 8 Lawsuit to Proceed as Class Action
CANADA: Second G20 Class Action Lawsuit Seeks $115 Million
CHARLES SCHWAB: Hagens Berman Files Class Action in California
CHINA-BIOTICS: Rosen Firm Prepares to File Class Action

DENIRO MARKETING: Sued Over Fraudulent Adult Dating Web Sites
DOW CHEMICAL: 10th Circuit Throws Out $926 Million Award
EASTMAN KODAK: Court Approves $21.4 Million Class Suit Settlement
EMPLOYERS MUTUAL: Judge Certifies Class Suit Filed by Chiropractor
FORTUNE HI TECH: Faces Class Action Seeking Refund

GENERAL GROWTH: Reaches $5.75MM Settlement Over 401(k) Plan Losses
GOOGLE INC: Settles Class Suit Over Buzz Feature for $8.5 Million
GREEN COUNTY: 6th Circuit Rejects Suit Over Absentee Ballots
HELIOS FUND: Continues to Defend Suits Filed by Investors
HELIOS FUND: Faces ERISA-Related Suit in Tennessee

HOT TOPIC: Faces Suit by Employee in California
INTERMUNE: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Marketing Claims
JDS UNIPHASE: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Agreement
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Class Action
MISSOURI: Judge Dismisses Class Suit Over Red-Light Traffic Fines

NATIONAL CITY: Inks $22.5 Million Settlement With Noteholders
NEW JERSEY: Faces Class Suit by Immigrants Denied FamilyCare
NUFARM LTD: Shareholders Likely to Launch Class Action
NY NIGHT CLUBS: 2nd Circuit Says "Ladies' Night" Promos Are Legal
PLASTICS ADDITIVES: Four Defendants Win Ruling; Plaintiffs Mum

QC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Suit in Missouri
QC HOLDINGS: Consumer Suit in N.C. in Preliminary Stages
QC HOLDINGS: Reaches Agreement to Settle "Ferrell" Suit
RAYMOND JAMES: Judge Dismisses Most Claims in Auction-Rate Suit
RED HAT: Court Approval of Settlement Agreement Still Pending

RED LILY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Wind Farm Proximity
SEARS HOLDINGS: Court Okay of "Levie" Appeal Settlement Pending
SIGMA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Possible Shareholder Class Action
SPRINT: Judge Refuses to Stop Arbitration Between Lakin & Weiss
SYNGENTA CORP: Judge Crowder Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action

THRESHOLD PHARMA: Court Gives Final Nod to Settlement Agreement
TUESDAY MORNING: Stay on Non-exempt Employees' Lawsuit Lifted
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Defends Marketing & Sales Practice Litigation
WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

                             *********

APOLLO GROUP: Receives Copy of "Gaer" Complaint
-----------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc., disclosed that on Aug. 31, 2010, it has
received a copy of a complaint in a purported class action lawsuit
naming Apollo Group and several current senior executives as
defendants.

The complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona, alleges that Apollo Group and the other named
defendants made materially false and misleading statements between
Dec. 7, 2009 and Aug. 3, 2010 about Apollo Group and its business
in violation of federal securities laws, and that these statements
artificially inflated the trading price of the Apollo common stock
to the detriment of shareholders who purchased shares during that
time.  Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for the purported
class.

Apollo Group says that it takes its disclosure obligations very
seriously.

The complaint is captioned, Douglas N. Gaer v. Apollo Group, Inc.,
John Sperling, Gregory W. Cappelli, Charles B. Edelstein, Gregory
J. Iverson, Joseph L. D'Amico and Brian L. Swartz, according to
the company's Aug. 31, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Apollo Group, Inc. -- http://www.apollogrp.edu/-- is one of the
world's largest private education providers and has been in the
education business for more than 35 years.  The company offers
innovative and distinctive educational programs and services both
online and on-campus at the high school, undergraduate, master's
and doctoral levels through its subsidiaries: University of
Phoenix, Apollo Global, Institute for Professional Development,
College for Financial Planning and Meritus University.  The
company's programs and services are provided in 40 states and the
District of Columbia; Puerto Rico; Canada; Latin America; and
Europe, as well as online throughout the world (data as of May 31,
2010).


ARES CAPITAL: Awaits Court Approval of Settlement Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ares Capital Corporation awaits the approval of a settlement
agreement resolving three suits over its merger with Allied
Capital Corporation, according to the company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On April 1, 2010, the company consummated its acquisition of
Allied Capital Corporation, in an all stock merger where each
existing share of common stock of Allied Capital was exchanged for
0.325 shares of the company's common stock.

A number of lawsuits have been filed in the Maryland state courts
and the federal and Superior Court for the District of Columbia by
stockholders of Allied Capital challenging the Allied Acquisition.
These include:

     (1) In re Allied Capital Corporation Shareholder
         Litigation, Case No. 322639V (Circuit Court for
         Montgomery County, Maryland);

     (2) Sandler v. Walton, et al., Case No. 2009 CA 008123 B
         (Superior Court for the District of Columbia), which
         was consolidated with Wienecki v. Allied Capital
         Corporation, et al., Case No. 2009 CA 008541 B
         (Superior Court for the District of Columbia); and

     (3) Ryan v. Walton, et al., Case No. 1:10-CV-000145-RMC
         (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia).

The suits were filed after the entry by the company, Allied
Capital and ARCC Odyssey Corp. ("Merger Sub") into the Agreement
and Plan of Merger and the announcement of the Allied Acquisition
on Oct. 26, 2009, either as putative stockholder class actions,
shareholder derivative actions or both.

All of the actions asserted similar claims against the members of
Allied Capital's Board of Directors alleging that the Merger
Agreement was the product of a flawed sales process and that
Allied Capital's directors breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to a structure that was not designed to maximize the
value of Allied Capital's stockholders, by failing to adequately
value and obtain fair consideration for Allied Capital's shares
and by improperly rejecting competing offers by Prospect Capital
Corporation.  They also claimed that the company (and, in several
cases, Merger Sub, and, in several other cases, Allied Capital)
aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.

In addition, in Ryan v. Walton, et al., the plaintiffs also
alleged violations of Rule 14a-9(a) under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  All of the actions demanded, among other things, a
preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the merger and
rescinding the transaction or any part thereof that may be
implemented.

On March 2, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Maryland action, Allied
Capital and the company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the Maryland action on terms and conditions substantially
similar to those set forth in a Stipulation of Settlement dated
March 17, 2010.  Although the company and Allied Capital believed
that the disclosures already provided were thorough and complete,
in connection with the settlement the company and Allied Capital
agreed to make certain additional disclosures that are contained
in the Supplement to the Joint Proxy Statement, dated March 8,
2010, and to pay counsel for the plaintiffs in the Maryland action
certain of their fees and expenses.  The settlement is subject to
final settlement documentation and approval by the Maryland court,
after, among other things, notice is provided to the stockholders
of Allied Capital.

On March 19, 2010, the plaintiffs in the D.C. Federal Court
action, Allied Capital and the company reached an agreement in
principle to settle the D.C. Federal Court action.  On April 15,
2010, the plaintiffs in the D.C. Superior Court action, Allied
Capital and Ares Capital reached an agreement in principle to
settle the D.C. Superior Court action.

The D.C. Federal Court action and the D.C. Superior Court action
were stayed on March 22, 2010 and March 26, 2010, respectively, in
contemplation of dismissal with prejudice once the settlement of
the Maryland action has been finally approved by the Maryland
court.  The parties to the Maryland action, the D.C. Federal Court
action, and the D.C. Superior Court action have entered into, and
filed with the Maryland court on May 25, 2010, an Amended
Stipulation of Settlement, which provides for, among other things,
settlement of all these actions.

Ares Capital Corp. is a closed-end, non-diversified management
investment company that has elected to be regulated as a business
development company under the Investment Company Act of 1940. A
res Capital is a specialty finance company that provides
integrated debt and equity financing solutions to U.S. middle
market companies.  Ares Capital invests primarily in first and
second lien loans and mezzanine debt, which in some cases includes
an equity component.  To a lesser extent, Ares Capital also makes
equity investments. Ares Capital is externally managed by Ares
Capital Management LLC, an affiliate of Ares Management LLC, a
global alternative asset manager and a Securities and Exchange
Commission registered investment adviser.  As of June 30, 2010,
Ares Management had approximately $37 billion of committed capital
under management.


ATLAS ENERGY: Defends Merger-Related Consolidated Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Energy, Inc., defend a consolidated action arising out of
the merger of Atlas America, Inc. and Atlas Energy Resources, LLC,
according to the company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

On April 27, 2009, Atlas America, Inc. ("ATLS"), Atlas Energy
Resources, LLC ("ATN") and Atlas Energy Management, Inc. entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which a Delaware
limited liability company to be formed as a wholly owned
subsidiary of ATLS ("Merger Sub") will, subject to the terms and
conditions of the Merger Agreement, merge with and into ATN, with
ATN continuing as the surviving company and a wholly owned
subsidiary of ATLS.

Following the announcement of the Merger, five purported class
actions were filed in Delaware Chancery Court and were later
consolidated into a single complaint, In re Atlas Energy
Resources, LLC Unitholder Litigation, C.A. No. 4589-VCN filed on
July 1, 2009.  The Consolidated Complaint named the company and
ATN's various officers and directors as defendants, alleged
violations of fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, and
requested injunctive relief and damages.

In October 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint.  Subsequently, in December 2009,
plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint.

Pursuant to the Delaware Chancery Court's January 2010 Scheduling
Stipulation and Order, Defendants filed their opening brief in
support of their motion to dismiss on Feb. 18, 2010 and plaintiffs
filed their brief in opposition on May 3, 2010.  Defendants filed
a reply brief on June 11, 2010 and oral argument was held on the
motion on July 20, 2010.  The Court has not yet ruled on the
motion.

The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants breached their
purported fiduciary duties to ATN's public unitholders in
connection with their negotiation of the Merger.  In particular,
plaintiffs allege that the Merger was not entirely fair to ATN's
public unitholders, and that Defendants conducted the Merger
process in bad faith.

Atlas Energy, Inc. -- http://www.atlasenergy.com/-- is one of the
largest independent natural gas producers in the Appalachian and
Michigan Basins and a leading producer in the Marcellus Shale in
Pennsylvania.  Atlas Energy, Inc. is also the country's largest
sponsor and manager of tax-advantaged energy investment
partnerships.  Atlas Energy also owns 1.1 million common units and
8,000 preferred units in Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P. and a 64%
controlling interest in Atlas Pipeline Holdings.


AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over Presence of Lyme Disease
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Age reports a Sydney woman will launch a class action against
New South Wales health authorities after autopsy results showed
her husband was riddled with a disease the Health Department says
does not exist in Australia.

The results from Karl McManus, 44 -- who died in July after being
bitten by a tick while filming the television show Home and Away
in northern Sydney -- indicate he had bacteria from Lyme disease
in his liver, heart, kidney and lungs.

Tissue samples will now be sent to the University of Sydney and to
laboratories in the US for more testing. "If there is duplication
of results, the government cannot dispute [that Lyme exists in
Australia]," his wife, Mualla Akinci, said.

Mr. McManus, from Turramurra, was originally diagnosed with
multifocal neuropathy after testing negative at an Australian
laboratory for Lyme disease, but another two tests carried out in
the US and Germany returned positive.

NSW Health maintains that the organisms which cause Lyme disease
-- three species of the genus borrelia -- are not carried here by
wildlife, livestock or their parasites. It says anyone with the
illness must have caught it overseas. Ms. Akinci is adamant Mr.
McManus was bitten by a Lyme-infested tick in Waratah Park.

Ms. Akinci has already garnered support from two other sufferers
and hopes more people join the class action.

"The government bases its opinion on one tick study which is
nearly 20 years old," she said. "No research has been done since
then, so how can they take that as gospel?"

She also plans to sue Hornsby Hospital, where her husband spent
several weeks before his death, and will appeal a decision by the
Health Care Complaints Commission not to investigate his treatment
there.

A claim for workers' compensation was rejected by insurer
Employers Mutual, but lawyers will lodge an appeal once further
medical reports are prepared, Ms. Akinci said.


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Seeks Sanctions Against Class Action Lawyers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bandell at The South Florida Business Journal reports
BankAtlantic Bancorp is seeking sanctions against class action
attorneys, saying they used false witness statements, even as a
judge ruled that Chairman and CEO Alan Levan made a false
statement.

Clearly, tensions in the case are boiling as an Oct. 6 trial
nears.

The shareholder class action lawsuit accuses the Fort Lauderdale-
based company and officials, including Mr. Levan, of misleading
investors about the severity of the problems in its loan
portfolio.

After losing $71.7 million in the first six months of this year,
BankAtlantic (NYSE: BBX) is trying to avoid sacrificing more
capital in this case.


BURGER KING: Franchisees File Consolidated Class Action Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Sparks at Blue MauMau reports the National Franchisee
Association and certain individual franchisees recently filed
their consolidated class action complaint in Florida federal
court. The lawsuit alleges that Burger King has acted or refused
to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that
declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.
It states that common questions of law and fact exist as to all
class members, as to what extent the class members are obligated
by the franchise agreements to abide by Burger King's directive
setting and mandating maximum prices, especially when that price
is at or below what cost the franchisees to produce and sell.

Last week, Burger King agreed to sell its company stock to New
York private equity firm 3G Capital for a price of $3.26 billion,
including the assumption of debt. This will be the second time in
eight years that the number two burger chain has been taken
private.

Under the terms of the definitive agreement, which has been
unanimously approved by Burger King's board of directors,
stockholders will receive $24 in cash per share for all
outstanding shares of its common stock, representing a 46% premium
to the company's unaffected share price before recent market
rumors. In a press release, Burger King said 3G Capital has
obtained committed financing to purchase all outstanding shares
and refinance existing indebtedness. They expect the transaction
to close in the fourth quarter of this calendar year.


CALIFORNIA: Antioch Section 8 Lawsuit to Proceed as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Burgarino at Contra Costa Times reports all African-American
residents of the city who receive Section 8 housing aid can join a
class-action discrimination suit, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

The action adds about 1,000 people to a lawsuit originally filed
on behalf of five women who claimed that the police department's
Community Action Team had discriminated against them.

The certification of the class-action suit includes all African-
Americans "who have held, currently hold, or may hold Section 8
vouchers and all members of their households, who reside or will
reside in Antioch," U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong
said in Thursday's ruling.

Only four of the claims, however, are entitled to receive money
from a jury verdict, Judge Armstrong said.

Bay Area Legal Aid sued in May 2008 on behalf of five African-
American women receiving Section 8 assistance who accused the
police department's Community Action Team, or CAT, of racial
discrimination. The American Civil Liberties Union and three other
Bay Area civil rights groups later sought class-action status for
all Section 8 recipients in Antioch.

[Last] week's decision is encouraging because it allows much more
testimony for the jury to consider about Antioch's policing
practices and to show a broad pattern of discriminatory behavior,
said Brad Seligman, an attorney for the civil rights group, The
Impact Fund.

"Our goal is to get some protection for these families. They
should not be targeted for the sole reason that they are on
Section 8," Mr. Seligman said. Some of the action team's alleged
behavior, such as showing up unannounced at homes or making
threatening reports, is totally improper, he said.

The police CAT unit was formed in 2006 to address residents'
complaints about neighborhood crime and "persistent nuisance,
health and safety issues," according to the city.

The suit sought damages of $4,000 per resident and a permanent
injunction against the police to prohibit harassment or
intimidation of Section 8 residents.

Armstrong's rejection of a larger damages claim was a victory for
Antioch, said City Attorney Lynn Tracy Nerland.

That decision, along with a federal jury verdict Thursday against
an Antioch resident who claimed discrimination affirms that the
city's community policing programs "were and continue to be
appropriate, unbiased attempts to address crime and neighborhood
problems," Ms. Nerland said.

Onita Tuggles, a Section 8 recipient, claimed that police should
not have reported to the Contra Costa Housing Authority criminal
activities involving residents in her house.

"We look forward to another favorable jury verdict," Ms. Nerland
said. The two cases are almost identical, she said.

Section 8 is a federal rental-housing subsidy program for low-
income people administered by the Housing Authority of Contra
Costa County.

Antioch has approximately 1,900 Section 8 rental units. Of those,
about 93 percent have never had a police visit, the city said in
January.

A trial date has not been set, Ms. Nerland said.


CANADA: Second G20 Class Action Lawsuit Seeks $115 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports two people who were jailed during June's G20
summit in Toronto have launched a $115-million class-action
lawsuit against the Toronto Police Services Board, federal
Attorney General Rob Nicholson and the Peel Police Services Board.

Mike Barber and Miranda McQuade, both of Toronto, are acting as
representative plaintiffs for the approximately 1,150 people who
were detained, arrested and incarcerated at a temporary detention
centre in Toronto's east end after police clamped down on
demonstrators during the summit.

The suit was filed Thursday at the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice in Toronto and also includes business owners whose
property was vandalized.

The plaintiffs said in a statement of claim that they launched the
suit to have the court declare that their constitutional and civil
rights were violated, and denounce the conduct of the authorities
during the G20 summit.

They also want to, among other things:

    * Ensure that democratic rights and fundamental freedoms in
      the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be exercised
      by everyone without fear of detention, arrest, harassment.

    * Deter the defendants and any other public authority from
      acting in a manner that arbitrarily limits people's
      democratic and constitutional rights.

    * Bring the practices of public authorities into line with the
      charter and common law.

Ms. McQuade was arrested on June 26 during a peaceful
demonstration at Queen's Park.  She was strip-searched and
detained for 18 hours at the makeshift detention centre on Eastern
Avenue before being released, the claim stated. Mr. Barber took
part in another demonstration the same day and was arrested,
detained and released without being charged after 18.5 hours.

The class-action lawsuit is the second one in less than a month.

In a separate lawsuit that's seeking $45 million, Sherry Good is
acting as the representative plaintiff for more than 800 people
who claim they were wrongfully arrested during the G20 summit.
That one filed Aug. 6 is against the Toronto Police Services Board
and the federal attorney general.

The $115-million action has yet to be certified and none of the
allegations contained in the statement of claim has been tested or
proven.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Hagens Berman Files Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP disclosed it filed a class-action
lawsuit Friday against Charles Schwab & Co. on behalf of investors
who owned shares in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund as of
Nov. 30, 2006.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, accuses San Francisco-based Charles Schwab
& Co. of causing the fund to deviate from its fundamental business
objective to track the Lehman Brothers U.S. Aggregate Bond Index.

"We intend to prove that Charles Schwab caused investors to suffer
losses when it began investing in volatile, high-risk mortgage-
backed securities without informing shareholders or seeking
shareholder approval through a vote, which the company was
obligated to do, according to the fund's prospectus," Hagens
Berman Managing Partner and plaintiffs' attorney Steve Berman
said.

The plaintiffs contend that the fund deviated from its stated
investment objective by investing a material percentage of its
portfolio in high-risk, non-agency collateralized mortgage
obligations, or CMOs, which were not part of the Lehman Bros. U.S.
Aggregate Bond Index, according to the complaint.

Plaintiffs attorneys also contend that the fund deviated from its
stated fundamental investment objective by investing more than 25
percent of its total assets in non-agency mortgage-backed
securities and CMOs, the suit alleges.

Schwab's deviation from the fund's primary investment objective
led to tens of millions of dollars in shareholder losses due to a
long-term decline in the value of non-agency mortgage-backed
securities, the lawsuit contends.

Plaintiffs' attorneys believe that the fund's deviation from its
stated investment objective caused investors to experience a
negative 12.64 percent differential in total return for the fund
compared to the Lehman Bros. U.S. Aggregate Bond Index from
Aug. 31, 2007 to Feb. 27, 2009, the lawsuit contends. During that
period, the suit states, the fund's shareholders suffered a
negative total return of 4.8 percent, compared to a positive total
return of 7.85 percent for the Lehman Bros. U.S. Aggregate Bond
Index.

The suit accuses Charles Schwab & Co. of violations of the
California Business & Professions Code.

Plaintiffs have asked the court to award restitution to all class
members, to order Charles Schwab & Co. to return any management or
other fees collected after the fund's alleged deviation from its
fundamental business objectives and to order Charles Schwab & Co.
to cover the class' legal costs.

A separate action was previously filed against Schwab by other
counsel, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently remanded
that case back to district court, ruling the plaintiff could not
pursue its claim under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

However, Hagens Berman has had previous success against Charles
Schwab & Co. by suing under California's strict consumer
protection laws. In April, Charles Schwab agreed to a $235 million
settlement with plaintiffs represented by Hagens Berman in a civil
class-action lawsuit related to the Schwab YieldPlus Fund.
Investors accused the managers of the fund of investing in overly
risky mortgage-related structured debt.

"We filed this action under California state law, which clearly
protects investor rights," Berman said. "We believe this will
better represent the interests of our clients and other Schwab
investors."

Seattle-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. Founded in 1993, HBSS continues to
successfully fight for consumer rights in large, complex
litigation.


CHINA-BIOTICS: Rosen Firm Prepares to File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm disclosed Friday that it has commenced an
investigation into allegations that China-Biotics, Inc., may have
violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading statements to investors about its business and
financial condition.

Recently, market commentators have published reports questioning
the truth of China-Biotics' disclosures about the nature, quality,
and number of the Company's retail outlets.  Additionally, a
recent report calls into question the veracity of China Biotics'
financial statements filed with the SEC for the fiscal years ended
2007 and 2008; China Biotics' financial statements filed with the
SEC report much higher revenue, income, and assets than the
financial statements filed by China Biotics' main operating
subsidiary Shanghai Shining Biotechnology Co., Ltd. with the China
State Administration for Industry and Commerce.

As a result of these allegations, the Rosen Law Firm is preparing
a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who suffered losses
purchasing China-Biotics stock.

You may access the Web site at http://www.rosenlegal.com/to
participate in the proposed class action.

If you purchased China-Biotics securities and would like further
information concerning your legal rights or your ability to
recover your investment losses, please contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
          Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: 212-686-1060
                     917-797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Facsimile: 212-202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com


DENIRO MARKETING: Sued Over Fraudulent Adult Dating Web Sites
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that a RICO class
action claims operators of Web sites billed as "the world's
sexiest adult dating community" use "fake user profiles" to lure
men into paying for its "fraudulent service."  The class says the
two men who run the "Internet empire," Alan Henning and Thomas
Jones, both live in California.

The class also sued Deniro Marketing, of California; Modena
Marketing, of Antigua and Barbados; Piranha New Media of the
United Kingdom; Deltabreeze Holdings, of Cyprus; and Pen Help, of
the United Kingdom, all of them allegedly run by Henning and/or
Jones.

The class claims the defendants "own and operate a massive and
complex Internet empire, the core of which consists of fraudulent
'adult dating' websites."

The six named plaintiffs say the defendants' primary website is
called amateurmatch.com, which promises to find sex partners for
"erotic email or cyber sex, erotic photo exchange, and other
sexual activities, including discreet relationships or casual sex,
group Sex (3 or more), just naughty fun!, voyeurism and 1-on-1
sex."

The "AmateurMatch Enterprise" emulates real dating services, but
is a scam "built upon a huge database of fake user profiles
designed to deceive consumers into paying to join and continue
using its fraudulent service," the plaintiffs say.

The plaintiffs -- all men -- says that after signing up, they did
not get the services they expected, but were bombarded with spam
email and solicitations to pay for more expensive memberships.

They claim AmateurMatch Enterprises hauls in $1 million a month,
without providing any "legitimate services" to members.  The
dating websites controlled by AmateurMatch Enterprise are
"worthless," according to the complaint.

The class claims the defendants' scam consists of a network of
Internet sites that function like a spider web.  People are
attracted to the websites via spam email, pop-up ads or social
networking scams, often featuring "testimonials" from supposed
members like "warpthetool69," who allegedly stated, "Didn't have
to look very far and didn't have to do very much to find my match.
I can't tell you how thankful I am to Amateurmatch."

Victims who agree to accept a supposedly free trial membership are
barraged with bogus messages that claim to be from "real,
attractive and often scantily-clad women" who want to meet them,
the class claims.

"These messages, however, are not from real women; they are
automated messages sent for the purpose of deceiving the consumer
into purchasing a recurring monthly subscription to the dating web
site," the complaint states.

The class claims the defendants keep charging their credit cards
after they cancel their subscription, and the spam email keeps
coming too.

The class seeks treble damages for RICO enterprise, fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, unlawful solicitation by email, and
consumer law violations.

A copy of the Complaint in Badella, et al. v. Deniro Marketing,
LLC, et al., Case No. 10-cv-03908 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/03/FakeDates.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel L. Balsam, Esq.
          GARBARINI LAW GROUP P.C.
          3145 Geary Blvd. #225
          San Francisco, CA 94118
          Telephone: 415-869-2873

               - and -

          Richard M. Garbarini, Esq.
          GARBARINI LAW GROUP P.C.
          501 Fifth Ave., Suite 1708
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-300-5358


DOW CHEMICAL: 10th Circuit Throws Out $926 Million Award
--------------------------------------------------------
The Denver Post staff and wire reports relate the $926 million
award to as many as 15,000 property owners living downwind of the
now-defunct Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant was thrown out
Friday by a federal appeals court.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled that a jury
in February 2006 reached its decision on faulty instructions that
incorrectly stated the law. The appeals court tossed the jury
verdict and sent the case back to the District Court.

The three-judge panel said the owners of 12,000 properties in the
class-action area had not proved their properties were damaged or
they suffered bodily injury from plutonium that blew onto their
properties.

The judges wrote that under the law, the presence of plutonium on
properties south of the Jefferson County plant, which closed in
1989 for safety and environmental reasons, at best shows only a
risk -- not actual damages to their health or properties.

The panel said since the jury was not properly instructed as to
the damage threshold, "on remand, Plaintiffs will be tasked with
producing additional evidence that could support that a nuclear
incident occurred, in the form of 'loss of or damage to property
or loss of use of property.'"

Decreased property values could not be counted as damage, the
court ruled.

U.S. District Judge John L. Kane, who presided over the four-month
jury trial and entered the final judgment in June 2008, said
Friday night that he was unaware of the appeals court's decision
and declined to comment.

Attorney Steve Kelly, who represented the homeowners, and attorney
Chris Landau, who represented the contractors, could not be
reached for comment.

Plaintiff Marilyn Cook declined to comment as she waited for
details of the decision.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 1993.

The jury, after three weeks of deliberation, found that the
contractors that operated the plant for the U.S. Department of
Energy, Dow Chemical Co. and the former Rockwell International
Corp. damaged properties downwind of the plant through negligence.

Dow Chemical operated Rocky Flats for the government from the
1950s until 1975; Rockwell ran it from 1975 until 1989.

An original award of $176.8 million was compounded at 8 percent
interest over 18 years by Kane's order in 2008. Exemplary damages
from Dow and Rockwell were added, bringing the total to nearly $1
billion.

Dow spokesman Scot Wheeler said the company "supports the appeals
court's thorough review of the record and recognition of the
applicable law as applied to the facts in this case."

"From the outset of this case 20 years ago, Dow has claimed that
there has been no harm to property owners and no damage to
property values," he said. "Dow's position regarding the health
effects has been supported by independent panels and state and
federal governmental agencies."

Both Dow and Rockwell were indemnified by the federal government
in the case, meaning taxpayers would ultimately pay any judgment
and the companies' legal fees.

The site, northwest of Denver, is now a national wildlife refuge.


EASTMAN KODAK: Court Approves $21.4 Million Class Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dickinson at Rochester Business Journal reports a federal
judge on Friday approved a $21.4 million settlement of class-
action lawsuits filed by black employees against Eastman Kodak Co.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Feldman approved the settlement
after some seven years of litigation.

The company and Employees Committed for Justice, an organization
of black current and former employees of Kodak, jointly announced
in July an agreement to settle the pending litigation. The
settlement was subject to court approval.

The agreement resolves two cases filed in U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York, the first dating back to 2004
and the second to 2007. The parties agreed to completely resolve
the issues between them and to dismiss all pending legal actions.
The parties also recognized the settlement does not suggest any
wrongdoing on the part of Kodak.

Under the terms of the agreement, Kodak will establish a
settlement fund of $21.4 million that will be used for payments to
the plaintiffs and class members, as well as attorneys' fees,
litigation costs, and claims administration costs. Kodak also
agreed to conduct an examination of its policies relating to
certain employment practices and to engage outside experts who
will make recommendations for improvement.

Kodak had been accused of engaging in "an ongoing pattern and
practice of discrimination against its African American
employees," Feldman wrote in the order. The allegations included
discrimination in compensation, promotions, wage classifications
and job assignments, along with harassment/hostile work
environment, and retaliation.

Kodak spokesman David Lanzillo provided a statement Friday saying
the company was pleased the matter has been resolved.

"It's important to note that this settlement represents a
resolution of mutual interest. It absolutely does not suggest any
wrongdoing on the part of Kodak," the statement says. "The court,
in its decision, acknowledged the many challenges that plaintiffs
faced in pursuing this litigation.

"Kodak is widely recognized as a company committed to creating and
maintaining an inclusive workplace, in which all employees are
valued, treated fairly, and can contribute to their full
potential. We look forward to focusing our efforts on continuing
to strengthen our operating performance, and will continue to
foster a workplace marked by fairness, dignity and respect."


EMPLOYERS MUTUAL: Judge Certifies Class Suit Filed by Chiropractor
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris at The Madison County Record reports Madison County
Circuit Judge Daniel Stack certified a LakinChapman class action
against Employers Mutual Casualty on Aug. 16.

Illinois health care providers who treated workers compensation
patients may belong to the class if Employers reduced payments
before reimbursing them.

Judge Stack appointed chiropractor Frank Bemis as class
representative.

He appointed LakinChapman and the Campbell & McGrady firm as class
counsel.

"The attorneys from LakinChapman LLC have regularly engaged in
major complex litigation of the size, scope, and complexity
similar to this case and have successfully prosecuted and settled
many and varied class actions and other complex litigation," Judge
Stack wrote.

Mr. Bemis sued Employers in 2005, just before the effective date
of a reform law that steered most new class actions to federal
courts.

Mr. Bemis claimed Employers took discounts through preferred
provider organization First Health but didn't meet an obligation
to steer patients to providers.

Employers filed a third party claim against claims processor Fair
Isaac, seeking indemnity and contribution.

Employers offered Mr. Bemis $48 to settle his claim, and he turned
it down.

Andrew Kuhlmann, Esq., of LakinChapman wrote, "In addition to
reimbursement of all PPO reductions, plaintiff requests an award
of attorney's fees under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act."
"Moreover, discovery may establish that there are additional First
health PPO reductions that Employers took from plaintiff
improperly," he wrote.

Judge Stack held a class certification hearing in April and
reached a decision in four months.

He set the class period to start on Feb. 1, 2004.

"Employers used the same process to re-price medical bills for
Illinois workers compensation claims during the class period,"
Judge Stack wrote.

"Employers employed a systematic, automatic, and uniform process
to take PPO discounts on medical bills relating to Illinois worker
compensations," he wrote.

Ted Harvey, Esq., of Belleville represents Employers.

Richard Lageson, Esq., of Clayton represents Fair Isaac.


FORTUNE HI TECH: Faces Class Action Seeking Refund
--------------------------------------------------
Adam Walser at WHAS11.com reports a Kentucky multi-level marketing
company has been served with a federal class-action lawsuit.

Fortune Hi Tech Marketing has already been sanctioned by two
states, which served it with cease and desist orders.

Agreements have been reached in both of those cases, but now four
former members have filed a class action lawsuit, questioning
Fortune's business practices and asking a judge to refund all of
its members' money.

At Rupp Arena in Lexington, more than 5,000 people showed up this
week for Fortune Fest, the company's annual convention.

While nobody knows exactly how big FHTM is, since it is a
privately held company, some former members have told WHAS-TV it
has 200,000 members and revenues of $500 Million a year. The
company says it makes its money marketing well-known products.

"It's just great. It's a wonderful company to be a part of," said
Donna Rauls of Arkansas. She says she is not yet making much money
as a FHTM rep.

The 156-page class action suit named FHTM and 37 of its top
managers.  The complaint says Fortune Hi Tech Marketing is a
fraudulent pyramid scheme and refers to "the fortune pyramid"
dozens of times.  It alleges the company's business model is based
primarily on continued recruitment, with members each paying
around $299 to join and then paying hundreds of dollars each year
in other fees.

"Once you make Executive, and I think that's when you have a
hundred people, so many of these people have to be Regional
Directors," said Fortune representative Chris Bailey of Indiana,
in describing a FHTM bonus program. "Then if you get 24 people
four of the next 6 months, then you get the Lexis."

In the complaint, it alleges most sales are to Fortune members
themselves of other members of the Fortune pyramid.

Former Kentucky Attorney General Chris Gorman is Fortune's legal
advisor.

"The best thing and the fairest thing for everybody is to try the
case in the court and that's what we intend to do. We intend to
fight this case vigorously," Mr. Gorman said.

Mr. Gorman points out that Dish Network was giving a presentation
at Fortune Fest, disputing the lawsuit's claim that fortune
doesn't have a sales partnership with dish.

He says cease and desist lawsuits are now settled.

"Today, we're doing business in Montana. Montana does not think
we're a pyramid. Otherwise they would not let us do business,"
said Mr. Gorman.

As part of that settlement, FHTM was required to release their
actual average compensation figures, which show that 94-percent of
Fortune representatives earned less than $3,000 a year and less
than half of one percent earned more than $30,000.

If the plaintiffs win the suit and the judge declares a class,
tens of thousands of people could be eligible for refunds.


GENERAL GROWTH: Reaches $5.75MM Settlement Over 401(k) Plan Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------
David McLaughlin at Bloomberg News reports General Growth
Properties Inc., the second-largest U.S. mall owner, reached a
$5.75 million settlement resolving a lawsuit against the company
over losses in its 401(k) savings plan.

The settlement will be paid out of an insurance policy and will
resolve a class-action complaint filed against the company in
Illinois, General Growth said in a court filing in U.S. Bankruptcy
Court in Manhattan.

The agreement, which requires court approval, is in the "best
interests" of General Growth and its creditors because the Chicago
company will get a release of all claims in the lawsuit without
having to pay for the settlement, it said.

General Growth filed for bankruptcy last year and is set to seek
court approval next month for its restructuring plan. Before the
bankruptcy, it was sued by individuals on behalf of participants
in its 401(k) plan, according to court papers. Current and former
officers, directors and employees were also sued. The cases were
later consolidated.

The case is In re General Growth Properties Inc., Case No.
09-11977, (S.D.N.Y)


GOOGLE INC: Settles Class Suit Over Buzz Feature for $8.5 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chloe Albanesius at PCMag.com reports Google has reached a
settlement on a class-action suit regarding its Buzz social-
networking feature.

The company agreed to pay $8.5 million, which -- after attorneys'
fees and expenses are covered -- will be donated to Internet
privacy and education organizations.

The case dates back to February, when two law firms filed suit
against Google in California district court on behalf of 24-year-
old Harvard Law School student Eva Hibnick. "They opted me into
this social network and I didn't want it," she said at the time.

Google introduced Buzz in February. It added a "news feed" feature
to Gmail and was also incorporated into Google's mobile offering
on Android phones and the iPhone. Amidst concerns over what
information was displayed publicly, however, Google soon tweaked
Buzz to give user more control over their settings. This did not
appease all users, however, and a class-action suit was born.

According to court filings, Google held a formal meeting at its
headquarters April 21 with attorneys from the opposing side. After
a day-long discussion about Buzz and the class members' concerns,
both sides agreed to a formal mediation. They met again on June 2
and after a 14-hour discussion, agreed on a settlement.

The agreement is three-fold. First, it acknowledges that Google
has made the appropriate changes to Buzz, and privacy threats no
longer exist.

Second, it requires Google to be more active in its Buzz-related
public education efforts. The plaintiffs will be able to submit
recommendations to Google about what it feels should be done, but
Google will craft its own response and submit the formal plan to
the court within 90 days.

Finally, Google will create an $8.5 million settlement fund, which
-- after fees -- will go toward "existing organizations focused on
Internet privacy policy or privacy education."

The settlement was announced the same day Google said it will
simplify its privacy policies, effective October. 3.


GREEN COUNTY: 6th Circuit Rejects Suit Over Absentee Ballots
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that an appeals
court has rejected a class action by Green County, Ky., voters who
claimed their absentee ballots were unlawfully struck from the
results of a general election.  The voters claimed that a Kentucky
state trial court violated their voting rights when it voided
ballots cast in the 2006 election for the office of Green County
clerk.

In a close contest, incumbent Democratic candidate Carolyn Scott
was initially declared the winner by a margin of 151 votes.

But the trial court later installed Republican challenger Billy
Joe Lowe because it said Scott had attached campaign stickers to
envelopes containing absentee ballots, and put an absentee voting
machine inside her office.

Mr. Lowe won more machine votes but absentee ballots for Scott
totaled 364 to Lowe's 178.  When those ballots were deducted, Mr.
Lowe prevailed by a 35 vote margin.

While United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Judge
Julia Gibbons agreed that the decision to void the votes "resulted
in significant disenfranchisement," she declared that Mr. Lowe's
victory did "rise to the level of fundamental unfairness."

"Because the evidence showed that Scott had opportunities to
influence potential absentee voters, and 'Scott failed to put in
place any appropriate checks and balances,' the absentee ballots
were tainted," the justice said.  "We believe these conclusions to
be reasonable, based on the evidence before the court, and
permissible under Kentucky election law."

Judge Gibbons added that the voiding of the ballots was an
"appropriate remedy" because the trial court "looked to analogous
state cases and applied the careful scrutiny to incumbent county
clerks."  Therefore, the voters' due process rights were not
violated, the judge said.

A copy of the Opinion in Warf, et al. v. Board of Elections of
Green County, Kentucky, et al., No. 09-5265 (6th Cir.), is
available at:

      http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0279p-06.pdf

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Joseph H. Mattingly III, Esq.
          MATTINGLY & NALLY-MARTIN, PLLC
          104 W Main St., PO Box 678
          Lebanon, KY 40033-0678
          Telephone: 270-692-1718

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Bobby H. Richardson, Esq.
          Woodford L. Gardner, Jr., Esq.
          RICHARDSON, GARDNER, BARRICKMAN & ALEXANDER
          117 East Washington St.
          Glasgow, KY 42141-2696
          Telephone: 270-651-8884

               - and -

          Harold M. Johns, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HAROLD M. JOHNS
          12 Public Square
          Elkton, KY 42220
          Telephone: 270-265-2912

               - and -

          Jonathan G. Hieneman, Esq.
          HIENEMAN LAW OFFICE
          319 E Broadway St.
          Campbellsville, KY 42718
          Telephone: 270-469-9737


HELIOS FUND: Continues to Defend Suits Filed by Investors
---------------------------------------------------------
Helios Advantage Income Fund, Inc., Helios High Income Fund, Inc.,
Helios Multi-Sector High Income Fund, Inc., and Helios Strategic
Income Fund, Inc., continue to defend suits filed by investors,
according to the Funds' Aug. 25, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Beginning in late 2007, lawsuits were filed in state and federal
courts in Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Mississippi,
Louisiana, New York and Texas relating to certain fixed income
funds managed by Brookfield Investment Management Inc., including
the Funds.  Certain of the cases were filed as putative class
actions on behalf of investors who purchased shares of the Funds
from December 2004 through February 2008 and other cases were
filed as actions on behalf of one or more individuals or trusts.

The complaints name various entities and individuals as defendants
including, among others, the Funds, the former advisor, Morgan
Asset Management, Inc., Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc., Regions
Financial Corporation and several affiliates, certain former
directors and former officers of the Funds and the Funds' former
portfolio managers.

The complaints generally allege that the defendants misrepresented
or failed to disclose material facts relating to portfolio
composition, fair valuation, liquidity and risk in Fund
registration statements and other documents.  The plaintiffs seek
damages in amounts to be determined at trial and reasonable costs
and, in some cases, attorneys' fees.

Each of the cases is at a preliminary stage.

An answer was filed in a state court case, Burke v. Citigroup
Global Markets, Inc. pending in the circuit court of Jefferson
County, Alabama, on behalf of Helios Multi-Sector High Income
Fund, Inc. and Helios Strategic Income Fund, Inc. which was later
settled.

Other than the Burke case no responses to the complaints have been
filed in the actions pending against the Funds, and no classes
have been certified in any of the putative class actions filed
against the Funds.

Helios Advantage Income Fund, Inc. (formerly RMK Advantage Income
Fund, Inc.), Helios High Income Fund, Inc. (formerly RMK High
Income Fund, Inc.), Helios Multi-Sector High Income Fund, Inc.
(formerly RMK Multi-Sector High Income Fund, Inc.) and Helios
Strategic Income Fund, Inc. (formerly RMK Strategic Income Fund,
Inc.) were organized as separate Maryland corporations on Sept. 7,
2004, April 16, 2003, Nov. 14, 2005 and Jan. 16, 2004,
respectively.  Each Fund is registered under the Investment
Company Act of 1940, as amended (the "1940 Act"), as a
diversified, closed-end management investment company with its own
investment objective.  Effective July 29, 2008, Brookfield
Investment Management, Inc. formerly Hyperion Brookfield Asset
Management, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Brookfield Asset
Management Inc. and a registered investment advisor, became
investment advisor to the Funds.  Prior to July 29, 2008, Morgan
Asset Management, Inc., served as investment advisor to the Funds.


HELIOS FUND: Faces ERISA-Related Suit in Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------
Helios Advantage Income Fund, Inc., Helios High Income Fund, Inc.,
Helios Multi-Sector High Income Fund, Inc., and Helios Strategic
Income Fund, Inc., face a putative class action asserting claims
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
according to the Funds' Aug. 25, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 12, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the Western
District of Tennessee against Morgan Asset Management, Inc.,
Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc., Regions Financial Corporation, MK
Holding, Inc., the Funds, and certain other defendants.

The action purports to assert claims under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, on behalf of all ERISA plans for
which Regions Bank serves or served as trustee, custodian or agent
that owned or held shares of certain investment funds, which are
subject of the multidistrict litigation discussed above.

The Funds, together with certain open-end funds formerly managed
by Brookfield Investment Management Inc., are sued as Nonfiduciary
Parties in Interest, and are alleged to be liable, and subject to
equitable remedies, for allegedly knowingly participating in
breaches of ERISA fiduciary duties by other defendants, or
wrongfully obtaining or receiving assets from the Regions ERISA
Trusts.  Plaintiffs also allege that the Funds are liable for the
conduct of certain other defendants who allegedly acted as agents
of the Funds.

The action seeks equitable remedies, including a constructive
trust or restitution of assets allegedly wrongfully obtained or
received, as well as fees, profits, bonuses, dividends or other
remuneration, together with damages in an amount to be determined
at trial and reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.

Helios Advantage Income Fund, Inc. (formerly RMK Advantage Income
Fund, Inc.), Helios High Income Fund, Inc. (formerly RMK High
Income Fund, Inc.), Helios Multi-Sector High Income Fund, Inc.
(formerly RMK Multi-Sector High Income Fund, Inc.) and Helios
Strategic Income Fund, Inc. (formerly RMK Strategic Income Fund,
Inc.) were organized as separate Maryland corporations on Sept. 7,
2004, April 16, 2003, Nov. 14, 2005 and Jan. 16, 2004,
respectively.  Each Fund is registered under the Investment
Company Act of 1940, as amended (the "1940 Act"), as a
diversified, closed-end management investment company with its own
investment objective.  Effective July 29, 2008, Brookfield
Investment Management, Inc. formerly Hyperion Brookfield Asset
Management, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Brookfield Asset
Management Inc. and a registered investment advisor, became
investment advisor to the Funds.  Prior to July 29, 2008, Morgan
Asset Management, Inc., served as investment advisor to the Funds.


HOT TOPIC: Faces Suit by Employee in California
-----------------------------------------------
Hot Topic, Inc., faces a lawsuit filed by an employee in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, according to
the company's Aug. 20, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 31, 2010.

On July 14, 2010, an employee filed a lawsuit against the company
on behalf of herself and a putative class.  The lawsuit asserts
claims for failure to provide adequate meal or rest breaks,
failure to pay regular and overtime wages, failure to timely pay
wages at end of employment, failure to indemnify employees for
necessary expenditures and unfair business practices.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, restitution, special
damages, statutory penalties, punitive damages, attorneys' fees
and injunctive relief.

Hot Topic, Inc. is a mall and web based specialty retailer
operating the Hot Topic and Torrid concepts, as well as the
e-space music concept, ShockHound.  Hot Topic offers music/pop
culture-licensed and music/pop culture-influenced apparel,
accessories, music and gift items for young men and women
principally between the ages of 12 and 22.  Torrid offers apparel,
lingerie, shoes and accessories designed for various lifestyles
for plus-size females principally between the ages of 15 and 29.
ShockHound -- http://www.shockhound.com/-- is a genre-spanning
music website where people of all ages can purchase MP3s and music
merchandise, share their music interests, read the latest music
news and view exclusive editorial content.


INTERMUNE: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Marketing Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ginny LaRoe at The Recorder reports a suit aiming to hold a drug
maker, its marketer and a former CEO accountable for what
consumers said was illegal marketing has failed even after
prosecutors earlier won a criminal conviction in the matter.

Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice the class
action claim brought on behalf of consumers and their insurers
against defendants including InterMune and its former CEO, Scott
Harkonen, who awaits sentencing in a related criminal case.

The plaintiffs argued the companies illegally marketed the drug
Actimmune for patients suffering from idiopathic pulmonary
fibrosis, a lung disease without a known cure, even though it was
not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for that purpose.
They also claimed that the defendants knew the drug wasn't
effective to treat the ailment but still marketed it to doctors.

What was at the heart of Judge Patel's ruling, prevailing counsel
note, was that plaintiffs failed to show harm or causation.

"It was apparent . . . from the beginning that these claims were
fatally flawed, and Judge Patel slowly but surely dismissed them,"
said defense counsel William Goodman, a partner at San Francisco's
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman.

Plaintiffs' counsel, Thomas Sobol, a partner at Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro in Cambridge, Mass., didn't immediately respond to
messages late Thursday.

"The shortcoming in the consumer plaintiffs' pleadings is simple:
all of the consumer plaintiffs fail to allege that their doctors
believed that Actimmune was an effective treatment for IPF 'as a
result of' defendants' off-label promotion of Actimmune," Judge
Patel wrote in her memorandum and order issued Aug. 31.

The suit, Jarrett v. InterMune , 08-02376, was filed in 2008. In
September 2009, Mr. Harkonen was found guilty in a rare jury trial
in a health-fraud case. The jury convicted him on a single wire
fraud count that dealt with a press release, prepared at the
direction of Mr. Harkonen, which misstated the results of a
clinical trial.

Mr. Goodman said that since the various resulting complaints were
previously consolidated, Patel's ruling should end the civil
litigation.


JDS UNIPHASE: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
gave its final approval to the settlement agreement in the
consolidated action entitled In re JDS Uniphase Corporation ERISA
Litigation, Case No. C-03-4743, according to the company's Aug.
31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended July 3, 2010.

A consolidated action was filed company, certain of its former and
current officers and directors, and certain other current and
former JDSU employees on behalf of a purported class of
participants in the 401(k) Plans of the company and Optical
Coating Laboratory, Inc. and the Plans themselves.

On Oct. 31, 2005, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The
amended complaint alleges that Defendants violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act by breaching their fiduciary duties
to the Plans and the Plans' participants.  The amended complaint
alleges a purported class period from Feb. 4, 2000, to the present
and seeks an unspecified amount of damages, restitution, a
constructive trust, and other equitable remedies.  Certain
individual Defendants' motion to dismiss portions of the amended
complaint was granted with prejudice on June 15, 2006.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 30, 2006.
Defendants answered the complaint on July 6, 2006, and JDSU
asserted counterclaims for breach of contract.  The Court
dismissed those counterclaims on Sept. 11, 2006.

On Dec. 15, 2006, defendants moved for summary judgment on the
ground that the named plaintiffs lacked standing.  On the same
day, plaintiffs moved for class certification.

On April 24, 2007, the Court denied defendants' motion for summary
judgment as to plaintiff Douglas Pettit, deferred ruling on the
motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff Eric Carey, and
deferred ruling on plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Both sides have taken discovery.

Following the verdict for defendants in In re JDS Uniphase
Corporation Securities Litigation, the court in the ERISA action
vacated all existing deadlines, set a schedule for briefing a
summary judgment motion based on collateral estoppel issues, and
stayed discovery pending resolution of that motion.

By Order dated April 17, 2008, the Court modified the briefing
schedule for JDSU's summary judgment motion and ordered the
parties to engage in mediation. Defendants moved for summary
judgment on collateral estoppel issues on May 2, 2008.  The
parties participated in mediation on Oct. 10, 2008, and reached an
agreement in principle to resolve all claims.

On March 3, 2009, the parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding
reflecting the terms of their agreement.

On Sept. 15, 2009, the parties executed a settlement agreement
resolving all claims, subject to the Court's approval.

In light of the settlement agreement, the Court denied JDSU's
summary judgment motion without prejudice.

On Oct. 15, 2009, plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement.

On Nov. 17, 2009, the Court granted that motion, preliminarily
certified a settlement class, ordered plaintiffs to publish and
mail notice of the proposed settlement to class members by Feb.
21, 2010, ordered plaintiffs to move for final approval of the
proposed settlement by April 15, 2010, and scheduled a fairness
hearing on the proposed settlement for April 22, 2010.

At the April 22, 2010 hearing, the Court approved the proposed
settlement.  The Court entered a written order granting final
approval of the settlement agreement on May 4, 2010.

The settlement agreement provides for payment of $3 million to the
plaintiff class, which will be funded by the company's insurance
carrier.  The time to appeal the May 4, 2010 order has expired
with no appeal having been filed.

JDS Uniphase Corp. -- http://www.jdsu.com/-- is a provider of
communications test and measurement solutions and optical products
for telecommunications service providers, cable operators, and
network equipment manufacturers.  In addition, the Company's
optical coatings are used in visual display and decorative product
differentiation applications.  It has four segments: Optical
Communications, Communications Test and Measurement, Advanced
Optical Technologies, and Commercial Lasers.


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Bradenton Herald reports four plaintiffs with ties to a former
beryllium plant in Tallevast have appealed a judge's decision
denying their petition to expand a lawsuit against current owner
Lockheed Martin Corp. into a class action.

On August 31, attorney Ruben Honik appealed Manatee County Circuit
Judge Jannette Dunnigan's Aug. 9 decision to the Second District
Court of Appeal.

Former beryllium plant employee Paul O'Brien and his wife Nancy
O'Brien joined Tallevast residents Wanda Washington and Laura Ward
in the suit, which sought lifetime medical monitoring to make sure
they and others who might have been exposed to beryllium don't
develop chronic beryllium disease.

The suit is one of several filed against Lockheed claiming
personal injury and property damage from exposure to beryllium.

Lockheed Martin purchased the former Loral American Beryllium
Plant at 1600 Tallevast Road in 1996. The company is awaiting
final state approval before continuing remediation of the site,
spokesman Gary Cambre said.

Judge Dunnigan ruled the plaintiffs failed to prove any of the
five requirements for a class action.

In her order, Judge Dunnigan wrote that because not all people
exposed to beryllium have the same likelihood of contracting
chronic beryllium disease, there is no common risk.

"Lockheed Martin is pleased that the Manatee County Circuit Court
has ruled that class certification should not be applied to a
personal injury case brought by plaintiff Washington," a statement
from the company read. "Lockheed Martin is committed to all
residents of the Tallevast community and to cleaning up the
groundwater contamination associated with the former ABC
facility."

The plaintiffs sought to set up three classes in their action.

A community class would include residents who lived within a two-
mile radius of the beryllium plant for at least six months since
1961. A worker class would include employees who worked at the
plant for at least one month since 1961. And a take-home class
would include those who lived with plant workers for at least one
month since 1961.

Neither Honik nor Washington were available for comment Wednesday
last week.


MISSOURI: Judge Dismisses Class Suit Over Red-Light Traffic Fines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports a federal judge has dismissed a
class-action lawsuit that sought the return of about $800,000 in
fines that the city of Springfield collected from its red-light
traffic camera system.

The judge denied the lawsuit's claims that the fines violated
drivers' rights under the U.S. and state constitutions.

The red-light photo traffic enforcement system was taken offline
in March after the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the city's
process of handling contested tickets violated state law. The
court ruled that the city must handle red light camera tickets
through the court system, rather than through administrative
hearings.

Unresolved cases and tickets were dismissed.

But a Springfield attorney, Jason Umbarger, then filed a lawsuit
in state court seeking refunds for about 8,000 red-light runners
who already had paid the $100 fines. A Bolivar law office followed
with the federal class-action lawsuit that eventually named about
four dozen drivers as plaintiffs.

The federal lawsuit was dismissed Friday.

City Manager Greg Burris said he had not yet read the entire
opinion but called it good news.

"As near as I can tell, all of the claims were thrown out ... but
we're not out of the woods," he said, noting that the federal
decision could be appealed and the state class-action lawsuit is
still pending. "Although this ruling may -- underline may --
impact the state class-action suit."

                        Court's Decision

In a separate news article, theNewspaper.com reports Judge Nanette
K. Laughrey dismissed the class action lawsuit that Gregory Mills
had filed against the city of Springfield and Lasercraft, a
private vendor that has since been bought out by American Traffic
Solutions. Mr. Mills argued that because the Missouri Supreme
Court in March struck down the city's program as illegal, those
who received tickets were entitled to a refund.

Under the program, Lasercraft mailed tickets to the owners of
vehicles who in many cases were not behind the wheel at the time
of the offense and consequently had not violated any law. The suit
argued that these individuals were denied a meaningful right to
contest the $100 punishment imposed because challenges to the
citation were heard not in a court with constitutional
protections, but in an administrative hearing operated by an
employee of the city that receives the proceeds from payment of
any fines. Judge Laughrey dismissed the notion that anyone could
be wrongly accused and assumed anyone mailed a ticket by
Lasercraft was a scofflaw who should not have been running red
lights.

"The freedom to run a red light is not a fundamental right that is
deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition," Judge
Laughrey wrote. "Under the lenient rational basis test, the city
of Springfield's red light camera ordinance is rationally related
to the legitimate government interest in public safety. Clearly, a
legislative body could find that improved surveillance and
enforcement of red light violations would result in fewer
accidents."

Judge Laughrey went on to insist the fine imposed was not a
punishment and the mere declaration by Springfield city leaders
that the program was "civil" deprived ticket recipients of any
meaningful constitutional protection.

"The court finds that a mere $100 fine does not rise to the level
of an intent to punish," Judge Laughrey wrote. "As a civil
ordinance, Section 106-161 need not provide the heightened
procedural protections required by the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth
Amendments of the U.S. Constitution."

Judge Laughrey finally ruled that the fact that the Missouri
Supreme Court ruled Springfield's program was illegal did not
affect her analysis under federal law.

"The due process clause does not require a state to implement its
own laws correctly, nor does the Constitution insist that a local
government be correct in its interpretation of what is permissible
under state law," Judge Laughrey wrote. "Thus, plaintiffs' attempt
to convert violations of state law into federal due process claims
improperly bootstraps state law into the U.S. Constitution. It is
implausible that Section 106-161 could have denied plaintiffs
substantive due process."

A copy of the court's decision is available at http://is.gd/eYwK8


NATIONAL CITY: Inks $22.5 Million Settlement With Noteholders
-------------------------------------------------------------
                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
                      EASTERN DIVISION

ARGENT CLASSIC CONVERTIBLE           )
ARBITRAGE FUND (BERMUDA) LTD.        )
and ARGENT CLASSIC CONVERTIBLE       )
ARBITRAGE FUND, L.P., Individually   ) MDL 2003
and On Behalf of All Others          )
Similarly Situated,                  ) Case No. 1:08-nc-70016
                                    )
           Plaintiffs,              ) Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr.
    vs.                             )
                                    )
NATIONAL CITY CORPORATION, et al.,   )
                                    )
           Defendants.              )

    SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO purchased or otherwise
   otherwise acquired National City Corporation ("National
   City" or the "Company") 4.0% convertible senior
   notes due 2011 from January 23, 2008, through
   December 23, 2008.

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, that a hearing will be
held on November 30, 2010 at 11:30 a.m., before the Honorable
Solomon Oliver, Jr. at the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, 801 W. Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio
44113, to determine whether the proposed settlement (the
"Settlement") of the above-captioned action ("Action") for
$22,500,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable and adequate; whether the Order and Final Judgment as
provided under the Stipulation should be entered, dismissing the
Complaint filed in the Action on the merits and with prejudice;
whether the release by the Settlement Class of the Released
Claims, as set forth in the Stipulation, should be provided to the
Released Parties; whether to award Class Counsel attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as
defined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice"), which is discussed below); and whether the Plan of
Allocation should be approved by the Court.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED NATIONAL CITY 4.0%
CONVERTIBLE SENIOR NOTES DUE 2011 FROM JANUARY 23, 2008 THROUGH
DECEMBER 23, 2008, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT
OF THIS ACTION. To share in the distribution of the Settlement
Fund, you must establish your rights by filing a Proof of Claim on
or before January 24, 2011. Your failure to submit your Proof of
Claim by January 24, 2011 will subject your claim to rejection and
preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the
Settlement of this Action. If you are a member of the Settlement
Class and do not request exclusion from the Class, you will be
bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in
the Action, including, but not limited to, the Final Judgment,
whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to or opt out from the
Settlement), and a Proof of Claim form, you may obtain these
documents by writing to:

          Argent v. National City 4.0% Convertible
             Senior Notes Settlement
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          P.O. Box 9665
          Dublin, OH 43017-4965
          Telephone: (888) 285-1173
          http://www.nationalcitynotessettlement.com/

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim form, may be made to Class Counsel:

          Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq.
          Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
          280 Park Avenue, 26 Floor West
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 894-7200
          Fax: (212) 894-7272

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION BY NOVEMBER 9, 2010, IN THE MANNER AND FORM
EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT
REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT
ENTERED IN THE ACTION EVEN IF THEY DO NOT FILE A TIMELY PROOF OF
CLAIM.

    Dated: AUGUST 19, 2010

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION


NEW JERSEY: Faces Class Suit by Immigrants Denied FamilyCare
------------------------------------------------------------
The Star-Ledger reports Seton Hall Law School's Center for Social
Justice filed a class action lawsuit Thursday against New Jersey
on behalf of low-income legal immigrants who have been denied
state-funded Medicaid health insurance under the FamilyCare
program due to recent budget cuts.

New Jersey discontinued Medicaid coverage for nearly 12,000
residents under FamilyCare between April and July because they had
not been permanent residents for at least five years, according to
the lawsuit.

The lawsuit argues the immigrants are being discriminated against
based on their immigration status.

"Many of the 12,000 lawful permanent residents affected by these
state-Medicaid cuts are hard-working residents of the state, who
pay taxes and support their families by working in low-wage jobs,"
attorney Jenny-Brooke Condon, an associate professor at Seton
Hall's Center for Social Justice said in a statement released by
the law school. "Ensuring that the working poor receive essential,
preventive healthcare and treatment for illness keeps New Jersey
residents healthy, which, in turn, keeps them working."

A copy of the complaint is available at http://is.gd/eYwDB

The named plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, which was filed
in conjunction with the law firm Gibbons P.C., include a single
mother who had kidney surgery in 2007 and can no longer afford
ongoing treatment, and a Manual Guaman, an Ecuador native and
father of three, who suffered a severe allergic reaction in July
and required emergency room treatment after he lost FamilyCare
coverage.


NUFARM LTD: Shareholders Likely to Launch Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports shareholders are likely to
launch a class action against agricultural chemicals supplier
Nufarm Ltd for allegedly misleading conduct relating to profit
forecasts.

Law firm Slater & Gordon said on Friday it was investigating
Nufarm's actions since the company delivered profit guidance on
March 2.  The investigation followed approaches by Nufarm
shareholders shortly after the company halved its profit guidance
in July.

Blaming poor weather and low demand, on July 14 Nufarm forecast
net operating profit between $55 million and $65 million, down
from guidance issued in March of an operating result of between
$110 million and $130 million.

"Institutional investors expressed serious concerns when Nufarm
halved its full-year operating profit guidance on July 14, 2010,"
Slater & Gordon senior associate Ben Phi said.

"The guidance had been confirmed on numerous occasions since the
beginning of March, including in late April when the company
raised $250 million from its current shareholders under an
entitlement offer."

A proposed class action on behalf of shareholders who bought
Nufarm stock between March 2 and July 14 has received strong
support from institutional shareholders, Mr. Phi said.

Retail investors are expected to join, he said.

The action would allege that Nufarm engaged in misleading or
deceptive conduct when it provided its profit guidance on March 2,
2010, and breached its continuous disclosure obligations
throughout the period.

In a separate news article, The New Lawyer reports class action
law firm Maurice Blackburn is weighing up a potential class action
against Nufarm Limited.  The firm said it has been approached by
concerned investors in the agricultural chemical company for
allegedly failing to disclose information to the share market.
The action is being considered to recover losses suffered as a
result of alleged non-disclosured and misleading or deceptive
conduct, the firm said, relating to the company's revised forecast
for earnings and profit for the 2010 financial year ending July 31
this year.  Nufarm is an Australian-based business that produces
and supplies agricultural chemicals throughout the world.

Maurice Blackburn NSW Principal, Ben Slade, said the firm's
clients allege Nufarm made misleading representations about its
profit capacity between March 2, 2010, and July 14, 2010.

On March 2, the company announced a headline loss of about $40
million for the six month period to January 31, 2010. The loss
included $33 million of material items, including glyphosate
trading impacts. Also contributing to the loss were lower than
projected pricing margins in all global markets and relatively low
demand due to climatic conditions in Europe and North America.
It then forecasted a full year profit of between $80 million and
$100 million for the FY 2010 period, requiring a headline profit
of between $120 million and $140 million for the second half 2010
period. It reaffirmed those forecasts at the end of March. In June
it commented that it would "continue to keep year end under close
and regular review . . . and advise the market if [Nufarm] form a
different view of the final result".

On July 14, the company downgraded its FY 2010 profit forecast by
50 per cent, to between $55 million and $65 million, excluding
non-operating items. Net debt was also forecast to increase.

Maurice Blackburn said the company "breached its continuous
disclosure requirements by failing to correct those
misrepresentations thereby causing investors in the company to
suffer losses when the truth came out."

"Our investigations suggest that Nufarm ought to have been aware
by the beginning of March 2010 that its second half $120 million
profit forecast was so ambitious that it was misleading.  There is
a good claim for shareholders and we are also considering widening
the claim period if information comes to light to justify this.
Shareholders are only able to make informed decisions regarding
their share purchases when the company adheres to its disclosure
obligations," said Mr. Slade.


NY NIGHT CLUBS: 2nd Circuit Says "Ladies' Night" Promos Are Legal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Golding at New York Post reports a federal appeals court on
Thursday upheld "ladies' night" promotions at the Copacabana and
other Manhattan hot spots.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan rejected claims
by self-described "anti-feminist lawyer" Roy Den Hollander that
charging men more for admission than women violates their rights
under the constitution's Equal Protection clause.

A three-judge panel unanimously ruled that Mr. Den Hollander
failed to prove that the popular nightclubs -- also including the
China Club, Lotus and Sol -- are subject to a law barring
discrimination by anyone acting under government authority.

Mr. Den Hollander alleged that the clubs "engage in state action"
because they sell booze under licenses issued by the state.

"Regardless of the veracity of this statement, we cannot agree
that the state's liquor licensing laws have caused the nightclubs
to hold 'ladies' nights,' " the court wrote. "Liquor licenses are
not directly related to the pricing scheme."

Judges Rosemary Pooler, Ralph Winter and Roslynn Mauskopf noted
that Mr. Den Hollander "paints a picture of a bleak future, where
'none other than what's left of the Wall Street moguls' will be
able to afford to attend nightclubs" because of the pricing
disparity.

But they still agreed with a lower-court ruling that Mr. Den
Hollander "has failed to sufficiently allege state action."

They also cited, "with great reluctance," a 1972 Supreme Court
decision that "found no state action" when a Moose Lodge in
Pennsylvania refused to serve a black man because the club limited
membership to white males.

"Until the Supreme Court revisits Moose Lodge, we are required to
follow its holding," they wrote.

In 2008, Manhattan federal Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum tossed
Mr. Den Hollander's proposed class-action suit on the issue. In
doing so, she sided with lawyers for the clubs who likened
"ladies' nights" to restaurant offers of "early-bird" dinner
specials for seniors and free meals for kids.

Mr. Den Hollander blasted the appeals-court ruling.

"It does not matter whether the nightclubs charge males or females
or blacks or Latinos or any other identifiable group more for
admission -- it is now constitutional," he said.

Mr. Den Hollander said he plans to appeal the case to the US
Supreme Court.


PLASTICS ADDITIVES: Four Defendants Win Ruling; Plaintiffs Mum
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon P. Duffy at The Legal Intelligencer reports nearly $47
million in settlements was struck with seven of the defendants in
a suit alleging price-fixing conspiracies in the markets for
plastics additives, but the four non-settling defendants have now
won a ruling that effectively kills the case.

In his 42-page opinion in In re Plastics Additives Antitrust
Litigation, U.S. District Judge Legrome Davis ruled that the
plaintiffs cannot pursue the case as a class action because the
theory of their antitrust claims is riddled with fatal flaws.

The ruling is a victory for Dow Chemical Co., Union Carbide Corp.,
Rohm & Haas Co. and Arkema Inc. and illustrates how significantly
the law has changed in the class certification area in the wake of
the game-changing 2008 decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation .

In 2006, Judge Davis had certified the Plastics Additives case as
a class action on behalf of six subclasses -- each consisting of a
class of purchasers of a category of plastics additives.

The ruling paved the way for a flurry of settlements. Crompton
Corp. broke the ice with a $5 million settlement, and by April
2008, the plaintiffs had a $14.9 million settlement with Akzo
Nobel Inc., as well as five more settlements in the range of $5
million to $5.9 million with Mitsubishi Rayon America Inc.; Kreha
Corp.; Baerlocher USA; Kaneka Texas Corp.; and Ferro Corp., for a
total of $46.8 million.

But several defendants were continuing to fight, and an appeal of
Judge Davis' class certification decision was pending when the 3rd
Circuit handed down Hydrogen Peroxide -- an opinion that
immediately grabbed the attention of the class action bar because
it instructed trial judges to take a more rigorous approach to
class certification rulings.

Specifically, the appellate court insisted that trial judges look
not only to the plaintiffs experts when deciding whether each of
the elements of Rule 23 could be satisfied, but also weigh the
opinions of defense experts.

Soon after Hydrogen Peroxide was handed down, the 3rd Circuit
vacated Judge Davis' certification of the Plastics Additives case
and ordered that he reconsider it in light of Hydrogen Peroxide .

Now Judge Davis has ruled that the testimony of defense experts
has revealed glaring flaws in the plaintiffs' case that show it
cannot be pursued as a class action.

"We find that plaintiffs cannot demonstrate antitrust impact on a
basis common to the class through reference to list prices and
price increase announcements," Judge Davis wrote.

Plaintiffs lawyers said the evidence showed that price increases
were announced in concert and that the defendants had also agreed
to restrict output.

But Judge Davis found that a defense economics expert had pointed
up flaws in the plaintiffs' case showing that the announcements of
price increases bore little or no relation to the actual prices
paid by the purchasers.

Judge Davis also found that the plaintiffs expert was wrong about
the "market characteristics" when he concluded that many of the
products were "interchangeable" and therefore should be expected
to compete on the basis of price.

Instead, Judge Davis found that a defense expert was more credible
in testifying that plastics additives cannot be divided into six
neat categories, but are much more complex and rarely
interchangeable.

Since the plaintiffs expert was wrong in thinking of the products
as interchangeable, Judge Davis found that he was also wrong in
concluding that the class could show antitrust "impact."

Finally, Judge Davis rejected the plaintiffs' use of a regression
analysis -- a statistical tool designed to express the
relationship between one variable, such as price, and explanatory
variables that may affect the first variable.

The "fundamental failure" of the regression analysis, Judge Davis
found, was that it showed nothing about individual class members'
experiences.

The plaintiffs expert, Dr. John Beyer, "did not do anything,"
Judge Davis wrote, "such as perform individual regressions, to
confirm that his industry-wide regressions accurately represented
any individual class member's pricing experiences."

Lead plaintiffs attorney Gregory K. Arenson of Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer in New York declined to comment on the ruling.

     Gregory K. Arenson, Esq.
     KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
     850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Telephone: (800) 290-1952
                (212) 687-1980
     Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
     E-mail: garenson@kaplanfox.com

Arkema was represented by:

     Steven E. Bizar, Esq.
     Howard D. Scher, Esq.
     Francis X. Taney, Jr., Esq.
     Thomas P. Manning, Esq.
     Landon Y. Jones, Esq.
     Jill R. Spiker, Esq.
     BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
     Two Liberty Place
     50 S. 16th Street, Suite 3200
     Philadelphia, PA 19102-2555
     Telephone: 215 665 8700
     Facsimile: 215 665 8760
     E-mail: steven.bizar@bipc.com
             howard.scher@bipc.com
             francis.taney@bipc.com
             thomas.manning@bipc.com
             landon.jones@bipc.com
             jill.spiker@bipc.com

Dow Chemical was represented by:

     Tefft W. Smith, Esq.
     KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
     655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
     Washington, D.C. 20005-5793
     Telephone: +1 202-879-5000
     Facsimile: +1 202-879-5200
     E-mail: tefft.smith@kirkland.com

Rohm & Haas was defended by:

     John G. Harkins, Jr., Esq.
     Colleen Healy Simpson, Esq.
     HARKINS CUNNINGHAM LLP
     2800 One Commerce Square
     2005 Market Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103-7042
     Telephone: (215) 851-6701
                (215) 851-6756
     E-mail: jharkins@harkinscunningham.com
             csimpson@harkinscunningham.com

Union Carbide was represented by:

     Nathan P. Eimer, Esq.
     Scott C. Solberg, Esq.
     EIMER STAHL KLEVORN & SOLBERG LLP
     224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Telephone: 312 660 7601
                312 660 7666
     Facsimile: 312 692 1718
     E-mail: neimer@eimerstahl.com
             ssolberg@eimerstahl.com


QC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Suit in Missouri
-------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc., continues to defend a purported class action
filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri,
according to the company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

On Oct. 13, 2006, one of the company's Missouri customers sued the
company in a purported class action.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Missouri statute pertaining
to unsecured loans under $500 and the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act.  The lawsuit seeks monetary damages and a
declaratory judgment that the arbitration agreement with the
plaintiff is not enforceable on a variety of theories.

The company moved to compel arbitration of this matter.  In
December 2007, the court entered an order striking the class
action waiver provision in the company's customer arbitration
agreement, ordered the case to arbitration and dismissed the
lawsuit filed in Circuit Court.

In July 2008, the company filed its appeal of the court's order
with the Missouri Court of Appeals.  In December 2008, the Court
of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.

In September 2009, the plaintiff filed her action in arbitration.
The company has filed its answer, and a three-person arbitration
panel has been chosen.

Discovery has commenced, and the parties will possibly argue class
certification in late 2010.

QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides short-
term consumer loans, known as payday loans.  The company also
provides other consumer financial products and services, such as
check cashing services and money orders.


QC HOLDINGS: Consumer Suit in N.C. in Preliminary Stages
--------------------------------------------------------
A putative consumer fraud class-action lawsuit filed in the
Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, against QC
Holdings, Inc., is in preliminary stages, according to the
company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On Feb. 8, 2005, the company, two of its subsidiaries, including
its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Don Early,
the company's chairman of the board and chief executive officer,
were named defendants in a putative class-action suit filed in the
Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, by James B.
Torrence, Sr. and Ben Hubert Cline.

The plaintiffs were customers of a Delaware state-chartered bank
for whom the company provided certain services in connection with
the bank's origination of payday loans in North Carolina, prior to
the closing of the company's North Carolina branches in fourth
quarter 2005.

The lawsuit alleges that the company violated various North
Carolina laws, including the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act,
the North Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North Carolina Loan
Brokers Act, the state unfair trade practices statute and the
state usury statute, in connection with payday loans made by the
bank to the two plaintiffs through the company's retail locations
in North Carolina.

The suit also alleges that the company is not viewed as the
"actual lenders or makers" of the payday loans and its services to
the bank that made the loans violated various North Carolina
statutes.

The plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class, unspecified
monetary damages, and treble damages and attorney fees under
specified North Carolina statutes.

The plaintiffs have not sued the bank in this matter and have
specifically stated in the complaint that they do not challenge
the right of out-of-state banks to enter into loans with North
Carolina residents at such rates as the bank's home state may
permit, all as authorized by North Carolina and federal law.

This case is in preliminary stages.

                       Similar Litigation

There are three similar purported class action complaints filed in
North Carolina against three other companies unrelated to QC
Holdings.

In December 2005, the judge in those three cases:

       -- granted the defendants' motions to stay the purported
          class action lawsuits and to compel arbitration in
          accordance with the terms of the arbitration
          provisions contained in the consumer loan contracts

       -- ruled that the class action waivers in those consumer
          loan contracts are valid, and

       -- denied plaintiffs' motions for class certifications.

The plaintiffs in those three cases, who are represented by the
same law firms as the plaintiffs in the case filed against the
company, have appealed that ruling.

The judge handling the lawsuit against the company is the same
judge who issued these three orders in December 2005.

In January 2007, the North Carolina Court of Appeals heard the
appeal in the three companion cases.  In May 2008, the appellate
court remanded the three companion cases to the state court to
review its ruling in light of a recent North Carolina Supreme
court's decision.

The trial court will hear additional evidence in the three
companion cases before issuing its new ruling.  That ruling is not
expected before 2009.

While the three companion cases are pending until the trial
court's decision, it is expected that the company's case will
remain stayed.  The judge handling the lawsuit against the company
in North Carolina is the same judge who is handing the three
companion cases.  The company has not had a ruling on the similar
pending motions by the plaintiffs and the company in its North
Carolina case.  There is a stay in the North Carolina lawsuit,
pending the final outcome in the other three North Carolina cases
concerning the enforceability of the arbitration provision in the
consumer contracts.  Accordingly, there will be no ruling on the
company's motion to enforce arbitration in North Carolina during
the pendency of that issue in the three companion cases.

In June 2009, the trial court denied defendants' motion to compel
arbitration and granted each of the respective plaintiffs' motions
for class certification.  Defendants are appealing those rulings.

The judge handling the lawsuit against the company in North
Carolina is the same judge who is handling the three companion
cases.

QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides short-
term consumer loans, known as payday loans.  The company also
provides other consumer financial products and services, such as
check cashing services and money orders.


QC HOLDINGS: Reaches Agreement to Settle "Ferrell" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc., has reached a preliminary agreement in
principle in order to settle a putative class action lawsuit filed
by Carl G. Ferrell against a subsidiary of the company, according
to the company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

On Oct. 30, 2008, a subsidiary of the company was sued in the
Fifth Judicial Circuit Court of Common Pleas in South Carolina in
a putative class action lawsuit filed by Mr. Ferrell, a customer
of the South Carolina subsidiary.

Mr. Ferrell alleges that the subsidiary violated the South
Carolina Deferred Presentment Services Act by including an
arbitration provision and class action waiver in its loan
agreements.  Mr. Ferrell alleges further that the subsidiary did
not appropriately take into account his ability to repay his loan
with the subsidiary, and it is his contention that this alleged
failure violates the South Carolina Deferred Presentment Services
Act, is negligent, breaches the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and serves as the basis for a civil conspiracy.  Mr.
Ferrell makes the same allegations in the same case against
several other lenders.

On Dec. 11, 2008, the company removed the case from state court to
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina based
upon the diversity of citizenship between the subsidiary and the
proposed class.  In March 2009, the federal court ruled against
the company's efforts to remove the case to federal court and
remanded the case to a putative class action lawsuit filed by Carl
G. Ferrell.  In May 2009, the federal court issued its written
ruling.

The company has appealed this decision to the Fourth Circuit.

On Dec. 18, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case
based upon the parties' arbitration agreement.  Mr. Ferrell has
challenged both the removal of the case to federal court and the
company's motion to dismiss.

In March 2009, the federal court ruled against the company's
efforts to remove the case to federal court and remanded the case
to state court.  It did not rule on the company's motion to
dismiss.

In May 2009, the federal court issued its written ruling.  The
company appealed this decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals, but in January 2010, the Fourth Circuit rejected its
appeal.  The case has moved back to state court for argument on
whether the case should move to arbitration.

The company and other lenders in South Carolina have reached a
preliminary agreement in principle with respect to the settlement
of these claims, which nonbinding agreement in principle would
require a contribution for plaintiff's attorney's fees.  The
company cannot predict whether it and the other lenders in the
state will reach a formal, binding agreement for the settlement of
this matter, whether the final agreement will be on the terms
presently contemplated or whether the proposed settlement will be
approved by the court.  The company has reserved in the
accompanying financial statements its estimated expenses for
settling this litigation under the current parameters.

QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides short-
term consumer loans, known as payday loans.  The company also
provides other consumer financial products and services, such as
check cashing services and money orders.


RAYMOND JAMES: Judge Dismisses Most Claims in Auction-Rate Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel at Reuters reports a federal judge has dismissed
most of a class-action lawsuit accusing the brokerage Raymond
James Financial Inc of fraudulently misleading clients into
believing that auction-rate securities were as safe as cash.

The ruling released Thursday by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan
in Manhattan is the latest in litigation against financial
companies arising from a February 2008 freeze in what had been a
$330 billion auction-rate debt market.

Judge Kaplan said the plaintiffs, who were Raymond James clients,
failed to sufficiently allege that the brokerage acted with
fraudulent intent in marketing the debt.

He allowed a claim by plaintiff Jonathan Gold, who said his broker
should have told him in January 2008 before he bought the debt
that there was only an "appearance of a liquid market" by then
because of extensive dealer intervention. That intervention
stopped the next month, causing the freeze.

Judge Kaplan in 2009 had dismissed an earlier version of the
lawsuit but gave the plaintiffs a chance to file it again.

Aaron Sheanin, Esq., a partner at Girard Gibbs LLP who represents
Mr. Gold and lead plaintiff Laurie Rubin, said he was reviewing
the ruling and would evaluate options with his clients.

"Raymond James is pleased with the judge's decision to dismiss
most of the allegations completely and severely limit the scope of
the remaining claims," spokeswoman Anthea Penrose said in an
emailed statement.

The St. Petersburg, Florida-based company expects to prevail on
remaining claims, she added.

Raymond James ended June with 4,739 financial advisers in the
United States and more than 5,300 overall.

Financial companies have agreed to buy back more than $60 billion
of auction-rate debt in a series of settlements with regulators
including New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

The case is Defer LP v. Raymond James Financial Inc, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, No. 08-03449.


RED HAT: Court Approval of Settlement Agreement Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The approval of an agreement to settle a class action lawsuit
against Red Hat, Inc., remains pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, according to the
company's Aug. 20, 2010, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31,
2010.

In the summer of 2004, 14 class action lawsuits were filed against
the company and several of its former officers on behalf of
investors who purchased the company's securities during various
periods from June 19, 2001 through July 13, 2004.

All 14 suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina.

In each of the actions, plaintiffs sought to represent a class of
purchasers of the company's common stock during some or all of the
period from June 19, 2001 through July 13, 2004.  All of the
claims arose in connection with the company announcement on
July 13, 2004 that it would restate certain of its financial
statements.

One or more of the plaintiffs asserted that certain former
officers (Individual Defendants) and the company violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by issuing the financial
statements that the company subsequently restated.

One or more of the plaintiffs sought unspecified damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, an accounting of
certain profits obtained by the Individual Defendants from trading
in the company's common stock, disgorgement by the company's
former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer
of certain compensation and profits from trading in the company's
common stock pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and other relief.

As of Sept. 8, 2004, all of these class action lawsuits were
consolidated into a single action referenced as Civil Action No.
5:04-CV-473BR and titled In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

On May 6, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class
action complaint.

On July 29, 2005, the company, on behalf of itself and the
Individual Defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the action for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  Also
on that date, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, another defendant, filed
a separate motion to dismiss.

On May 12, 2006, the Court issued an order granting the motion to
dismiss the Securities Exchange Act claims against several of the
Individual Defendants, but denying the motion to dismiss the
Securities Exchange Act claims against the company, its former
chief executive officer and former chief financial officer.  The
Court dismissed the claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in their
entirety, and also granted PwC's motion to dismiss.

On Nov. 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

Subsequent to the filing of that motion, several plaintiffs
withdrew as potential class representatives, and the company
opposed the certification of the remaining proposed class
representatives.

On May 11, 2007, the Court entered an order denying class
certification and denying all other pending motions as moot.
Thereafter, on July 13, 2007 Charles Gilbert filed a renewed
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection
of lead counsel.

On Nov. 13, 2007, the Court entered an Order allowing Gilbert's
motion, appointing him lead plaintiff and adding him as a party
plaintiff and appointing lead counsel.  On Jan. 14, 2008,
Gilbert's counsel filed a motion to certify the action as a class
action.

On Aug. 28, 2009, the Court entered an Order certifying the action
as a class action, appointing Gilbert as the class representative,
and defining the class as "all purchasers of the common stock of
Red Hat, Inc. between Dec. 17, 2002, and July 12, 2004, inclusive
and who were damaged thereby," excluding company insiders.

On Dec. 15, 2009, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement in principle to settle this matter, subject, among other
matters, to completion of a final written settlement agreement and
court approval.

The company recorded, for its quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009, an
estimated liability in the amount of $8.8 million for its portion
of the proposed settlement.

On March 29, 2010, counsel for the class filed a Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Settlement and, on June 11, 2010, a
United States Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation to the presiding judge that the motion be approved.

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


RED LILY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Wind Farm Proximity
-------------------------------------------------------------
Postmedia News reports landowners in southeastern Saskatchewan
have turned to the courts to press for significant changes to a
$60-million wind farm project.

"We think we're going to be successful in preventing them from
building this close to people's houses," said Brad Jamieson, the
Saskatoon lawyer representing some area residents who recently
filed a class-action lawsuit.

His clients are concerned by the proximity of the turbines to be
erected under the Red Lily Wind Farm Project, a 25-megawatt wind
farm that will be located about five kilometers west of Moosomin,
Sask.

Mr. Jamieson said his clients want the turbines located 2,000
meters from any home, up from the currently planned 550-metre
distance.

An interim court order was made last week bringing "all
construction-related activity" to a halt pending the outcome of an
injunction application.

The wind farm was expected to be operational by late this year or
early next year.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Court Okay of "Levie" Appeal Settlement Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corporation disclosed that court approval of a
settlement of an appeal regarding an order granting motions for
summary judgment in a class action lawsuit is pending.

Maurice Levie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a lawsuit in 2004 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois relating to the merger
transaction of Kmart into Sears Holdings.

The Lawsuit asserts claims under the federal securities laws on
behalf of a class of former Sears' stockholders against Sears,
Alan J. Lacy, Edward S. Lampert and ESL Partners, L.P. for
allegedly failing to make timely disclosure of merger discussions
during the period September 9 through November 16, 2004, and seeks
damages.

On July 17, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, certifying a class of
Sears' stockholders who sold shares of Sears' stock between Sept.
9, 2004 and Nov. 16, 2004, excluding short sellers who covered
their positions during the class period.

On December 18, 2009, the Court entered an order granting
defendants' motions for summary judgment.

By January 15, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal.  In
their opening appellate brief, the plaintiffs withdrew their
appeal from the portion of the Court's Order granting summary
judgment to Sears and Mr. Lacy.

The Plaintiffs then entered into an agreement with ESL Partners
and Mr. Lampert to settle their remaining appeal.  The Plaintiffs,
ESL Partners and Mr. Lampert will seek approval of the settlement
from the Court.

Sears asserts that the proposed settlement does not have a
material adverse effect on the results of its operations,
financial position, liquidity or capital resources, according to
the company's Aug. 20, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2010.

Sears Holdings Corporation -- http://www.searsholdings.com/-- is
the parent company of Kmart Holding Corporation and Sears, Roebuck
and Co.  The company is a broadline retailer with 2,297 full-line
and 1,233 specialty retail stores in the United States operating
through Kmart and Sears and 388 full-line and specialty retail
stores in Canada operating through Sears Canada Inc., a 73%-owned
subsidiary.  During the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009 (fiscal
2008), Sears Holdings Corporation operated three business
segments: Kmart, Sears Domestic and Sears Canada.


SIGMA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Possible Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Narayanan Somasundaram at Reuters reports Australia's Sigma
Pharmaceuticals said on Friday it has been advised of a possible
shareholder class action relating to alleged non-disclosure over a
Sept 2009 capital raising.

If the legal proceedings are issued, Sigma said it will
"vigorously defend them".

Sigma said the amount claimed has not been quantified.

Last month South Africa's Aspen Pharmacare (APNJ.J) said it will
buy the drugs unit of Australia's Sigma Pharmaceuticals for $804
million in cash to gain about a quarter of Australia's generic
market.


SPRINT: Judge Refuses to Stop Arbitration Between Lakin & Weiss
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris at The Madison County Record reports Brad Lakin of
Wood River and Paul Weiss of Chicago, who apparently resolved a
public battle in 2008, waged it in secrecy this year.  They kept
it quiet in arbitration until Mr. Weiss's firm, Freed and Weiss,
asked U.S. District Judge Jose Linares of Newark for an injunction
ending the arbitration.

Mr. Weiss claimed the former Lakin Law Firm sought to disturb an
allocation of legal fees that Judge Linares ordered in a class
action settlement.  Mr. Weiss claimed Mr. Lakin aimed to litigate
issues Judge Linares had previously decided.  Mr. Weiss lost
privacy and gained nothing, for Judge Linares denied an injunction
on Aug. 18.

Judge Linares found he lacked jurisdiction because the dispute was
never presented to him or decided by him in connection with the
class action.

Judge Linares wrote that the arbitration related entirely to an
agreement between the firms.  He wrote that it sought to resolve a
narrow dispute over an alleged breach of the agreement.  He found
insufficient evidence that Mr. Lakin tried to frustrate the
orderly allocation of fees.

Mr. Lakin and Mr. Weiss teamed 12 years ago, when Mr. Lakin
started a class action practice.  For six years they loaded the
Madison County docket with class actions.  They sued Sprint
telephone company in 2004, on behalf of Jessica Hall of Pontoon
Beach, over fees for early contract terminations.  Circuit Judge
Nicholas Byron certified Ms. Hall to lead a national class action.

In 2006, the partnership between Mr. Lakin and Mr. Weiss broke
down.

Richard Burke left Lakin and continued associating with Weiss.
Mr. Burke sued Lakin, and Lakin countersued Mr. Burke.  Weiss sued
Lakin in Cook County, and Lakin sued Weiss in Madison County.
Litigation raged throughout 2007, ending with a settlement early
in 2008.  During the dispute, Mr. Weiss and Mr. Burke had started
a class action against Sprint in federal court at Newark.  At
first their class excluded the class Hall represented in Illinois,
but through settlement negotiations the new class swallowed the
Hall class.

Mr. Lakin objected to the $17.5 million settlement, claiming he
would have obtained better terms in Madison County.  He accused
Mr. Weiss and Mr. Burke of running a "reverse auction," bargaining
downward in order to settle before other lawyers could settle
similar claims in other courts.  Mr. Lakin urged Judge Linares to
disqualify Mr. Weiss and Mr. Burke as class counsel.

Mr. Lakin argued that Judge Linares should award no fees to Freed
and Weiss, claiming they performed little work beyond copying
Hall's case.

Judge Linares rejected Mr. Lakin's arguments last year, and he
included Freed and Weiss when he distributed more than $5 million
in fees.

Last October, Mr. Lakin filed an arbitration complaint with JAMS,
a Chicago firm.

Charles Chapman, Esq., of LakinChapman, wrote that Freed and Weiss
breached the 2008 agreement by filing a suit similar to Hall's
without Mr. Lakin's permission.  Mr. Chapman wrote that Freed and
Weiss breached the agreement by negotiating a settlement in New
Jersey without permission.  He wrote that Mr. Lakin sustained
damages no less than $2 million.  He wrote that Freed and Weiss
also breached the agreement by trying to settle a Lakin class
action against Allstate without permission.  "FW attempted to
negotiate the attorneys' fees before an agreement was reached on
the class relief," he wrote.  He wrote that Lakin anticipated fees
no less than $15 million, but negotiated only $9 million in fees
and expenses due to Freed and Weiss's conduct.  He wrote that
Lakin sustained damages no less than $1 million.

This June, an arbitrator ruled that Mr. Lakin presented a
justiciable controversy.

In July, Mr. Weiss turned to Judge Linares for help.

"LakinChapman apparently does not feel bound by this court's
orders or the orderly process for fee resolution established by
this court," wrote James Cecchi of New Jersey.  "This action
offends and interferes with this court's jurisdiction, and creates
a dangerous precedent for parties' ability to settle class action
cases," he wrote.  "One law firm cannot be permitted to upend, for
its own benefit, a process established by this court and accepted
by over 20 law firms," he wrote.  He wrote that "the arbitrator,
with an obvious financial incentive to keep the claim going, has
decided to allow Lakin to proceed."

For Mr. Lakin, Anthony Coviello, Esq., of New Jersey answered on
Aug. 2 that the arbitration didn't seek fees from the Sprint
settlement.  He wrote that it sought compensation for the loss of
opportunity to settle the Hall case.  "The application before this
court is merely the latest attempt by FW to avoid its contractual
obligations," he wrote.  "FW's suggestion that the arbitration
implicates all the law firms who participated in the settlement is
simply false," he wrote.  He recommended that Judge Linares treat
it as a side issue between Illinois law firms, and Judge Linares
adopted the recommendation.

Meanwhile, Mr. Lakin's appeal of Judge Linares's earlier decisions
remains pending at the Third Circuit in New York.  The appeal asks
if Judge Linares should have disqualified Mr. Weiss and Mr. Burke.
It asks if he should have let Hall conduct discovery into
circumstances of the settlement.  It asks if he should have
approved the settlement under the circumstances.


SYNGENTA CORP: Judge Crowder Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Knef at The Madison County Record reports Madison County
Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder has denied motions to stay and to
dismiss a proposed class action against a leading maker of the
herbicide atrazine.

Judge Crowder has had the motions under advisement since May in
one of six cases brought by attorney Stephen Tillery in 2004
against Syngenta Crop Protection and other manufacturers and
distributors of the commonly used agricultural product. Lead
plaintiff Holiday Shores Sanitation District and various Illinois
municipalities claim atrazine runs off farm fields, contaminates
water supplies and causes medical problems.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that atrazine
is safe in drinking water up to three parts per billion. But, the
plaintiffs contend that even smaller amounts cause health issues.

Earlier this year, Mr. Tillery filed a nearly identical class
action in federal court in East St. Louis on behalf of water
providers in Illinois, Missouri, Kansas and other states. That
case does not include the plaintiffs in the Madison County suits.

Syngenta had asked Judge Crowder to either dismiss the Madison
County case or to stay it until the newer federal suit is
resolved.

In an order entered Aug. 31, Judge Crowder wrote that parties to
the action should not be dismissed or delayed due to a similar
action.

"The court realizes that there is no specific rule that a later
filed case does not prevent the stay or dismissal or an earlier
filed action," she wrote. "However, the parties are not identical
in the newer action and it does not include only Illinois
parties."

Circuit Judge Daniel Stack had previously presided over the
Madison County cases. For more than two years Stack had under
advisement motions to dismiss, and in 2008 he denied them.

Mr. Tillery has amended the suits multiple times, prompting the
defense to renew its motions for dismissal.

In denying Syngenta's motion, Judge Crowder wrote, "The court does
not believe the amendments to the complaint have materially
changed the allegations that existed when the prior judge ruled on
the motions to dismiss.

"If anything, plaintiffs' have removed some allegations regarding
property damage, dimunition in the property values, and the
injunctive provisions and request for a remedial plan that were
noted as problems and ordered dismissed previously."

Syngenta attorney Alan Nadel of Greensboro, N.C. reacted by saying
the company regrets but respects Crowder's ruling.

"As we argued to her honor, we think this is wasteful litigation
that will result in costly and unnecessary duplication of judicial
effort and resources," Mr. Nadel said in a statement.


THRESHOLD PHARMA: Court Gives Final Nod to Settlement Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
gave its final approval to the settlement agreement resolving a
second consolidated amended complaint against Threshold
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On July 5 and July 18, 2007, purported shareholder class action
complaints alleging violations of the federal securities laws were
filed against the company, its Chief Executive Officer Harold E.
Selick and former Chief Financial Officer Janet I. Swearson, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On Sept. 14, 2007, these lawsuits, which have been consolidated by
the Court into a single proceeding, were ordered transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On Jan. 15, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a first consolidated
amended complaint.  On July 11, 2008, the Court granted
Defendants' motions to dismiss that complaint but afforded the
plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint.

On Sept. 19, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended complaint, which, on behalf of an alleged class of
purchasers of the company's common stock from the date of its
initial public offering of securities on Feb. 4, 2005, through
July 14, 2006, purports to allege claims arising under Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act, and under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Plaintiffs allege generally
that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by, among
other things, making material misstatements or omissions
concerning our Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials of Lonidamine
(TH-070).

On Nov. 14, 2008, Defendants moved to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint.  On April 3, 2009, the Court
granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss,
dismissing with prejudice all claims arising under the Securities
Act and all claims against Ms. Swearson, while narrowing the
remaining claims.

On Oct. 30, 2009, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement to resolve the lawsuit.

The settlement provides for a payment to the plaintiff class
solely by the company's insurers.  On Dec. 1, 2009, the Court
entered an order granting preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement.

The settlement is subject to final approval by the Court, and a
hearing at which the Court will consider whether to grant final
approval of the settlement was scheduled for April 15, 2010.

The settlement was approved by the Court on April 16, 2010.  The
$10 million amount due under the settlement was paid by the
company's insurers.

Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc., -- http://www.thresholdpharm.com/
-- is a biotechnology company focused on the discovery and
development of drugs targeting Tumor Hypoxia, the low oxygen
condition found in microenvironments of most solid tumors.  This
approach offers broad potential to treat most solid tumors.  By
selectively targeting tumor cells, Threshold is building a
pipeline of drugs that hold promise to be more effective and less
toxic to healthy tissues than conventional anticancer drugs.


TUESDAY MORNING: Stay on Non-exempt Employees' Lawsuit Lifted
-------------------------------------------------------------
The stay on a class action lawsuit filed by hourly, non-exempt
employees against Tuesday Morning Corporation has been lifted,
according to the company's Aug. 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2010.

The lawsuit was filed in December 2008 in the Superior Court of
California in and for the County of Los Angeles.  The plaintiffs
allege claims covering meal and rest period violations.

The court recently lifted the stay that had previously been in
place and we are now moving forward with discovery.

Tuesday Morning Corporation -- http://www.tuesdaymorning.com/--
is a closeout retailer of upscale home furnishings, housewares,
gifts and related items in the United States.  The company's
merchandise primarily consists of lamps, rugs, kitchen
accessories, small electronics, gourmet housewares, linens,
luggage, bedroom and bathroom accessories, toys, stationary and
silk plants, as well as crystal, collectibles and silver serving
pieces.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Defends Marketing & Sales Practice Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vonage Holdings Corp. continues to defend the matter In re Vonage
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, according to the
company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

There are various class actions, on behalf of both nationwide and
state classes, pending in New Jersey, Washington and California
generally alleging that the company:

     1. delayed and/or refused to allow consumers to cancel
        their Vonage service;

     2. failed to disclose procedural impediments to
        cancellation;

     3. failed to adequately disclose that their 30-day money
        back guarantee does not give consumers 30 days to try
        out the company's services;

     4. suppressed and concealed the true nature of the
        company's services and disseminated false advertising
        about the quality, nature and terms of our services;

     5. imposed an unlawful early termination fee; and

     6. invoked unconscionable provisions of the company's Terms
        of Service to the detriment of customers.

On May 11, 2007, plaintiffs in one action petitioned the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, seeking transfer and
consolidation of the pending actions to a single court for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.  In an Order dated Aug. 15,
2007, the Panel transferred the pending actions to the U.S. Court
for the District of New Jersey, captioned In re Vonage Marketing
and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1862, Master Docket No.
07-CV-3906 (USDC, D.N.J.).

On Oct. 1, 2007, counsel for one group of plaintiffs moved before
the Court for Consolidation and Appointment of Co-Lead Counsel of
the actions, and requested time to file an Amended Consolidated
Complaint.  On Nov. 6, 2008, the Court entered an Order Granting
Consolidation and Appointment of Co-Lead Counsel, and ordered that
a consolidated Complaint be filed within 45 days, which Complaint
was filed on Dec. 19, 2008.

On Feb. 6, 2009, the company filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration.
On Sept. 1, 2009, the Court denied without prejudice the Motion to
Compel Arbitration.

On Dec. 2, 2009, the company filed a Renewed Motion to Compel
Arbitration.  Briefing on the motion was completed in February
2010.  The parties have engaged in limited discovery.

On July 8, 2010, the Court requested that the parties submit
supplemental letters to the Court on or before July 30, 2010,
addressing the relevance of recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme
Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit regarding
arbitration provisions and the parties have filed these
submissions.

Vonage Holdings Corp. -- http://www.vonage.com/-- is a leading
provider of high-quality voice and messaging services over
broadband networks.  THe company's award winning technology serves
approximately 2.4 million subscriber lines. We provide feature-
rich, affordable communication solutions that offer flexibility,
portability and ease-of-use.  The company's Vonage World plan
offers free unlimited calling to landline phones in all cities and
locations in more than 60 countries with popular features like
call waiting, call forwarding and voicemail -- for one low, flat
monthly rate.  Vonage's service is sold on the web and through
regional and national retailers including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and
is available to customers in the U.S., Canada and the United
Kingdom.  Vonage Holdings Corp. is headquartered in Holmdel, New
Jersey.  Vonage(R) is a registered trademark of Vonage Marketing
Inc., a subsidiary of Vonage Holdings Corp.


WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Belloni, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports some
of the Disney employees who make sure A-list stars get paid
accurately by the studio are now suing claiming that they weren't
paid accurately by the studio.

Thirty-six financial analysts and contract researchers in the
participations, royalties and residuals department at Walt Disney
Pictures have banded together to file a class action alleging the
studio denied them proper overtime wages during a six-year period
between July 2004 and August 2010.

Lead plaintiffs Joseph Peralta and Pamela Ventura claim on behalf
of the 36 salaried workers that they were inaccurately labeled as
"exempt" under California labor law and denied overtime even
though they worked more than 40 hours a week. The employees,
"although performing non-exempt functions for the [studio], were
misclassified as exempt employees and not paid overtime
compensation," according to the complaint, filed Friday in Los
Angeles Superior Court.

A full list of the plaintiffs: Joseph Peralta, Pamela Ventura,
Carmen Angeles, Lovena Baisley, Michael Barret, Matthew bodden,
Editha Bonifacio, Natalie Bourbon, Suzanne Campion, Amy Chen,
Sandra Chu, Hyuntaek Chung, Rochelle Cho, Kesha Edvalson, Sara
Anne Fox, James Fraser, Daniel Han, Jodi Hnatyshak, Patricia
Hughes, Shaghik Ishakian, Dawn Jones, Richard Lim, Robert Lindall,
George Mackin, Christopher McDonald, Linh Milichovsky, Takashiro
Miyazaki, Kevin Ngo, Sunny Oh, Martha Ramos, Richard Rees, Imelda
Rivera-De Leon, Jennifer Romero, Suzanne Tafoya, Dat Tran and Luz
Ugas.

                           *********

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  * * *