/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/101026.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 26, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 211


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Enters Into MOU to Resolve Class Action Lawsuit
APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Allows Antitrust Class Action to Proceed
BANK OF AMERICA: Glancy Amends Complaint Over Privacy Assist
CITIZENS PROPERTY: Sued for Wrongful Use of No-Bid Contracts

BARNWELL NURSING: Judges Deny Counsel Fees to Individual
DEAN CHANDLER: Glen Ridge Couple Joins Class Action Suit
GATEWAY SCHOOL: Sued for Misrepresenting Educational Progress
HORIZON BLUE CROSS: Settles Class Action Suit for $22 Million
HUNGARY: Sued Over Role in Murder of Hungarian Jews in 1944

ILLINOIS: Dennis Jones to Oversee Mentally Ill Housing Plan
JP MORGAN: Accused in California Suit of Not Paying Overtime
KING PHARMA: Being Sold to Pfizer for Too Little, Suit Claims
MGIC INVESTMENT: Motion Opposing Plea to Amend Suit Pending
NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Graco Unit Recalls 2 Million Strollers

ORACLE CORP: Class in Wage-and-Hour Suit Wins Certification
SOLARWINDS INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
TOYOTA AUTO: TMCC Not a Defendant in Amended Complaint
TOYOTA AUTO: TMCC a Defendant in Suit by Foreign Plaintiffs
TOYOTA AUTO: TMCC Still a Defendant in Suit by Orange County DA

TOYOTA AUTO: TMCC Defends Bondholder Suit in California
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls Cars to Replace Brake Master Cylinder Seal
WAL-MART STORES: Request to Review Class Action Decision Opposed
WASHINGTON: In-Home Care Trial Set for Nov. 29, 2010
ZYNGA GAME: Sued for Sharing Facebook Users' Personal Info

* UK Pension Funds to Recoup GBP1.4BB in US Class Action Suits


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Enters Into MOU to Resolve Class Action Lawsuit
Align Technology, Inc. Thursday disclosed that it has entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding to resolve a class action lawsuit
concerning its proficiency requirements filed earlier this year in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, class members can
obtain reinstatement to prescribe Invisalign(R) treatment under
certain circumstances -- Reinstatement Benefit -- that will be
described in the final settlement agreement.  Certain class
members will have the option to elect a cash remedy instead of the
Reinstatement Benefit.  The proposed settlement remains subject to
the execution of a formal settlement agreement and approval by the
Court. Align anticipates that a formal settlement agreement will
be presented to the Court within 30 to 45 days.  If the Court
grants preliminary approval of the agreement, notice of the
settlement terms will be provided to all class members.  In
connection with the proposed settlement, and based upon Align's
estimates, including attorneys fees and administrative costs,
Align recorded a charge of $3.3 million in its third quarter
fiscal 2010 financials.

In May 2010 Align announced that Christopher J. Leiszler, a
general practice dentist, had filed a Complaint against the
Company.  Dr. Leiszler alleged that Align implemented unfair
requirements for the prescription of Invisalign through the
Company's annual proficiency requirements.  Dr. Leiszler's
Invisalign provider status was changed in January 2010 for failing
to meet the Company's proficiency requirements, which were
modified in April 2010 to eliminate the annual case start
requirement for Invisalign providers.  Dr. Leiszler sued Align on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeking a
refund of the price paid to Align for Invisalign training.

Doctors who had their Invisalign accounts deactivated or suspended
as a result of the proficiency requirements program are included
in the settlement class, and will be notified of their options
after a final settlement agreement is preliminarily approved by
the Court.  Until then, doctors who have questions regarding the
status of the Court process can contact Align at

                    About Align Technology

Align Technology designs, manufactures and markets Invisalign, a
proprietary method for treating malocclusion, or the misalignment
of teeth. Invisalign corrects malocclusion using a series of
clear, nearly invisible, removable appliances that gently move
teeth to a desired final position. Because it does not rely on the
use of metal or ceramic brackets and wires, Invisalign
significantly reduces the aesthetic and other limitations
associated with braces. Invisalign is appropriate for treating
adults and teens. Align Technology was founded in March 1997 and
received FDA clearance to market Invisalign in 1998. Today, the
Invisalign product family includes Invisalign Full, Invisalign
Teen, Invisalign Assist, Invisalign Express, and Vivera Retainers.

APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Allows Antitrust Class Action to Proceed
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit refused to let Apple
and AT&T appeal a federal judge's decision allowing iPhone users
to proceed with a class action accusing the companies of violating
antitrust laws with their exclusive contract.

In July, U.S. District Judge James Ware in San Jose, Calif.,
granted iPhone users' motion for class certification, saying they
"offered sufficient evidence of the ability to prove antitrust
impact on a class-wide basis."

In their complaint, filed in 2007, users said they bought a
required two-year contract with AT&T, which allegedly conspired
with Apple to restrict voice and data service with other companies
for five years after the contract expired.

Apple and AT&T argued that the users failed to prove they had
suffered any actual injuries from the alleged antitrust law
But Judge Ware found it more appropriate to certify the class than
to prosecute individual antitrust claims.

AT&T and Apple asked the 9th Circuit for permission to appeal, but
the federal appeals court denied their request.

A copy of the Order in Holman, et al. v. Apple, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 07-cv-05152 (9th Cir.), is available at:


BANK OF AMERICA: Glancy Amends Complaint Over Privacy Assist
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed an amended complaint in the
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against Bank of America, N.A.,
regarding its Privacy Assist product.  The case is captioned
Chavez v. Bank of America Corporation et al, Case No. 10-cv-00653-

A copy of the First Amended Complaint is available from the court
or from Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.  Please contact us by phone
to discuss this action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at
310-201-9150, Toll Free at 888-773-9224, or by e-mail to

The lawsuit alleges that Bank of America and others violated
consumer protection statutes, including the California Unfair
Competition Act and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
Bank of America is the largest bank holding company in the United
States and offers a wide variety of consumer and corporate
banking, investment and wealth management products in California
and throughout the world.

The Complaint alleges that Bank of America's Privacy Assist
"product" is so aggressively marketed that customers often are
enrolled in the program without their knowledge or without a full
understanding of the terms of the service, including how to avoid
charges after a purported free, 30-day trial period.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that: (1) defendants encourage
sales representatives, who solicit Privacy Assist "services"
through boiler-room call centers situated throughout the country,
to aggressively enroll customers into the program by subjecting
customers to "sales blitzes" and by penalizing those
representatives who do not meet sales quotas; (2) defendants fail
to adequately monitor sales representatives, resulting in
customers being enrolled in Privacy Assist without their knowledge
or without a full understanding of the program's terms and
conditions; (3) defendants fail to maintain adequate procedures to
ensure that customers who request "non-solicitation" status are
not contacted by Privacy Assist sales representatives; (4) when
customers realize they are being charged for Privacy Assist and
attempt to cancel, they are confronted with sales representatives
who attempt to persuade the customer not to cancel or otherwise
make it difficult for the customer to cancel; and (5), customers
are not informed that a purported 30-day window to cancel their
enrollment in Privacy Assist without incurring any charges begins
when Privacy Assist is initially solicited to the customer --
rather than when customers subsequently receive their Privacy
Assist enrollment in the mail.

If you are a former or current Bank of America customer enrolled
in Privacy Assist since September 2006 through the present, or
have information relating to similar issues with Privacy Assist,
or if you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Coby Turner, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at 310-201-9150, Toll Free
at 888-773-9224, or by e-mail to pa@glancylaw.com


          Los Angeles, CA
          Coby Turner, Esq.
          Telephone: 310-201-9150
          E-mail: pa@glancylaw.com

Russell Bourrienne, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. John P. Calamos, Sr., Trustee of the Calamos
Convertible Opportunities and Income Fund, et al., Case No.
2010-CH-45119 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. October 15, 2010), accuses
six Trustees and a former Trustee of the Fund of breach of
fiduciary duty in connection with the Fund's redemption of auction
market preferred shares following the collapse of auction rate
securities market in February 2008.

Calamos Convertible Opportunities and Income Fund is a closed-end
investment company organized as a Delaware statutory trust on
April 17, 2002.  Mr. Bourrienne says the Fund issued seven series
of AMPS, which are equity securities that have no maturity and
represent perpetual financing in that they did not ever have to be
repaid.  During 2008, the individual defendants caused the Fund to
redeem the AMPS and obtain less favorable debt financing in their
place.  The suit says the individual defendants took these actions
to further their own interests and those of the Fund's investment
advisor and its affiliates rather than the interests of the common
shareholders and thus breached the fiduciary duties owed to the
Fund's common shareholders.

The individual defendants include John P. Calamos, Sr., Weston W.
Marsh, John E. Neal, William R. Rybak, Stephen B. Timbers, and
David D. Tripple, who are all Trustees of the Fund; and Joe F.
Hanauer, a former trustee of the Fund.

The suit also brings claims against Calamos Advisors, LLC, and
Calamos Asset Management, Inc., for unjust enrichment and aiding
and abetting the individual defendants' breaches of their
fiduciary duties.

Naperville, Ill.-based Calamos Asset Investment, Inc. (NASDAQ GS:
CLMS) -- http://www.calamos.com/-- is a publicly owned investment
manager.  The firm primarily provides investment advisory services
to individual and institutional investors through open-end funds,
closed-end funds, separate accounts, offshore funds, and
partnerships.  Calamos Advisors, LLC, is an indirect subsidiary of
Calamos Asset Management, Inc., and is the Fund's investment

AMPS are similar to ARS, which term generally refers to a debt
instrument with a long-term maturity or preferred stocks that
return a yield at rates that are regularly reset at periodic

Mr. Bourrienne is a resident of the State of New York.  He
purchased common shares in the Fund on August 16, 2006.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leigh Lasky, Esq.
          Norman Rifkind, Esq.
          LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
          350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1320
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 634-0057

               - and -

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 682-1818

CITIZENS PROPERTY: Sued for Wrongful Use of No-Bid Contracts
Kris Hundley, staff writer for St. Petersburg Times, reports a
class-action lawsuit filed in Tallahassee, Florida, on Thursday
alleges that wrongful use of no-bid contracts by Citizens Property
Insurance Corp. has led to excessive costs and higher rates for
the state-run insurer's policyholders.

The complaint, filed by attorney Rick Bateman, cites a "pattern of
mismanagement" at Citizens and seeks unspecified damages for its
1.2 million policyholders.  The lawsuit was filed in the names of
two Wakulla County residents and Citizens customers, Jude A. Burk
and David A. Pasquarelli.

A Citizens spokeswoman said the insurer had not received any
notice of the suit.

Citizens was created by Florida's legislature in 2002 as the
insurer of last resort for homeowners and businesses unable to get
property insurance on the private market.  It is required to
competitively bid all contracts worth more than $25,000, unless it
is an emergency or there is only one vendor.

The complaint filed Thursday says that since 2004, Citizens has
wrongly awarded 33 no-bid contracts with a total value exceeding
$49 million.  In January 2006, Florida's auditor general also
criticized deficiencies in Citizens' contracting process.

"Citizens' flagrant disregard for its own statutorily mandated
contracting procedures has been a recurring problem," Mr. Bateman
said.  "Because of the company's actions, policyholders are being
tagged with special assessments which have been couched as fund
shortages from high numbers of claims from hurricane damages.

"These policyholders have already paid greatly for the
mismanagement of Citizens and will continue to pay unless
something is done to stop it."

A year ago, the board awarded a $60 million no-bid contract for
home reinspections to a Jacksonville company, Inspection Depot.
After the deal became public, the board reduced the size of the
contract, restricting it to a one-year pilot program.  Citizens
then issued a competitive bid for the work, 11 companies applied
and three contractors, including Inspection Depot, were awarded
the final contract, to begin next year.

Bateman filed a lawsuit against Citizens last year on behalf of a
contractor, SagoTec Group, vying for the reinspection work.  That
action is pending.

Bateman said that, before filing the class-action lawsuit, he made
a public records request for documents regarding any discussions
between Florida Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink and Citizens'
chief executive regarding procurement violations.  The CFO
oversees the insurer.  Mr. Bateman said he was told there were no
such documents.

"If government won't make Citizens protect taxpayer money, then
it's left up to the courts," he said.

BARNWELL NURSING: Judges Deny Counsel Fees to Individual
Joel Stashenko, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
brushing aside an 1891 precedent, the New York state Court of
Appeals on Thursday said lawyers who successfully challenge class
counsel fees on behalf of individual plaintiffs are not entitled
to reimbursement for their fees.

The majority in a 5-2 decision held that "comprehensive" 1975
reforms to class actions in New York by the state Legislature
authorized payment of fees only to the "representatives of the
class" and not the "award of counsel fees to any party, individual
or counsel, other than class counsel."

"Had the Legislature intended any party to recover attorney fees
it could have expressly said so," Judge Eugene F. Pigott Jr. wrote
for the majority in Flemming v. Barnwell Nursing Home and Health
Facilities Inc., 149.

Judge Pigott noted that the 19th-century "common fund" doctrine
recognized that an award of counsel fees may be made out of a
"common fund" to be shared by litigants.  But he said "no modern
New York court has applied such rule to authorize an objector's
counsel fee award in a class action lawsuit."

The "general rule" in New York is that attorney's fees are
considered incidental to litigation and that a lawyer is not
entitled to fees from anyone other than his clients merely because
other individuals benefitted by his services, Judge Pigott wrote.

However, the majority noted that the 1975 reforms did empower
courts to order fees to be paid by the opponent of a class "if
justice requires."

Judges Victoria A. Graffeo, Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, Theodore T.
Jones Jr. and Robert S. Smith joined the majority.

In dissent, Judge Robert S. Smith wrote that the 1975 changes to
class actions embodied in CPLR 909 were hardly as "comprehensive"
as characterized by the majority.

Judge Smith said the Court codified the "common fund" rule in
Woodruff v. New York, Lake Erie & W.R.R. Co., 129 NY 27 30-31
(1891), and that "it has long been commonly understood that fees
may be awarded both to a class counsel who benefits a class by
winning or settling a lawsuit and to an objector's counsel who
benefits the class by reducing the amount of class counsel's

Individuals in a class who object to the fees paid to the class
counsel are useful in checking the "inflation" of attorney's fees
and, in light of Thursday's ruling, will only seek to do so out of
"philanthropic motives," Judge Smith wrote.

"This result is bad policy; it is contrary to New York's common
law; and it is not required by any statute," Judge Smith said.

Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman joined the dissent.

The underlying suit in Flemming was launched with Jon Flemming as
lead plaintiff.  He was administrator of the estate of Elizabeth
Lagai, who died in 1999 of septic shock at the Barnwell Nursing
Home in Columbia County.  Eventually, 242 people who lived at
Barnwell joined in a suit claiming medical malpractice, wrongful
death, negligence and providing a level of care below state

The case settled for $950,000, including $448,000 for class
counsel fees and expenses, $35,000 to Mr. Flemming as an incentive
award and $40,000 to the settlement administrator, Paul Macari.

Caroline Ahlfors Mouris, the executor of one class member's
estate, objected to the class counsel's compensation and the
payments to Messrs. Flemming and Macari.

An Appellate Division, Third Department, panel reduced the class
counsel fees to $425,000 and eliminated the fees for Messrs.
Flemming and Macari.

But the appeals court also refused Ms. Mouris' request for
attorney's fees for challenging the settlement, finding that
unless there was a specific statute allowing the payments or that
the parties had a contract providing for them, each party is
responsible for its own counsel fees.  Flemming v. Barnwell
Nursing Home and Health Facilities Inc., 56 AD3d 162 (2008).

The Third Department sent the case back to state Supreme Court,
where Ms. Mouris' request for fees was again denied though the
administrator's payment was restored and expanded to $58,000.

Ms. Mouris had sought between $35,000 and $50,000 in fees at
various stages of the litigation.

Michael S. Gruen of Manhattan, Ms. Mouris' attorney, said he
agreed with Judge Smith's dissent and hopes the Legislature will
take up the matter.

"It is unfortunate, but someone in my position who is going to be
asked in the future to take on a very significant load of work in
doing this kind of service is likely to take this case into
account before accepting," Mr. Gruen said in an interview.  "I
think the dissent described the nature of litigation very well,
and that the role of opposing advocates is very important."

Mr. Gruen said it is "understandably very difficult" for a judge
to make a sound decision on the propriety of class counsel fees
after hearing from only one side in the litigation.

George J. Szary of DeGraff, Foy & Kunz in Albany, the class
counsel in the case, argued against awarding fees to Ms. Mouris.

Mr. Szary said he thought the ruling was a "correct" one.

"It's a matter for the Legislature," he said.

DEAN CHANDLER: Glen Ridge Couple Joins Class Action Suit
Erin Roll, writing for Glen Ridge Voice, reports a Glen Ridge
couple is one of several seeking legal action against a California
attorney accused of charging upfront fees to handle mortgage loan

Stefan and Yoshiko des Lauriers of Herman Street are one of two
families named as plaintiffs in a $2 million class action lawsuit
against Dean Chandler and his firm, the First American Law Center
of Oceanside, CA.

Filed in a San Diego court Sept. 29, the suit alleges FALC asked
for upfront fees before conducting a loan modification.  Under a
law passed in California last year, a debt adjustment agency is
not allowed to solicit payment from its clients until all
adjustment services have been performed.

According to the complaint, FALC contacted the des Lauriers in
March and offered to perform a loan modification for them.  The
complaint alleges FALC charged the des Lauriers $3,495 in upfront
fees.  In June, the des Lauriers' mortgage company informed them
they would not interact with a third party, and therefore would
not work with FALC on a loan modification.

The des Lauriers -- who declined a request from Glen Ridge Voice
to comment on the case -- and the second couple are demanding
refunds from FALC.  The company reportedly agreed to comply,
though the suit alleges neither couple has received a refund to

In June, the FBI conducted a raid on FALC and other agencies that
offer loan modifications, as part of an ongoing mortgage fraud
investigation dubbed "Operation Stolen Dreams."

In response to the plaintiffs' claims, Chandler countered via
e-mail Monday that FALC has operated legitimately and provided aid
to homeowners in need.  He maintains the raid made it impossible
for clients to receive refunds in a timely manner, since FALC's
bank accounts were frozen in the immediate aftermath.

GATEWAY SCHOOL: Sued for Misrepresenting Educational Progress
Moriah Balingit, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports the
parents of an autistic 12-year-old student have filed a class
action lawsuit against the Gateway School District in federal
court, claiming that the district misled them about the student's
educational progress and left him nearly four years behind as he
entered fifth grade.

The plaintiffs, who are identified only by their initials, filed
suit Monday on behalf of all of the district's autistic children,
claiming that several other parents have similar complaints.

The suit accuses the district of violating several federal laws,
including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which
mandates that schools provide disabled students with "appropriate
[special] education services sufficient to address their
educational needs," the suit says.

District spokeswoman Cara Zanella referred comment to the
district's attorneys, William Andrews and Bruce Dice, who could
not be reached.

The federal law requires, among other things, that districts
provide students who have disabilities with an Individualized
Education Program, a curriculum tailored specifically to their
needs and abilities.  It also requires that teachers set annual
goals for students and advise parents as to how students are
progressing toward those goals.  Finally, it allows parents to
participate in the process of formulating the IEP.

According to the suit, the boy was a student at Ramsey Elementary
School from kindergarten to fifth grade.  During that time, his
parents said, they received "reports detailing substantial
educational gains in academic, functional and developmental

Based on report cards and meetings with teachers, his parents
believed he was nearly up to grade level, performing at a third-
or fourth-grade level at the end of his fourth-grade year.  They
also participated in meetings addressing the child's IEP.

But as he prepared to enter Moss Side Middle School, new progress
reports showed the boy was actually functioning at a first- or
second-grade level.  The parents confirmed this with outside
professionals and concluded that "the District had misrepresented
years of previous educational process."

They also said parents of other autistic children experienced
similar problems and characterized it as "pervasive
misrepresentation of students' educational progress."

"After looking into this matter, we have found other parents who
are reporting similar misrepresentations of the educational
progress their children are making at Gateway School District,"
Jeffrey Ruder, the attorney representing the parents who filed
suit, wrote in an e-mail.

And, the parents in the lawsuit contend, because of the
misrepresentation, they were "unable to participate in the [IEP]

The suit contends the district's actions violated the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act because it denied the parents
their right to participate in their child's educational process
and denied the child appropriate educational accommodations.

Mr. Ruder said his clients negotiated with the district for six
months without resolution.

The parents request, among other things, that the court compel
"the District to retrain its personnel on progress monitoring," to
re-evaluate the IEPs and to provide independent evaluations of all
of the district's autistic students.

HORIZON BLUE CROSS: Settles Class Action Suit for $22 Million
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, Horizon
Blue Cross Blue Shield, New Jersey's largest health insurer, has
agreed to settle a federal class action by ambulatory surgical
centers who claim they were shortchanged on reimbursements for
out-of-network care.

The deal requires cash payments totaling $22 million, but class
counsel Bruce Nagel says it is worth more than $200 million due to
other provisions, the value of which remains to be quantified.

The deal allows Nagel, of Nagel Rice in Roseland and co-counsel
Neil Prupis, of Lampf, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow in West Orange,
to ask the court for up to $10 million in legal fees plus costs,
to be paid out of the class recovery.  They are to receive at
least $7.3 million, one-third of the $22 million.

The settlement won preliminary approval Monday from Magistrate
Judge Madeline Cox Arleo in Newark.  She also conditionally
certified the class in Gregory Surgical Services LLC v. Horizon
Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey Inc., 06-cv-462.

The class consists of about 130 licensed ambulatory surgical
centers and unlicensed single surgical suites in New Jersey that
have billed Newark-based Horizon for services since Oct. 1, 2004.

The plaintiffs do not have a contract with Horizon, making them
out-of-network providers.  They are supposed to be reimbursed
based on a percentage of the reasonable and customary charges for
the services they provide, and they typically bill directly after
obtaining an assignment of benefits from the patient.

Starting in 2004, they allege, they saw an abrupt decrease in the
amount of benefits paid, which fell well below the reasonable and
customary charges.

They have sued for violation of section 502(a) of ERISA, of the
fiduciary duty of loyalty and due care and the duty of good faith.

Most of the fixed $22 million settlement amount -- $16 million --
covers underpayment claims through the end of 2008.  Horizon must
pay at least another $6 million through retroactive adjustments to
payments for 2009 services made under large employer benefit
plans, those with 50 or more employees.

Going forward, from 2011 to 2013, the insurer will have to
increase the reimbursement rate to at least 225 percent of what
Medicare paid as of July 2010, with three percent cost-of living
adjustments in 2012 and 2013.

Mr. Nagel estimates this will garner about $50 million per year or
about $150 million over the three-year stretch.

He says business reforms, including Horizon's waiver of a $2,000
cap on out-of-network benefits under large employer plans, will
add value.  Class members have already gained millions from a
correction to a computer program for calculating payments under
small employer plans, which Horizon made in 2008 in response to
the suit, says Mr. Nagel.

The settlement allows Horizon to recover any overpaid benefits and
provides that class representative Glen Ridge Surgicenter will
receive $10,000.

Notice to class members must go out by Oct. 20 and members can opt
out until Nov. 29.  The due date for objections is Dec. 6, with
responses by Dec. 13.

Judge Arleo set the final approval hearing for Dec. 17. The
parties consented to let her decide the issue, rather than Chief
Judge Garrett Brown Jr., who is assigned to the case.

In a joint statement, the parties said they agreed to settle "to
avoid the risk and expense of lengthy protracted litigation."
Horizon spokesman Thomas Vincz declines comment beyond that.

Horizon's lawyers are B. John Pendleton Jr., of McCarter & English
in Newark, who was out of the country and could not be reached,
and Edward Wardell, of Kelley, Wardell, Craig, Annin & Baxter in
Haddonfield, who declines comment.

Mr. Nagel says this is the first class action settlement in New
Jersey in a suit by providers alleging under-reimbursement for
out-of-network care. A similar action on behalf of insureds, McCoy
v. Health Net Inc., 03-cv-1801, settled in 2008 for $255 million
-- which included reforms valued at $40 million and legal fees of
$68 million.

In December 2007, the Horizon case survived a motion to dismiss
when District Judge Joseph Greenaway, now on the 3rd Circuit Court
of Appeals, refused to dismiss for lack of standing to sue under

Horizon had argued that the insureds could not have validly
assigned their benefits to the plaintiffs because the policies had
anti-assignment clauses, but Greenaway held that Horizon might
have waived the provision by dealing directly with the providers.

The Newark-based Horizon provides or administers health benefits
for about 3.6 million people in the state, says Ed Rogan, a
spokesman for the Department of Banking and Insurance. That number
encompasses those insured under Horizon policies and under self-
funded employer plans for whom Horizon processes claims, including
the State Health Benefits Program for state employees.

The plaintiffs' complaint included a count that Horizon had a
fiduciary duty to state employees, and thus to the plaintiffs as
their assignees, but had breached that duty by underpaying
benefits. On March 19, 2009, Greenway dismissed that count for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies through an appeal to
the State Health Benefits Commission.

HUNGARY: Sued Over Role in Murder of Hungarian Jews in 1944
Courthouse News Service reports that Holocaust survivors and their
families seek damages from the Republic of Hungary and its
National Railway for their cooperation in the deportation,
robbery, torture and murder of more than 500,000 Hungarians in
1944, in a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Simon, et al. v. The Republic of
Hungary, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01770 (D.D.C.) (Bates, J.), is
available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles S. Fax, Esq.
          Liesel J. Schopler, Esq.
          7979 Old Georgetown Road, Suite 400
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (301) 951-0150
          E-mail: cfax@rlls.com

               - and -

          L. Marc Zell, Esq.
          ZELL & CO.
          21 Herzog Street
          Jerusalem 92387 Israel
          Telephone: 011-972-2-633-6300
          E-mail: mzell@fandz.com

               - and -

          David H. Weinstein, Esq.
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 545-7200
          E-mail: weinstein@wka-law.com

               - and -

          Paul G. Gaston, Esq.
          1776 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Suite 806
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 296-5856
          E-mail: pgaston@attglobal.net

ILLINOIS: Dennis Jones to Oversee Mentally Ill Housing Plan
The Associated Press reports an Indiana University administrator
has been recommended to oversee a sweeping transition in housing
choices for mentally ill people in Illinois.

Both sides in a class action lawsuit recommended Dennis Jones in a
motion filed Wednesday in federal court in Chicago.  A judge will
hear the motion Oct. 28.

Mr. Jones is a court-appointed monitor in a similar case in
Washington, D.C.  He was an expert witness in the Illinois case.

A plan that got court approval last month will give approximately
4,300 mentally ill people living in large institutions the chance
to move into smaller homes.

The plan settles claims that Illinois violates the civil rights of
the mentally ill by segregating them in nursing homes.

Mr. Jones would monitor the five-year transition if he's

The case is Williams v. Quinn.

JP MORGAN: Accused in California Suit of Not Paying Overtime
Courthouse News Service reports that J.P. Morgan Chase Bank stiffs
loan officers for overtime and makes them work through legally
required breaks, a class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Wiley v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-07901 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Miriam L. Schimmel, Esq.
          Mark P. Estrella, Esq.
          Sang Park, Esq.
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5637
          E-mail: mschimmel@initiativelegal.com

KING PHARMA: Being Sold to Pfizer for Too Little, Suit Claims
Courthouse News Service reports that King Pharmaceuticals sold
itself too cheaply to Pfizer, for $3.6 billion or $14.25 a share,
shareholders claim in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Leone v. King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-00230 (E.D. Tenn.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

         William J. Haynes, III, Esq.
         C. David Briley, Esq.
         Nashville City Center, Suite 1600
         Nashville, TN 37219
         Telephone: 615-238-6392

              - and -

          David Leventhal, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-983-9330

MGIC INVESTMENT: Motion Opposing Plea to Amend Suit Pending
MGIC Investment Corp.'s motion in opposition to a plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend a class action complaint remains pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
according to the company's Oct. 19, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Five previously filed purported class action complaints filed
against the company and several of its executive officers were
consolidated in March 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin and Fulton County Employees'
Retirement System was appointed as the lead plaintiff.

The lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on
June 22, 2009.  Due in part to its length and structure, it is
difficult to summarize briefly the allegations in the Complaint
but it appears the allegations are that the company and its
officers named in the Complaint violated the federal securities
laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material
information about (i) loss development in the company's insurance
in force, and (ii) C-BASS, including its liquidity.

The company's motion to dismiss the Complaint was granted on
February 18, 2010.  On March 18, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion
for leave to file an amended complaint.  Attached to this motion
was a proposed Amended Complaint.

The Amended Complaint alleges that the company and two of its
officers named in the Amended Complaint violated the federal
securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material
information about C-BASS, including its liquidity, and by failing
to properly account for the company's investment in C-BASS.

The Amended Complaint also names two officers of C-BASS with
respect to the Amended Complaint's allegations regarding C-BASS.

The purported class period covered by the Amended Complaint begins
on Feb. 6, 2007 and ends on Aug. 13, 2007.  The Amended Complaint
seeks damages based on purchases of the company's stock during
this time period at prices that were allegedly inflated as a
result of the purported violations of federal securities laws.

On April 12, 2010, the company filed a motion in opposition to
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint.  With limited
exceptions, the company's bylaws provide that its officers are
entitled to indemnification from the company for claims against
them of the type alleged in the Amended Complaint.

MGIC Investment Corporation (NYSE: MTG) -- http://mtg.mgic.com/--
is headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and is the parent
company of Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (MGIC).  It
offers mortgage insurance, and risk management products and
services to mortgage lenders as well as structured finance
services to investors.

NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Graco Unit Recalls 2 Million Strollers
Derek Abma, writing for Postmedia News, reports that Graco
Children's Products Inc., a unit of Newell Rubbermaid, is
recalling about 2 million baby strollers sold before 2008 at major
U.S. retailers, after four infants died of strangulation.

The news of the recall of the China-made strollers comes less than
three weeks after Mattel Inc.'s Fisher-Price recalled some 10
million toys and other items, renewing concerns about safety
standards of infant products -- a good chunk of which are made in
low-cost centers like China.

"We have taken appropriate reserves and do not expect a material
impact on the company," Newell spokesman David Doolittle said in
an e-mail to Reuters.

The latest recall, made along with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, applies to Graco Quattro Tour and MetroLite
strollers sold at retailers including Babies R Us, Sears, Target,
and Wal-Mart, between November 2000 and December 2007.

In addition to the four deaths, the CPSC said it was also aware of
reports of five infants becoming entrapped, resulting in cuts and
bruises, and one having difficulty breathing.

"This recall involves strollers sold as long as 10 years ago,
demonstrating the ongoing need for families to remain vigilant
about hazardous products lurking in their homes," said Dan
Verakis, founder and CEO of SafetyBook.org, which runs a recall-
monitoring service for consumers.

Earlier this year, Graco recalled another 1.5 million strollers
after the CPSC received reports of children's fingertips being

"We take this issue very seriously," Mr. Doolittle said, adding,
"this is a product category that is heavily regulated and
therefore subject to a higher number of recalls."

ORACLE CORP: Class in Wage-and-Hour Suit Wins Certification
Kate Moser, writing for The Recorder, reports an Alameda County,
Calif., judge certified a class of an estimated 3,000 Oracle Corp.
employees who allege that they were misclassified as exempt and
deprived of overtime pay.

Judge Steven Brick's order certified three subclasses of technical
analysts, project managers and quality assurance analysts or
developers for Oracle and PeopleSoft, which Oracle bought in 2005.
They say Oracle violated provisions of the California Labor Code
by failing to pay overtime wages and give them off-duty meal

It's the first class of Oracle employees to win certification in a
coordinated proceeding, Oracle Wage and Hour Cases, JCCP004597,
that includes four different suits.

Judge Brick also granted the plaintiff's motion to strike the
declaration of an expert whose opinions favored Oracle.  "Though
acquired at a very high price, they contribute little to the
resolution of this motion," he wrote.

Judge Brick noted that he had reviewed 10,000 pages of evidence,
and he punished both sides for being overzealous on evidentiary
objections.  Oracle's 527 objections "appear to be more 'an intent
to harass than a good faith effort to address genuine objections'
to evidence," Judge Brick wrote, citing Dukes v. Wal-Mart, 04-
16688, the huge gender discrimination claim certified last spring
by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Brendan Dolan, a partner in the San Francisco office of Kasowitz,
Benson, Torres & Friedman, is representing Oracle.

As class counsel, Brick appointed Oakland, Calif.'s Goldstein,
Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian; the Weltin Law Firm; and
Flynn, Delich & Wise.

SOLARWINDS INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
The Shuman Law Firm Thursday disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of SolarWinds, Inc. between February 8, 2010 and July 21,
2010, inclusive.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights and interests with respect
to this matter, please contact Rusty E. Glenn toll-free at 866-
974-8626 or email Mr. Glenn at rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

The complaint charges SolarWinds and certain of its officers
and/or directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's operations and its business and financial
results and outlook.  According to the complaint, defendants
misled investors by misrepresenting and failing to disclose
material problems with SolarWinds' license revenues and sales to
the U.S. federal government, as well as material problems within
the Company's sales management team that prevented SolarWinds from
accurately predicting the Company's ability to make and maintain

On July 21, 2010, the Company cut its recently reaffirmed and
raised revenue guidance.  Thereafter, defendants revealed there
had been a 44% decline in U.S. federal government sales that was
caused by the inability of the Company's "US federal sales
management team to predict and positively influence" the pace of
sales.  In response to the Company's announcement, SolarWinds
common stock plummeted 23% or $3.81 per share to close at $12.71
on July 22, 2010, on heavy trading volume.

If you purchased SolarWinds common stock during the Class Period,
you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of
the class no later than December 14, 2010.  A lead plaintiff is a
class member that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Although your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek
appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important
decisions which could affect the overall recovery for class

The Shuman Law Firm represents investors throughout the nation,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative actions.


          Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
          Telephone: 866-974-8626
          Facsimile: 303-484-4886
          E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

TOYOTA AUTO: TMCC Not a Defendant in Amended Complaint
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation has not been named as a defendant
in an amended complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

TMCC and certain affiliates were named as defendants in the
consolidated multidistrict litigation, In Re: Toyota Motor Corp.
Unintended Acceleration, Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation seeking damages and injunctive relief as a
result of alleged sudden unintended acceleration in certain Toyota
and Lexus vehicles.

On Aug. 2, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
that does not name TMCC as a defendant.

No additional information were disclosed in Toyota Auto
Receivables 2010-A/2010-B/2010-C Owner Trust's Form 10-D filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly
distribution period from Sept. 1, 2010 to Sept. 30, 2010.

TOYOTA AUTO: TMCC a Defendant in Suit by Foreign Plaintiffs
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation has been named as a defendant in a
complaint filed by a purported class of foreign plaintiffs.

The suit contains the same allegations as in the matter In Re:
Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration, Marketing, Sales
Practices and Products Liability Litigation.

No additional information were disclosed in Toyota Auto
Receivables 2010-A/2010-B/2010-C Owner Trust's Form 10-D filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly
distribution period from Sept. 1, 2010 to Sept. 30, 2010.

TOYOTA AUTO: TMCC Still a Defendant in Suit by Orange County DA
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation and certain affiliates remains a
defendant in a suit filed by the Orange County District Attorney.

The action was filed on March 12, 2010, and contains the same
allegations as in the matter In Re: Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended
Acceleration, Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability

No additional information were disclosed in Toyota Auto
Receivables 2010-A/2010-B/2010-C Owner Trust's Form 10-D filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly
distribution period from Sept. 1, 2010 to Sept. 30, 2010.

TOYOTA AUTO: TMCC Defends Bondholder Suit in California
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation defends a bondholder action
captioned Harel Pia Mutual Fund v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al., in
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

TMCC and certain affiliates had also been named as defendants in a
putative bondholder class action, Harel Pia Mutual Fund v. Toyota
Motor Corp., et al., filed in the Central District of California
on April 8, 2010, alleging violations of federal securities laws.
The plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit on
July 20, 2010.

On July 22, 2010, the same plaintiff in the federal bondholder
action refiled the case in California state court on behalf of
purchasers of TMCC bonds traded on foreign exchanges.  The
complaint alleges violations of California securities laws, fraud,
breach of fiduciary duty and other state law claims.

No updates on the matter were disclosed in Toyota Auto Receivables
2010-A/2010-B/2010-C Owner Trust's Form 10-D filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution
period from Sept. 1, 2010 to Sept. 30, 2010.

TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls Cars to Replace Brake Master Cylinder Seal
Toyota Motor Sales (TMS), U.S.A., Inc., will conduct a voluntary
Safety Recall involving approximately 740,000 -- 2005 through 2006
Avalon, 2004 through 2006 Highlander (non Hybrid) and Lexus RX330,
and 2006 Lexus GS300, IS250, and IS350 vehicles sold in the United
States to address the possibility that a small amount of the brake
fluid could slowly leak from the brake master cylinder, resulting
in illumination of the brake warning lamp.

This action follows an announcement made by Toyota Motor
Corporation in Japan on October 21, 2010.

The Toyota genuine brake fluid used during vehicle assembly for
vehicles sold in the United States contains polymers.  The
polymers act as lubricants for certain brake system components.
If during vehicle maintenance, brake fluid is used that does not
contain such polymers or only small amounts, a part of the
internal rubber seal (brake master cylinder cup) located at the
end of the brake master cylinder piston may become dry and may
curl during movement of the piston.  If this occurs, a small
amount of the brake fluid could slowly leak from the brake master
cylinder into the brake booster, resulting in illumination of the
brake warning lamp.

If the brake warning lamp has illuminated and the vehicle
continues to be operated without refilling the master cylinder
brake fluid reservoir, the driver will begin to notice a spongy or
soft brake pedal feel and braking performance may gradually

Owners of the involved vehicles will be notified by first class
mail beginning in early November 2010.  Toyota and Lexus dealers
will replace the brake master cylinder cup with a newly designed
one at no charge to the vehicle owners.

Detailed information and answers to questions are available to
customers at http://www.toyota.com/recallor
http://www.lexus.com/recalland the Toyota Customer Experience
Center at 1-800-331-4331 or Lexus Customer Satisfaction at 1-800-
25 LEXUS or 1-800-255-3987.

WAL-MART STORES: Request to Review Class Action Decision Opposed
The following is being issued by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll

Lead women plaintiffs in the sex discrimination case against Wal-
Mart (Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.) on Thursday filed a briefing
opposing Wal-Mart's request to the U.S. Supreme Court that it
review a lower court's class action decision.

In April 2010, after nearly a decade of pre-trial wrangling, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of
class action status for the case.  The lawsuit alleges systemic
discrimination against women in compensation and promotions at
Wal-Mart and its subsidiary, Sam's Club.  It is the largest civil
rights class action in history.  Wal-Mart has lost the class
action issue four times before the U.S. District and the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.

"This latest appeal is just another attempt to delay the case,"
said Betty Dukes, a Pittsburg, Calif., Wal-Mart greeter for whom
the case is named.  "After nearly 10 years, the women of Wal-Mart
deserve our day in court."

The brief filed in opposition to Wal-Mart's Petition argues that
the Ninth Circuit ruling upholding the class was proper.  It
states that Wal-Mart ignores the compelling facts that led the
trial court -- in a detailed 84-page opinion -- to conclude that
there was significant proof to raise an inference of company-wide
pay and promotion discrimination.  The evidence also showed that
Wal-Mart lagged far behind its competitors in its promotion of
women and long knew of the discrimination against its female
employees but failed to act.

Wal-Mart's real argument, ultimately, is that "it is too big to be
held accountable," according to the women's brief.  "The class is
large because Wal-Mart is the nation's largest employer and
manages its operations and employment practices in a highly
uniform and centralized manner."

The brief also states that the class certification decision in
this case does not threaten employers with good records on
diversity or open the floodgates to class actions.

"In fact, in the nearly four years since the Ninth Circuit first
affirmed Dukes in February 2007, not a single Title VII class
action -- small or large -- has been certified within the Ninth
Circuit.  In the same four-year time period, nine Title VII class
actions have been certified in the federal courts across the
entire country -- about two cases a year.  Only four of these
cases involved private corporate employers.

"The very small number of Title VII class action cases certified
in the recent past underscores another important point. . .  It
highlights how different Wal-Mart is from the typical employer.
Wal-Mart is a uniquely large and unusually uniform and centralized
company."  Wal-Mart has lagged far behind its competitors in its
promotion of women. The evidence against Wal-Mart fully supports a
class action.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to take the case
by the end of the year.

For more information and a copy of the Opposition brief, visit

Dukes v. Wal-Mart plaintiffs are represented by The Impact Fund,
Berkeley, Calif; Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Washington,
DC; Equal Rights Advocates (ERA), San Francisco; Davis Cowell &
Bowe, San Francisco; Public Justice Center, Baltimore; and Tinkler
Law Firm and Merit Bennett, Santa Fe, N.M.

WASHINGTON: In-Home Care Trial Set for Nov. 29, 2010
If You Were a DSHS client who received In-Home Personal
    Care Assistance From a Live-in Provider or were an
  Individual Provider who lived with a DSHS client Or a
  Home Care Agency that Provided a Live-in Caregiver for
   a DSHS Client from April 2003 through June 2008, and
         the DSHS Client Had Hours Reduced under the
        Shared Living Rule, PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE

      A Class Action Lawsuit Could Affect Your Rights

A Class action lawsuit against the Washington State Department of
Social and Health Services is pending in the Thurston County
Superior Court.  The lawsuit is brought by:

   (1) DSHS clients who, between April 2003 and June 2008,
       received in-home care personal care assistance by a
       live-in Individual Provider or from a home care
       agency that sent a live-in caregiver, and had a
       reduction in hours because of the shared living
       rule or

   (2) Individual Providers who lived with the DSHS client
       or home care agencies who provided a live-in
       caregiver, and the DSHS client's hours were
       reduced because of the shared living rule between
       April 2003 and June 2008.

Your rights may be affected by a lawsuit against the Washington
State Department of Social and Health Services ("DSHS") which is
pending in the Thurston County Superior Court.  The lawsuit seeks
a money damages award for people whose hours were reduced by DSHS
under the Shared Living Rule.  The lawsuit is pending in Thurston
County Superior Court under Consolidated Cause Number 07-5-00895-8
and captioned: Rekhter, et al. vs. State of Washington/DSHS, et
al./Pfaff, et al. vs. Robin Arnold-Williams/Washington State
Department of Social and Health Services, et al., and Service
Employees International Union 775NW, et al. vs. Robin Arnold
Williams/Washington State Department of Social and Health
Services, et al.  If you are a Class Member, you have legal rights
and choices to make, which are described in this Notice.


The lawsuit claims that the Defendant Washington State Department
of Social and Health Services improperly withheld Medicaid or
state-funded in-home personal care assistance from DSHS clients
under the Shared Living Rule from April 2003 through June 2008.

The State of Washington, Department of Social and Health Services
denies that it did anything wrong and has raised defenses.  The
Court has decided that DSHS improperly withheld benefits but has
not decided how much the State must pay back to the Class Members.
The trial is set to begin on November 29, 2010.


The Court has decided that the Class Members are those people who
fall within the two Classes, which are: (1) DSHS clients who,
between April 2003 and June 2008, received in-home care personal
care assistance by a live-in Individual Provider or from a home
care agency that sent a live-in caregiver, and had a reduction in
hours because of the shared living rule or (2) Individual
Providers who lived with the DSHS client or home care agencies who
provided a live-in caregiver, and the DSHS client's hours were
reduced because of the shared living rule between April 2003 and
June 2008.  The lawsuit asks the Court to award money damages.


The Court has appointed:

         Greg McBroom, Esq.
         Livengood, Fitzgerald & Alskog, PLLC
         121 Third Avenue
         P.O. Box 908
         Kirkland, WA 98033
         Telephone: (425) 822-9281
         E-mail: mcbroom@lfa-law.com

              - and -

         Darrell L. Cochran, Esq.
         Pfau Cochran Vertetis Kosnoff, PLLC
         P.O. Box 2237
         Tacoma, WA 98402
         Telephone: (253) 777-0799

to act as Class Counsel to represent you and the Classes.  You
don't have to pay Class Counsel or anyone else to represent you.
If any money or benefits for the Classes are obtained as a result
of settlement or trial, Class Counsel will ask the Court to
approve payment of attorneys' fees.  If no benefits are obtained,
the lawyers won't get anything.


Stay in the Class

If you want to remain in a Class, you don't need to do anything.
If you stay in a Class, all of the Court's orders will apply to
you, and you won't be able to sue on your own about the claims in
this lawsuit.  But you keep the right to get your share of money,
if any is awarded in the lawsuit.

Appear in the lawsuit

If you stay in a Class, you may -- but are not required to --
appear and speak in the lawsuit on your own or through your own
attorney (at your expense).  To do this, you must file a Notice of
Appearance with the Court.

Exclude yourself from a Class

If you don't want to be a member of a Class and keep the right to
sue on your own, you must exclude yourself.  If you exclude
yourself, you can't get any money or benefits from this lawsuit.
If you want to be excluded from the class, you must send a written
notice of your intent to exclude yourself from the class, with the
information requested below, by mail postmarked no later than
November 15, 2010, to Darrell L. Cochran, Esq., Pfau Cochran
Vertetis Kosnoff, PLLC, P.O. Box 2237, Tacoma, WA 98402.

Please include your full name, your social security number, your
current mailing address, phone number, e-mail address, and a
statement that you wish to be excluded from the Rekhter, et al.
vs. State of Washington/DSHS, et al., Pfaff, et al. vs. Robin
Arnold-Williams/Washington State Department of Social and Health
Services, et al. and SEIU 775NW, et al. vs. Robin Arnold-
Williams/Washington State Department of Social and Health
Services, et al. consolidated lawsuit.


Write: Darrell L. Cochran, Pfau Cochran Vertetis Kosnoff, PLLC,
P.O. Box 2237, Tacoma, WA 98402 or view information on-line at

ZYNGA GAME: Sued for Sharing Facebook Users' Personal Info
Nancy Walther Graf, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04680 (N.D.
Calif. October 18, 2010), brings claims against the San Francisco,
Calif.-based company for intentionally and knowingly sharing its
users' sensitive personally identifiable information, including
users' real names, with Zynga's advertising partners and Internet
marketing companies for a gain, in violation of its agreement with
Facebook, Inc., accepted industry standards, and state and federal
law, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the
Stored Communications Act, and California's Unfair Competition
Law, California's Computer Crime Law, and the California Legal
Remedies Act.

Ms. Graf says that as a direct result of Zynga's conduct,
Plaintiff and the Class suffered injury.

Ms. Graf, a resident of Ramsey County, Minnesota, is a registered
user of Zynga's services and has used the Farmville application
owned, operated and offered by Zynga, one of the largest providers
of Facebook, Inc. social applications.  Zynga's most popular
games, Farmville, Texas HoldEm, FrontierVille, Cafe World, Mafia
Wars, and Treasure Isle, are offered by and through Facebook to
Facebook users and have over 59 million Facebook users.

According to the Complaint, Facebook's terms and conditions
prohibit third parties, such as Zynga, who create applications
offered on Facebook from transferring data about Facebook users to
outside advertising and data companies, even if a user agrees to
do so.

According to a press statement by Edelson McGuire LLC, the lawsuit
alleges that Zynga, which currently makes six of the top 10
Facebook games, collected the Facebook data of its 218 million
users and shared it with advertisers and data brokers in violation
of federal law and Zynga's contract with Facebook.

The class action seeks monetary relief for those whose data was
wrongly shared, and injunctive relief to prevent continued privacy

"This appears to be another example of an online company failing
the American public with empty promises to respect individual
privacy rights," explained Michael Aschenbrener, Esq., at Edelson
McGuire LLC, co-lead attorney for the class action.  "Companies
large and small need to learn to follow through on their privacy
promises or risk having consumers decide that it is simply not
worth it to use their services," added Kassra Nassiri, Esq., at
Nassiri & Jung LLP, co-lead attorney for the lawsuit.

Messrs. Aschenbrener and Nassiri are also co-lead class counsel in
another case against Facebook that alleges massive privacy

Edelson McGuire LLC -- http://www.edelson.com/-- is a class
action firm that focuses on Internet, technology, privacy,
banking, and consumer issues with attorneys in Illinois, New York,
California, and Florida.

Nassiri & Jung LLP -- http://www.nassiri-jung.com/-- is a
boutique litigation firm based in San Francisco that focuses on
complex business disputes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kassra P. Nassiri, Esq.
          Charles H. Jung, Esq.
          NASSIRI & JUNG LLP
          47 Kearny Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 762-3100
          E-mail: knassiri@nassiri-jung.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Aschenbrener, Esq.
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: maschenbrener@edelson.com

* UK Pension Funds to Recoup GBP1.4BB in US Class Action Suits
A new report from GOAL Group, a global class action services
specialist, shows that over the next few years, GBP1.4 billion
will be recouped by UK pension funds participating in US class
action lawsuits connected to losses suffered at the peak of the
financial markets crisis in 2008.  GOAL Group's findings identify
that Northern European pension funds have lost GBP51 billion on
their US investments in 2008, some GBP21 billion of which is
attributable to UK pension funds.  Furthermore, the report also
highlights that if class action participation rates do not
improve, a number of UK pension funds will effectively forego
their right to recoup some GBP368 million of recoverable funds.
This is a wake-up call to pension funds that are currently missing
out on their legal right to claim damages through the US courts.

The losses experienced by Northern European pension funds in 2008
have been on such a large scale that only a fraction has so-far
been recouped.  While some cases are resolved within two years of
being filed, many, as effectively demonstrated by the high-profile
case against Enron Corp., will take several years before reaching
resolution or settlement.  A study by Nera Consulting showed that
at the end of 2009, over four fifths of filings related to the
financial markets crisis were still unresolved.  Furthermore, for
cases filed in 2008 and 2009, median investor losses rose by two
fifths compared to previous years -- to over US$500 million [1].
Securities class action experienced a surge in Q2 2010, with the
annual number of filings set to be more than experienced in 2008,
yet fewer than in 2009 [2].  However, total settlement amounts in
the first half of 2010 fell in comparison to 2009 levels.  Once
these credit crunch related cases come to resolution, the number
and the size of settlements are likely to increase, as quantified
by GOAL's research.  While pressure exerted on pension funds by
the economic downturn appears to be easing, there is nevertheless
a pressing duty of care for institutional investors and fund
managers to act now if they are to recoup significant losses
suffered at the peak of the financial markets crisis.

The recent abundance of high-profile cases in the UK and
throughout Northern Europe has helped raise awareness of the
opportunities to claim.  In March 2009, Merseyside and North
Yorkshire pension funds filed a motion to become lead plaintiffs
in a U.S. securities class action against Royal Bank of Scotland
(RBS).  Similarly, Avon Pension Fund, was granted lead plaintiff
status in a case against UK-listed GlaxoSmithKline, Other examples
include Lothian Pension Fund and the Northern Ireland Local
Government Officer Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC) which were
both granted co-lead plaintiff status in August 2008 against
Lehman Bros over their mortgage-backed securities.

If investors and fund managers are to recoup a proportion of their
losses through class action litigation, either in US or European
courts, now is the time to become actively involved in the filing
and participation process.  However, keeping track of the
opportunities to make a claim and the processes required to do so
successfully, can be a complicated and daunting task -- with many
investors mistakenly believing that the cost and time involved
will outweigh the benefits.  In fact, specialist services are now
available to handle the class action participation process, often
on a no-win, no-fee basis.

Tony Doyle -- Senior Investment Manager - Equities & Corporate
Governance, West Midlands Pension Fund -- comments, "We have been
involved in numerous class actions over the years, varying in
size, including A.T. & T. Wireless, Cable & Wireless, Federal Home
Loan and Royal Ahold NV.  We have recovered over $ 900,000 to
date.  The Fund has always supported good governance, challenging
companies that do not meet best practice.  We perceive poor
governance as a risk to a fund's long-term financial interests.
The Fund therefore submits class actions globally where it
believes that it has suffered a financial loss through fraudulent
or irresponsible corporate behavior."

Stephen Everard, Managing Director, GOAL Group, comments, "Our
research shows that aside from employing class actions to fulfill
corporate governance responsibilities, there is a growing need for
UK pension funds to plug the escalating pensions gap, particularly
as a result of losses suffered during the financial markets
crisis.  As credit crisis borne cases continue to be brought
through 2010, filings are likely to give way to Ponzi scheme
allegation cases and standard securities actions.  Fund managers
should therefore be proactively filing and participating in class
actions now, if they are to be included in what are likely to be
the most sizeable settlements over the next 3 to 5 years, those
emerging from the economic crisis."

               Netherlands    UK        France     Ireland    Germany
               -----------    --        ------     -------    -------
Lost in US
Investments       EUR28 bn   EUR26 bn  EUR3.4 bn   EUR2.4 bn  EUR485 mn

Recoverable      EUR1.8 bn  EUR1.7 bn  EUR216 mn   EUR156 mn   EUR51 mn

Amounts to be    EUR466 mn  EUR436 mn   EUR56 mn    EUR40 mn    EUR8 mn
left unclaimed


Publicly available data sources on class action settlements were
combined with GOAL Group's own proprietary datasets in order to
quantify the levels of loss suffered by Northern European
(Netherlands, UK, France, Ireland, Germany) pension funds and in
order to forecast how much is likely to be recouped through US
securities class actions as a result of losses in 2008.

     [1] Nera Economic Consulting, Recent Trends in Securities
         Class Action Litigation: 2009 Year-End Update,
         December 2009

     [2] Advisen, Quarterly Securities Litigation Report, Q2 2010


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  * * *