---

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

           Thursday, December 23, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 253

                             Headlines

ALLIANZ LIFE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Some Claims in Annuities Suit
AT&T INC: Settles Class Action Over Internet Service Taxes
AVAULTA: ClassAction.org Warns About Mesh Side Effects
BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Opposes Verdict Awarding Damages
BLUE COAT: Appeals From Suit Settlement Approval Still Pending

BP PLC: Pembroke Township Residents to File Class Action
BP PLC: Lawyer Introduces 7-Mil. Docs From Previous Class Action
CHARLES SCHWAB: Jan. 14 Second Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 367,350 Minivans
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Class Wants to Rewrite Parties' Settlement

COCA-COLA CO: Misrepresented "Vitamin Water" as Healthy
CSL LIMITED: Conspired to Fix Prices of Plasma-Derivative Products
DIGI INTERNATIONAL: Records $300,000 Liability in Suit Settlement
EBAY INC: Suit Complains About Detailed Seller Ratings Policy
EXFO INC: Appeals Pending in IPO Suit Settlement

HONDA MOTOR: Recalls 35,000 Passport Sport Utility Vehicles
INERGY LP: Continues to Face Consolidated Class Suit in Delaware
J. CREW: D&Os Face Fourth Suit Over Sale to TPG
JENNIFER CONVERTIBLES: Awaits Court Approval of Suit Settlement
KAHALA HOTEL: Loses Service-Fee Class Action

KING VAN: Calif. Appeals Court Reverses Order Sustaining Demurrer
KROGER RECALLS: Recalls Three Pet-Food Brands
MDL 1888: SAIAG Agrees to Marine Hose Antitrust Settlement
MUELLER WATER: U.S. Pipe Settlement Fairness Hearing Set Feb. 17
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Class Action Over Player Likeness Expanded

NEVADA ASSOC.: Faces Class Action Over Debt Collection Fees
NOVA SCOTIA: Appeals Ruling on Nursing Home Class Action
NRT SETTLEMENT: Judge Approves $3.5-Mil. Class Action Settlement
PAKSN INC: Sued Over Deficient Patient Care at Nursing Homes
PEOPLES ENERGY: Sues Ted Tetzlaff for Destroying Court Documents

PETSMART INC: Appeals From N.J. Pet Food Settlement Still Pending
PFIZER INC: Recalls 19,000 Lipitor Bottles
RAYMOND JAMES: Continues to Defend Defer LP Class Suit in New York
RAYMOND JAMES: Dismissed From Woodard Lawsuit
RINO INTERNATIONAL: Hagens Berman Files New Class Action

SANOFI-AVENTIS: Law Firms Mull Class Action Over BMP Sale Deal
SASKATCHEWAN GOV'T: May Face Class Action Over Foster Care
SIFY TECH: Records $338,983 Exposure to IPO Suit Settlement
SOCORRO ELECTRIC: Dec. 30 Hearing Set for Class Action Venue
THERMADYNE HOLDINGS: Has MOU With Plaintiffs in Consolidated Suit

UNITED STATES: 5th Cir. Junks Hurricane Katrina Class Settlement
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Recalls 228,236 Cars
WHOLE FOODS: Continues to Defend Kottaras Antitrust Lawsuit
WILBER CORP: Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification
WILBER CORP: Faces "Soules" Suit in New York Over Planned Merger



                             *********

ALLIANZ LIFE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Some Claims in Annuities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Westlaw Journal Insurance Coverage reports a California federal
judge has rejected an insurer's latest bid to dismiss certain
claims from a nationwide class-action suit brought by senior
citizens alleging an improper annuities sales scheme.

U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder of the Central District of
California held that Allianz Life Insurance Co. was entitled to
neither reconsideration of her earlier denial of summary judgment
on the claims nor permission for an immediate appeal.

The ruling stems from two related class-action lawsuits brought in
2005 on behalf of an estimated 200,000 seniors who purchased
Allianz annuities.  The cases have since been coordinated before
Judge Snyder.

The plaintiffs contend that Allianz conspired with affiliated
sales agents to induce seniors to purchase its annuities through
misleading statements about the value of the products.  The
lawsuit asserts violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961; elder abuse; unfair
business practices' and related claims.

This case is one of a number of class-action lawsuits filed
against Allianz involving the sale of annuities, including Mooney
v. Allianz Life Insurance Co., No. CV-06-00545 (D. Minn.).  The
class members in Mooney partly overlapped the class members in
this case.

Following a trial in Mooney the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota entered a final judgment in Allianz's favor
Jan. 29.

Two months later Allianz moved for partial summary judgment in
this case, asserting that as a result of the Mooney judgment, the
doctrine of claim preclusion barred the RICO claims of the
overlapping class members.

Judge Snyder denied Allianz's motion Aug. 18.  She concluded that
the insurer waived its right to assert the claim-preclusion
doctrine by failing to raise the defense until after it obtained a
favorable judgment in Mooney.

She also found that the notice sent to Mooney class members could
not bind the class members here because it did not tell them that
failure to opt out of Mooney might adversely affect their claims
in this case.

Allianz then asked the judge to reconsider her ruling or, in the
alternative, allow an immediate appeal of the decision.

But Judge Snyder said the insurer presented nothing to sway her
from her conclusion that "allowing Allianz to assert claim
preclusion at this late stage would work a substantial injustice
on the plaintiffs."

She added that Allianz failed to present the type of "exceptional
circumstances" that would justify allowing an appeal before final
judgment.

Plaintiffs' counsel was Theodore Pintar of Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd in San Diego.

The defendant's attorney was Stephen Jorden of Jorden Burt in
Washington.

Negrete et al. v. Allianz Life Insurance Co., Nos. CV 05-6838 and
CV 05-8908, 2010 WL 4536779 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2010).


AT&T INC: Settles Class Action Over Internet Service Taxes
----------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Hicken, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports Burbank and
Glendale could be on the hook for $1 million each in response to
claims filed by AT&T against cities across the nation.

The claim filed with both cities last month is in response to a
settlement agreement AT&T reached in a class-action lawsuit in
which consumers alleged that taxes collected for Internet-related
services -- including data plans, laptop connect cards and pay-
per-use data services -- broke federal law.

The taxes were collected as part of municipal utility users taxes,
which are generally charged to all users of electricity, water,
gas, telephone and cable services.

"We strongly deny any wrongdoing, and no court has found that AT&T
Mobility committed any wrongdoing," Marty Richter, an AT&T
spokesman, said in an e-mail.  "However, we have agreed to settle
these cases to avoid the burden and cost of further litigation."

As part of the agreement, the company has agreed to attempt to
recover the taxes from the various taxing agencies nationwide.
Any fees recovered by AT&T would be returned to plaintiffs in the
class-action lawsuit, Mr. Richter said.

AT&T is seeking roughly $1 million in refunds each from Burbank
and Glendale for taxes collected on mobile Internet access between
November 2005 and September 2010, according to the legal claims.

But Glendale City Atty. Scott Howard said that under a city
statute, refund claims can only cover taxes collected in the past
year.

"Anything beyond one year, it would be our contention right out of
the gate, 'Forget about it,'" he said.

Glendale and Burbank have retained outside counsel to help handle
their responses to the claims.

The outside law firm will be working on the issue for many
Southern California cities, which will help keep the legal fees
down, Mr. Howard said.

"The bad news is we have to deal with it," he said. "The good news
is the outside counsel in this case will be billing us on a
proportionate basis."

There are other issues that need to be addressed, he added,
including how AT&T calculated the amount owed and whether the
company has the authority to collect the tax refund for customers.

For more information on the AT&T class-action settlement, visit
http://attmsettlement.com/FAQs.aspx


AVAULTA: ClassAction.org Warns About Mesh Side Effects
------------------------------------------------------
Class Action.org has released a warning regarding Avaulta mesh
problems, which can include pelvic pain, vaginal pain, mesh
erosion, infection and urinary problems.  The Avaulta mesh side
effects are reportedly linked to a design defect, which may
prevent the surrounding tissue from obtaining oxygen and
nutrients.  As a result, this may lead to impaired healing and
other Avaulta mesh problems which necessitate further surgery.  If
you have experienced Avaulta side effects, such as vaginal
scarring or pelvic pain, visit http://www.classaction.org/avaulta-
transvaginal-mesh.html and complete the free case evaluation form
to find out if you are entitled to financial compensation.

Although an Avaulta recall has not been issued, the FDA brought
attention to problems with surgical mesh systems in October 2008.
In a public health advisory, the FDA alerted the public of
complications associated with surgical mesh systems, which are
designed to treat pelvic organ prolapse.  Over a three-year
period, the FDA received more than 1000 reports of surgical mesh
problems from nine separate manufacturers, including C.R. Bard,
which manufactures the Avaulta Solo, Avaulta Plus and Avaulta
Biosynthetic.  Some of the reported vaginal mesh side effects
included pain; recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse; urinary
problems; hardening of the mesh; and bowel, bladder and blood
vessel perforation.  In some instances, vaginal scarring and
erosion of the mesh caused consistent discomfort and pain which
led to a decrease in the patient's quality of life.

Several women have already filed Avaulta lawsuits to recover
compensation for damages incurred as a result of the system's side
effects.  These lawsuits allege that the manufacturer was
negligent in designing the mesh and failed to warn patients and
doctors of potential Avaulta mesh problems.  If you have suffered
from Avaulta mesh side effects, you may also be able to take legal
action to collect compensation for medical bills, pain and
suffering and other damages.  To find out if you can participate
in an Avaulta lawsuit, visit Class Action.org to receive a free
case evaluation.  The Avaulta mesh attorneys working with Class
Action.org are offering this online case review at no cost and
remain committed to protecting the rights of patients who have
suffered from Avaulta mesh problems.

Class Action.org -- http://www.classaction.org/-- is dedicated to
protecting consumers and investors in class actions and complex
litigation throughout the United States.  Class Action.org keeps
consumers informed about product alerts, recalls, and emerging
litigation and helps them take action against the manufacturers of
defective products, drugs, and medical devices.


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Opposes Verdict Awarding Damages
------------------------------------------------------
BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., is opposing a verdict awarding damages
to plaintiffs of a securities lawsuit in Florida, according to the
Company's Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 24, 2010.

The Company and certain of its directors and executive officers
were defendants in a shareholder class action lawsuit brought in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida in which the plaintiffs alleged that the Company and the
other named defendants knowingly and/or recklessly made
misrepresentations of material fact regarding BankAtlantic in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On November 18, 2010, the jury in the lawsuit returned a verdict
awarding $2.41 per share to shareholders who purchased shares of
the Company's Class A Common Stock during the period of April 26,
2007 to October 26, 2007 and retained those shares until the end
of the period.  The jury rejected the plaintiffs' claim for
damages relating to shares purchased during the six month period
from October 19, 2006 to April 25, 2007.

The Company believes the verdict is contrary to the law and
subject to a number of fatal deficiencies.  In connection with its
decision, the jury rejected the majority of the claims asserted by
the plaintiffs, including claims which the Company believes are
necessary to support the factual assumptions upon which the damage
calculation was predicated.

Thus, the Company believes there is no support for the award of
damages.  All but one of the alleged misstatements the jury found
were taken from short excerpts in earnings conference calls that
the Company believes were properly within the "safe harbor"
provided by Congress for these discussions.

Moreover, the Company believes that each of the statements, when
considered in the total context of the lengthy conversations and
the Company's public filings, were in all material respects true
and proved to be true when the Company reported its third quarter
2007 results, which reflected the significant decline in the
Florida housing market during the quarter.

While there is no certainty, the Company, based on the advice of
counsel, believes there is a substantial likelihood that the award
will be set aside either by the Court based on post-trial motions
or on appeal.  The Judge has indicated that if motions to set
aside the verdict are denied, the issues will be certified to the
11th Circuit Court of Appeals before any judgment is entered or
claims commenced.

BankAtlantic Bancorp's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Alan
B. Levan, commented, "We are extremely disappointed with the
verdict. The jury found seven isolated statements made in earnings
conference calls were false. In adopting the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act, Congress provided safe harbor within the
"Forward Looking Statement" and intended to provide a forum for
corporate executives to freely discuss their businesses and their
prospects without fear of this kind of litigation. Prior to trial,
the court ruled that BankAtlantic's allowance for loan loss
provision, and BankAtlantic Bancorp's financial statements were
accurately calculated and reported throughout the class period.
The company believes that should have been the end of this case.
BankAtlantic lost money and Bancorp's stock price declined because
the Florida real estate market collapsed. The risk of that
occurrence was fully, completely and timely disclosed to the
market. No one could fairly express either surprise or deceit when
that risk materialized with the collapse of the Florida housing
market in late 2007. If this outcome is allowed to stand, it would
take public companies back to the day before Congress passed the
Securities Litigation Reform Act.  The company will pursue every
avenue to set this verdict aside and are confident of success in
that endeavor."

The company will be filing motions to set aside the verdict and if
these are denied, the judge has indicated that she will certify
all issues to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals before any
judgment is entered or claims commenced.


BLUE COAT: Appeals From Suit Settlement Approval Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Coat Systems, Inc.'s settlement of securities class action
lawsuits relating to its initial public offer remains subject to
appeals pending with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
according to the company's Nov. 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2010.

Beginning on May 16, 2001, a series of putative securities class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the firms that underwrote
its initial public offering, the company, and some of its officers
and directors. These cases have been consolidated under the case
captioned In re CacheFlow, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 1-01-CV-5143. In November 2001, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
firms that underwrote Packeteer's initial public offering,
Packeteer, and some of its officers and directors. An amended
complaint, captioned In re Packeteer, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 01-CV-10185, was filed on
April 20, 2002.

These are two of a number of actions coordinated for pretrial
purposes as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
21 MC 92, with the first action filed on January 12, 2001.
Plaintiffs in the coordinated proceeding are bringing claims under
the federal securities laws against numerous underwriters,
companies, and individuals, alleging generally that defendant
underwriters engaged in improper and undisclosed activities
concerning the allocation of shares in the IPOs of more than 300
companies during late 1998 through 2000. Among other things, the
plaintiffs allege that the underwriters' customers had to pay
excessive brokerage commissions and purchase additional shares of
stock in the aftermarket in order to receive favorable allocations
of shares in an IPO.

The consolidated amended complaint in the company's case seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of its common stock between December 9, 1999 and December 6, 2000.
Pursuant to a tolling agreement, the individual defendants were
dismissed without prejudice. On February 19, 2003, the Court
denied the company's motion to dismiss the claims against the
company.  The amended complaint in the Packeteer case seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchaser's
of Packeteer's common stock between July 27, 1999 and December 6,
2000.

In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement and release of claims
against the issuer defendants, including the company and
Packeteer, was submitted to the Court for approval. On August 31,
2005, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. In December
2006, the appellate court overturned the certification of classes
in six test cases that were selected by the underwriter defendants
and plaintiffs in the coordinated proceedings. Because class
certification was a condition of the settlement, it was deemed
unlikely that the settlement would receive final Court approval.
On June 25, 2007, the Court entered an order terminating the
proposed settlement based upon a stipulation among the parties to
the settlement. Plaintiffs have filed amended master allegations
and amended complaints in the six focus cases. On March 26, 2008,
the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaints.

The parties reached a global settlement of the litigation and the
plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary settlement approval with
the Court on April 2, 2009. Under the settlement, the insurers
will pay the full amount of settlement share allocated to the
Company and Packeteer, and the Company and Packeteer would not
bear any financial liability. On October 5, 2009, the Court
entered an order granting final approval of the settlement.

Certain objectors have appealed that order to the Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.


BP PLC: Pembroke Township Residents to File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Dimitrios Kalantzis, writing for The Daily Journal, reports
Pembroke Township plans to file a class-action lawsuit against BP
petroleum in connection with an xylene leak more than 32 years
ago.


BP PLC: Lawyer Introduces 7-Mil. Docs From Previous Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro de los Rios, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that
Beaumont, Texas lawyer Brent Coon caused a bit of a stir during
Friday's status conference for the multi-district litigation
regarding the BP oil spill when he introduced around seven million
documents from a previous class action against BP.

Mr. Coon, who serves on a plaintiffs discovery committee, spoke at
the end of a hearing in U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier's
courtroom at the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans.

Wearing a brown blazer and jeans, Mr. Coon said that the plaintiff
steering committee asked to go through the files from discovery he
conducted while representing plaintiffs in a suit regarding an
explosion at BP's Texas City refinery.  The files were contained
on an external computer hard drive that Coon brought to the
hearing.

"I'm not sure what just happened," Judge Barbier said after
Mr. Coon had presented the hard drive.  The introduction of
evidence was not placed on the day's agenda.

BP attorney Andrew Langan said he learned about the documents
"about five seconds ago" when Judge Barbier asked if he was aware
of their content.  Mr. Coon said that it was all the discovery he
completed in the Texas City case which he made sure were left open
to the public.

Some of the documents, however, fall under a confidentiality order
by Judge Barbier and from the Texas City case regarding trade
secrets and other sensitive information.  Mr. Langan asked the
court to make sure both confidentiality orders were adhered to.

New Orleans attorney Stephen Herman said that the plaintiff
counsel would adhere to any confidentiality orders regarding
documents on the hard drive.  Counsel for other defendants also
asked that the court made the documents available to them as well.

BP's Texas City refinery exploded in 2005, killing 19 and injuring
170 people.  Mr. Coon was part of the plaintiff leadership
committee in the subsequent litigation.  In 2009 the Occupational
Safety & Health Administration fined BP $87 million for failing to
fix safety hazards that led to the explosion.

Federal MDL 2:10-md-2179


CHARLES SCHWAB: Jan. 14 Second Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A., representing
numerous aggrieved investors throughout the nation, advises all
Charles Schwab (NASDAQ: SCHW) YieldPlus Fund investors who are
class members of the In Re Schwab Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 08-cv-01510, that the US District court recently approved
an amendment to the proposed settlement of the Class Action.  The
Court's Supplemental Notice of Proposed Settlement provides that
class members may request exclusion from the class.  The request
for exclusion must be postmarked no later than January 14, 2011,
and must be received no later than January 21, 2011. The Class
Action was filed on behalf of investors who purchased shares in
the Schwab YieldPlus Fund.  The YieldPlus Fund sold two classes of
shares: Investor Shares (NASDAQ: SWYPX) and Select Shares (NASDAQ:
SWYSX).

Presently, K&T represents investors who purchased shares of the
YieldPlus Fund from Charles Schwab in securities arbitration
claims before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.  These
investors chose to pursue their claims individually rather than
participate in the class action because they suffered large
losses.  K&T reminds investors of the benefits of filing an
individual securities arbitration claim, as opposed to
participating in a class action lawsuit.  By participating in a
class action lawsuit, an investor may only recover a nominal
amount.  However, if one has experienced significant losses in
excess of $100,000 in the YieldPlus Fund, it may be more
beneficial for them to file an individual securities arbitration
claim. In 2003, K&T conducted a detailed study of securities
arbitration versus class action.  The study concluded that
investors who file a securities arbitration claim traditionally
obtain an overall higher rate of recovery as opposed to
participating in a class action lawsuit.  To view the full results
of the comparison, please visit our Web site:

     http://www.nasd-law.com/documents/classvr.pdf

Investors who purchased shares of the YieldPlus Fund from Charles
Schwab and sustained significant losses in excess of $100,000 can
contact K&T to explore their legal rights and options.  The
attorneys at K&T are dedicated to pursuing claims on behalf of
investors who have suffered investment losses.  K&T, an
experienced, qualified and nationally recognized securities
litigation law firm, practices exclusively in the field of
securities arbitration and litigation.  It continues its
representation of investors throughout the world in securities
arbitration and litigation matters against major Wall Street
brokerage firms.

If you wish to discuss this announcement or have investment losses
of $100,000 or more in Schwab's YieldPlus Fund, please contact
Steven D. Toskes, Esquire or Jahan K. Manasseh, Esquire of Klayman
& Toskes, P.A., at 888-997-9956, or visit us on the web at
http://www.nasd-law.com/


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 367,350 Minivans
----------------------------------------
Matt Jarzemsky at Dow Jones' Newswires reports that Chrysler Group
LLC and Volkswagen AG recalled 367,350 minivans and 228,236 cars,
respectively, the latest setbacks for auto makers amid a generally
improving climate for the industry.

According to the report, the Chrysler recall affects its 2008 Town
and Country and Dodge Grand Caravan minivans.  Dow Jones' relates
that the vehicles may experience inadvertent airbag deployment and
illumination of the airbag warning due to a water leak near the
heating and air conditioner drain.

Chrysler, the report notes, said it is recalling about 76,000
Dodge Ram pickup trucks to fix a power-steering problem that could
cause the brake pedals to return slowly after the driver depresses
them.

Volkswagen, meanwhile, is recalling Golf, Jetta, New Beetle and
Rabbit models with 2.5-liter engines, Dow Jones' discloses.  The
action affects the 2007 through 2009 model years of all the
vehicles except the Beetle, which is for 2006 through 2010, the
report says.

The cars could develop a fuel leak, which could result in a fire,
because of an improperly located fastening clamp chafing against a
fuel supply line, VW said, the report adds.


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Class Wants to Rewrite Parties' Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports an
insurance company that settled a 2005 Preferred Provider
Organization discount class action brought by chiropractor Frank
Bemis claims that Mr. Bemis and the class want to "re-write the
parties' Settlement Agreement," because one class member didn't
follow its terms.

Defendants The Cincinnati Insurance Co. and Cincinnati Casualty
Co. filed their opposition on Dec. 14 to a move to resolve a
disputed claim under that 2009 settlement that was set for hearing
at 9:00 a.m. before Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder.

Class counsel Brad Lakin of Wood River and his team were awarded
$770,000 in attorneys' fees in the settlement.

Mr. Bemis sued the Cincinnati defendants on behalf of a class of
chiropractors and health care providers who claimed they were
gypped out of fees due to improper PPO discounts the company took
from workers' compensation claims.

The settlement mandates that the defendants were to pay up to 90%
of reduced bills not to exceed $3.5 million.

Class notice was sent to at least 33,000 class members, according
to filings in the case.

Mr. Bemis and fellow chiropractor Lawrence Shipley led a number of
PPO class actions filed earlier this decade by Mr. Lakin and his
former partners from the Chicago firm of Freed & Weiss.

That partnership broke up in 2007.

Freed & Weiss withdrew from the Cincinnati suit the following
year.

Mr. Lakin moved Nov. 1 to have Judge Crowder decide a disputed
settlement claim filed by class member Illinois Bone & Joint
(IBJI).

Mr. Lakin claimed that Cincinnati denied IBJI time to fix problems
a settlement administrator found with the company's claim
documents.

The motion asks the judge to resolve the matter.

In its Dec. 14 motion, Cincinnati disputes the entire purpose of
Mr. Lakin's Nov. 1 motion.

"Plaintiff's motion does not seek to resolve disputed claims,"
Cincinnati argues.  "Instead, the motion seeks to re-write the
parties' Settlement Agreement to accommodate a single class member
that failed to comply with the settlement's terms.  The law does
not permit a party to unilaterally modify a settlement agreement.
Nor should this Court ignore the plain language that expresses the
parties' agreement."

The company claims that under the 2009 settlement, class members
seeking a pay out had to submit documentation of the bill that saw
the wrongful PPO reduction.

Claims that did not meet the standards for documentation were to
be rejected.

Cincinnati claims that Judge Crowder found that all class members
except the four that opted out were bound by the settlement's
terms.

According to the defendants, IBJI submitted a deficient claim on
the last day of the claims period.

After the company notified IBJI of the deficiencies as required by
the settlement, IBJI failed to correct the errors by the February
date Cincinnati set.

Cincinnati notified IBJI of its denial in March.

The company claims that IBJI does not attempt to show that its
claim met the conditions set by the settlement for payment and
that the terms Judge Crowder previously approved for the
settlement's payout must be honored.

"IBJI had the opportunity to opt out of the settlement if it was
unhappy with the settlement's terms," the motion concludes.
"Having elected to stay in the Settlement Class, it is bound to
the Court-approved terms and conditions of the Settlement
Agreement."

The Cincinnati defendants are represented by Daniel Litchfield,
Omar Odland, Steven Schwartz and John Cunningham.

Mr. Lakin and others represent the class.

The case is Madison case number 05-L-178.


COCA-COLA CO: Misrepresented "Vitamin Water" as Healthy
-------------------------------------------------------
Ahmed Khaleel, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-53205
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. December 16, 2010), alleges that Coca-
Cola and Energy Brands, Inc., also known as Glaceau, defendants
misrepresented the dietary benefits of its product "Vitamin Water"
in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Practices Act.  Specifically, Mr. Khaleel says that Vitamin
Water's labeling and marketing is misleading because it (1)
suggests that Vitamin Water contains nothing but vitamin and
water; (2) depicts Vitamin Water as healthy when it is not; and
(3) deceptively conveys an overall message of purported benefits
"which draws attention away from the significant amount of sugar
in the product".  According to the Complaint, Vitamin Water
actually contains 33 grams of sugar, contrary to Coca-Cola's
representations that it contains only "vitamins + water."

Energy Brands, Inc., dba Glaceau, is a wholly owned subsidiary of
the Coca-Cola Company and is the maker of Vitamin Water.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Ainat Margalit, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          101 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 605
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092

               - and -

          Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
          MOWER CARREON & DESAI LLP
          8001 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 1450
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 474-3004
          E-mail: desai@mocalaw.com

               - and -

          Scott J. Ferrel, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
          610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 717-3000
          E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com


CSL LIMITED: Conspired to Fix Prices of Plasma-Derivative Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
County of San Mateo, on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated v. CSL Limited, et al., Case No. 10-cv-05686 (N.D. Calif.
December 14, 2010), alleges that Defendants conspired, combined,
or contracted to restrict output of, and to fix the prices of
Plasma-Derivative Protein Therapies that they sold to the County
and the other class members from at least as early as July 1,
2003, through the present, in violation of Antitrust and Unfair
Competition Laws of 30 states.  As a result of this conspiracy,
Plaintiff says it was forced to pay "supracompetitive" prices for
Plasma-Derivative Protein Therapies, suffered from artificial
shortages thereof, and otherwise suffered injury.

The County and the other class members purchase the human blood
plasma protein therapies immune globulin ("Ig") and albumin --
collectively with Ig, "Plasma-Derivative Protein Therapies" -- to
treat life threatening conditions in their patients.  As stated in
the Complaint, for many conditions, including primary immune
deficiencies and certain autoimmune disorders, there is no
replacement for Ig therapy; and albumin is considered "far and
away" the best product for expanding blood volume in surgery and
trauma settings and for priming heart valves during heart surgery.

Plasma-Derivative Protein Therapies are manufactured from blood
plasma collected from human blood donors and sellers.
Accordingly, there is a finite supply of raw materials for
manufacturers, and a stringent set of regulatory protocols that
must be followed at all stages of the manufacturing process.

As alleged in the Complaint, defendants CSL and Baxter
International Inc., who dominate and control the raw collection,
development, manufacture, and sale of Plasma-Derivative Protein
Therapies, aggressively developed a data monitoring system that
enabled them to track each supplier's current distribution and
inventory levels with the goal of artificially fixing or inflating
the price of Plasma-Derivative Protein Therapies.  This led to a
well-publicized and serious shortage of Ig from the fall of 2007
through 2008.

Plaintiff San Mateo County, through its San Mateo Medical Center
division, provides the health care needs of all residents of San
Mateo County.  SMMC operates an acute care hospital, two long-term
care nursing facilities, an inpatient psychiatric unit, and
various clinics which serve more than 40,000 patients per year,
including those that require Plasma Protein-Derivative Therapies
and for whom SMMC purchases Plasma Protein-Derivative Therapies.

Defendant CSL Limited is a group of companies focused on a number
of medical products, with operations in the United States,
Australia, Germany, and Switzerland and is the second largest
supplier of Plasma-Derivative Protein Therapies in the world, with
operations in the United States, Australia Germany, and
Switzerland.

Defendant Baxter International, a global diversified healthcare
company, is the largest producer of Plasma-Derivative Protein
Therapies in the world, and is the largest producer of plasma
products in the Untied States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          Stuart G. Gross, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY
          San Francisco Airport Office Center
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                  swilliams@cpmlegal.com
                  sgross@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Murphy, Esq.
          John C. Beiers, Esq.
          SAN MATEO COUNTY COUNSEL
          Hall of Justice and Records
          400 County Center, Sixth Floor
          Redwood City, CA 94063-1662
          Telephone: (650) 363-4250


DIGI INTERNATIONAL: Records $300,000 Liability in Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Digi International, Inc., recorded $300,000 as an accrued
liability for the anticipated settlement of a consolidated class
action lawsuit, which appeals are pending, in its Nov. 29, 2010
Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010.

On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York asserting claims relating to the initial
public offering (IPO) of the Company's subsidiary NetSilicon, Inc.
and approximately 300 other public companies.

The Company acquired Net Silicon, Inc. on February 13, 2002.

The complaint names the Company as a defendant along with
NetSilicon, certain of its officers and certain underwriters
involved in NetSilicon's IPO, among numerous others, and asserts,
among other things, that NetSilicon's IPO prospectus and
registration statement violated federal securities laws because
they contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions
regarding the conduct of NetSilicon's IPO underwriters in
allocating shares in NetSilicon's IPO to the underwriters'
customers.

The Company believes that the claims against the NetSilicon
defendants are without merit and have defended the litigation
vigorously.

Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the two named
officers were dismissed from the lawsuit, without prejudice, on
October 9, 2002.

The parties advised the District Court on February 25, 2009, that
they had reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the
litigation in its entirety.  A stipulation of settlement was filed
with the District Court on April 2, 2009.  On June 9, 2009, the
District Court preliminarily approved the proposed global
settlement.  Notice was provided to the class, and a settlement
fairness hearing, at which members of the class had an opportunity
to object to the proposed settlement, was held on September 10,
2009.  On October 6, 2009, the District Court issued an order
granting final approval to the settlement.

Several objectors have since appealed the order approving the
settlement, and those appeals remain pending.

Under the settlement, the Company's insurers are to pay the full
amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and the
Company would bear no financial liability beyond a deductible of
$250,000.

While there can be no guarantee as to the ultimate outcome of the
pending lawsuit, the Company expects that its liability insurance
will be adequate to cover any potential unfavorable outcome, less
the applicable deductible amount of $250,000 per claim.

As of September 30, 2010, the Company has an accrued liability for
the anticipated settlement of $300,000 which it believes is
adequate and reflects the amount of loss that is probable and a
receivable related to the insurance proceeds of $50,000, which
represents the anticipated settlement of $300,000 less the
Company's $250,000 deductible.


EBAY INC: Suit Complains About Detailed Seller Ratings Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal antitrust class
action claims eBay monopolizes the online auction market.

A copy of the Complaint in Garon, et al., v. eBay, Inc., Case No.
10-cv-05737 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/17/eBay.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marina Trubitsky, Esq.
          MARINA TRUBITSKY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          11 Broadway, Suite 861
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 732-7707


EXFO INC: Appeals Pending in IPO Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------
EXFO, Inc., disclosed in its Form 20-F filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2010,
that appeals from an order approving the settlement of a class
action lawsuit related to its initial public offering remain
pending.

On November 27, 2001, a class action suit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against EXFO, four of the underwriters of the company's Initial
Public Offering and some of its executive officers pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Sections 11, 12 and 16 of the Securities Act of
1933. This class action alleges that EXFO's registration statement
and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on June 29, 2000, contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions resulting from (i) the underwriters allegedly soliciting
and receiving additional, excessive and undisclosed commissions
from certain investors in exchange for which they allocated
material portions of the shares issued in connection with EXFO's
Initial Public Offering; and (ii) the underwriters allegedly
entering into agreements with customers whereby shares issued in
connection with EXFO's Initial Public Offering would be allocated
to those customers in exchange for which customers agreed to
purchase additional amounts of shares in the after-market at
predetermined prices.

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
containing master allegations against all of the defendants in all
of the 310 cases included in this class action and also filed an
amended complaint containing allegations specific to four of
EXFO's underwriters, EXFO and two of its executive officers. In
addition to the allegations mentioned above, the amended complaint
alleges that the underwriters (i) used their analysts to
manipulate the stock market; and (ii) implemented schemes that
allowed issuer insiders to sell their shares rapidly after an
initial public offering and benefit from high market prices. As
concerns EXFO and its two executive officers in particular, the
amended complaint alleges that (i) EXFO's registration statement
was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose
the additional commissions and compensation to be received by
underwriters; (ii) the two named executive officers learned of or
recklessly disregarded the alleged misconduct of the underwriters;
(iii) the two named executive officers had motive and opportunity
to engage in alleged wrongful conduct due to personal holdings of
EXFO's stock and the fact that an alleged artificially inflated
stock price could be used as currency for acquisitions; and (iv)
the two named executive officers, by virtue of their positions
with EXFO, controlled it and the contents of the registration
statement and had the ability to prevent its issuance or cause it
to be corrected. The plaintiffs in this suit seek an unspecified
amount for damages suffered.

In July 2002, the issuers filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended complaint and a decision was rendered on
February 19, 2003. Only one of the claims against EXFO was
dismissed. On October 8, 2002, the claims against its officers
were dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to the terms of
Reservation of Rights and Tolling Agreements entered into with the
plaintiffs (the "Tolling Agreements"). Subsequent addenda to the
Tolling Agreements extended the tolling period through August 27,
2010.

In June 2004, an agreement of partial settlement was submitted to
the court for preliminary approval. The proposed partial
settlement was between the plaintiffs, the issuer defendants in
the consolidated actions, the issuer officers and directors named
as defendants, and the issuers' insurance companies. The court
granted the preliminary approval motion on February 15, 2005,
subject to certain modifications. On August 31, 2005, the court
issued a preliminary order further approving the modifications to
the settlement and certifying the settlement classes. The court
also appointed the notice administrator for the settlement and
ordered that notice of the settlement be distributed to all
settlement class members by January 15, 2006. The settlement
fairness hearing occurred on April 24, 2006, and the court
reserved decision at that time.

While the partial settlement was pending approval, the plaintiffs
continued to litigate against the underwriter defendants. The
district court directed that the litigation proceed within a
number of "focus cases" rather than in all of the 310 cases that
have been consolidated. EXFO's case is not one of these focus
cases. On October 13, 2004, the district court certified the focus
cases as class actions. The underwriter defendants appealed that
ruling, and on December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit reversed the district court's class certification
decision.

On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied the plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing of that decision and, on May 18, 2007, the
Second Circuit denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en
banc. In light of the Second Circuit's opinion, liaison counsel
for all issuer defendants, including EXFO, informed the court that
this settlement cannot be approved, because the defined settlement
class, like the litigation class, cannot be certified. On June 25,
2007, the district court entered an order terminating the
settlement agreement. On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed
their second consolidated amended class action complaints against
the focus cases and, on September 27, 2007, again moved for class
certification. On November 12, 2007, certain defendants in the
focus cases moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended class
action complaints. On March 26, 2008, the district court denied
the motions to dismiss, except as to Section 11 claims raised by
those plaintiffs who sold their securities for a price in excess
of the initial offering price and those who purchased outside of
the previously certified class period. Briefing on the class
certification motion was completed in May 2008. That motion was
withdrawn without prejudice on October 10, 2008.

On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement
between the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter
defendants was submitted to the Court for preliminary approval.
The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval
and preliminarily certified the settlement classes on June 10,
2009. The settlement fairness hearing was held on September 10,
2009. On October 6, 2009, the Court entered an opinion granting
final approval to the settlement and directing that the Clerk of
the Court close these actions. On August 26, 2010, based on the
expiration of the tolling period stated in the Tolling Agreements,
the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Termination of Tolling Agreement
and Recommencement of Litigation against the two named executive
officers. The plaintiffs stated to the Court that they do not
intend to take any further action against the named executive
officers at this time. Notices of appeal of the opinion granting
final approval have been filed. Given that the settlement remains
subject to appeal as of the date of issuance of these financial
statements, the ultimate outcome of the contingency is uncertain.
However, based on the settlement approved on October 6, 2009, and
the related insurance against such claims, the company has
determined the impact to its financial position and results of
operations as at and for the year ended August 31, 2010 to be
immaterial.


HONDA MOTOR: Recalls 35,000 Passport Sport Utility Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Honda Motor Co. is recalling
about 35,000 Passport sport utility vehicles to inspect brackets
on the rear suspension that could detach and lead to a crash.  The
report relates the recall involves Passports from the 1998-2002
model years and is limited to 21 states and the District of
Columbia where road salt is used during the winter.

According to the AP, Honda Motor said that the front bracket of
the rear suspension lower trailing links could corrode and the
bracket could break off from the frame.  Honda spokesman Chris
Naughton said the government received 33 complaints from owners
but no injuries were reported, the report relates.

AP notes that Mr. Naughton said the problem was not related to a
similar recall involving Ford Motor Co. Windstar minivans.

Honda said it expected to notify owners and encouraged owners to
take their vehicles to an authorized dealer, the report adds.


INERGY LP: Continues to Face Consolidated Class Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Inergy L.P. continues to face a consolidated class action lawsuit
over its merger agreement with Inergy GP LLC, Inergy Holdings
L.P., Inergy Holdings GP LLC, NRGP Limited Partner LLC, and NRGP
MS LLC, according to the company's Nov. 29, 2010, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2010.

Following the announcement of the Merger Agreement, two unitholder
class action lawsuits were filed by the company's unitholders in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware challenging the
proposed merger (Joel A. Gerber v. Inergy GP, LLC et al., No. 5864
and G-2 Trading LLC v. Inergy GP, LLC et al., No. 5816).

The plaintiffs in the Inergy Unitholder Lawsuits filed a motion
for a temporary injunction and a motion for expedited treatment.
The court granted the motion for expedited treatment and
consolidated the Inergy Unitholder Lawsuits.  In a Memorandum
Opinion, dated October 29, 2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery
denied the motion for preliminary injunction.

The Consolidated Inergy Action alleges several causes of action
challenging the proposed merger, including that the named
directors and officers have breached the company's limited
partnership agreement and their fiduciary duties in connection
with the proposed merger.  Specifically, the Consolidated Inergy
Action alleges that the Company is paying an excessive price to
the Inergy Holdings unitholders, thereby diluting the value of
Inergy to its current unitholders.  The consideration provided to
Inergy Holdings unitholders, the Consolidated Inergy Action
alleges, represents a 20.7% premium to Inergy Holdings unitholders
and exceeds Inergy Holdings' aggregate enterprise value by 27%.
The Consolidated Inergy Action further alleges that the proposed
merger will reduce the ownership of the company's public
unitholders prior to the Simplification Transaction from 92% to
57% -- without providing an adequate return to those unitholders -
- so that the named directors and officers can avoid potential tax
ramifications related to their Inergy Holdings common units.
Additionally, the Consolidated Inergy Action alleges several
deficiencies in the process by which the named directors and
officers are conducting the proposed transaction.  Finally, the
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Inergy Action argue that the
Company's unitholders must vote on the proposed merger because the
Merger Agreement, they allege, constitutes a merger between Inergy
and Holdings.

Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, Inergy, L.P.'s operations
include the retail marketing, sale, and distribution of propane to
residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural customers.
Inergy serves approximately 800,000 retail customers from over 300
customer service centers throughout the United States.  The
company also operates a natural gas storage business; a supply
logistics, transportation, and wholesale marketing business that
serves independent dealers and multi-state marketers in the United
States and Canada; and a solution-mining and salt production
company.

Inergy Holdings, L.P.'s assets consist of its ownership interest
in Inergy, L.P., including limited partnership interests,
ownership of the general partners, and the incentive distribution
rights.


J. CREW: D&Os Face Fourth Suit Over Sale to TPG
-----------------------------------------------
KBC Asset Management NV, on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated v. J. Crew Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 652287/2010
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty. December 16, 2010), accuses Millard S.
Drexler, J. Crew's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of  the
Board of Directors, and the other members of the Board of
breaching their fiduciary duties to J. Crew and its public
shareholders, and TPG Capital, L.P., and Leonard Green & Partners,
L.P., Chinos Holdings, Inc., and Chinos Acquisition, of aiding and
abetting the Board in breaching its fiduciary duties, in
connection with the proposed sale of the Company for inadequate
consideration and via an unfair and unreasonable sale process.

On November 23, 2010, J. Crew announced that it had entered into a
definitive agreement with the Buyout Group, pursuant to which TPG
and Leonard Green, working with defendant Drexler and members of
J. Crew's senior management, will take the Company private with a
leveraged buy-out transaction whereby the Buyout Group will
acquire all of J. Crew's outstanding shares for $43.50 per share
in cash, for a total value of roughly $3 billion.

According to the Complaint, six of the nine Board members suffer
from conflicts of interest that prevent them from impartially
considering the proposed transaction.  Defendant Drexler will
receive roughly $300 million in cash, roughly $100 million of
which he will have the right to roll over and reinvest into an
8.8% equity stake in the resulting private company, in which his
future employment is guaranteed.  Defendant James Coulter, a
J. Crew director since 1997, is the founder and part-owner of TPG,
which is leading the Buyout Group.  Further, defendants Drexler
and TPG nominated four other current directors to the Board and
allegedly "control" those directors' decisions on the Board.
In addition, two of the directors appointed by TPG sit on the
Special Committee formed to represent the interests of J. Crew's
public shareholders in considering the proposed transaction.

As a result of these conflicts, the members of the Board have
allowed the Buyout Group to manipulate the process leading to the
proposed transaction in their favor.

The plaintiff adds that the $43.50 merger price represents a
meager 15.5% premium to the $37.65 per share closing price of
J. Crew stock on the last trading day prior to the Proposed
Transaction's announcement and a substantial discount to the
Company's 52-week trading high of $50.96 on April 26, 2010.

Moreover, the Complaint says that the Board has agreed to lock-up
the proposed transaction through unreasonable deal protections,
which favor the Buyout Group and create an uneven playing field
for other interested suitors.

Plaintiff KBC, by and through its KBC Equity Fund, Privileged
Portfolio Fund, and Centea Fund, currently holds 25,029 shares of
J. Crew common stock.  The Company is based in Brussels, Belgium
and is the asset management company of KBC Group.

J. Crew is a nationally recognized retailer of apparel, shoes, and
accessories that operates 250 retail stores, 85 factory outlet
stores, and the J. Crew print catalog business.  J. Crew is
publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol
"JCG."

Defendant TPG -- formerly Texas Pacific Group -- is a large global
private equity investment firm which focuses on leveraged buyouts,
leveraged recapitalizations, growth investments, joint ventures,
and restructurings of companies across a broad range of industries
and geographies.

Defendant Leonard Green is a private equity firm which has over
$9 billion in equity capital under management.  Leonard Green's
current retail investments include Whole Foods Market, Neiman
Marcus Group, PETCO Animal Supplies, Equinox, Rite Aid
Corporation, The Container Store, Tourneau, David's Bridal, and
Sports Authority.

Defendant Chinos Holdings is a Delaware corporation, created by
TPG and Leonard Green for the purpose of consummating the proposed
transaction.  Defendant Chinos Acquisition is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Chinos Holdings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Brandon Walker, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          275 Seventh Avenue, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 577-0040
          E-mail: bwalker@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          William S. Norton, Esq.
          Kathryn A. Waites, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9000
          E-mail: bnorton@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          William H. Narwold, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          One Corporate Center
          20 Church St., 17th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 882-1681
          E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com


JENNIFER CONVERTIBLES: Awaits Court Approval of Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Convertibles, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its
preliminary settlement agreement resolving a putative class action
for $1.3 million, according to the company's Nov. 26, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended August 28, 2010.

On July 16, 2009, a complaint styled as a putative class action
was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court of the
Northern District of California by an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages for alleged violations of the California Labor Code
sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 515, 1174, 1198
and 2802, violations of Section 17200 et seq. of the California
Business and Professions Code and violations of the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act.  Such alleged violations include, among other
things, failure to pay overtime, failure to reimburse certain
expenses, failure to provide adequate rest and meal periods and
other labor related complaints.  Before engaging in discovery and
extensive pre-trial proceedings, the parties participated in an
early mediation.

The plaintiff offered to settle for 20% of the company's
outstanding common stock in an amount guaranteed to be worth at
least $2,000,000 on the date of distribution.  If the value of the
stock as of the date of distribution is less than $2,000,000 the
company would distribute cash to make up the difference between
the value of the stock and $2,000,000.  In addition, the company
would pay $400,000 over a five-year period.  During November 2009,
the company proposed a counter-offer for $300,000 in cash over a
five-year period, with $100,000 to be paid up front and the
balance to be secured by the company's assets, and between 600,000
and 800,000 shares of stock.  The number of shares to be issued
would be shares sufficient to reach a value of $1,000,000 as of
the time of issuance, subject to a cap of 800,000 shares and a
minimum distribution of 600,000 shares, regardless of the actual
value at the time of issuance.

The plaintiff rejected the company's counter offer but made a new
proposal, which included the stock component proposed by the
company, but increased the cash component to a total of $1,500,000
paid in equal installments over a five-year period, with $300,000
to be paid up front and the balance to be secured.

The company has determined that it is probable that the company
has some liability.  Based on the offer and counter offer, the
company estimates the liability ranges between $1,300,000 and
$2,500,000 with no amount within that range a better estimate than
any other amount. There is no assurance, notwithstanding the
proposals, that the litigation will be settled or, if settled,
that it will be settled within the parameters of the two offers.

On June 18, 2010, the parties attended a court-ordered settlement
conference and reached a preliminary settlement.  The total
classwide settlement was for $1.3 million with $300,000
due in escrow by Aug. 17, 2010, and the remainder due Jan. 15,
2011, or as soon thereafter as the court approves the final
settlement.

As of August 28, 2010, $1,300,000 is included in liabilities
subject to compromise.  As a result of the Company filing for
bankruptcy no amounts have been paid in escrow.

Jennifer Convertibles, Inc. -- http://www.jenniferfurniture.com/
-- is an owner and licensor of a group of sofa bed specialty
retail stores and leather specialty retail stores in the United
States, with stores located throughout the Eastern seaboard, in
the Midwest, on the West Coast and in the Southwest.  As of Aug.
30, 2008, its stores included 157 Jennifer Convertibles stores and
14 Jennifer Leather stores.  Of these 171 stores, the company
owned 149 and licensed 22, including 21 owned and operated by a
related private company, the related company, and one owned by a
third party operated by the related company. Its operations are
classified into two operating segments: Jennifer and Ashley.  The
Jennifer segment owns and licenses the sofabed specialty retail
stores.  The Ashley segment is a big box, full-line home furniture
retail store.


KAHALA HOTEL: Loses Service-Fee Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Pacific Business News, reports a Honolulu
circuit court jury on Friday decided that the Kahala Hotel &
Resort deceptively charged customers food and beverage service
fees for banquets and events -- fees that were said to be passed
on to hotel employees but never were.

The original class-action lawsuit, filed in December 2008 by
Honolulu resident Jason Kawakami and includes some 1,300
plaintiffs, claimed that the Kahala charged customers thousands of
dollars in food and beverage service fees and did not disclose to
what or who those added fees were going.

Thomas Pauly, general manager for the Kahala Hotel & Resort,
declined to comment late Friday.

Brandee Faria, the attorney for Kawakami, told PBN that this
serves as a test case for a handful of similar class-action
lawsuits still pending against other Hawaii hotels, including the
Hilton Hawaiian Village Beach Resort & Spa and Pacific Beach Hotel
in Waikiki.  Those two cases are expected to go to trial early
next year.

"The plaintiffs in this are pleased and this definitely validates
the legitimacy of the claims," she said.

Ms. Faria said the expected judgment to be handed down by 1st
Circuit Court Judge Gary Chang will include $807,000 plus
attorney's fees for the plaintiffs in the Kahala case.


KING VAN: Calif. Appeals Court Reverses Order Sustaining Demurrer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, instructed a
trial court to allow nine movers who were employed by Ruben Urtez,
doing business as Urtez Trucking, to amend their claims against
King Van & Storage, Inc., to state an ascertainable class.

The plaintiffs, who filed a class action, and an alleged class of
similarly situated movers usually worked more than 40 hours a week
and more than 8 to 12 hours a day for Urtez.  Plaintiffs allege
that King Van, a large, sophisticated moving company that handles
home and commercial moving jobs for United Van Lines, used Urtez
as a "straw man" employer to act as a "buffer" to avoid paying
overtime, higher payroll taxes, workers' compensation insurance
premiums, and employee benefits.  Plaintiffs further allege that
King Van failed to compensate them and the putative class for the
overtime hours they worked, failed to pay them the legal minimum
wage, failed to ensure or provide meal breaks, failed to provide
accurate wage statements, failed to maintain employment records,
and failed to reimburse plaintiffs for out-of-pocket costs they
incurred to purchase required uniforms.

The trial court sustained defendant's demurrer to the class claims
without leave to amend and granted defendant's motion to strike
the class allegations.  Both rulings were based on the trial
court's determination that the alleged class was not
ascertainable.  Plaintiffs appealed from the orders sustaining the
demurrer and granting the motion to strike.

The California Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs' proposed
pleading raised a reasonable possibility that plaintiffs can
establish an ascertainable class.  The appellate court therefore
reversed the orders sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend
and granting the motion to strike, and instructed the trial court
to enter new orders sustaining the demurrer and granting the
motion, but granting leave to amend to state an ascertainable
class.

A copy of the Court's opinion is available for free
at http://is.gd/j3oDAfrom Leagle.com.

Representing Plaintiffs and Appellants is:

          Stephen Glick, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK
          1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-387-3400
          Facsimile: 213-387-7872
          E-mail: sglick@glicklegal.com

Representing the Defendant and Respondent are:

          Louise Ann Fernandez, Esq.
          Jon C. McNutt, Esq.
          JEFFERS, MANGELS, BUTLER & MARMARO
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310-203-8080
          Facsimile: 310-203-0567
          E-mail: LFernandez@JMBM.com
                  JMcNutt@JMBM.com


KROGER RECALLS: Recalls Three Pet-Food Brands
---------------------------------------------
Ilan Brat at Dow Jones Newswires reports that Kroger Co. said it
was recalling some packages of three pet-food brands it sold in 19
states, mostly the South, because they may contain a poisonous
chemical produced by mold.

According to Dow Jones', Denise Osterhues, a spokeswoman for the
Cincinnati-based grocery-store chain, said the company didn't yet
know how aflatoxin may have ended up in 10 versions of its Kroger
Value, Pet Pride and Old Yeller brands of dog and cat food.
Kroger manufactured all of the recalled products at a Kroger-owned
factory in Springfield, Tenn., she added.

The report notes that some molds that often afflict corn and other
crops naturally produce aflatoxin.

In the recall announcement Kroger said it using a recall
notification system to alert customers who purchased the products,
the report adds.


MDL 1888: SAIAG Agrees to Marine Hose Antitrust Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in In re Marine Hose Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
1888; Master Docket No. 08-MDL-1888 (S.D. Fla.), have entered into
settlement agreements with SAIAG, S.p.A, Comital SAIAG, S.p.A.,
and Cuki, S.p.A. (fka ITR, S.p.A.) to resolve price-fixing
allegations.  The Plaintiff Class consists of all direct
purchasers of marine hose in the United States from 15 named-
defendants from Jan. 1, 1985, through Mar. 24, 2008.

Under the proposed settlement, SAIAG will pay $3,000,000, and will
cooperate with the Plaintiffs in their prosecution of claims
against:

    -- Bridgestone Corporation
    -- Bridgestone Industrial Products America, Inc.
    -- Trelleborg Industrie S.A.
    -- Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd.
    -- Parker ITR S.r.l.
    -- Parker-Hannifin Corporation
    -- Manuli Rubber Industries S.p.A.
    -- Manueli Oil & Marine (U.S.A.) Inc.
    -- The Yokahama Rubber Co., Ltd.
    -- Pirelli Treg, S.p.A. and
    -- Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Inc.

The Court will convene a Fairness Hearing to consider this
settlement on Feb. 18, 2011.

The Plaintiff Class is represented by:

         Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
         PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
         One City Center
         P.O. Box 9546
         Portland, ME 04112

             - and -

         Ephriam R. Gerstein, Esq.
         GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER, LLP
         1501 Broadway, Suite 1416
         New York, NY 10036

             - and -

         Hollis L. Salzman, Esq.
         LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
         140 Broadway
         New York, NY 10005

SAIAG is represented by:

         Joseph D. Pizzurro, Esq.
         CURTIS, MALLET-PREVOST, COLT & MOSLE LLP
         101 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10178


MUELLER WATER: U.S. Pipe Settlement Fairness Hearing Set Feb. 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Water Products, Inc.'s affiliate, U.S. Pipe Valve &
Hydrant, LLC, and a number of co-defendant foundry-related
companies have entered into a settlement with plaintiffs of a
putative civil class action case originally filed in the Circuit
Court of Calhoun County, Alabama, and removed by defendants to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under the
Class Action Fairness Act, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2010.

The putative plaintiffs in the case filed an amended complaint
with the U.S. District Court in December 2006.  The amended
complaint alleged state law tort claims arising from creation and
disposal of "foundry sand' alleged to contain harmful levels of
PCBs and other toxins, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead
and zinc.  The plaintiffs originally sought damages for real and
personal property and for other unspecified personal injury.  In
June 2007, a motion to dismiss was granted to U.S. Pipe and
certain co-defendants as to the claims for negligence, failure to
warn, nuisance, trespass and outrage.  The remainder of the
complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint.

On July 6, 2007, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which dismissed prior claims relating to U.S. Pipe's former
facility located at 2101 West 10th Street in Anniston, Alabama
and no longer alleges personal injury claims. Plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint on July 27, 2007. U.S. Pipe and the other
defendants have moved to dismiss the third amended complaint.

In September 2008, the court issued an order on the motion,
dismissing the claims for wantonness and permitting the
plaintiffs to move forward with their claims of nuisance,
trespass and negligence.  The court has ordered the parties to
mediate the dispute.  The parties have reached an agreement in
principle to resolve the matter and submitted the settlement
agreement to the court for approval on October 26, 2010.

On October 27, 2010, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and setting the settlement fairness
hearing for February 17, 2011.  The anticipated settlement amount
has been accrued at September 30, 2010.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Class Action Over Player Likeness Expanded
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Orland, writing for Gamasutra, reports Knoxville attorney
Gordon Ball has expanded a class-action antitrust lawsuit against
the National Collegiate Athletic Association and Electronic Arts
for using college players likenesses for commercial gain without
permission.

The suit, originally filed in California last July on behalf of
UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon, now also includes former
Tennessee Volunteer Bobby Maze as a named defendant, according to
a report from Knoxville's Metro Pulse.

On behalf of all NCAA division 1 football and basketball players,
Messrs. Maze and O'Bannon take issue with the fact that NCAA
member schools' require them to sign away the rights to commercial
use of their image in perpetuity, even after they graduate.  The
suit allege this "blatantly anticompetitive and exclusionary"
practice violates antitrust statutes.

"The NCAA, without advising its student-athletes, has taken . . .
purposefully ambiguous language as a license to develop an array
of multi-media revenue streams for itself without providing any
compensation whatsoever to the former athletes," the suit reads.

Electronic Arts is noted as a "co-conspirator" in the suit, for
illegally licensing the plaintiffs' images from the NCAA for its
college basketball and football games, specifically in those
games' "Classic Teams" features.

While the suit notes that specific player names are notably not
used in these games, it points out that "all of EA Sports' NCAA-
related video games use photographic-like realism in depiction of
all aspects of [players'] visual presentation," and that "even
uniquely identifiable idiosyncratic characteristics of real-life
players appear in their video game virtual counterparts."

The suit closely resembles another class-action filed last year by
former Arizona State University Sam Keller over similar misuse of
player likenesses.  In that case, EA argued a first amendment
right to base its game characters on real athletes, a right the
judge eventually denied.  The Keller case is still working its way
through the courts.

Last September, a judge dismissed another similar suit brought
against EA by former NFL player Jim Brown, over a player with his
likeness being used in the Madden games.  A judge in that case
agreed with EA's first amendment arguments.


NEVADA ASSOC.: Faces Class Action Over Debt Collection Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Green, writing for Las Vegas Sun, reports another lawsuit
was filed Friday in the ongoing battle over fees Las Vegas-area
collection companies charge to homeowners -- and investors in
foreclosed properties -- over debts to their homeowner
associations.

Two homeowners filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status in
federal court in Las Vegas against debt collector Nevada
Association Services Inc. and its president, David Stone.

The suit charges violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and other counts.

It claims Nevada Association Services has been demanding
collection fees and costs that were never authorized by homeowner
associations, never incurred by HOAs and never agreed to by
homeowners in community covenants, conditions and restrictions
(CC&Rs); "and thus did not constitute a 'debt' owed to the" HOAs.

Mr. Stone on Friday denied the allegations and said he'll be
fighting the lawsuit and filing his own suit against one of the
attorneys who filed Friday's suit.

The lawsuit charges no law or contract, such as HOA CC&Rs, allows
for Nevada Association Services to impose directly upon homeowners
"any amount of collection fees or other such charges at the sole
discretion of the debt collector."

The suit claims Nevada Association Services' collection fees and
costs billed to homeowners "have skyrocketed, often dwarfing the
principal amount of the original debts."

The suit also said the collection company's practice "is
particularly outrageous because defendants act to cloud title to
the real property of the plaintiffs and the proposed class members
by maintaining alleged liens against the properties for the
unlawful collection fees."

The suit also said Nevada Association Services has been
threatening to record delinquency documents on homes when Nevada
code doesn't allow for the recording of such a document; and
threatening to foreclose on homes over unlawfully-imposed
collection costs.

"By suggesting in -- initial demand letters -- that the delinquent
lien notice was a lien, when, in fact, the document was not a
lien, but merely a notice, defendants violated" the federal act
regulating debt collectors, the suit charged.

"By stating that the HOAs would 'soon proceed with a non-judicial
foreclosure,' when, in fact, defendants and HOAs had no intention
of soon proceeding with non-judicial foreclosure auctions, nor did
they have a legal right to foreclose because the amount demanded
included collection fees and costs which were never expressly
charged, approved or authorized by the HOAs, were never incurred
by the HOAs, were never expressly agreed to by (homeowners) in the
CC&Rs, and thus, did not constitute a 'debt' owed to the HOAs,
defendants violated' the act, the suit says.

The lawsuit, which seeks to represent thousands of homeowners as
class-action members, seeks among other things an injunction
barring Nevada Association Services from violating state and
federal law in demanding and collecting "improper or unauthorized
collection fees."

The suit was filed by attorneys including James Adams, who
regularly litigates against HOAs and their collection companies.

Mr. Stone denied the allegations in the lawsuit and said he plans
to sue Adams for abuse of process.

"He's been unsuccessful in state court and he's just forum
shopping," Mr. Stone said.

The lawsuit comes at a time when HOAs, hit hard by a shortage of
dues because of foreclosures in their communities, need the
revenue his company generates, Mr. Stone said.

"If he (Adams) had his way, all the HOAs would be bankrupt and
unable to pay their bills," Mr. Stone said.


NOVA SCOTIA: Appeals Ruling on Nursing Home Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
David Jackson, writing for TheChronicleHerald.ca, reports Nova
Scotia is appealing a judge's decision that allowed a nursing
home-related lawsuit to go ahead as a class action.

The province filed its notice of application for leave to appeal
on Dec. 10, Health Department spokesman Brett Loney said Friday.

"We're appealing based on an alleged error in law with respect to
the interpretation of provisions of the Class Proceedings Act,"
Mr. Loney said.

At issue are the medical-care costs some nursing home residents
were charged between 2001 and 2005, when the fees were eliminated.

The lawsuit was first launched in 2005 by Joan Morrison, then 73,
and her husband, Elmer, who has since died.  It was on behalf of
all people who paid for health care in nursing homes.

The claim against the Health Department alleges that the former
practice of charging nursing home residents for their medical care
and dividing the assets of married couples to pay for it violated
several provincial and federal laws, and also the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.

Justice David MacAdam of Nova Scotia Supreme Court signed a
certification order on Nov. 29 allowing a class action against the
province to proceed.


NRT SETTLEMENT: Judge Approves $3.5-Mil. Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Simmons, writing for Missouri Lawyers Media, reports
St. Louis Judge David Dowd gave final approval Friday to a $3.5
million settlement of a class action over mortgage release fees.
St. Louis resident Mark Parisot filed the lawsuit in October 2008
against NRT Settlement Services of Missouri, which does business
as U.S. Title Guaranty Co.


PAKSN INC: Sued Over Deficient Patient Care at Nursing Homes
------------------------------------------------------------
Westlaw Journal Nursing Home reports a group of California skilled
nursing facilities operated by Paksn Inc. has "systematically"
failed to meet state minimums for direct patient care and
staffing, according to a state court class action.

Maryann N. Valentine says Vacaville, Calif.-based Paksn, Thekkek
Health Services, and seven nursing homes and licensees owned by
Antony and Prema Thekkek have continuously failed to provide 3.2
hours of daily, direct nursing care to each patient as mandated by
Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 1276.5.

The complaint in the Alameda County Superior Court asks the court
to hold the defendants liable for up to $500 per violation and
treble damages because the infractions involve senior citizens and
disabled people.

Ms. Valentine filed suit as guardian of her ex-husband, George E.
Valentine II, 61, who suffered a brain injury and has "extremely
limited" mobility.  He has lived at Gateway Rehabilitation & Care
Center in Hayward, Calif., since 2000, she says.

According to the suit, the level of care that Mr. Valentine
receives faltered when the defendants acquired Gateway in 2003.
Since that time, the facility routinely has failed to meet the
state minimum for direct nursing care hours and maintains an
inadequate number of nurses on staff.

George Valentine has experienced infrequent and painful turning
and repositioning that resulted in pressure sores, and also has
experienced infrequent assistance with toileting, frequent urinary
tract infections and unsanitary living conditions, the suit
asserts.

The facility has also failed to provide Ms. Valentine with
necessary fluids or assistance with grooming, bathing and eating,
and has failed to respond to his medical and dental problems and
falls, the complaint says.

Other California facilities owned by the Thekkeks and operated by
Paksn have provided similarly deficient care since 2006, according
to the suit.

The complaint identifies the facilities as Martinez Convalescent
Hospital, Windwor House Convalescent Hospital, Fircrest
Convalescent Hospital, Baypoint Health Care Center, La Mariposa
Rehabilitation Care Center, Park Central Care & Rehabilitation
Center and Manteca Care & Rehabilitation Center.

The defendants have engaged in unfair and deceptive business
practices by representing that they meet or exceed federal
requirements for skilled nursing facilities although falling short
of the 3.2-hour daily minimum for direct nursing care at least 25
percent of the time over the past four years, the suit alleges.

Documents provided to state health officials show the defendants
"unconscionably" decreased their staffing levels each year from
2007 to 2009, the complaint says.

Ms. Valentine alleges the defendants violated Cal. Health & Safety
Code Sec. 1430(b) by failing to meet daily minimums for direct
nursing care or to maintain adequate staffing levels.

They also violated the state's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal.
Civ. Code Sec. 1750, by failing to disclose staffing deficiencies
to residents and by misrepresenting in promotional materials and
admissions agreements the standard of care provided, the suit
says.

Ms. Valentine seeks class certification and an order enjoining the
defendants from further violations of the state laws.  She also
seeks statutory, actual, treble and punitive damages, restitution,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and costs.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are Robert S. Arns and Jonathan E. Davis of
the Arns Law Firm in San Francisco; Kathryn A. Stebner and Sarah
Colby of Stebner & Associates in San Francisco; and Michael D.
Thamer of Callahan, Calif.

Valentine et al. v. Thekkek Health Services Inc. et al., No.
10546266, complaint filed (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda County
Nov. 12, 2010).


PEOPLES ENERGY: Sues Ted Tetzlaff for Destroying Court Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameet Sachdev, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports Peoples Energy
Corp. has sued Ted Tetzlaff for malpractice, revealing a bitter
breakup with the prominent Chicago lawyer who once served as the
utility company's top attorney.

The suit, filed Wednesday in Cook County Circuit Court, alleges
that Mr. Tetzlaff authorized the destruction of 16 boxes of
documents in violation of a court order while representing Peoples
Energy in a class-action case.

The document destruction, Peoples Energy contends, forced the
company to pay the plaintiffs $4.3 million more than it would have
offered.  The total settlement, which a judge approved Nov. 30,
was $8.8 million.

Peoples' suit also names Mr. Tetzlaff's law firm, Ungaretti &
Harris, as a defendant.

Mr. Tetzlaff, 66, declined to comment through a law firm
spokesman, Guy Chipparoni.

In a staffwide e-mail provided to the Tribune, Tom Fahey, managing
partner of Ungaretti & Harris, wrote: "We simply want you to be
assured that we are vigorously defending ourselves in the matter
and are confident that it will be resolved successfully.  We have
always provided our clients with counsel of the utmost
professionalism and integrity, and that was the standard that we
adhered to in this matter."

Peoples Energy blamed Mr. Tetzlaff for costing it money, but its
own court documents in the class-action lawsuit reveal the company
had argued that the document destruction had not been harmful.

The suit against Mr. Tetzlaff did not disclose that the utility
company had fired Ungaretti.  But a spokeswoman confirmed that
Peoples Energy is no longer doing business with the law firm.

The conflict is an unceremonious end to a long relationship
between Mr. Tetzlaff and Peoples Energy.  In 2003, when he was a
partner with McGuireWoods, Mr. Tetzlaff engineered an outsourcing
deal with the utility company in which the law firm took charge of
Peoples' legal work.  In an unusual arrangement, Mr. Tetzlaff
became Peoples Energy's general counsel while also serving as a
McGuireWoods partner.

The outsourcing deal ended abruptly in May 2005, when McGuireWoods
dropped Peoples Energy, which was paying the firm $9 million a
year, citing difficulties in managing the complex relationship.
Mr. Tetzlaff left for Ungaretti and took Peoples Energy as a
client.

One of the matters he brought with him was the class-action
complaint that had been filed in 2004 by some Peoples Energy
customers who alleged that the company had illegally profited from
trading transactions with Enron at the expense of its regulated
utilities, Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas.

The Illinois attorney general and the city of Chicago later filed
similar suits against Peoples Energy.

Peoples Energy agreed to settle the government suits in January
2006 for nearly $200 million, but the class-action complaint
remained unresolved.  In the meantime, in July 2006, Peoples
Energy agreed to be acquired by WPS Resources Group, a Wisconsin
utility, which later renamed itself Integrys Energy Group Inc. and
moved its headquarters to Chicago.

Shortly after the merger was completed in December 2006, Tetzlaff
stepped down as Peoples Energy's general counsel but was retained
as outside counsel.  Integrys also shifted some of its legal work
related to Peoples Energy to Foley & Lardner, a Milwaukee firm
with a large Chicago office, including the class-action complaint.

In December 2009, Foley discovered that Ungaretti had destroyed
several boxes of documents and reported the destruction to the
court the following February.

A short time later, lawyers for the plaintiffs asked the judge to
sanction Peoples Energy for violating a court order to preserve
documents.

In a July 29 motion, Peoples Energy argued that the alleged
grounds for sanctions were meritless.

"The fact that plaintiffs now have all or have virtually all of
the documents they seek proves they have suffered no prejudice
here and, therefore, sanctions are not warranted," wrote Foley
lawyers.

The case was settled before the judge issued a ruling on the
sanctions issue.

The complaint against Mr. Tetzlaff alleges that the class-action
complaint became "virtually untriable" for Peoples due to the
document destruction.  The malpractice caused $4.6 million in
damages, which includes legal fees, Peoples said in the complaint.

The Peoples spokeswoman said Wednesday's complaint speaks for
itself and the company had no further comment.


PETSMART INC: Appeals From N.J. Pet Food Settlement Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals with respect to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey's approval of the settlement of a consolidated pet
food class action litigation against PetSmart, Inc., are still
pending.

Beginning in March 2007, PetSmart was named as a party in these
lawsuits arising from pet food recalls announced by several
manufacturers:

   * Bruski v. Nutro Products, et al., USDC, N.D. IL (filed
     3/23/07)

   * Rozman v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, MN (filed 4/9/07)

   * Ford v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, S.D. CA (filed 4/23/07)

   * Wahl, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., USDC, C.D. CA
     (filed 4/10/07)

   * Demith v. Nestle, et al., USDC, N.D. IL (filed 4/23/07)

   * Thompkins v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, CO (filed 4/11/07)

   * McBain v. Menu Foods, et al., Judicial Centre of Regina,
     Canada (filed 7/11/07)

   * Dayman v. Hills Pet Nutrition Inc., et al., Ontario
     Superior Court of Justice (filed 8/8/07)

   * Esau v. Menu Foods, et al., Supreme Court of Newfoundland
     and Labrador (filed 9/5/07)

   * Ewasew v. Menu Foods, et al., Supreme Court of British
     Columbia (filed 3/23/07)

   * Silva v. Menu Foods, et al., Canada Province of Manitoba
     (filed 3/30/07)

   * Powell v. Menu Foods, et al., Ontario Superior Court of
     Justice (filed 3/28/07)

The plaintiffs sued the major pet food manufacturers and retailers
claiming that their pets suffered injury or death as a result of
consuming allegedly contaminated pet food and pet snack products.

By order dated June 28, 2007, the Bruski, Rozman, Ford, Wahl,
Demith and Thompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other
pet food class actions under the federal rules for multi-district
litigation (In re: Pet Food Product Liability Litigation, Civil
No. 07-2867).  The Canadian cases were not consolidated.

On May 21, 2008, the parties to the U.S. lawsuits comprising the
In re: Pet Food Product Liability Litigation and the Canadian
cases jointly submitted a comprehensive settlement arrangement for
court approval.  Preliminary court approval was received from the
U.S. District Court on May 3, 2008, and from all of the Canadian
courts as of July 8, 2008.  On October 14, 2008, the U.S. District
Court approved the settlement, and the Canadian courts gave final
approval on Nov. 3, 2008.

Two different groups of objectors filed notices of appeal with
respect to the U.S. District Court's approval of the U.S.
settlement.  Upon expiration of the prescribed appeal process
these cases should be resolved, and PetSmart continues to believe
it will not have a material adverse impact on its consolidated
financial statements.  There have been no appeals filed in Canada.

No updates were reported in the company's Nov. 24, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Oct. 31, 2010.

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty
provider of products, services and solutions for the lifetime
needs of pets.  The company offers a line of products for all the
life stages of pets, and offers various pet services, including
professional grooming, training, boarding and day camp.  It also
offers pet products through an e-commerce site, PetSmart.com, as
well operates a pet community site, pets.com.


PFIZER INC: Recalls 19,000 Lipitor Bottles
------------------------------------------
Peter Loftus at Dow Jones' Newswires reports that Pfizer Inc. said
it plans to recall about 19,000 bottles of its blockbuster
cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor in the U.S., marking the fourth
such recall since August due to reports of malodorous bottles.

According to the report, the New York-based drug maker said in a
statement on its website the latest recall stems from one customer
report of an uncharacteristic odor related to the bottles, which
were supplied by a third-party manufacturer.  Pfizer hasn't
identified the supplier.

Pfizer has cited reports of musty or moldy odors emanating from
bottles in recalling about 370,000 bottles of Lipitor in three
previous alerts beginning in August, the report notes.

Dow Jones says that Pfizer said the risk of health problems to
Lipitor users appears to be minimal.

The company said the recall was triggered by increased
surveillance of odor-related issues following reports of problems
at another drug maker, the report states.  Dow Jones' relates that
the odor is consistent with the presence of a chemical used as a
wood preservative on shipping pallets.

Pfizer said it has taken steps to eliminate the odor problem but
the latest batch of recalled products was manufactured before
improvements were made, the report adds.


RAYMOND JAMES: Continues to Defend Defer LP Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond James Financial, Inc., continues to defend itself in a
class action lawsuit, Defer LP vs. Raymond James Financial, Inc.,
et al., filed in April, 2008 in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, according to the Company's
Nov. 24, 2010 Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010.

The case is similar to those filed against a number of brokerage
firms alleging various securities law violations relating to the
adequacy of disclosure in connection with the marketing and sale
of ARS.

The complaint seeks class action status, compensatory damages and
costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees.  In September
2010, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss with
respect to all but two counts against defendant RJ&A, while
simultaneously limiting the class period to 3 1/2 months beginning
November 2007 and ending February 13, 2008.

The Company has filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the
remaining allegations and intend to defend the case vigorously.


RAYMOND JAMES: Dismissed From Woodard Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------
Raymond James Financial, Inc., was dismissed without prejudice
from a lawsuit filed by certain stockholders in New York,
according to the Company's Nov. 24, 2010 Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2010.

In June 2009, a purported class action, Woodard vs. Raymond James
Financial, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The case names the
Company as defendants, along with the Company's Chairman and Chief
Financial Officer.  The complaint, brought on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock for the period between and including
April 22, 2008 and April 14, 2009, alleges that various financial
statements and press releases the Company issued contained
material misstatements and omissions relating to the loan losses
at RJ Bank.  The complaint seeks class action status, compensatory
damages and costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees.
In September 2009, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and
counsel.  An amended complaint was filed in November, 2009 naming
as additional defendants the President and a Senior Credit Risk
Executive of RJ Bank.

In August 2010 the company's motion to dismiss was granted,
without prejudice.


RINO INTERNATIONAL: Hagens Berman Files New Class Action
--------------------------------------------  ------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP filed a new class-action lawsuit
on behalf of investors deceived by RINO International Corp.
(NASDAQ:RINO) (Pink Sheets:RINO) alleging RINO artificially
inflated stock values by providing unreliable financial statements
and fabricating customer relationships.

Investors who purchased RINO common stock between May 15, 2008,
and November 19, 2010, and incurred losses greater than $100,000,
are encouraged to contact Hagens Berman's partner, Reed R.
Kathrein, by phone at 510-725-3000 or by e-mail at
rino@hbsslaw.com for a consultation.  Large investors who wish to
serve as lead plaintiff must file a motion with the Court no later
than January 14, 2011.

The new lawsuit, filed on December 10, 2010, charged RINO with
violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and came days after
NASDAQ delisted RINO from the stock market.  Hagens Berman is
asking the U.S. District Court of the Central District of
California to award a maximum settlement to investors who incurred
losses after purchasing RINO common stock during the proposed
Class Period.

Mr. Kathrein, one of the attorneys representing plaintiff Brenda
Chau in the new lawsuit against RINO, has been investigating
investor fraud claims against the Chinese-based environment
equipment manufacturer.  NASDAQ delisted RINO for the following
reasons:

    * The Company announced that its previously filed financial
      reports for fiscal year 2008, 2009 and year-to-date 2010
      could no longer be relied upon;

    * The Company admitted that it had not entered into certain
      previously disclosed contracts; and

    * The Company failed to respond to the NASDAQ staff's request
      for additional information regarding allegations raised by
      the Muddy Waters, LLC, report.

Earlier this year, an independent research firm released
information from China's State Administration of Industry and
Commerce showing that the Company's 2009 consolidated revenue was
only $11.1 million, as opposed to the $192.6 million reported in
the Company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

The price of RINO's stock fell approximately 28 percent and closed
at $11.10 per share on November 11, 2010, the first full trading
day after the research report was published.  RINO's stock
continued its sharp decline after the Company released
disappointing third-quarter results, and closed at $7.55 per
share on November 15.  NASDAQ halted trading of RINO stock on
November 17 based on claims about RINO's deceptive practices.
When RINO resumed trading in the Pink Sheets on December 8, the
stock price quickly fell to $3.15.

Investors who purchased significant amounts of RINO stock during
the proposed Class Period may be eligible to recover damages, and
represent others with similar claims against the Company.

More information about this case is available at:
http://www.hbsslaw.com/rino-international

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com/-- is an investor-rights class-action law
firm with offices in Boston, Chicago, Colorado Springs, Los
Angeles, Phoenix, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. Founded in
1993, HBSS continues to successfully fight for investor rights in
large, complex litigation.


SANOFI-AVENTIS: Law Firms Mull Class Action Over BMP Sale Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
John George, writing for Philadelphia Business Journal, reports
10 law firms have launched their own "investigations" into the
proposed sale of BMP Sunstone to Sanofi as a precursor to possible
stockholder class-action suits.

In October, Sanofi-Aventis reached a deal to buy BMP Sunstone -- a
specialty pharmaceutical company based in Plymouth Meeting that
markets a line of women's and children's health products in China
-- for $10 per share, a deal that works out to $520.6 million.

The companies noted the price per share represented a 30% premium
above the closing price of BMP Sunstone's shares on Oct. 27, the
day before the agreement was publicly announced.

The law firms that publicly announced probes of the proposed sale
said they were looking into "possible breaches of fiduciary" by
the company's board of directors in approving the proposed sale of
BMP.  All the firms used their announcement to solicit BMP
Sunstone stockholders, should their reviews of the proposed sale
lead to the filing of a class-action lawsuit of the company.

T. Patrick Hurley Jr., managing director of MidMarket Capital
Advisors in Philadelphia, said such probes by class-action
attorneys are common when the rate of deal-making picks up -- as
it has lately.

"Normally, whenever there is a flurry of M&A activity, the class
bar will challenge deals to see if anything happens," Mr. Hurley
said, noting few yield lawsuits that reach a courtroom.  "I don't
know of anything about the BMP deal that would make it stand apart
from normal deals."


SASKATCHEWAN GOV'T: May Face Class Action Over Foster Care
----------------------------------------------------------
Lana Haight, writing for The StarPhoenix, reports a group working
on behalf of foster children is exploring a class-action lawsuit
against the Saskatchewan government over a system that's been
labelled as in crisis.

"The liability that's accrued in child welfare is huge.  It's much
greater than the residential school abuse," said Tim Korol, a
former assistant deputy minister of social services who is
spearheading the group that would launch the class action.

"I would argue that some of the harm that's come to these children
is deeper.  I don't want to minimize the residential school
(abuse).  That's part of the issue."

The idea of a foster care class action has been floating around
the province's legal, medical and social work communities for a
while.  It's now time to hold the government accountable, says
Mr. Korol, who was hired as a special adviser to the minister of
social services in 2008, promoted to assistant deputy minister and
then fired in June 2009.  A rancher from the St. Denis area,
Mr. Korol continues to be involved in the child welfare system as
an advocate.

"There's two courts in our land.  The court of public opinion and
the judicial courts."

Mr. Korol maintains the court of public opinion hasn't been
effective in holding the Social Services Ministry accountable for
the care or lack of care provided to foster children, despite
scathing reports by the provincial auditor and the children's
advocate.  Even the recommendations made by the Saskatchewan Child
Welfare Review Panel released earlier last week are not binding on
the government.

"There's no way of holding the ministry responsible.  It's
ultimately the courts in our land that is able to do those sort of
things," said Mr. Korol.

He identifies three groups of foster children who could form
classes as part of the court case: Those children who were
physically or sexually abused, those who have spent years in the
foster care system with no plan for permanent placement, such as
adoption, and those who were taken from their parents because
allegations of neglect.

"A lot of these children should not be apprehended in the first
place," said Mr. Korol, noting neglect is the reason that 60 to 70
per cent of foster children are removed from their homes.

Rather than paying foster parents to provide care to children
apprehended from their birth parents, the government should be
spending money in ways that help neglectful parents learn to be
better parents.  He says many don't know how to parent because
their parents grew up in the residential school system and never
learned to parent either.

"A (First Nation) elder said true remorse or true reconciliation
is not having to apologize twice. It looks like we're going down
that road again with child welfare with apprehend, apprehend,
apprehend," said Mr. Korol.

Comparing foster care to Indian residential schools is not a
stretch, says a Toronto lawyer who represented the Assembly of
First Nations in negotiating the residential schools settlement
agreement.

"You have the government standing in loco parentis.  This is as
true in foster care as it was in residential schools," said John
Kingman Phillips, who also lectures at the University of
Saskatchewan.

"Foster kids have no choice when (a social worker) shows up and
seizes them.  There's nothing they can do.  They're caught within
a system where they have no freedom of movement or choice.
Combined with a government that owes them a duty of care and
you've got the makings potential of some pretty good common
questions."

The residential school class action and the subsequent negotiated
settlements for former students and their families will make it
easier for groups to argue they have experienced common harm, even
if their circumstances were different.

"Class actions are designed to give a voice to the voiceless.
Individually, some little foster kid decides to sue the province
of Saskatchewan, his case is just one tiny case.  When he combines
that case with a number of other cases, they actually get a voice
and strength from their numbers," said Mr. Phillips.

"It gives lawyers an incentive to do the work because the values
are so much higher.  It forces the opponent to treat the claimant
or claimants' class on an equal footing instead of grinding them
under."

The potential payout to foster children is in the billions of
dollars, says Mr. Korol who refers to the money paid so far to
residential school claimants.  More than $2 billion has been paid
out by the federal government on 82,000 claims.

With as many as 6,000 children in Saskatchewan's child welfare
system at one time, the number of people who could make claims as
former foster children from previous years is staggering.

Mr. Korol and others interested in moving the class action forward
are planning to meet in mid-January.  While he has talked with
some lawyers in Saskatchewan, no one has been retained to start
the legal paperwork.

No one from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations or the
Saskatoon Tribal Council was interested in being interviewed about
the potential class action.

The deputy minister of social services, Marion Zerr, had no
comment about the possible lawsuit either, although she did say
the government was accountable to the public and to the provincial
auditor, the children's advocate and the ombudsman, all
independent officers of the legislature.


SIFY TECH: Records $338,983 Exposure to IPO Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sify Technologies Limited disclosed that it has a maximum exposure
of approximately US$338,983.05, under a settlement of a class
action lawsuit related to its initial public offering of American
Depository Receipts, according to the company's Nov. 30, 2010,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and E`For the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2010.

A class action suit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York by a purported class of
purchasers of Sify's ADS against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors and several of the underwriters involved in
the Company's initial public offering of American Depository
Receipts. The complaint alleges that the underwriters in the
Company's IPO solicited and received undisclosed commissions from,
and entered into undisclosed arrangements with, certain investors
who purchased Sify's ADSs in the IPO and the aftermarket. The
complaint also alleges that Sify violated the United States
Federal Securities laws by failing to disclose in the IPO
prospectus that the underwriters had engaged in these allegedly
undisclosed arrangements. This case is defended by SIFY and more
than 300 issuers who went public between 1998 and 2000. The
plaintiffs announced a proposed settlement between all parties,
including the Group and its former officers and directors. Any
direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is expected to
be borne by the Company's insurers.

On June 12, 2009, the Federal District Court granted preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement. On September 10, 2009, the
Federal District Court held the fairness hearing for final
approval of the settlement. At the hearing it was noted that out
of the seven million people who were sent notices of the
settlement, only 140 people objected. The objectors had five main
arguments: (1) the class definition is overbroad and does not
exclude individuals who participated in the scheme; (2) the
requested attorney's fees are excessive; (3) the awards requested
by the lead plaintiffs are excessive; (4) the settlement amount is
insufficient and thus the recovery to class members is too small;
and (5) the notice is insufficient, in part because it does not
disclose the amounts requested by individual lead plaintiffs. On
October 6, 2009, the District Court issued an order granting class
certification and final approval of the settlement.

Several individuals or groups of individuals have filed petitions
to appeal and/or notices of appeal with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit Court of
Appeals has not yet addressed any of the pending petitions to
appeal or notices of appeal. Therefore, the District Court's order
granting class certification and final approval of the settlement
remains subject to appellate review by the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals. As per the Company's Counsel there can be no assurance
that the District Court's approval will not be overturned by the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Any direct financial impact of
the preliminary approved settlement is expected to be borne by the
Company's insurers.

The Group believes, the maximum exposure under this settlement is
approximately US$338,983.05, an amount which the Group believes is
fully recoverable from the Group's insurer. If the settlement in
an outcome necessitating a larger award and its insurance does not
cover such payment, it may affect its results of operations.


SOCORRO ELECTRIC: Dec. 30 Hearing Set for Class Action Venue
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit between Socorro Electric Cooperative and its member-
owners nudged forward during a status hearing held in 13th
Judicial District Court in Los Lunas on Dec. 14.

The lawsuit was initiated last summer when the co-op's board of
trustees voted to challenge three newly adopted bylaws -- all of
with call for increased transparency -- passed by member-owners of
the public non-profit corporation at the annual meeting last
April.

In order to contest the validity of the bylaws, the co-op filed
its complaint requesting declaratory judgment and injunctive
relief against all of its approximately 10,000 member-owners, who
are also its customers.

Though the co-op later filed papers to have the lawsuit dismissed,
by then the court had already received several responses to the
complaint and one counterclaim asking for class-action
certification.

Judge Albert J. Mitchell Jr. of the 10th Judicial District, who
was assigned to the case by the New Mexico Supreme Court, reviewed
the key elements with attorneys representing both sides during the
Dec. 14 hearing and sketched out a schedule for the coming months.

"I'm not going to be ruling on merits," he told the 10 attorneys
present and a crowd of about 25 member-owners seated in the
gallery at the outset of the hearing.  "I hope to resolve some of
the issues by written motion; some will require hearings."

One thing Judge Mitchell did decide was that the case would not be
dismissed.  Unless all of the parties who filed responses were
willing to do so, "I'm not going to dismiss," he said.  "I think
you have legitimate issues here."

But Judge Mitchell indicated he wanted to put off ruling on the
class-action certificate until later in the process and put a stay
on the matter.

"My initial inclination is we need to get this part taken care of
before we get into the class action," he said during discussion of
the co-op's complaint.

Seated at one table were co-op attorneys Dennis Francish and Paul
Kennedy.

Crowded around the defendants' table were Socorro attorneys Don
Klein, John Gerbracht, Roscoe Woods, Thomas Fitch and Polly
Tausch, most of whom had filed responses pro se.  Also at the
table were Lee Deschamps, Bill Ikard and his associate William
Kilgarlin, lawyers listed on the counterclaim asking for class
action certification.

Breaking it Down

Judge Mitchell said there were three aspects of the case that
needed to be addressed at the status hearing: the first dealing
with pretrial issues of venue and notice, then there was the
original complaint and the class-action request.

Judge Mitchell set the first deadline, asking for new sets of
briefs regarding motions made by defendants to have the case moved
to Socorro by the end of the year.

"As to the venue issue, that Dec. 30 date is solid," he said,
"because we need to move forward."

The co-op filed the case in Valencia County, where a small
percentage of members reside, to avoid conflicts of interest that
might exist with judges in Socorro also being members of the co-
op.

At one point, Judge Mitchell asked for a show of hands from anyone
opposed to moving the case to Socorro and only the two co-op
attorneys raised their hands.

When the judge asked why, Mr. Kennedy simply stated that Valencia
County complied with requirements for proper venue.

Judge Mitchell showed he was willing to consider a change of
venue, asking a series of questions about the distance Socorro was
from Los Lunas, the set up at the Socorro courthouse and security.

At the end of the hearing, he asked the co-op attorneys to let him
know what objections they would have to move the proceedings from
the fully modern courthouse in Los Lunas to Socorro.

"It may be more convenient to have it heard in Socorro," the judge
said.

Judge Mitchell determined that all parties agreed proper notice
was not fulfilled when the co-op ran the summons as a legal ad in
El Defensor Chieftain in July.  He said the co-op had a means of
serving notice directly to member-owners each month, intimating
notices could have been sent out with billing statements.

Legal Arguments

The judge queried the co-op attorneys about the substance of their
original complaint.  He said one bylaw the co-op was contesting,
requiring the board of trustees to voluntarily adopt the Open
Meetings Act, overlapped another that allows members and the media
to attend meetings.  The only difference was that the latter one
also permitted members to address the board, he noted.

"Allowing the public to speak is over and above the Open Meetings
Act," he said.

Mr. Francish said the co-op was willing to go along with letting
members speak, but he didn't think they belonged at corporate
meetings.

"My position throughout this thing was that they be allowed to
speak, then leave," he said, adding that historically members have
not been allowed to sit in on meetings.  "As someone who liked the
old ways, I was opposed to it and so was the majority of the
board."

Mr. Mitchell indicated the matter wasn't for them to decide if the
bylaw was properly adopted, which Mr. Francish acknowledged it
was.

"It all comes down to what the owners want," Mr. Mitchell said.

Regarding the third bylaw that requires the co-op to follow the
Inspection of Public Records Act, Mr. Francish said there is
already case law against it and cited the 1997 New Mexico Supreme
Court case of Schein v. Northern Rio Arriba Electric Cooperative.

That case affirms that members can inspect records as long as they
have "proper pursue."

"The way you're characterizing the Rio Arriba case is much more
restrictive than I read it," Judge Mitchell told Mr. Francish.

The judge asked Mr. Francish if an evidential hearing was
necessary or if he was making a legal argument.  When Mr. Francish
answered it was a legal argument, Judge Mitchell asked for briefs
on the matter to be turned in within 30 days.

There was also discussion regarding whether eventual rulings would
be binding on those not party to the case, since defendants were
not properly served.  Judge Mitchell wanted briefs submitted on
that subject by Jan. 20.

"Whether it's binding on everyone is critical," he said.

Considering Class

Judge Mitchell turned to attorneys at the other table to address
the proposed class action counterclaim.  He said he was concerned
that such action would cause the co-op financial distress if it
lost the case.

"How in the world can you sue the cooperative without harming it?"
he asked.

Bill Ikard, an Austin, Texas, attorney who helped win a class
action lawsuit against Pedernales Electric Cooperative, the
largest rural electric co-op in the county, a few years ago,
responded that there were two reasons.  One, the co-op likely had
an insurance policy that would cover damages.  And, he noted, the
counterclaim calls for current and former co-op officials named in
the complaint to be disgorged of damages.  That is, they would
have to pay back the co-op out of their own pockets, if it were
found that they had unfairly received compensation.

"Never was there intention to damage the co-op," Mr. Ikard said.

Mr. Francish disagreed.  He pointed out the counterclaim calls for
capital credits to be returned to member-owners and therefore
reduce the co-op's equity holdings.

Mr. Ikard also made the argument that the co-op would benefit in
the long run.

"If the overriding issue is transparency, good governance and
democracy, it won't hurt the co-op," he said.

Judge Mitchell said no one would argue against good governance,
but at what cost? He noted that in most all the filings one side
asks the other to pay attorney fees.

"I'm trying to minimize the cost to the class until we get past
the governance issue," he said.  "When we get to damages, I want
that pure."

Judge Mitchell asked if the co-op would be willing to disclose the
particulars of its insurance coverage for litigation.

"Of course," Mr. Kennedy said.

But Mr. Kennedy later said defending against a class action
countersuit could prove costly.

"There's extensive discovery that I want to take on with the class
and the class action representative," he said.

The representative in the class action proposal is Charlie Wagner,
the District 5 trustee who was a leader in the reform movement
that was successful in getting a bevy of new bylaws passed in
April.

Cross-claim defendants include the nine other current trustees,
four former trustees and the co-op's former general manager.

In the end, Judge Mitchell said he wanted to deal with the other
issues first and he would revisit the matter of class action
certification in February.

Near the end of the one-hour, 15-minute hearing, Judge Mitchell
floated the idea that the matter could be resolved outside the
courtroom.

"Is it worth encouraging you to sit down with a mediator?" he
asked the lawyers.

Mr. Deschamps, who represents several member-owners and is one of
the attorneys listed on the class-action proposal, said he'd be
willing.  But other attorneys weren't.

"I think it's way too early," Kennedy told the judge.

"This may be the one time I agree with Mr. Kennedy," Mr. Ikard
said. "There needs to be discovery."

At the end of the hearing, Mr. Fitch asked the judge if he'd
prepare the court order outlining the schedule for deadlines of
briefs and pleadings.

"I'll take a crack at it," Judge Mitchell said, reminding everyone
that it would only be a draft.


THERMADYNE HOLDINGS: Has MOU With Plaintiffs in Consolidated Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thermadyne Holdings Corporation has entered into a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiffs of a consolidated class action
lawsuit relating to the company's merger with Irving Place
Capital, according to the company's Nov. 26, 2010, Form 8-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On October 5, 2010, an Agreement and Plan of Merger was entered
into by and among Thermadyne Holdings Corporation, Razor Holdco
Inc., and Razor Merger Sub Inc., providing for the merger of
Merger Subsidiary with and into the Company.  Razor Holdco and
Razor Merger are affiliates of Irving Place Capital.

Two identical purported class action lawsuits were filed in
connection with the merger in the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, Missouri against the Company, the Company's directors, and
Irving Place Capital. The actions are entitled Israeli v.
Thermadyne Holdings Corp., et al., 10SL-CC04238, and Shivers v.
Thermadyne Holdings Corp., et al., 10SL-CC04383. Both complaints
allege, among other things, that the Company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders, including
their duties of loyalty, good faith, and independence, by entering
into a merger agreement which provides for inadequate
consideration to stockholders of the Company, and the Company and
Irving Place Capital aided and abetted the directors' alleged
breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief
preventing the defendants from consummating the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, or in the event the
defendants consummated the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement, rescission of such transactions, and attorneys' fees
and expenses.

On November 8, 2010, plaintiff Israeli moved for expedited
discovery.

On November 12, 2010, the Circuit Court ordered the consolidation
of the two actions pursuant to a stipulation of the parties.

All defendants have filed motions to dismiss, which are noticed to
be heard on November 30, 2010. The plaintiff's motion for
expedited discovery also was scheduled to be heard on November 30,
2010. On November 25, 2010, the Company, the Company's directors
and Irving Place Capital entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of
these actions.

The Company believes that no further supplemental disclosure is
required under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk of the
stockholder class actions delaying or adversely affecting the
merger and to minimize the expense of defending such actions, the
Company has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed
settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to
the proposed merger, all of which are set forth below. Subject to
completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to the
plaintiffs, the memorandum of understanding stipulates that the
parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to the Company's
stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Circuit Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved
by the Circuit Court, it is anticipated that it will resolve and
release all claims in all actions that were or could have been
brought challenging any aspect of the proposed merger, the Merger
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (but
excluding claims for appraisal under Section 262 of the Delaware
General Corporation Law). In connection with the settlement,
plaintiffs intend to seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses
not to exceed $399,000, subject to court approval, and defendants
have agreed not to oppose this request. There can be no assurance
that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of
settlement or that the Circuit Court will approve the settlement
even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such
event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum
of understanding may be terminated.


UNITED STATES: 5th Cir. Junks Hurricane Katrina Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected a
$21 million settlement deal between victims of Hurricane Katrina
and the levee districts, finding that the class might not benefit
at all from the settlement once administrative costs are deducted.

"Here, we are unable to definitively state, based on the record
below, that the class will receive any benefit from the
settlement," the ruling released Dec. 16 states.

All of the lawsuits filed in connection to the levee and floodwall
failures were consolidated in a Louisiana federal court, but the
$21 million settlement marked the conclusion of just the claims
against three levee boards and their insurers.

The proposed $21 million, which would be paid entirely by the
insurers, represents the limits of the available insurance
proceeds.  The New Orleans-based appeals court found, however,
that the lower court did not ensure that the money would be
distributed fairly.

"Without quarreling with the district court's findings, we
nevertheless conclude that this settlement is not fair, reasonable
and adequate . . . because there has been no demonstration on the
record below that the settlement will benefit the class in any
way," Circuit Judge Carolyn King wrote for the three-judge panel.

The appeals court criticized the plan's silence on how much each
class member will get from the settlement.

"The class members in this case suffered a wide variety of
injuries, ranging from property damage to personal injury and
death, and no method is specified for how these different
claimants will be treated vis-a-vis each other," Judge King wrote.

Many proposals were discussed in the district court, but the court
simply punted the big decision to the special master, the ruling
states.

Attorneys representing the class agreed not to deduct their fees
from the settlement, but reimbursement for their expenses as well
as other administrative costs could swallow up the entire
settlement fund, the appeals court found.

Judge King wrote that there is no estimate of a figure for any of
the costs.

"At the certification and fairness hearing, class counsel could
not provide any estimate of the costs incurred thus far, other
than to admit that litigation had been 'expensive,'" the ruling
states.

"We hold that the district court erred by approving the settlement
without any assurance that attorneys' costs and administrative
costs will not cannibalize the entire $21 million settlement,"
Judge King wrote.

A copy of the decision in In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches
Litigation, No. 09-31156 (5th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/17/katrina.pdf


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Recalls 228,236 Cars
-----------------------------------
Matt Jarzemsky at Dow Jones' Newswires reports that Chrysler Group
LLC and Volkswagen AG recalled 367,350 minivans and 228,236 cars,
respectively, the latest setbacks for auto makers amid a generally
improving climate for the industry.

According to the report, the Chrysler recall affects its 2008 Town
and Country and Dodge Grand Caravan minivans.  Dow Jones' relates
that the vehicles may experience inadvertent airbag deployment and
illumination of the airbag warning due to a water leak near the
heating and air conditioner drain.

Chrysler, the report notes, said it is recalling about 76,000
Dodge Ram pickup trucks to fix a power-steering problem that could
cause the brake pedals to return slowly after the driver depresses
them.

Volkswagen, meanwhile, is recalling Golf, Jetta, New Beetle and
Rabbit models with 2.5-liter engines, Dow Jones' discloses.  The
action affects the 2007 through 2009 model years of all the
vehicles except the Beetle, which is for 2006 through 2010, the
report says.

The cars could develop a fuel leak, which could result in a fire,
because of an improperly located fastening clamp chafing against a
fuel supply line, VW said, the report adds.


WHOLE FOODS: Continues to Defend Kottaras Antitrust Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market, Inc., continues to defend a putative class
action lawsuit filed by Kottaras in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia, according to the company's Nov. 24, 2010
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended September 26, 2010.

On October 27, 2008, Whole Foods Market was served with the
complaint Kottaras v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.  The Class Action
seeks treble damages, equitable, injunctive, and declaratory
relief, and alleges that the acquisition and merger between Whole
Foods Market and Wild Oats violates various provisions of the
federal antitrust laws.  The case is in the preliminary stages.

Whole Foods Market says it cannot at this time predict the likely
outcome of the judicial proceeding or estimate the amount or range
of loss or possible loss that may arise from it.  The Company
relates that it has not accrued any loss related to
the outcome of the case as of September 26, 2010.

Whole Foods Market -- http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/--
headquartered in Austin, Texas, is a leading supermarket retailer
which emphasizes natural and organic foods.  The company has 295
stores in the U.S., Canada and U.K., and had approximately $8
billion in revenues over the last 12 months.


WILBER CORP: Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff of a lawsuit alleging breach of fiduciary duties
against Wilber Corporation is seeking class certification,
according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 24, 2010.

On November 17, 2010, Richard N. Soules, a shareholder of the
Company, commenced a lawsuit against the Company, each of its
directors and Community Bank System, Inc. in New York State
Supreme Court in Otsego County, New York (Soules  v Alfred
Whittet, et. al., Index No. 1317/2010).

In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the Company and its
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders by entering into the Agreement and Plan of Merger
with Community. Amongst other allegations, the plaintiff contends
that; (i) the planned merger with Community does not provide fair
value to the Company's shareholders; (ii) the Board of Directors
failed to maximize value for the Company's shareholders; (iii) the
Company's directors acted in their own interests in violation of
their fiduciary duties in approving the merger; (iv) the
provisions of the Agreement and Plan of Merger limiting the
Company's ability to entertain other offers and imposing a fee on
the Company if it terminates the agreement under certain
circumstances are unfair; and (v)  the agreement of the Company's
directors to vote their shares in favor of the merger unfairly
limits the Company's ability to accept other offers.

The complaint seeks certification of the lawsuit as a class action
on behalf of all other Company shareholders, an order enjoining
the merger, rescission of the Agreement and Plan of Merger and
attorney's fees.


WILBER CORP: Faces "Soules" Suit in New York Over Planned Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Wilber Corporation disclosed in a Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange on Nov. 24, 2010, that on November 17,
2010, Richard N. Soules, a shareholder of the Company, commenced a
lawsuit against the Company, each of its directors and Community
Bank System, Inc., in New York State Supreme Court in Otsego
County, New York (Soules  v Alfred Whittet, et. al., Index No.
1317/2010).

In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the Company and its
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders by entering into the Agreement and Plan of Merger
with Community. Amongst other allegations, the plaintiff contends
that; (i) the planned merger with Community does not provide fair
value to the Company's shareholders; (ii) the Board of Directors
failed to maximize value for the Company's shareholders; (iii) the
Company's directors acted in their own interests in violation of
their fiduciary duties in approving the merger; (iv) the
provisions of the Agreement and Plan of Merger limiting the
Company's ability to entertain other offers and imposing a fee on
the Company if it terminates the agreement under certain
circumstances are unfair; and (v) the agreement of the Company's
directors to vote their shares in favor of the merger unfairly
limits the Company's ability to accept other offers.  The
complaint seeks certification of the lawsuit as a class action on
behalf of all other Company shareholders, an order enjoining the
merger, rescission of the Agreement and Plan of Merger and
attorney's fees.  The Company believes that the complaint has no
merit and intends to vigorously defend this litigation.



                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Neil U. Lim, 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  * * *