CAR_Public/101117.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, November 17, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 227

                             Headlines

ADVANCE AMERICA: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
AFFINION GROUP: Awaits Outcome of Class Action in Alabama
AFFINION GROUP: Seeks Arbitration in Connecticut Class Action
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN: Hindo Class Action Remains Pending
ALMOST FAMILY: Named in 4 Securities Class Suits in Kentucky

ARROW ELECTRONICS: Faces 4 Lawsuits Over Nu Horizons Acquisition
AT&T MOBILITY: Notifies iPhone Users of Class Action Settlement
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Mortgage Foreclosures
BIG 5 SPORTING: Hearing on "Weyl" Settlement Set for Dec. 10
BIG 5 SPORTING: Cert. Hearing in "Kelly" Suit Set for Nov. 30

CANADA: May Appeal Aboriginal Children Foster Care Class Ruling
CLECO POWER: Louisiana Suits Remanded Back to State Court
CRM HOLDINGS: Response to Amended Securities Suit Due Jan. 7
DENTSPLY INT'L: "Weinstat" Suit Still Pending in San Francisco
DENTSPLY INT'L: Seeks Dismissal of Hildebrand & Jaffin Class Suit

EQUITABLE PRODUCTION: Judge Shrinks Class Counsel Fees to $6.8MM
GOOGLE INC: Approval of Class Action Settlement Remains Pending
HARTE HANKS: Awaits Approval of Shoppers Unit's $7MM Settlement
HUMANA INC: Sacred Heart Files 4th Amended Complaint
HUMANA INC: May 2011 Hearing Set for Southeast Georgia Case

INTERNATIONAL BANCSHARES: Defends Itself From Two Lawsuits
KINDER MORGAN: Nears $200 Million Class Action Settlement
KOSS CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Action Suit
MASCO CORP: Defending Suit in Georgia Over Anticompetitive Conduct
MDL 1952: Home City Ice Agrees to $13.5 Million Settlement

MICROSOFT CORP: Appeal in Certification of Canadian Suit Pending
MOTRICITY INC: Fairness Hearing Set for December 2
NL INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Suits Over Lead-Based Paints
NOAH EDUCATION: Awaits Court Approval of Class Suit Settlement
NORTHWESTERN CORP: Gets $2 Million in McGreevey Settlement

PENN VIRGINIA: Court Consolidates Two Class Actions in Delaware
PENN VIRGINIA: Faces 2 Merger-Related Suits in Pennsylvania
PORTLAND GENERAL: Marion County Class Suits Remain Pending
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend ERISA Lawsuit in Iowa
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: P. Walsh Dismisses Suit vs. Principal Life

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Remains a Defendant in Cruise & Mullaney Suit
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Hurd" Lawsuit
PROMMIS SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Action Over Foreclosure Fraud
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Continues to Face Suits on Overdraft Fees
RRI ENERGY: Parties in "Mirant Merger" Suit Enter Into MOA

SEARCHMEDIA HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Suit in California
SOLTA MEDICAL: Aesthera Continues to Defend TCPA Lawsuit
TCF FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over Checking Account Posting Practices
UNITED STATES: SEC Faces Class Action Over Madoff Ponzi Scam
UNITED STATES: April 2011 Keepseagle Class Settlement Hearing Set

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Appeal in Sept. 11 Suit Remains Pending
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Continues to Face ERISA Suit in D.C.
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Continues to Oppose Certification of 2 Suits
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Remains a Defendant in Environmental Class Suit
WELLPOINT INC: Remains a Defendant in "Demutualization" Lawsuits

WELLPOINT INC: Continues to Defend Out-of-Network Lawsuit in Fla.
WELLPOINT INC: Continues to Defend 11 "Out-of-Network" Lawsuits
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Motion to Amend Union's Suit Pending in Indiana
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss "Dewald" Suit Still Pending

* Ontario Class Action Defendants Can "Get Out Early"
* Quebec Loyalty Card Class Action to Test Consumer Protection



                             *********

ADVANCE AMERICA: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Scott Lauck, writing for Missouri Lawyers Media, reports a judge
has approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit against payday
lender Advance America worth at least $5.8 million.  The lawsuit
claims Advance America charged excessive interest on loans that
were structured in ways that made them very difficult to pay them
off.


AFFINION GROUP: Awaits Outcome of Class Action in Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc., is awaiting the outcome of a class action in
Alabama, according to the company's October 29, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.

In October 2005, Cendant Corporation completed the sale of the
Cendant Marketing Services Division to Affinion, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Affinion Group Holdings, Inc.

On November 12, 2002, a class action complaint was filed against
Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears National Bank, Cendant Membership
Services, Inc., and Allstate Insurance Company in the Circuit
Court of Alabama for Greene County alleging, among other things,
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of duty of good
faith and fair dealing and violations of the Illinois consumer
fraud and deceptive practices act.  The case was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama but was
remanded to the Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County.  The
company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was granted by
the court on January 31, 2008.

In granting the Company's motion, the court further ordered that
any arbitration with respect to this matter take place on an
individual (and not class) basis.  On February 28, 2008,
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's
order.  On April 9, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration.  The time for plaintiffs to file an appeal has
expired and, to date, no arbitration claim has been filed by
plaintiffs.

The company will retain all liability with respect to the November
2002 Class Action and will not be indemnified by Cendant for
losses related thereto.


AFFINION GROUP: Seeks Arbitration in Connecticut Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc., has filed a motion to compel arbitration
in a class action in Connecticut, according to the company's
October 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and Trilegiant, a wholly-owned subsidiary, in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut.  The
complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a
nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with
the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including
claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, and California False Advertising Law.

On September 29, 2010, the company filed a motion to compel
arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit.


ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN: Hindo Class Action Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 28, 2010 that it continues to
defend itself against a securities class action.

On October 2, 2003, a purported class action complaint entitled
Hindo, et al. v. AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund, et al.
was filed against, among others, AllianceBernstein Holding,
AllianceBernstein L.P., and AllianceBernstein Corporation.  The
Hindo Complaint alleges that certain defendants failed to disclose
that they improperly allowed certain hedge funds and other
unidentified parties to engage in "late trading" and "market
timing" of certain of the Company's U.S. mutual fund securities,
violating various securities laws.

Following October 2, 2003, additional lawsuits making factual
allegations generally similar to those in the Hindo Complaint were
filed in various federal and state courts against
AllianceBernstein and certain other defendants. On September 29,
2004, plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints with
respect to four claim types: mutual fund shareholder claims;
mutual fund derivative claims; derivative claims brought on behalf
of Holding; and claims brought under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by participants in the
Profit Sharing Plan for Employees of AllianceBernstein.

On April 21, 2006, AllianceBernstein and attorneys for the
plaintiffs in the mutual fund shareholder claims, mutual fund
derivative claims and ERISA claims entered into a confidential
memorandum of understanding containing their agreement to settle
these claims. The agreement has been documented by a stipulation
of settlement, which has been approved by the court. The
settlement amount ($30 million), which the Company previously
expensed and disclosed, has been disbursed. The derivative claims
brought on behalf of Holding, in which plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of damages, remain pending.

The Company said it intends to vigorously defend against the
lawsuit involving derivative claims brought on behalf of Holding.
At the present time, the Company said it is unable to predict the
outcome or estimate a possible loss or range of loss in respect of
this matter because of the inherent uncertainty regarding the
outcome of complex litigation, and the fact that the plaintiffs
did not specify an amount of damages sought in their complaint.


ALMOST FAMILY: Named in 4 Securities Class Suits in Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------------
Almost Family, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 28, 2010, that it has been named in
four putative class action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky.

The complaints refer to The Wall Street Journal article and the
subsequent governmental investigations and allege that the
Company, its chief executive officer and chief financial officer
violated federal securities laws.  The complaints seek damages and
awards of attorneys' fees and costs.  The actions are now awaiting
designation of a lead plaintiff and filing of a consolidated
complaint after which the Company will file a responsive pleading.

The suits are titled:

    (i) City of Livonia Employees Retirement System v. Almost
        Family, Inc., et al., filed on August 3, 2010,

   (ii) Kandi Sterling v. Almost Family, Inc., et al., filed on
        August 10, 2010,

  (iii) Blaze B. Huston v. Almost Family, Inc., et al., filed on
        August 16, 2010, and

   (iv) Peter Barcia, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
        Similarly Situated v. Almost Family, Inc., et al., filed
        on September 7, 2010.

On April 27, 2010, The Wall Street Journal published an article
exploring the relationship between the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services home health payment policies and the utilization
rates of certain home health agencies.  Following The Wall Street
Journal article, on May 12, 2010, the United States Senate Finance
Committee sent a letter to each of the publicly traded companies
mentioned in the article requesting information including Medicare
utilization rates for therapy visits.  The Company is cooperating
fully with the Senate Finance Committee regarding the requested
information.

Subsequently, on June 30, 2010, the Company received a civil
subpoena for documents and notice of investigation from the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  The subpoena seeks documents
related to the Company's home health care services and operations,
including reimbursements under the Medicare home health
prospective payment system, since January 1, 2000.  The Company is
cooperating fully with the SEC regarding the document request.

Given the preliminary stage of the Senate Finance Committee
inquiry, the subpoenas and investigations, and the litigation, the
Company said it is unable to assess the probable outcome or
potential liability, if any, arising from these matters.


ARROW ELECTRONICS: Faces 4 Lawsuits Over Nu Horizons Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arrow Electronics, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended October 2, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 28, 2010, that it has been named a defendant
in four shareholder class actions relating to the company's
agreement to acquire Nu Horizons Electronics Corp.

In September 2010, the company announced an agreement to acquire
Nu Horizons Electronics Corp., a leading global distributor of
advanced technology semiconductor, display, illumination, and
power solutions to a wide variety of commercial original equipment
manufacturers and electronic manufacturing services providers in
the components business, for approximately $130,000 in cash, or
$7.00 per share.  Nu Horizons has sales facilities in more than 50
locations across North America, Asia and Europe, as well as
regional logistics centers throughout the world, serving a wide
variety of end markets including industrial, military, networking,
and data communications. Nu Horizons is headquartered in Melville,
N.Y., and has over 700 employees globally.  The acquisition has
been approved by the Boards of Directors of both companies and is
now subject to approval by Nu Horizons' shareholders as well as
customary regulatory approvals and is expected to close during the
fourth quarter of 2010.

The company was named as a defendant in four shareholder class
action lawsuits filed in the New York State Supreme Court in
Suffolk County, relating to the proposed acquisition of Nu
Horizons.  The complaints assert virtually identical claims for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Nu Horizons and its Board of
Directors arising from their attempt to sell Nu Horizons to Arrow
and charge the company with aiding and abetting those breaches of
fiduciary duty.  The company does not expect the outcome of this
matter to have a material adverse affect on its consolidated
financial position or results of operations.


AT&T MOBILITY: Notifies iPhone Users of Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
AppleInsider reports iPhone users on AT&T were sent a text message
by the wireless carrier Friday, notifying them of a settlement in
a class-action lawsuit regarding the charging of taxes for
Internet access.

The proposed settlement and hearing are detailed on a new Web site
set up by AT&T, entitled AT&T Mobility Settlement.  It states that
U.S. customers who had an iPhone data plan, or a number of other
plans, between Nov. 1, 2005 and Sept. 7, 2010, might be eligible
to receive benefits from the class-action settlement.

"The settlement resolves lawsuits concerning AT&T Mobility
charging Internet Taxes for Internet access through certain
services," the site reads.  It notes that the two parties disagree
about whether the charging of taxes was improper, but they have
agreed to resolve the cases with a settlement.

In addition to iPhone data plans, the settlement relates to data
connect plans, smartphone data features and standalone data plans,
personal BlackBerry plans, and enterprise smartphone plans.

Customers have four options: they can exclude themselves and
receive no settlement, write to the court about why they don't
like the settlement, ask to speak in court about the fairness of
the settlement, or do nothing and receive the settlement benefits.

There are also three benefits in the settlement.  First, AT&T will
stop collecting the taxes it has been collecting and paying to
states, counties and cities.  Those taxes will not be collected
again unless the laws are changed to permit AT&T to charge
customers.

AT&T will also prepare and process tax refund claims with state,
county or municipal taxing agencies, seeking a refund of the
Internet taxes it collected over the span covered by the
settlement.  Refund claims will be issued to customers based on
the amount of taxes an account holder paid to AT&T.  The
settlement must be approved at a court hearing on March 10, 2011.

Finally, AT&T's settlement will also pay "vendor's compensation,"
which is described as the amount of money AT&T Mobility was
allowed to retain from the sales tax it collected as compensation
for collecting the taxes.

Details on the mobility settlement website indicate that the
settlement payout "may take some time," and asks customers to
"please be patient."  The benefit will be sent in the form of a
check in the mail.

For more information, customers can contact the AT&T Mobility
Internet Tax Class Action Settlement hotline, at 1-877-905-8928.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Mortgage Foreclosures
--------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports Bank of America and two
subsidiaries, LaSalle Bank and BAC Home Loans Servicing, are
facing a potential class action lawsuit over allegations of "an
undisciplined rush to seize homes" through "pervasive and willful
disregard of knowledge, facts and statutes."

Bank of America has filed foreclosure proceedings on many
mortgages in New Jersey without holding the necessary rights as
the mortgagee or assignee at the time of foreclosure, the suit
says.

"Many thousands of foreclosures are plainly void under statute and
settled New Jersey case law.  Many borrowers never obtain
statutorily required notices, and many foreclosure suits are filed
entirely based in inaccurate recitations concerning ownership of
the mortgage, the note, or the assignment," the suit says.

The putative class in the suit, Beals v. Bank of America, N.A.,
10-cv-05427, consists of all named defendants in pending New
Jersey foreclosure actions initiated by Bank of America or its
affiliates.  The complaint includes counts of common-law fraud,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and
violations of the New Jersey Fair Foreclosure Act and Consumer
Fraud Act.

The plaintiffs cite a recent admission by a Bank of America
official in a Massachusetts foreclosure case that she signed
thousands of foreclosure complaints without reviewing them.

They also say the fact that the bank and its affiliates, by
imposing a moratorium on foreclosures from Oct. 8 to Oct. 18 while
reviewing their procedures, "have admitted that in all of their
foreclosure cases, they, as a moving party, prosecute their claims
with a complete disregard of whether or not they have met their
burden."

The plaintiffs claim they are entitled to compensation for
emotional distress, damage to their credit scores and time lost
from work for attorney meetings and foreclosure proceedings.  They
also seek punitive damages and attorney fees as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief dismissing the foreclosures of
class members, with prejudice, declaring the mortgages and
promissory notes of class members void and unenforceable and
rescinding or reforming the mortgages and promissory notes to
conform to plaintiffs' reasonable expectations.


BIG 5 SPORTING: Hearing on "Weyl" Settlement Set for Dec. 10
------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider final approval of a settlement with Shane
Weyl is scheduled for December 10, 2010, according to Big 5
Sporting Goods Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 3,
2010.

On August 6, 2009, the Company was served with a complaint filed
in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego,
entitled Shane Weyl v. Big 5 Corp., et al., Case No. 37-2009-
00093109-CU-OE-CTL, alleging violations of the California Labor
Code and the California Business and Professions Code.

The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of
the Company's hourly employees in California for the four years
prior to the filing of the complaint.  The plaintiff alleges,
among other things, that the Company failed to provide hourly
employees with meal and rest periods and failed to pay wages
within required time periods during employment and upon
termination of employment.

The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, an award of
one hour of pay (wages) for each workday that a meal or rest
period was not provided; restitution of unpaid wages; actual,
consequential and incidental losses and damages; pre-judgment
interest; statutory penalties including an additional thirty days'
wages for each hourly employee in California whose employment
terminated in the four years preceding the filing of the
complaint; civil penalties; an award of attorneys' fees and costs;
and injunctive and declaratory relief.

On December 14, 2009, the parties engaged in mediation and agreed
to settle the lawsuit.  On February 4, 2010, the parties filed a
joint settlement and a motion to preliminarily approve the
settlement with the court.  On July 16, 2010, the court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled a hearing for
December 10, 2010, to consider final approval of the settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Company agreed to pay up to
a maximum amount of $2.0 million, which includes payments to class
members who submit valid and timely claim forms, plaintiff's
attorneys' fees and expenses, an enhancement payment to the class
representative, claims administrator fees and payment to the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency.  Under the
settlement, in the event that fewer than all class members submit
valid and timely claims, the total amount required to be paid by
the Company will be reduced, subject to a minimum payment amount
calculated in the manner provided in the settlement agreement.

The Company's anticipated total payments pursuant to this
settlement have been reflected in a legal settlement accrual
recorded in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2009.  The Company
admitted no liability or wrongdoing with respect to the claims set
forth in the lawsuit.  Once final approval is granted, the
settlement will constitute a full and complete settlement and
release of all claims related to the lawsuit.  If the court does
not grant final approval of the settlement, the Company intends to
defend the lawsuit vigorously.  If the settlement is not finally
approved by the court and the lawsuit is resolved unfavorably to
the Company, this litigation, the costs of defending it and any
required change in the Company's labor practices could have a
material negative impact on the Company's results of operations
and financial condition, the Company said in the filing.


BIG 5 SPORTING: Cert. Hearing in "Kelly" Suit Set for Nov. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing will be held on November 30, 2010, to consider the
motion of Michael Kelly for class certification regarding a
complaint against Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation alleging
violations of the California Business and Professions Code and
California Civil Code pending in the California Superior Court for
the County of San Diego, according to the company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 3, 2010.

On August 13, 2009, the Company was served with a complaint filed
in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego,
entitled Michael Kelly v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et
al., Case No. 37-2009-00095594-CU-MC-CTL, alleging violations of
the California Business and Professions Code and California Civil
Code.  The complaint was brought as a purported class action on
behalf of persons who purchased certain tennis, racquetball and
squash racquets from the Company.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Company
employed deceptive pricing, marketing and advertising practices
with respect to the sale of such rackets.  The plaintiff seeks, on
behalf of the class members, unspecified amounts of damages and/or
restitution; attorneys' fees and costs; and injunctive relief to
require the Company to discontinue the allegedly improper conduct.

On July 20, 2010, the plaintiff filed with the court a Motion for
Class Certification.  On September 1, 2010, the plaintiff and the
Company engaged in mediation in an effort to negotiate a
settlement agreement, but the mediation adjourned without a
settlement.  Any settlement agreement would be subject to court
approval.

On September 24, 2010, the Company filed with the court an
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
Currently the court is scheduled to conduct a hearing regarding
plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification on November 30, 2010,
and a trial on the merits of plaintiff's claims on February 18,
2011.

If the plaintiff and the Company are unable to negotiate a
settlement agreement, the Company intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.  Because this dispute remains in the preliminary
stages and, among other things, discovery is still ongoing, the
Company is not able to evaluate the likelihood of a settlement or
an unfavorable outcome in this case or to estimate a range of
potential loss in the event of a settlement or an unfavorable
outcome in this case at the present time.  If settled or resolved
unfavorably to the Company, this litigation, the costs of
defending it and any resulting required change in the business
practices of the Company could have a material negative impact on
the Company's results of operations and financial condition, the
Company said in the filing.


CANADA: May Appeal Aboriginal Children Foster Care Class Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Switzer, writing for North Bay Nugget, reports an Ontario
court ruling means a class action suit by aboriginal children
placed in foster care would be the first time a case based on loss
of culture as a wrongful act will be litigated in western legal
history.

Activist John Fox, from Wikwemikong and currently living in Ajax,
is one of an estimated 16,000 victims of the so-called Sixties
Scoop in Ontario that saw the Children's Aid Society place
aboriginal children up for adoption or in foster homes with
non-aboriginal families.

On Oct. 18, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a
class action against the Attorney General of Canada for the impact
of the practice that made aboriginal children Crown wards between
Dec. 1, 1965 and Dec. 31, 1984.

This is a major victory for aboriginal CAS survivors everywhere,"
said Mr. Fox.  We are now asking survivors to register with this
class action."

Toronto lawyer Jeffrey Wilson said Canada will likely appeal the
lower court decision, but plans are going ahead to establish a
website and Facebook page to inform possible plaintiffs.

Mr. Fox said the case will benefit all First Nations future
generations.

My next goal is to have CAS off all reserves and we run our own
child welfare authorities in our communities; this includes the
urban areas."

Anishinabek Nation Deputy Grand Council Chief Glen Hare says that
he's supportive of this class action suit.

It's unfortunate that we're having to go down this road," said
Mr. Hare.  Hopefully we can take care of our own and come out in
big numbers."


CLECO POWER: Louisiana Suits Remanded Back to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
A Louisiana federal court has remanded two class actions filed by
certain customers of Cleco Power LLC, according to the company's
Oct. 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On March 9, 2010, a complaint was filed in the 27th Judicial
District Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, on behalf
of three Cleco Power customers in Opelousas, Louisiana.  The
complaint alleges that Cleco Power overcharged the plaintiffs
by applying to customers in Opelousas the same retail rates as
Cleco Power applies to all of its retail customers.  The
plaintiffs allege that Cleco Power should have established, solely
for customers in Opelousas, retail rates that are separate and
distinct from the retail rates that apply to other customers of
Cleco Power and that Cleco Power should not collect from customers
in Opelousas the storm surcharge approved by the LPSC following
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Cleco Power currently operates in Opelousas pursuant to a
franchise granted to Cleco Power by the city of Opelousas in 1986
and an Operating and Franchise Agreement dated May 14, 1991,
pursuant to which Cleco Power operates its own electric facilities
and leases and operates electric facilities owned by the city of
Opelousas.

In April 2010, Cleco Power filed a petition with the LPSC
appealing to its expertise in declaring that the ratepayers of
Opelousas have been properly charged the rates that are applicable
to Cleco Power's retail customers and that no overcharges have
been collected.  In addition, Cleco Power removed the purported
class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Opelousas electric
customers from state to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, so that it could be properly addressed
under the terms of the Class Action Fairness Act.

On May 11, 2010, a second class action lawsuit was filed in the
27th Judicial District Court of St. Landry Parish, State of
Louisiana, repeating the allegations of the first complaint, which
was submitted on behalf of a number of Opelousas residents.  Cleco
Power has responded in the same manner as with the first class
action lawsuit.

On September 29, 2010, the federal court remanded both cases back
to the state court in which they were originally filed for further
proceedings.  Management believes that these lawsuits will not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows.


CRM HOLDINGS: Response to Amended Securities Suit Due Jan. 7
------------------------------------------------------------
CRM Holdings, Ltd., remains a defendant in an amended securities
complaint filed by Beverly L. Munter pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to
Majestic Capital, Ltd.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On February 5, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities
who purchased the securities of CRM Holdings between December 21,
2005 and November 5, 2008.  The complaint was filed by Beverly L.
Munter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and charges CRM Holdings and certain of its executive
officers and directors with violations of federal securities laws.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period the
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning CRM Holdings' financial performance and
prospects were materially false and misleading.  Specifically, the
defendants are alleged to have made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose:

   (1) that the defendants and their affiliates engaged in a
       fraudulent scheme and course of business to grow membership
       in eight group self-insured trusts previously administered
       by CRM, by charging premiums below commercial rates;

   (2) that the membership growth inflated gross trust revenues
       while reducing net paid premium income to the level that
       the assets of the group self-insured trusts would become
       insufficient to cover liabilities;

   (3) that, accordingly, the group self-insured trusts would fall
       below "fully funded" status;

   (4) that, as part of their fraudulent scheme and course of
       business to cover up the difference between assets and
       liabilities, the defendants and their affiliates disguised
       the true financial conditions of the group self-insured
       trusts by engaging in certain improprieties designed to
       result in minimal projected claims liability, including
       under-reserving individual claims and utilizing improper
       actuarial/accounting methods;

   (5) that the defendants and their affiliates provided the New
       York State Workers' Compensation Board with materially
       false and/or misleading financial and actuarial reports for
       the group self-insured trusts which reflected artificially
       reduced liabilities;

   (6) that, as a result of the above, the Company was exposed to
       hundreds of millions of dollars in liabilities relating to
       the under-funding of the group self-insured trusts;

   (7) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
       controls; and

   (8) that, as a result of the above, the Company's financial
       statements were materially false and misleading.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

On May 21, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion appointing
Brett Brandes and Beverly L. Munter as lead plaintiffs in the
action, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP as lead counsel for the
class, and consolidation of any subsequently filed lawsuits with
the action under the caption In re: CRM Holdings, Ltd. Securities
Litigation.

On September 10, 2010, the plaintiffs' filed and served an amended
complaint.  The amended complaint's allegations and claims are
substantially the same as those in the original complaint, except
that the plaintiffs have added claims against certain of the
Company's current and former executive officers and directors for
insider trading violations under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Company's response to
the amended complaint is due January 7, 2011.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this litigation, which is
in a preliminary stage, and the Company cannot estimate what
impact, if any, the litigation may have on its business
reputation, results of operations, financial condition or cash
flows.  If, however, this matter is decided adversely to the
Company, it may result in a material adverse effect on its
business, results of operations, financial conditions and cash
flows, the Company said.


DENTSPLY INT'L: "Weinstat" Suit Still Pending in San Francisco
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply International said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission that it continues to defend itself in a class action
lawsuit pending in the San Francisco County Court.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS, and Richard Nathan, DDS,
filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California
alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron(R)
ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical
procedures.  The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and
refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for
use in oral surgery.  The Court certified the case as a class
action in June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and
unfair business practices claims.  The class is defined as
California dental professionals who purchased and used one or more
Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral
surgical procedures.  The Company filed a motion for
decertification of the class and this motion was granted.
Plaintiffs appealed the decertification of the class to the
California Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals reversed the
decertification decision of the trial Court.  This case has been
remanded to and is pending in the San Francisco County Court.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Seeks Dismissal of Hildebrand & Jaffin Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply International's motion to dismiss a class action
complaint filed by  Carole Hildebrand, DDS, and Robert Jaffin,
DDS, is pending in Pennsylvania, according to the company's Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2010.

On December 12, 2006, a complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand,
DDS, and Robert Jaffin, DDS, in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell
Goldman as a named class representative).  The case was filed by
the same law firm that filed the Weinstat case in California.  The
Complaint asserts putative class action claims on behalf of
dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The Complaint seeks damages and asserts that the Company's
Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scaler was negligently designed and sold in
breach of contract and warranty arising from misrepresentations
about the potential uses of the product because it cannot assure
the delivery of potable or sterile water.  Plaintiffs have filed
their Motion for class certification to which the Company has
filed its response.  The Company also filed other motions,
including a Motion to dismiss the claims of Drs. Hildebrand and
Jaffin for lack of standing.  The Court granted this Motion for
lack of standing of the individuals and did not allow the
plaintiffs to amend the complaint to substitute their corporate
practices, leaving Dr. Goldman as a putative class representative
in Pennsylvania, raising a question of jurisdiction of the U.S.
District Court.

The plaintiffs have now filed another complaint in which they
named the corporate practices of Drs. Hildebrand and Jaffin as
class representatives.  The Company has moved to dismiss this
complaint.


EQUITABLE PRODUCTION: Judge Shrinks Class Counsel Fees to $6.8MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for West Virginia Record, reports one among
9,000 plaintiffs in a class action objected to a 25% fee for
lawyers, and U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin agreed with that
lone voice.

Judge Goodwin, who approved a settlement between Equitable
Production and holders of oil and gas leases last year, sliced
class counsel's fee request to 20% on Nov. 5.

"This fee, though less than the requested amount, may still appear
excessive to non-lawyers and may perpetuate negative stereotypes
about the legal profession," he wrote.

At the maximum settlement cost of $34 million, his order would
shrink fees for five lawyers from $8.5 million to $6.8 million.

Marvin Masters, Michael Carey, and Scott Segal, all of Charleston,
Thomas Pettit of Barboursville and David Romano of Clarksburg will
divide the fees.

"I have long been troubled by the routine application of
contingent fee principles, justified by the need for individuals
with small or risky claims to obtain counsel, to class action
lawsuits," Judge Goodwin wrote.  "It is not at all clear to me
that the increased risk to class counsel of investing time and
resources to prosecute class actions justifies the treatment of
such cases as entirely analogous to individual claims for fee
award purposes.

"Increasing the number of class action plaintiffs does not
necessarily increase the amount of time class counsel spends on a
case. . . . Because of the damage caused by the perception of
overcompensation of attorneys in class action suits, lawyers
requesting attorneys' fees and judges reviewing those requests
must exercise heightened vigilance to ensure the fees in fact are
reasonable beyond reproach and worthy of our justice system."

Judge Goodwin would have cut deeper if plaintiffs other than
Glennis Waldeck had objected.

"I do not award this fee without reservations," he wrote.
"Nevertheless, I am reluctant to deviate too greatly from a fee
amount implicitly approved by class counsel's clients."

Judge Goodwin noted that 25% would equal an hourly rate of
$1,425.34 to $1,794.87, four times as much as the attorneys would
earn on an hourly basis.

He wrote that such a multiplier is unreasonable in light of the
lesser complexity and risk of the action.

"This case is a textbook example of a case in which a large
settlement could result from the mere presence of a very large
class; the liability issue would be the same regardless of whether
there were 100 or 10,000 class members," he wrote.

He wrote that a task force of the Third Circuit appeals court
found a perception among non-lawyers and lawyers that class action
lawyers are overcompensated.

"Such perceptions are not only harmful to the legal profession,
but undermine the integrity of the entire legal system," he wrote.


GOOGLE INC: Approval of Class Action Settlement Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Google Inc. awaits approval of a class action settlement by a
federal district court, according to the company's October 29,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The company had copyright claims filed against it alleging that
features of certain of its products and services, including Google
Web Search, Google News, Google Video, Google Image Search, Google
Book Search, and YouTube, infringe the rights of others.

In the U.S. the company announced a settlement with the Authors
Guild and the Association of American Publishers.  However, this
class action settlement is subject to approval by the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The company
is, and may in the future be, subject to additional claims with
respect to Google Book Search both in the U.S. and in other parts
of the world.

Adverse results in these lawsuits may include awards of
substantial monetary damages, costly royalty or licensing
agreements, or orders preventing the company from offering certain
functionalities, and may also result in a change in the company's
business practices, which could result in a loss of the company's
revenues or otherwise harm its business.  In addition, any time
one of the company's products or services links to or hosts
material in which others allegedly own copyrights, the company
faces the risk of being sued for copyright infringement or related
claims.

Because these products and services comprise the majority of the
company's products and services, the company's business could be
harmed in the event of an adverse result in any of these claims.


HARTE HANKS: Awaits Approval of Shoppers Unit's $7MM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
An agreement in principle to settle a class action lawsuit against
Harte-Hanks, Inc.'s subsidiary, Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., is
pending approval, according to the company's November 1, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On March 23, 2001, Shoppers employee Frank Gattuso and former
employee Ernest Sigala filed a putative class action against
Shoppers, claiming that Shoppers failed to comply with a
California statutory provision requiring an employer to indemnify
employees for expenses incurred on behalf of the employer.  The
plaintiffs allege that Shoppers failed to reimburse them for
expenses of using their automobiles as outside sales
representatives and failed to accurately itemize these expenses on
plaintiffs' wage statements.  The suit was filed in Los Angeles
County Superior Court.

The class that plaintiffs seek to represent has been limited to
all California Harte-Hanks outside sales representatives who were
not separately reimbursed apart from their base salary and
commissions for the expenses they incurred in using their own
automobiles after early 1998.  The plaintiffs seek indemnification
and compensatory damages, statutory damages, exemplary damages,
penalties, interest, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees.

Shoppers filed a cross-complaint seeking a declaratory judgment
that the plaintiffs have been indemnified for their automobile
expenses by the higher salaries and commissions paid to them as
outside sales representatives.  The cross-complaint also alleges
conversion, unjust enrichment, constructive trust and rescission
and restitution based on mutual mistake.

On Jan. 30, 2002, the trial court ruled that California Labor
Code Section 2802 requires employers to reimburse employees for
mileage and other expenses incurred in the course of employment,
but that an employer is permitted to pay increased wages or
commissions instead of indemnifying actual expenses.

On May 28, 2003, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

On Oct. 27, 2005, the California Court of Appeal issued a
unanimous opinion affirming the trial court's rulings, including
the interpretation of Labor Code Section 2802 and denial of class
certification.

On Nov. 23, 2005, the Court of Appeal denied the plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing.

On Nov. 5, 2007, the California Supreme Court affirmed the trial
court's ruling that Labor Code Section 2802 permits lump sum
reimbursement and that an employer may satisfy its obligations to
indemnify employees for reasonable and necessary business expenses
under Labor Code Section 2802 by paying enhanced taxable
compensation.

The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the trial court for
further proceedings related to the class certification issue and
directed the trial court to consider whether the following issues
could properly be resolved on a class-wide basis:

     (1) did Shoppers adopt a practice or policy of reimbursing
         outside sales representatives for automobile expenses
         by paying them higher commission rates and base
         salaries than it paid to inside sales representatives,

     (2) did Shoppers establish a method to apportion the
         enhanced compensation payments between compensation for
         labor performed and expense reimbursement, and

     (3) was the amount paid for expense reimbursement
         sufficient to fully reimburse the employees for the
         automobile expenses they reasonably and necessarily
         incurred.

On July 29, 2008, the trial court stated its intention to issue a
split class action certification ruling, certifying a class action
with respect to the first two questions (adoption of a policy or
practice, and establishment of an apportionment method) and
denying class certification on the third question (sufficiency of
reimbursement).

On May 19, 2009, the trial court issued its written partial class
certification order.

This matter was set for a class trial in April 2010 on the first
two questions (adoption of a policy or practice, and establishment
of an apportionment method).

On Jan. 25, 2010, Shoppers, reached an agreement in principle with
Shoppers employee Mr. Gattuso and former employee Mr. Sigala,
individually and on behalf of a certified class, to settle and
resolve the class action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Shoppers, without any
admission of liability, agreed, subject to certain conditions,
that it will pay to the class settlement fund a total of $6.95
million.  The proposed settlement is subject to the entry of an
order of the trial court granting preliminary approval and,
following notice to class members, final approval of the
settlement and providing for the dismissal of the lawsuit with
prejudice against all class members.

The parties have agreed in principle to promptly negotiate, sign
and submit a formal, binding stipulation of settlement to the
trial court to resolve this matter.  Pursuant to the agreement in
principle, in return for the above consideration, each member of
the class, including Gattuso and Sigala, will release all claims
against Shoppers and its affiliates that in any way arose from or
related to the matters which were the subject of, or could have
been the subject of, the claims alleged in the class action
lawsuit.

During the fourth quarter of 2009, the company accrued the full
$7.0 million associated with this agreement in principle.


HUMANA INC: Sacred Heart Files 4th Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------
Sacred Heart Health System, Inc., has filed a fourth amended
complaint against Humana Military Healthcare Services Inc.,
according to Humana Inc.'s November 1, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

Humana Military Healthcare Services, Inc., was named as a
defendant in the Sacred Heart class action lawsuit filed on
Feb. 5, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Florida asserting contract and fraud claims against Humana
Military.

The Sacred Heart Complaint alleged, among other things, that,
Humana Military breached its network agreements with a class of
hospitals in six states, including the seven named plaintiffs,
that contracted for reimbursement of outpatient services provided
to beneficiaries of the DoD's TRICARE health benefits program.

The Complaint alleged that Humana Military breached its network
agreements when it failed to reimburse the hospitals based on
negotiated discounts for non-surgical outpatient services
performed on or after Oct. 1, 1999, and instead reimbursed them
based on published CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Charges.

Humana Military denied that it breached the network agreements
with the hospitals and asserted a number of defenses to these
claims.

The Complaint sought, among other things, the following relief for
the purported class members: (i) damages as a result of the
alleged breach of contract by Humana Military, (ii) taxable costs
of the litigation, (iii) attorneys fees, and (iv) any other relief
the court deems just and proper.  Separate and apart from the
class relief, named plaintiff Sacred Heart Health System Inc.
requested damages and other relief for its individual claim
against Humana Military for fraud in the inducement to contract.

On Sept. 25, 2008, the district court certified a class consisting
of all institutional healthcare service providers in TRICARE
former Regions 3 and 4 which had network agreements with Humana
Military to provide outpatient non-surgical services to
CHAMPUS/TRICARE beneficiaries as of Nov. 18, 1999, excluding those
network providers who contractually agreed with Humana Military to
submit any such disputes with Humana Military to arbitration.

On March 3, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the district
court's class certification order and remanded the case to the
district court for further proceeding.

On June 28, 2010, the plaintiffs sought leave of the court to
amend their complaint to join additional hospital plaintiffs.

Humana Military filed its response to the motion on July 28, 2010.

The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion to join 33
additional hospitals on September 24, 2010.

On October 27, 2010, the plaintiffs filed their Fourth Amended
Complaint claiming the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Florida has subject matter jurisdiction over the case
because the allegations in the complaint raise a substantial
question under federal law.  The amended complaint asserts no
other material changes to the allegations or relief sought by the
plaintiffs.  Humana Military's Answer to the Fourth Amended
Complaint is due on November 26, 2010.


HUMANA INC: May 2011 Hearing Set for Southeast Georgia Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
A May 23, 2011, hearing has been set for the case styled Southeast
Georgia Regional Medical Center, et al., v. Humana Military
Healthcare Services, Inc., according to Humana Inc.'s November 1,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On March 2, 2009, the named plaintiffs in the Southeast Georgia
case filed an arbitration demand, seeking relief on the same
grounds as the plaintiffs in the litigation with Sacred Heart
Health System, Inc.

The arbitration plaintiffs originally sought certification of a
class consisting of all institutional healthcare service providers
that had contracts with Humana Military to provide outpatient non-
surgical services and whose agreements provided for dispute
resolution through arbitration.

Humana Military submitted its response to the demand for
arbitration on May 1, 2009.

The plaintiffs have subsequently withdrawn their motion for class
certification.

On June 18, 2010, plaintiffs submitted their amended arbitration
complaint.  Humana Military's answer to the complaint was
submitted on July 9, 2010.

On June 24, 2010, the arbitrators issued a case management order
and scheduled a hearing to begin on May 23, 2011.


INTERNATIONAL BANCSHARES: Defends Itself From Two Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
International Bancshares is defending itself from two lawsuits
regarding its manner in collecting overdraft fees, according to
the Company's November 1, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

In October 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in two
purported class-action lawsuits, including one filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas and one filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida where similar lawsuits against a
number of other banks are currently pending in a multi-district
proceeding known as "In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation."

The lawsuits challenge the manner in which IBC assesses and
collects overdraft fees on ATM and debit transactions and IBC's
policies related to posting order.

The cases are in early stages, with no responsive pleadings or
motions having been filed.  No class has been certified in either
case.


KINDER MORGAN: Nears $200 Million Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports a class action lawsuit against gas
pipeline company Kinder Morgan is nearing a settlement.

A Shawnee County judge considered a $200 million settlement offer
during a hearing Friday.  Both sides have agreed to the deal.

Judge David E. Bruns says he expects to issue a final decision
approving it early this week.

The suit accuses the managers of breaching their fiduciary duty by
offering an "inadequate and unfair" price when they took the
company private in a $13.4 billion deal in 2006.

Kinder Morgan spokesman Larry Pierce says the company denies
allegations of wrongdoing but wants to avoid the expense and
uncertainty of continued litigation.

The case was consolidated and heard in Kansas because the company
was incorporated in the state, although it is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


KOSS CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Koss Corp. continues to defend itself in a class action complaint
in Wisconsin alleging violations of securities law, according to
the company's November 1, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2010.

On Jan. 15, 2010, a class action complaint was filed in federal
court in Wisconsin against the Company, Michael Koss and Sujata
Sachdeva.  The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-
5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act relating to the
unauthorized transactions and requests an award of compensatory
damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

The complaint is styled David A. Puskala v. Koss Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2:2010cv00041, filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin.


MASCO CORP: Defending Suit in Georgia Over Anticompetitive Conduct
------------------------------------------------------------------
Masco Corporation said in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 28, 2010, that it has been recently
named in two lawsuits, seeking class action status and alleging
anticompetitive conduct.

One of these lawsuits has been dismissed with prejudice and, with
respect to the second lawsuit, which was originally filed in
northern California and was subsequently transferred to Atlanta,
Georgia, the Court has recently administratively stayed the case.

As previously disclosed, lawsuit has been brought against the
Company and a number of its insulation installation companies in
the federal court in Atlanta, Georgia alleging that certain
practices violate provisions of the federal antitrust laws. In
February 2009, the federal court in Atlanta certified a class of
377 insulation contractors.

The Company is vigorously defending the pending cases. Based upon
the advice of its outside counsel, the Company believes that the
conduct of the Company and its insulation installation companies,
which has been the subject of the lawsuits, has not violated any
antitrust laws. The Company said it is unable at this time to
reliably estimate any potential liability which might occur from
an adverse judgment. There cannot be any assurance that the
Company will ultimately prevail in the remaining lawsuits, or, if
unsuccessful, that the ultimate liability would not be material
and would not have a material adverse effect on its businesses or
the methods used by its insulation installation companies in doing
business.


MDL 1952: Home City Ice Agrees to $13.5 Million Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
The Home City Ice Company has agreed to pay $13.5 million to
settle direct purchasers' claims in In re Packaged Ice Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1952; Master Docket No. 08-MD-01952 (E.D.
Mich.), on account of packaged ice purchases between Jan. 1, 2001,
and Mar. 6, 2008, and the District Court has scheduled a hearing
for 2:00 p.m. on Feb. 10, 2011, in Detroit., Mich., to consider
the fairness of the settlement agreement.  Home City has also
agreed to cooperate with the Plaintiffs to prosecute their price
fixing claims against co-defendants Arctic Glacier, Inc., Arctic
Glacier International, Inc., Arctic Glacier Income Fund, Reddy Ice
Corporation, and Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc.  Any objections to the
Home City Ice settlement must be filed and served by Jan. 21,
2011.

The Direct Purchaser Class is represented by:

    Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
    Robert J. LaRocca, Esq.
    William E. Hoese, Esq.
    KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
    One South Broad St., Suite 2100
    Philadelphia, PA 19107
    E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
            rlarocca@kohnswift.com
            whoese@kohnswift.com

The Home City Ice Company is represented by:

    Sanford M. Litvack, Esq.
    HOGAN LOVELLS
    875 Third Avenue
    New York, NY 10022
    E-mail: sandy.litvack@hoganlovells.com

         - and -

    Michael A. Roberts, Esq.
    GRAYDON HEAD & RITCHEY LLP
    1900 Fifth Third Center
    511 Walnut Street
    Cincinnati, OH 45202
    E-mail: mroberts@graydon.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Appeal in Certification of Canadian Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 28, 2010, that its appeal from a Canadian
court's certification of a class action lawsuit remains pending.

A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company in various state, federal,
and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes of direct and
indirect purchasers of the Company's PC operating system and
certain other software products.  The Company obtained dismissals
of damages claims of indirect purchasers under federal law and in
15 states. Courts refused to certify classes in two additional
states. The Company has reached agreements to settle all claims
that have been made to date in 19 states and the District of
Columbia.

The settlements in all states have received final court approval.
Under the settlements, generally class members can obtain vouchers
that entitle them to be reimbursed for purchases of a wide variety
of platform-neutral computer hardware and software. The total
value of vouchers that the Company may issue varies by state. The
Company will make available to certain schools a percentage of
those vouchers that are not issued or claimed (one-half to two-
thirds depending on the state).  The total value of vouchers the
Company ultimately issue will depend on the number of class
members who make claims and are issued vouchers. The maximum value
of vouchers to be issued is approximately $2.7 billion. The actual
costs of these settlements will be less than that maximum amount,
depending on the number of class members and schools that are
issued and redeem vouchers.

The Company estimates the total cost to resolve all of the state
overcharge class action cases will range between $1.9 billion and
$2.0 billion. At September 30, 2010, the Company has recorded a
liability related to these claims of approximately $621 million,
which reflects its estimated exposure of $1.9 billion less
payments made to date of approximately $1.2 billion mostly for
vouchers, legal fees, and administrative expenses.

The three cases pending in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec,
Canada have not been settled.  In March 2010, the court in British
Columbia case certified it as a class action. The Company has
appealed this ruling. The other two actions have been stayed.


MOTRICITY INC: Fairness Hearing Set for December 2
--------------------------------------------------
Motricity, Inc., awaits final approval of a settlement agreement
with Scott Williams, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.

The Company is a party in four purported class action lawsuits
brought against it by individuals on behalf of customers receiving
premium content from the Company's content providers.  The cases
allege that the Company and its content providers charged
consumers for mobile phone content without proper authorization
and/or engaged in misleading marketing for premium content.  The
cases seek unspecified damages.

The cases are:

   * Camellia Walker individually and on behalf of a class of
     similarly situated individuals v. Motricity, Inc., California
     Superior Court, Alameda County, filed July 3, 2008;

   * Susan Rynearson individually and on behalf of a class of
     similarly situated individuals v. Motricity, Inc., Washington
     Superior Court, King County, filed April 16, 2008;

   * Baker v. Sprint and New Motion, Inc. (Motricity is a third-
     party defendant), Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court, Miami-Dade
     County, claim against Motricity filed May 29, 2008; and

   * Scott Williams, et al, individually and on behalf of a class
     of similarly situated individuals v. Motricity, Inc., et al,
     Cook County Circuit Court, claim against Motricity filed
     March 17, 2010.

On August 4, 2010 the Company entered into a Stipulation of Class
Action Settlement that, received preliminary approval on
August 27, 2010.  If final approval is granted by the Court in the
Williams action, it would result in settlement and dismissal of
the four cases.  The settlement process is on-going with claims
currently being accepted by the claims administrator. Settlement
members are eligible to receive a one-time cash award of $10.00,
or a refund of up to three months of content subscription charges.
A fairness hearing is scheduled for December 2, 2010.


NL INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Suits Over Lead-Based Paints
---------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc., remains a defendant in various suits in
connection with the manufacture of lead pigments for use in paint
and lead-based paint.

The company's former operations included the manufacture of lead
pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint.  The company,
other former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and
lead-based paint, and the Lead Industries Association, which
discontinued business operations in 2002, have been named as
defendants in various legal proceedings seeking damages for
personal injury, property damage and governmental expenditures
allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paints.  Certain of
these actions have been filed by or on behalf of states, counties,
cities or their public housing authorities and school districts,
and certain others have been asserted as class actions.

These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of theories,
including public and private nuisance, negligent product design,
negligent failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty,
conspiracy/concert of action, aiding and abetting, enterprise
liability, market share or risk contribution liability,
intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of state
consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and similar
claims.

The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the
defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health
concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including
damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification
for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for
educational programs.  To the extent the plaintiffs seek
compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages
are generally unspecified.  In some cases, the damages are
unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law.
A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or
withdrawn.  Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial
stages.  Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary
judgment rulings in favor of either the defendants or the
plaintiffs.

No additional details were disclosed in the company's Nov. 1,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


NOAH EDUCATION: Awaits Court Approval of Class Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Education Holdings Ltd. is awaiting court approval of a
settlement of a class action lawsuit arising from its registration
statement of its initial public offering in 2007, according to the
company's October 29, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2010.

On October 27, 2008, a securities class action lawsuit, entitled
Seidel v. Noah Education Holdings, Ltd. et al., Case No. 08-Civ-
9203, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the company in connection
with its October 2007 initial public offering.  The plaintiffs in
this case allege that the registration statement of the company's
October 2007 initial public offering purported to warn about the
potential impact of increases in component costs, but failed to
disclose that the Company was then experiencing increased raw
material costs.

The plaintiffs allege federal securities law violations and seek
unspecified damage. On November 3, 2008, two additional securities
class action lawsuits, entitled Schapiro v. Noah Education
Holdings, Ltd. et al., Case No. 08-Civ-9427 and Sebik v. Noah
Education Holdings, Ltd. et al., Case No. 08-Civ-9509, were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the company with substantially the same
allegation. The court has consolidated these complaints into a
single action and the consolidated complaint added a new
allegation, claiming the registration statement of the October
2007 initial public offering failed to disclose that one model of
the company's DLD products did not include a recycling warning
sticker required under Chinese laws.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated case.  The
court granted the motion, finding that plaintiffs' complaint
failed to state a claim as a matter of law.  The court dismissed
the complaint with prejudice.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal.  On September 9, 2010, the company signed a memorandum of
understanding, agreeing to settle the case for $1.75 million,
which will be covered by its insurance policy.  In exchange, the
plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss the case and drop their appeal
of the court's ruling in the company's favor.  The settlement is
still subject to the court's preliminary and final approvals and
notice to the class members.  The settlement has not been approved
yet.

The company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations have no
merit and it intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuits.


NORTHWESTERN CORP: Gets $2 Million in McGreevey Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Northwestern Corporation said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 28, 2010, that it received $2 million from
the Touch America bankruptcy estate on September 23, 2010, as part
of a global settlement in the McGreevey litigation.

The Company said it was one of several defendants in a class
action lawsuit entitled McGreevey, et al. v. The Montana Power
Company, et al., now pending in U.S. District Court in Montana.

In October 2009, the parties reached a global settlement, which
was subject to approval by the U.S. District Court in Montana and
the Delaware Bankruptcy Court.  On February 23, 2010, the Delaware
Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement.  On August 4, 2010, the
U.S. District Court in Montana entered a final order approving the
global settlement.

On September 23, 2010, as part of the global settlement, the
company received $2 million from the Touch America bankruptcy
estate, which is reflected as a reduction in operating, general
and administrative expenses in the Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Income, and the Company said it has no remaining
exposure in the litigation.


PENN VIRGINIA: Court Consolidates Two Class Actions in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware consolidated two
class actions under the caption In re Penn Virginia GP Holdings,
L.P. Shareholder Litigation, according to Penn Virginia GP
Holdings, L.P.'s October 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On September 27, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed
by a purported unitholder of the company against it; the company's
general partner; Penn Virginia Resource Partners, L.P.; Penn
Virginia Resource GP, LLC; PVR Radnor, LLC, or MergerCo and the
company's general partner's directors in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware under the caption Israni v. Penn Virginia GP
Holdings, L.P., et al., civil action no. 5851-CC.  The complaint
alleges that certain of the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the company's public unitholders in connection with the
Merger by, among other things, accepting insufficient
consideration and that PVR, PVR GP and MergerCo aided and abetted
those breaches.  Among other things, the complaint seeks an order:
certifying a class consisting of all the company's public
unitholders, preliminarily and permanently enjoining the
consummation of the Merger, in the event the Merger is
consummated, rescinding the Merger or awarding rescissory damages
in an unspecified amount, and directing defendants to account for
the alleged damages sustained by the company's unitholders; and an
award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 29, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed
by a purported unitholder of the company against it, the company's
general partner, PVR, PVR GP, MergerCo and the company's general
partner's directors and an officer of the company's general
partner in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware under
the caption Rooney v. Penn Virginia GP Holdings, L.P., et al.,
civil action no. 5859-CC.  The complaint alleges that certain of
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the company's
public unitholders in connection with the Merger by, among other
things, accepting insufficient consideration and agreeing to
preclusive deal protection devices and that PVR, PVR GP and the
company's general partner aided and abetted those breaches.  Among
other things, the complaint seeks an order: certifying a class
consisting of all the company's public unitholders, enjoining the
consummation of the Merger, to the extent already implemented,
rescinding the Merger or awarding rescissory damages in an
unspecified amount, and directing certain defendants to account
for damages suffered by the company's unitholders; and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 7, 2010, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
entered a stipulation and order consolidating the two actions
under the caption In re Penn Virginia GP Holdings, L.P.
Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 5851-CC, and designating the
complaint filed in civil action no. 5851-CC as the operative
complaint.  Neither the Company nor the other defendants have yet
answered or otherwise responded to the complaint in the
consolidated action.


PENN VIRGINIA: Faces 2 Merger-Related Suits in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
Penn Virginia GP Holdings, L.P., is a defendant in two merger-
related class actions in Pennsylvania, according to the company's
October 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On October 1, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed by
a purported unitholder of the company against it, Penn Virginia
Resource Partners, L.P. and certain of the company's general
partner's directors in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware
County, Pennsylvania under the caption Epoch v. Penn Virginia GP
Holdings, L.P., et al.  In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges
that certain of the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
the company's public unitholders in connection with the Merger by,
among other things, accepting insufficient consideration and
engaging in a flawed process and that certain of the defendants
aided and abetted those breaches.  Among other things, the
complaint seeks an order certifying a class consisting of all the
company's public unitholders, enjoining the consummation of the
Merger, rescinding the Merger, and directing the board of
directors of the company's general partner to obtain a transaction
that is in the best interests of the company's unitholders; and an
award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 6, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed by
a purported unitholder of the company against it, its general
partner, Penn Virginia Resource Partners, L.P., Penn Virginia
Resource GP, LLC, PVR Radnor, LLC or MergerCo and certain of the
company's general partner's officers and directors in the Court of
Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania under the caption
Scheifele v. Shea, et al.  In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges
that certain of the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
the company's public unitholders in connection with the Merger by,
among other things, means of an unfair process and an unfair price
and that certain of the defendants aided and abetted those
breaches.  Among other things, the complaint seeks an order
certifying a class consisting of all the company's public
unitholders, enjoining the Merger preliminarily or permanently,
rescinding the Merger, awarding damages and awarding attorneys'
fees and costs.

Neither the company nor the other defendants have yet answered or
otherwise responded to the complaints.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Marion County Class Suits Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The two class action lawsuits filed against Portland General
Electric Company in 2003 in Marion County Circuit Court remain
pending, the company said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 28, 2010.

Two class action lawsuits were filed in Marion County Circuit
Court against PGE in 2003 on behalf of two classes of electric
service customers (the Class Action Plaintiffs). The lawsuits seek
damages of $260 million plus interest as a result of PGE's
inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a return on its
investment in Trojan.

In August 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling ordering
the abatement of the class action proceedings until the OPUC
responded to the remand of the 2002 Order.  The Oregon Supreme
Court concluded that the OPUC has primary jurisdiction to
determine what, if any, remedy it can offer to PGE customers,
through price reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on
the Trojan investment PGE collected in prices for the period from
April 1, 1995 through October 1, 2000.

The Oregon Supreme Court further stated that if the OPUC
determined that it can provide a remedy to PGE's customers, then
the class action proceedings may become moot in whole or in part.
The Oregon Supreme Court added that, if the OPUC determined that
it cannot provide a remedy, the court system may have a role to
play. The Oregon Supreme Court also ruled that the plaintiffs
retain the right to return to the Marion County Circuit Court for
disposition of whatever issues remain unresolved from the remanded
OPUC proceedings.

In October 2006, the Marion County Circuit Court abated the class
actions in response to the ruling of the Oregon Supreme Court. In
October 2007, the Class Action Plaintiffs filed a motion to lift
the abatement. In February 2009, the Circuit Court denied the
motion.

Management said it cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the
above matters. Management believes that these matters will not
have a material adverse impact on the financial condition of the
Company, but may have a material adverse impact on the results of
operations and cash flows in future reporting periods.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend ERISA Lawsuit in Iowa
--------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Life remains a defendant in a lawsuit alleging ERISA
violations pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa, according to Principal Financial Group
Inc's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On November 8, 2006, a trustee of Fairmount Park Inc. Retirement
Savings Plan filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
against Principal Life.  Principal Life's motion to transfer venue
was granted and the case is now pending in the Southern District
of Iowa.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that Principal Life
breached its alleged fiduciary duties while performing services to
401(k) plans by failing to disclose, or adequately disclose, to
employers or plan participants the fact that Principal Life
receives "revenue sharing fees from mutual funds that are included
in its pre-packaged 401(k) plans" and allegedly failed to use the
revenue to defray the expenses of the services provided to the
plans.  Plaintiff further alleged that these acts constitute
prohibited transactions under ERISA.

Plaintiff sought to certify a class of all retirement plans to
which Principal Life was a service provider and for which
Principal Life received and retained "revenue sharing" fees from
mutual funds.  On August 27, 2008, the plaintiff's motion for
class certification was denied.  The plaintiff's new motion for
class certification, filed May 11, 2009, was stricken by the court
on March 31, 2010.

Principal Life continues to aggressively defend the lawsuit.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: P. Walsh Dismisses Suit vs. Principal Life
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Walsh filed a voluntary dismissal of her lawsuit against
Principal Life and Princor Financial Services Corporation for
alleged ERISA violations, according to Principal Financial Group
Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On August 28, 2007, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Patricia Walsh (and another plaintiff, who subsequently withdrew)
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa against Principal Life and Princor Financial Services
Corporation.  The lawsuit alleges that the Walsh Defendants
breached alleged fiduciary duties to participants in employer-
sponsored 401(k) plans who were retiring or leaving their
respective plans, including providing misleading information and
failing to act solely in the interests of the participants,
resulting in alleged violations of ERISA.

The plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied on
March 24, 2010.  On July 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a voluntary
dismissal with prejudice.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Remains a Defendant in Cruise & Mullaney Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group Inc., Principal Life, Principal Global
Investors, LLC, and Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC, continue
to defend themselves against a lawsuit filed by Cruise and
Mullaney for ERISA violations, according Principal Financial Group
Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On December 2, 2009 and December 4, 2009, two plaintiffs, Cruise
and Mullaney, each filed putative class action lawsuits in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Principal Financial Group Inc., Principal Life, Principal
Global Investors, LLC, and Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC.

The lawsuits alleged the Cruise & Mullaney Defendants failed to
manage the Principal U.S. Property Separate Account in the best
interests of investors, improperly imposed a "withdrawal freeze"
on September 26, 2008, and instituted a "withdrawal queue" to
honor withdrawal requests as sufficient liquidity became
available.  Plaintiffs allege these actions constitute a breach of
fiduciary duties under ERISA.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a class including all qualified ERISA
plans and the participants of those plans that invested in PUSPSA
between September 26, 2008, and the present that have suffered
losses caused by the queue.  The two lawsuits, as well as two
subsequently filed complaints asserting similar claims, have been
consolidated and are now known as In re Principal U.S. Property
Account Litigation.

On April 22, 2010, an order was entered granting the motion made
by the Cruise & Mullaney Defendants for change of venue to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
The plaintiffs have filed a Consolidated Complaint adding five new
plaintiffs.

The Cruise & Mullaney Defendants are aggressively defending the
lawsuit.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Hurd" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc., and Principal Life remain
defendants in an action filed by Debra and Russell Hurd alleging
violations of ERISA, according to according Principal Financial
Group Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On July 1, 2010, Debra and Russell Hurd filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa against Principal Financial Group, Inc.,
and Principal Life.

The complaint alleges the Hurd Defendants underpay out-of-network
health claims by using an allegedly flawed database to calculate
usual and customary charges.  Plaintiffs are suing on behalf of
"all participants and/or beneficiaries in group health plans in
the United States issued, insured or administered by [us] as to
which [we] have administered claims and/or paid or denied benefits
for out-of-network benefit claims."  The complaint alleges four
causes of action, all based on violations of ERISA.

The Hurd Defendants are aggressively defending the lawsuit.


PROMMIS SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Action Over Foreclosure Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
WSBTV.com reports a Channel 2 consumer investigation is now the
basis for a federal class action lawsuit.

Distressed homeowners accuse Atlanta's largest foreclosure law
firm, and its document processor, of fraud and racketeering.

Fraud is among the allegations in the lawsuit filed against
Prommis Solutions and several employees, foreclosure firm McCalla
Raymer and two of its attorneys, and several client lenders.

"This is wrong; it's fraud," said homeowner Jeff Crawford, whose
wife is named as a plaintiff.  Foreclosure of Mr. Crawford's
Marietta home is central to the case.

"You hear about all this mess going on with foreclosures across
the country.  This is robo-signing, pure and simple," he told
Channel 2's Jim Strickland.

The lawsuit accuses Prommis Solutions and McCalla Raymer of
churning out improperly executed foreclosure documents.

A Channel 2 investigation revealed attorney Troy Crouse's
signature on Mr. Crawford's document doesn't match the attorney's
own mortgage signature.  Channel 2 also uncovered the notary
wasn't a notary at the date of signing on the document.

Attorney Ebony Ameen said the different signatures occurred over
and over again.

"When you make one mistake that's one thing, but when you make
thousands of mistakes, that rises to conduct that's unacceptable,"
Ms. Ameen said.

Ms. Ameen is using a Facebook page called Georgia Mortgage Class
Action to find other Georgians whose homes were foreclosed who
believe their documents are dubious.

Prommis said outside auditors are reviewing its procedures.  The
company told Strickland it has new strict guidelines for notaries,
and even a hot line to report irregularities.

"Now they may be doing it the correct way.  That doesn't cancel
out the thousands of times they did it the wrong way," said
Ms. Ameen.

Prommis said it doesn't comment on pending litigation.  McCalla
Raymer managing partner Marty Stone reiterated that his employee,
Mr. Crouse, did sign every document bearing his name.

Mr. Stone told Mr. Strickland he may have more to say once he sees
the lawsuit.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Continues to Face Suits on Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corporation is currently a defendant in two
class action lawsuits challenging its practice of charging
overdraft fees, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2010.

In September 2009, Regions was named as a defendant in a purported
class-action lawsuit filed by customers of Regions Bank in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
challenging the manner in which non-sufficient funds (NSF) and
overdraft fees were charged and the policies related to posting
order.  The case was transferred to multidistrict litigation in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and
in May 2010 an order to compel arbitration was denied.

In July 2010, a separate class action was filed in the Circuit
Court of Greene County Missouri, making a claim under Missouri's
consumer protection statute.  The case has been removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Neither class has been certified and, at this stage of the
lawsuits, Regions cannot determine the probability of a material
adverse result or reasonably estimate a range of potential
exposures, if any.  However, it is possible that adverse
resolutions of these matters may be material to Regions' business,
consolidated financial position or results of operations, the
Company said in the filing.


RRI ENERGY: Parties in "Mirant Merger" Suit Enter Into MOA
----------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a consolidated class action lawsuit alleging breach of
fiduciary duties relating to the proposed merger of RRI Energy,
Inc., with Mirant Corporation pending in the Superior Court of
Fulton County, Georgia, entered into a memorandum of
understanding, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

In April 2010, RRI Energy, Mirant and the members of the Mirant
board of directors were named defendants in four purported class
action lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
Georgia, brought on behalf of proposed classes consisting of
holders of Mirant common stock, excluding the defendants and their
affiliates: Rosenbloom v. Cason, et al., No. 2010CV184223, filed
April 13, 2010; The Vladmir Gusinsky Living Trust v. Muller, et
al., No. 2010CV184331, filed April 15, 2010; Ng v. Muller, et al.,
No. 2010CV184449, filed April 16, 2010; and Bayne v. Muller, et
al., No. 2010CV184648, filed April 21, 2010.  RRI Energy Holdings,
Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of RRI Energy formed for the
purpose of effecting the merger, was also named a defendant in
three of the lawsuits.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize
the value to be received by Mirant's public stockholders, and that
the other defendants aided and abetted the individual defendants'
breaches of fiduciary duties.

In three of the actions, amended complaints have been filed adding
allegations that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to disclose certain information in the preliminary joint
proxy statement/prospectus of RRI Energy and Mirant.  The
complaints seek, among other things:

   (a) to enjoin defendants from consummating the merger;

   (b) rescission of the merger, if completed; and/or

   (c) granting the class members any profits or benefits
       allegedly improperly received by defendants in connection
       with the merger.

Motions to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim
have been filed on behalf of all of the defendants.

On August 17, 2010, the Court entered an order, consented to by
all parties, consolidating the four cases under the caption In re
Mirant Corporation Shareholder Litigation, No. 2010CV184223,
directing that the amended complaint in Rosenbloom v. Cason, et
al., No. 2010CV1c824223, serve as the operative complaint, and
appointing co-lead counsel.

On August 26, 2010, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding under the terms of which the parties will negotiate
in good faith to enter into a stipulation of settlement based on
additional disclosures, to be presented to the Court for approval
following consummation of the merger.


SEARCHMEDIA HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Searchmedia Holdings Limited and certain of its officers are
facing a lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities
laws filed by shareholders in California, according to the
Company's Nov. 1, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

A shareholder complaint was filed on September 13, 2010, by Sid
Murdeshwar against SearchMedia Holdings, the former Ideation
officers and directors and certain of the SearchMedia Holdings'
officers and directors as a purported class action on behalf of
the shareholders of SearchMedia Holdings in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

The case was filed under the caption Sid Murdeshwar, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
SearchMedia Holdings Limited f/k/a Ideation Acquisition Corp.,
Robert N. Fried, Phillip Frost, Rao Uppaluri, Steven D. Rubin,
Glenn Halpryn, Thomas E. Beier, David H. Moskowitz, Shawn Gold,
Garbo Lee, Paul Conway, Qinying Liu, Earl Yen, and Jennifer Huang,
Defendants.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of
SearchMedia Holdings violated the federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements regarding Ideation's
acquisition of the target company, SearchMedia International and
by overstating SearchMedia International's financial results.  The
complaint further alleges that the Individual Defendants are
liable for the alleged misrepresentations as controlling persons.

The complaint seeks certification of a class of SearchMedia
Holdings' shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired
SearchMedia Holdings securities between April 1, 2009 and
August 20, 2010, an award of compensatory damages, an award of
reasonable fees and costs incurred in this action, and such other
relief as the Court deems just and proper.


SOLTA MEDICAL: Aesthera Continues to Defend TCPA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Aesthera Corporation remains a defendant in a class action lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, according to Solta Medical, Inc.'s Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On December 4, 2009, Aesthera was served with a class action
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut alleging that Aesthera caused unsolicited
fax advertisements to be sent to the plaintiffs in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA, and Connecticut
state law.  The complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a
class, and it alleges that Aesthera caused unsolicited fax
advertisements to be sent from August 1, 2006 through the present.
Plaintiffs seek statutory damages under the TCPA and Connecticut
state law, attorneys' fees and costs of the action, and an
injunction to prevent any future violations.

In May 2010, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the matter by consenting to certification of a settlement
class to receive payment out of a settlement fund.  The Court
stayed discovery until November 1, 2010, so that preliminary
agreement of a class settlement could be submitted and a fairness
hearing held to determine whether final approval of the settlement
would be appropriate.

The Company anticipates that the motion to certify a class for
settlement purposes will be filed in early November, and that a
fairness hearing will be held in the first quarter of 2011.  If
the process does not result in approval of a settlement, then the
Company anticipates that the parties will engage in discovery and
that Aesthera will vigorously oppose certification of a class.

The Company does not believe the final disposition of this action
will have a material adverse effect on its financial statements
and future cash flows.  The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses in this action and intends to defend the
action vigorously if the proposed settlement is not approved by
the Court.


TCF FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over Checking Account Posting Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TCF Financial Corporation was named in a putative class action
filed in August 2010, the company said in a Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2010.

In August 2010, TCF was named in a putative class action
challenging TCF's checking account posting practices as a breach
of contract and as a violation of state consumer fraud statutes.
The plaintiffs seek damages and other relief, including
restitution.  TCF's account agreement with the customer contains
an arbitration provision under which the named plaintiffs agreed
to arbitrate disputes such as this in an individual (as opposed to
class action) arbitration.  TCF is seeking to enforce the
arbitration agreement in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota, and the plaintiffs have sought to stay
arbitration pending a possible transfer of the case to multi-
district litigation in the Southern District of Florida, in which
numerous other putative class actions against financial
institutions asserting similar claims are pending.  TCF believes
its arbitration provision is valid and enforceable and that in any
event it has meritorious defenses to the claims brought by the
plaintiffs.  At this early stage of the litigation, it is not
possible for management of TCF to determine the probability of a
material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any
potential loss.


UNITED STATES: SEC Faces Class Action Over Madoff Ponzi Scam
------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Raybin, writing for HedgeFund.net, reports while the
government-appointed trustee overseeing the liquidation of
convicted conman Bernard Madoff's estate continues to go after the
assets of those associated with the $65 billion Ponzi scam,
investors have turned their collective eye toward the government
agency that should have been looking out for them, but ignored the
warnings.

Attorney Gaytri Kachroo disclosed Friday morning that she had
filed a class action lawsuit against the Securities and Exchange
Commission for its mishandling of the scam.

Ms. Kachroo, who represented Madoff whistleblower Harry Markopolos
during his testimony before the House Financial Services Committee
and the Senate Banking Committee in February 2009, told CNBC she
was seeking billions of dollars in restitution for the Madoff
victims.

Ms. Kachroo did not immediately return a message to HedgeFund.net
seeking additional information about the suit.

Mr. Markopolos provided evidence to the SEC 10 years ago that
Madoff was a fraud, but the government watchdog chose not to take
action.  Mr. Madoff was a respected broker-dealer at the time who
was also chairman of the Nasdaq stock exchange at one point.

A spokesman from the SEC declined comment to HedgeFund.net
regarding the lawsuit.

Ms. Kachroo told CNBC no class action suit had ever been filed
against the SEC, and that the suit was setting a precedent.

The SEC has reformed its whistleblower process in the wake of
Mr. Madoff's exposure and the government agency's perceived
mishandling of the scam.

Earlier this month, the SEC proposed that tipsters will be
financially rewarded if they provide information that leads to
enforcement.  Should the original information lead to monetary
sanctions of at least $1 million, the tipster can collect a
percentage of the reward.


UNITED STATES: April 2011 Keepseagle Class Settlement Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court-ordered process of officially notifying Native American
farmers and ranchers about the $760 million Keepseagle class
action settlement is underway.

Native American farmers and ranchers around the country are
receiving detailed information about their legal rights and
options by postal mail.  A Summary Notice that compliments the
mailed notice is being published in Native American and farming
and ranching trade publications, online ads will appear on a
variety of websites, and radio ads will also air in targeted areas
in English and Navajo.  Class members should visit
http://www.IndianFarmClass.com/or call 1-888-233-5506 for
complete information, including the detailed notice and key dates.
Class members can also register to receive a Claims Package
through the website or toll-free number, or write to Keepseagle
Settlement Administrator, PO Box 3560, Portland, OR 97208-3560.

The plaintiffs and USDA announced the proposed settlement on
October 19, 2010.  If approved by the court, the settlement will
resolve discrimination claims related to USDA farm loans and loan
servicing.  The proposed settlement includes $680 million for cash
payments to class members who file valid claims and up to $80
million in USDA loan forgiveness.  In addition, the USDA will make
some improvements to their farm loan programs including, among
other items, the establishment of a new federal advisory
committee, the Native American Farmer and Rancher Council, as well
as adding USDA regional sub-offices to provide education and
technical assistance to Native American farmers and ranchers.

Class members eligible for the Settlement are Native Americans who
farmed or ranched (or attempted to farm or ranch) between
January 1, 1981 and November 24, 1999; tried to get a farm loan or
loan servicing from the USDA during that period; and complained
about discrimination to the USDA either directly or through a
representative.

Class members' rights may be affected by the settlement even if
they do not act.  Those who wish to opt out of or object to the
settlement must do so by February 28, 2011.  Claims for cash and
loan forgiveness must be filed by December 24, 2011.  The U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia will consider whether
to grant final approval of the settlement at a hearing on
April 28, 2011 at 10:00 am.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Appeal in Sept. 11 Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Communications Inc. said in a Form 10-Q filing for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2010, that an appeal of an
order dismissing complaints related to the government's post-
September 11 program remains pending.

Verizon and a number of other telecommunications companies, have
been the subject of multiple class action suits concerning its
alleged participation in intelligence-gathering activities
allegedly carried out by the federal government, at the direction
of the President of the United States, as part of the government's
post-September 11 program to prevent terrorist attacks. Plaintiffs
generally allege that Verizon has participated by permitting the
government to gain access to the content of its subscribers'
telephone calls and records concerning those calls and that such
action violates federal and state constitutional and statutory
law. Relief sought in the cases includes injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, and statutory and punitive damages.

On August 9, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that these actions be transferred, consolidated and
coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California. The Panel subsequently ordered that a number of
"tag along" actions also be transferred to the Northern District
of California. Verizon believes that these lawsuits are without
merit. On July 10, 2008, the President signed into law the FISA
Amendments Act of 2008, which provides for dismissal of these
suits by the court based on submission by the Attorney General of
the United States of a specified certification. On September 19,
2008, the Attorney General made such a submission in the
consolidated proceedings. Based on this submission, the court
ordered dismissal of the complaints on June 3, 2009. Plaintiffs
have appealed this dismissal, and the appeal remains pending in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Continues to Face ERISA Suit in D.C.
------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management Inc. said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 28, 2010, that it continues to defend itself
in an ERISA class suit pending in the District of Columbia.

In April 2002, two former participants in the ERISA plans of WM
Holdings filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia in a case entitled William S. Harris, et al.
v. James E. Koenig, et al. The lawsuit named as defendants WM
Holdings; the members of WM Holdings' Board of Directors prior to
July 1998; the administrative and investment committees of WM
Holdings' ERISA plans and their individual members; WMI's
retirement savings plan; the investment committees of WMI's plan
and its individual members; and State Street Bank & Trust, the
trustee and investment manager of the ERISA plans.

The lawsuit attempts to increase the recovery of a class of ERISA
plan participants based on allegations related to both the events
alleged in, and the settlements relating to, the securities class
action against WM Holdings that was settled in 1998 and the
securities class action against WMI that was settled in 2001. The
defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaints on the
pleadings, and the Court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions in the first quarter of 2009. However, in
December 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave
to file a fourth amended complaint to overcome the dismissal of
certain claims and the motion for leave to file a substitute
fourth amended complaint to add two new claims. Two members of the
company's Board of Directors and of the WM Holdings' Board of
Directors were named defendants in these actions. Additionally,
the company's Chief Financial Officer is a named defendant in
these actions by virtue of his membership on the WMI ERISA plan
Investment Committee at that time. The defendants again moved to
dismiss the fourth amended complaint, and during the second
quarter of 2010, the Court dismissed certain claims against
individual defendants, including the claims against the board
members. All of the remaining defendants intend to continue to
defend themselves vigorously.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Continues to Oppose Certification of 2 Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management Inc. said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 28, 2010, that it continues to oppose class
certification of two wage and hour suits.

Two separate wage and hour lawsuits were commenced in October 2006
and March 2007, respectively, that are pending against certain of
the Company's subsidiaries in California, each seeking class
certification.  The actions were coordinated to proceed in San
Diego County Superior Court.  Both lawsuits make the same general
allegations that the defendants failed to comply with certain
California wage and hour laws, including allegedly failing to
provide meal and rest periods and failing to properly pay hourly
and overtime wages.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss that was partially granted
during the third quarter of 2010, resulting in dismissal of the
plaintiffs' RICO and national class action claims. The Company
denies the claims in all of these actions and intend to continue
to oppose class certification and will vigorously defend these
matters. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the
ultimate outcome of these cases cannot be predicted at this time,
nor can possible damages, if any, be reasonably estimated.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Remains a Defendant in Environmental Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class
action over its fuel and environmental charge, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 28, 2010.

In July 2008, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported
class action in the Circuit Court of Bullock County, Alabama,
which was subsequently removed to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama.  This suit pertains to the
Company's fuel and environmental charge and generally alleges that
such charges were not properly disclosed, were unfair, and were
contrary to contract.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss that was partially granted
during the third quarter of 2010, resulting in dismissal of the
plaintiffs' RICO and national class action claims. The Company
denies the claims in all of these actions and intend to continue
to oppose class certification and will vigorously defend these
matters. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the
ultimate outcome of these cases cannot be predicted at this time,
nor can possible damages, if any, be reasonably estimated.


WELLPOINT INC: Remains a Defendant in "Demutualization" Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc., continues to defend itself against lawsuits
alleging maldistribution of value to eligible statutory members,
according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

The Company is currently defending several putative class actions
filed as a result of the 2001 Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., or
AICI, demutualization.  The suits name AICI as well as Anthem,
Inc., or Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc.  The suits are captioned as
Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al.; Mary E. Ormond, et al.
v. Anthem, Inc,. et al.; Ronald E. Mell, Sr., et al. v. Anthem,
Inc., et al; and Jeffrey D. Jorling, et al., v. Anthem, Inc.
(n/k/a WellPoint, Inc.) et al.

AICI's 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the Plan, provided for the
conversion of AICI from a mutual insurance company into a stock
insurance company pursuant to Indiana law.  Under the Plan, AICI
distributed the fair value of the company at the time of
conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or ESMs, in the form
of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their membership
interests in the mutual company.  The lawsuits generally allege
that AICI distributed value to the wrong ESMs or distributed
insufficient value to the ESMs.

In Gold, cross motions for summary judgment were granted in part
and denied in part with regard to the issue of sovereign immunity
asserted by co-defendant, the State of Connecticut.  The State
appealed this denial to the Connecticut Supreme Court.  The
Company filed a cross-appeal.  Oral argument was held in November
2008.  On May 11, 2010, the Court reversed the judgment of the
trial court denying the State's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
claims under sovereign immunity.  The Company's cross-appeal was
dismissed by the Court.  The case was remanded to the trial court
for further proceedings.

In the Ormond suit, the Company's Motion to Dismiss was granted in
part and denied in part on March 31, 2008.  The Court dismissed
the claims for violation of federal and state securities laws, for
violation of the Indiana Demutualization Law and for unjust
enrichment.  On September 29, 2009, a class was certified.  The
class consists of all ESMs residing in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky or
Connecticut who received cash compensation in connection with the
demutualization.  The class does not include employers located in
Ohio and Connecticut that received compensation under the Plan.

On November 4, 2009 a class was certified in the Mell suit.  That
class consists of persons who were employees or retirees who were
continuously enrolled in the health benefit plan sponsored by the
City of Cincinnati between the dates of June 18, 2001 and Nov. 2,
2001.  On March 3, 2010, the Court issued an order granting the
Company's motion for summary judgment.  As a result, the Mell suit
has been dismissed.  The plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is pending.

The Company intends to vigorously defend these suits; however,
their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined, the Company
said.


WELLPOINT INC: Continues to Defend Out-of-Network Lawsuit in Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc., is currently a defendant in a putative class
action relating to Out-of-Network reimbursement of dental claims
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.

The lawsuit was filed in March 2002 by the American Dental
Association, and three dentists who are suing on behalf of
themselves and are seeking to sue on behalf of a nationwide class
of all non-participating dental providers who were paid less than
their actual charges for dental services provided to WellPoint
dental members.

The complaint alleges that WellPoint Health Networks Inc., Blue
Cross of California and other WellPoint affiliates and
subsidiaries improperly set usual, customary and reasonable
payment for OON dental services based on HIAA/Ingenix data.  The
plaintiffs claim, among other things, that the HIAA/Ingenix
databases fail to account for differences in geography, provider
specialty, outlier (high) charges, and complexity of procedure.
The complaint further alleges that WellPoint was aware that this
data was inappropriate to set usual, customary and reasonable
rates.

The dentists sue as assignees of their patients' rights to
benefits under WellPoint's dental plans and assert that WellPoint
breached its contractual obligations in violation of ERISA by
routinely paying OON dentists less than their actual charges and
representing that its OON payments were properly determined usual,
customary and reasonable rates.

The suit is currently pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.  The Company has refiled a
motion for summary judgment, which is pending.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit; however,
the Company said its ultimate outcome cannot be presently
determined.


WELLPOINT INC: Continues to Defend 11 "Out-of-Network" Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc., remains a defendant in eleven putative class
actions relating to out-of-network reimbursement, according to the
company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.  The cases
have been made part of a WellPoint-only multi-district litigation
called In re WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation
and are pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

The first lawsuit (Darryl and Valerie Samsell v. WellPoint, Inc.,
WellPoint Health Networks, Inc. and Anthem, Inc.) was filed in
February 2009 by two former members on behalf of a putative class
of members who received out-of-network services for which the
defendants paid less than billed charges.  The plaintiffs in that
case allege that the defendants violated RICO, the Sherman
Antitrust Act, ERISA, and federal regulations by relying on
databases provided by Ingenix in determining out-of-network
reimbursement.

The second lawsuit (AMA et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.) was brought in
March 2009 by the American Medical Association, or AMA, four state
medical associations and two individual physicians on behalf of a
putative class of out-of-network physicians.

The third lawsuit (Roberts v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al.) was
brought in March 2009 by a WellPoint member as a putative class
action on behalf of all persons or entities who have paid premiums
for out-of-network health insurance coverage.

The fourth lawsuit (JBW v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al.) was
brought in April 2009 by a WellPoint member as a putative class
action on behalf of all persons who have paid premiums for out-of-
network health insurance coverage.

The fifth lawsuit (O'Brien, et al. v. WellPoint, Inc., et al.) was
brought in May 2009 by three WellPoint members as a putative class
action on behalf of all persons who received out-of-network
services.

The sixth lawsuit (Higashi, D.C. d/b/a Mar Vista Institute of
Health v. Blue Cross of California d/b/a WellPoint, Inc.) was
brought in June 2009 by an out-of-network chiropractor as a
putative class action on behalf of all out-of-network
chiropractors.

The seventh suit (North Peninsula Surgical Center v. WellPoint,
Inc., et al.) was brought in June 2009 by an out-of-network
surgical center as a putative class action on behalf of all out-
of-network surgical centers.

The eighth lawsuit (American Podiatric Medical Association, et al.
v. WellPoint, Inc.) was brought in June 2009 by the American
Podiatric Medical Association, California Chiropractic
Association, California Psychological Association and an out-of-
network clinical psychologist as a putative class action on behalf
of out-of-network podiatrists, chiropractors and psychologists.

The ninth lawsuit (Michael Pariser, et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.) was
brought in July 2009 by an out-of-network psychologist as a
putative class action on behalf of all out-of-network providers
who are not medical doctors or doctors of osteopathy.

The tenth lawsuit (Harold S. Bernard, Ph.D., et al. v. WellPoint,
Inc.) was brought in July 2009 by an out-of-network psychologist
as a putative class action on behalf of all non-medical doctor
health care providers.

The eleventh lawsuit (Ken Unmacht, Psy.D., et al. v. WellPoint,
Inc.) was brought in August 2009 by an out-of-network licensed
psychotherapist as a putative class action on behalf of all non-
medical doctor health care providers.

A consolidated complaint was filed for the eleven cases, and then
was amended to broaden the allegations in the lawsuit to out-of-
network reimbursement methodologies beyond the use of Ingenix.
The Company filed a revised motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint, which is pending.  At the end of 2009, the
Company filed a motion to enjoin the claims brought by the medical
doctors and doctors of osteopathy based on prior litigation
releases.  The magistrate judge recommended that the Company's
motion to enjoin be granted.

Plaintiffs recently filed a petition for declaratory judgment
asking the Court to find that those claims are not barred by the
prior litigation releases.  The Company has filed a motion to
dismiss the petition for declaratory judgment.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate
outcomes cannot be presently determined.


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Motion to Amend Union's Suit Pending in Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion by Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund
for leave to amend a consolidated complaint against Zimmer
Holdings, Inc., alleging violations of securities law remains
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On August 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
et al., naming Zimmer Holdings, Inc., and two of its executive
officers as defendants.

The complaint related to a putative class action on behalf of
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between January
29, 2008 and July 22, 2008.  The complaint alleged that the
defendants violated the federal securities law by allegedly
failing to disclose developments relating to the Company's
orthopaedic surgical products manufacturing operations in Dover,
Ohio and the Durom Cup.

The plaintiff sought unspecified damages and interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other relief.  On December 24, 2008, the lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint that alleged the same
claims and related to the same time period.  The defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on February 23,
2009.  On December 1, 2009, the Court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss, without prejudice.

On January 15, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend the consolidated complaint.  That motion is pending.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit, and the
Company and the individual defendants said they intend to defend
it vigorously.


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss "Dewald" Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmer Holdings, Inc., et al.'s motion to dismiss an amended
complaint for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, remains pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Indiana, according to the company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On November 20, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Dewald v. Zimmer
Holdings, Inc., et al., naming Zimmer Holdings, Inc. and certain
of its current and former directors and employees as defendants.
The complaint relates to a putative class action on behalf of all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Compay's
U.S. or Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Programs (plans)
between October 5, 2007 and the date of filing and whose accounts
included investments in the company's common stock.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by continuing
to offer Zimmer stock as an investment option in the plans when
the stock purportedly was no longer a prudent investment and that
defendants failed to provide plan participants with complete and
accurate information sufficient to advise them of the risks of
investing their retirement savings in Zimmer stock.

The plaintiff seeks an unspecified monetary payment to the plans,
injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys' fees, costs and other
relief.  On January 23, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint that alleges the same claims and clarifies that the
class period is October 5, 2007 through September 2, 2008.  The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 23, 2009.  The motion to dismiss is pending with the court.

On June 12, 2009, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation entered an order transferring the Dewald case to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the Plumbers
& Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund case.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit, and the
Company and the individual defendants intend to defend it
vigorously.


* Ontario Class Action Defendants Can "Get Out Early"
-----------------------------------------------------
Canadian Underwriter.ca reports Saskatchewan's Court of Appeal
will decide if class action plaintiffs are to be held to Ontario's
higher standard, which is to have a cause of action against each
of the plaintiffs named in the suit, than the B.C. model, which
requires a plaintiff to have a cause of action against only one
named plaintiff in a suit, said Mirilyn Sharp, a lawyer at Blaney
McMurtry LLP.

In Ontario, a class action defendant can "get out" before
incurring large costs if they can show the statement of claim
fails to name a plaintiff who has a reasonable cause of action
against them, wrote Ms. Sharp in the article Class Actions:
Getting Out Early, published in Blaney McMurtrey's newsletter.

This is not the case in British Columbia though.  In B.C., she
wrote, it is sufficient if the plaintiff has a cause of action
against only one of the defendants, on the theory that there are
probably "class members" who have a cause of action against the
remaining defendants.

Saskatchewan's lower courts have made two decisions which follow
the B.C. approach over the Ontario approach, Ms. Sharp continued.
But, Rosa Alves et al v First Choice, My Travel, Red Seal and
Transat, a case before Saskatchewan's Court of Appeal, may reverse
that.

"Blaney McMurtry will be arguing the Appeal in Saskatchewan and we
hope to persuade the court that Saskatchewan ought to follow the
Ontario approach, thereby forcing plaintiff's counsel to find, for
every defendant sued in a class action, a viable plaintiff with a
cause of action against the defendant," she wrote.

"Meanwhile, keep this argument in mind for class actions commenced
against you in Ontario, as you may be successful in having the
action against you dismissed on a preliminary basis if you can
demonstrate that there is no named plaintiff who has a viable
cause of action against you."

She noted though, that if a person who does have a cause of action
against a defendant is found prior to the expiry of any limitation
period, a defendant may be sued again.


* Quebec Loyalty Card Class Action to Test Consumer Protection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Rioux, writing for The Gazette, reports that in July,
holders of a rewards program loyalty card filed a class action
alleging that the program sponsor had illegally modified the value
of the points he had accumulated as of June 30, 2010.  Should the
Superior Court grant the motion, the terms and conditions of
loyalty cards will be subject to a class action for the first time
in Quebec.  In a vast sea of rewards programs, where the industry
makes every effort to gain consumer loyalty, what is the legal
framework of reward programs in Quebec?

An informed consumer should, above all, know rewards programs are
subject to the civil law legislation of the Quebec Civil Code.
During the Civil Code Reform in 1991, the legislator, to protect
the economic interests of consumers and ensure public protection,
enacted a number of regulations with regards to adhesion and
consumer contracts with the intention of remedying injustices
generated by the inequality of bargaining power that favors the
merchant and the industry.

An adhesion contract is characterized by the three following
elements: i) there is no meaningful negotiation by the member in
regards to the essential elements of the contract; ii) the ability
to negotiate must relate to provisions essential to the contract,
and iii) the provisions essential to the contract must be imposed
or written by one of the parties according to said party's
instructions.  In short, adhesion contracts will result in unfair
liability on the consumer and benefit only to those who impose the
terms and conditions.

On another note, consumer contracts distinguish themselves from
the other types of contracts because of, among other things, the
possibility of a considerable imbalance of strength between the
parties.

Consequently, determining the type of contract entered into
between the parties is especially important.  Indeed, the
characterization of an adhesion or a consumer contract means the
implementation of a protection scheme, thus making it possible to
alleviate certain legal provisions.  As a result, the consumer
will, in particular, profit from more favorable provisions with
regards to the interpretation of the contract, will in some
circumstances obtain the nullity of the external clauses that the
consumer would not have been informed of at the time the contract
was signed, the illegible and incomprehensible clauses could be
deemed null and void in the event of prejudice to the consumer
and, most important, a court could deem some of the clauses of the
rewards program as abusive.  A clause will be considered abusive
when it disadvantages the consumer or member in an excessive and
unreasonable way, thus going against the presumed good faith
between the parties.

In addition to the specific provisions moderating the inequity of
the forces induced by the use of consumer and adhesion contracts,
legislative provisions of general application governing contracts
will apply such as the requirement that the parties must "conduct
themselves in good faith both at the time the obligation is
created and at the time it is performed or extinguished" and that
"no right may be exercised with the intent of injuring another or
in an excessive and unreasonable manner which is contrary to the
requirements of good faith."

Furthermore, the statutory protection legislation set out in the
Consumer Protection Act is important to note.  Although the latter
does not specifically mention rewards programs, the new measures
that came into force on June 30, 2010, grant consumers better
protection.  Under the terms of these measures, merchants, from
now on, may no longer be able to unilaterally modify the elements
essential to a contract, namely, the nature of the service, its
price or the duration of the contract.

Still, consumer rights are not exclusively found in the Consumer
Protection Act.  Numerous consumer protection regulations were
adopted by Quebec and Canadian legislators to restore balance
between the industry and the consumer by offering the consumer
increased protection, but the analysis of these laws,
unfortunately, will need to be the subject of another article.

Should a consumer want to challenge the validity of a consumer or
an adhesion contract, it is ultimately up to the courts to
determine the nature of this contract, as a result of a
preliminary qualification process.  Several consumers have tried,
in vain, to qualify some contracts under the sections governing
adhesion and consumer contracts while the essential
characteristics were lacking.  The circumstances particular to the
conclusion of each rewards program will therefore need to be
carefully examined.  Consumers who think they are subject to an
abusive adhesion or consumer contract should turn to a legal
adviser to be assisted adequately throughout the process.

Points from a rewards plan remitted in cash or as rewards miles or
points are more popular than ever.  In a world where the industry
has to make an effort to retain customers and where, the consumer,
very often, does not have all the necessary tools to fairly
negotiate with the merchant, when is the specific intervention of
a legislator needed?  Until that issue is resolved, many rewards
points will have likely been collected!

                             *********

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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda, Rousel Elaine Fernandez,
Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline
Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2010.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *