CAR_Public/101118.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 18, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 228

                             Headlines

99C ONLY STORES: Still Faces Suits Over Change in Pricing Policy
ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Suit in Illinois
AMERICA SERVICE: Deems Shareholder Class Suit in Tennessee Closed
AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces Four Class Suits in California
ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Reaches Settlement in Massachusetts Suit

ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Face Securities Suit in Canada
AXIS CAPITAL: Still Facing Insurance Bid Manipulation Charges
BAYER AG: Opt-Out Deadline Set in N.C. Synthetic Rubber Suit
BBG COMMUNICATIONS: Accused in Calif. Suit of Cheating Customers
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Arbitration in Calif. Suit Gets Dismissed

BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Gets Tentative Approval of Class Suit Settlement
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Discover Still Ongoing in California Wage Suit
CARTER'S INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
CELGENE CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement of Abraxis Merger Suit
CNA FINANCIAL: Briefing on Claims Dismissal Requests Ongoing

CONSOL Energy: Continues to Defend CNX Shareholders Suits
CONSOL Energy: Continues to Defend Virginia Suit by Gas Owners
CORBIS CORP: Sued for Illegally Selling Licenses to Use Images
CORVEL CORP: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement in Illinois Suit
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Believes Hertz Merger-Related Suits Now Moot

DOLLAR THRIFTY: Appeal of Colorado Consumer Act Suit Still Pending
DR PEPPER: Sued for Violations of False Advertising Law
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Reports Conclusion of Calif. Class Action
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Securities Suit Still Pending in New York
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Awaits Dismissal of "Oughtred" Class Action

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Initial Discovery in Calif. Suit to End March 6
ENCORE CAPITAL: Sued for Robo-Signing Default Judgments
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Reports Updates on 13 Insurance-Related Suits
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Unit Continues to Defend Against Missouri Suit
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Reconveyance Fee-Related Suits Remain Pending

FIDELITY NATIONAL: California Suits on Fee Disputes Still Pending
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Suit Asserting Unfair Trade Practices Ongoing
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Still Facing Lawsuits Over Unjust Enrichment
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Units Reach Settlement of Calif. Labor Suits
FMC CORP: Awaits Final Approval of Indirect Purchaser Settlement

FMC CORP: Continues to Defend Canadian Purchasers' Suit
GILLETTE CO: Agrees to Settle MDL 1704 for $7.5 Million
GMAC MORTGAGE: Faces Class Suits Over Foreclosure Robo-Signing
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Shareholder Securities Action Still Pending
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Continues to Face New York Securities Action

HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Fair Credit" Class Action
INTEL CORP: Continues to Defend Against Antitrust Class Suits
INTEL CORP: Accused in California Suit of Not Paying Overtime
INTERNET BRANDS: Faces Two Lawsuits Over Hellman & Friedman Merger
INVESCO LTD: Awaits Finality of Settlement of Maryland Suit

KEATLEY SURVEYING: Ontario Land Surveyors File Class Action
KRAFT FOODS: Oscar Mayer Employees File Class Action Lawsuit
MARSHALL & ILSLEY: Continues to Defend 2 ERISA Suits in Wisconsin
MARSHALL & ILSLEY: Wisconsin Consumer Act Suit Still Pending
MASTERCARD INC: Appeal on Ruling Approving MDL Settlement Ongoing

MASTERCARD INC: Sherman Act Violation Lawsuit Remains Pending
MASTERCARD INC: Enters Mediation to Resolve IPO Class Action Suit
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Removes "Buckland" Labor Suit to N.D. Calif.
MAXIM INTEGRATED: Gets Court Approval of $173MM Class Settlement
MEDCO HEALTH: Judgment Request for Two Gruer Cases Still Pending

MEDIACOM: Rigrodsky & Long Continues to Prosecute Class Action
MOTOROLA INC: ERISA Consolidated Suit Amended to Add Defendants
MOTOROLA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Illinois
NETEZZA CORP: Reaches Agreement to Settle Delaware Suits
NUTRACEA: Court Approves Securities Class Suit Settlement

OCCAM NETWORKS: Being Sold to Calix for Too Little, Suit Claims
PMI GROUP: Court Sets Final Hearing on Settlement for Dec. 16
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Wage-and-Hour Class Action Suit on Remand
R2C2 INC: Term Paper Web Site Operator Agrees to Pay $300,000
REWARDS NETWORK: Board Sued Over Sale to Equity Group

RINO INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Firms Files Class Action Lawsuit
SANFORD BROWN: Judge Takes Class Certification Under Advisement
SAHARA DUNES: Accused in California Suit of Not Paying Overtime
SCHWEITZER-MAUDUIT: Securities Class Suit Still Pending in Georgia
SILICON GRAPHICS: Securities Class Suit in Calif. Is Terminated

SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Settles Securities Litigation for $3 Million
STEC INC: Hearing on Consolidated Suit Dismissal Set for Jan. 10
SYNGENTA CROP: Atrazine Class Action Lawsuit on Appeal
TENAHA: Plaintiffs' Lawyers in Traffic Class Suit in Mediation
TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Katrina-Related Suits

TEREX CORP: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Actions in Connecticut
TEREX CORP: Securities Class Action Remains Pending in Connecticut
THEGLOBE.COM INC: Appeals on Suit Settlement Still Pending
THEKKEK HEALTH: Sued in Calif. Over Inadequate Nursing Care
TRILEGIANT: Sued for Fraudulent Business Practices

WILMINGTON TRUST: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuits
WINN DIXIE: Reaches Agreement to Settle FCRA-Related Claims
* Investors Lending Money to Individual & Class Action Lawsuits



                             *********

99C ONLY STORES: Still Faces Suits Over Change in Pricing Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
99c Only Stores continues to defend itself against two class
action lawsuits in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, according to the company's November 3,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

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

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


ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Suit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., has been named a defendant in a
lawsuit captioned Bang v. Acura Pharmaceuticals, et al., filed on
September 10, 2010, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Case 1:10-cv-
05757.

The Lawsuit is seeking unspecified damages against the Acura and
certain of its current and former officers on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased the company's common stock between
February 21, 2006 and April 22, 2010.

The complaint alleges that certain Acura officers made false or
misleading statements, or failed to disclose material facts in
order to make statements not misleading, relating to the company's
Acurox(R) product candidate, resulting in violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The complaint further alleges that the false or misleading
statements or omissions had the effect of artificially inflating
the price of Acura common stock.

Acura believes that the allegations in the complaint are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend the litigation, the Company
disclosed in its November 2, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.


AMERICA SERVICE: Deems Shareholder Class Suit in Tennessee Closed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
America Service Group Inc. said a shareholder litigation in
Tennessee against the company and two of its officers is now
closed, according to the company's November 2, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On April 6, 2006, plaintiffs filed the first of four similar
securities class action lawsuits in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against the Company and
the company's Chief Executive Officer, at that time, and Chief
Financial Officer.  Plaintiffs' allegations in these class action
lawsuits were substantially identical and generally alleged on
behalf of a putative class of individuals who purchased the
company's common stock between September 24, 2003 and March 16,
2006 that, prior to the company's announcement of the Audit
Committee investigation, the company and/or the company's Chief
Executive Officer, at that time, and Chief Financial Officer
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading
statements, or concealing information about the company's
business, forecasts and financial performance.  The complaints
sought certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

By order dated August 3, 2006, the district court consolidated the
lawsuits into one consolidated action and on October 31, 2006,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding SPP, Enoch E. Hartman
III and Grant J. Bryson as defendants. Enoch E. Hartman III is a
former employee of the Company and SPP and Grant J. Bryson is a
former employee of SPP.  The amended complaint also generally
alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements
concerning the company's business which caused the company's
securities to trade at inflated prices during the class period.
Plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of damages in the form of
(i) restitution; (ii) compensatory damages, including interest;
and (iii) reasonable costs and expenses.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on January 19,
2007, and the parties completed the briefs on the motion in May
2007.  On March 31, 2009, the Court ruled on the defendants'
motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part.
While the Court's ruling dismissed significant portions of
plaintiffs' amended complaint and, as a result, narrowed the scope
of plaintiffs' claims, none of the defendants were dismissed from
the case and several of plaintiffs' claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5 remained.

The parties were not in agreement as to the scope of the Court's
order and defendants filed a motion to confirm which claims the
Court dismissed in its March 31, 2009, ruling. The Court granted
defendants' motion to confirm the scope of the dismissal order on
July 20, 2009, ruling that certain of Plaintiff's claims had been
in fact dismissed. The Court also confirmed, however, that certain
other claims remained viable.

On July 22, 2009, the Court administratively closed the
shareholder litigation case, while the parties pursued mediation
of this matter.  On February 19, 2010, the parties agreed to the
terms of a mediator's proposal to settle all of the claims in this
lawsuit.  At a hearing on October 15, 2010, the Court approved the
settlement, entering a final judgment and dismissing with
prejudice all claims against all defendant in the litigation.  The
settlement provided for payment by the company of $10.5 million
and issuance by the Company of 300,000 shares of common stock. The
total value of the settlement, based upon the company's closing
share price for its common stock of $15.12 per share on
October 15, 2010, is approximately $15.0 million.

During the second quarter of 2010, the $10.5 million cash
component of the settlement was paid by the Company to the escrow
agent appointed by the Court.  As such, at September 30, 2010 the
Company has a remaining reserve of $4.5 million, which represents
the final value of the stock component of the settlement and was
included in accrued expenses in the company's condensed
consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2010.  On
October 18, 2010, the company issued 300,000 shares of its common
stock to the escrow agent appointed by the Court thereby
fulfilling all terms of the approved settlement.

The company now considers this matter closed.


AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces Four Class Suits in California
------------------------------------------------------
Four putative class action lawsuits filed against American Apparel
Inc. in California remain pending, according to the company's
November 1, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Four putative class action lawsuits, entitled Anthony Andrade v.
American Apparel, et al., Case No. CV106352 MMM (RCx), Douglas
Ormsby v. American Apparel, et al., Case No. CV106513 MMM (RCx),
James Costa v. American Apparel, et al., Case No. CV106516 MMM
(RCx), and Wesley Childs v. American Apparel, et al., Case No.
CV106680 GW (JCGx), were filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on August 25, 2010,
August 31, 2010, August 31, 2010, and September 8, 2010,
respectively, against the Company and certain of its officers and
executives on behalf of American Apparel shareholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between December 19, 2006 and
August 17, 2010. Plaintiffs allege three causes of action for
violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 14(a) of the 1934 Act,
and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, arising out of
alleged misrepresentations contained in Company press releases,
public filings with the SEC, and other public statements relating
to (i) the adequacy of the Company's internal and financial
control policies and procedures; (ii) the Company's hiring
practices; and (iii) the effect that the dismissal of over 1,500
employees following an Immigration and Customs Enforcement
inspection would have on the Company. Plaintiffs seek damages in
an unspecified amount, reasonable attorneys fees and costs, and
equitable relief as the Court may deem proper.


ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Reaches Settlement in Massachusetts Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Aspen Technology, Inc., entered into a settlement agreement with
the plaintiffs-appellants of a class action lawsuit in
Massachusetts, providing for a dismissal of all claims with
prejudice, 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.

In March 2006, the company settled class action litigation,
including related derivative claims, arising out of its originally
filed consolidated financial statements for fiscal 2000 through
2004, the accounting for which we restated in March 2005.  Certain
members of the class (representing 1,457,969 shares of common
stock (or less than 1% of the shares putatively purchased during
the class action period)) opted out of the settlement and had the
right to bring their own state or federal law claims against the
company, referred to as "opt-out" claims.  Opt-out claims were
filed on behalf of the holders of approximately 1.1 million of
such shares.  Two of these actions were settled and three were
dismissed.

The settled actions include Herbert G. and Eunice E. Blecker, et
al. v. Aspen Technology, Inc., et al., filed in June 2006 in the
Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court
for Suffolk County and docketed as Civ. A. No. 06-2357-BLS1.  This
action was an opt-out claim asserted by persons who received
248,411 shares of the company's common stock in an acquisition.
Fact discovery in this action closed in July 2008, and a non-jury
trial was conducted in November 2009.

In January 2010, the court issued its order granting judgment in
the company's favor and dismissing the case.  In February 2010,
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the judgment.

The company entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs-appellants on October 28, 2010, providing for a
dismissal of all claims with prejudice.


ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Face Securities Suit in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aspen Technology, Inc., remains a defendant in an action captioned
as 380544 Canada, Inc., et al. v. Aspen Technology, Inc.,
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.

The company settled certain class action litigation, including
related derivative claims, arising out of its originally filed
consolidated financial statements for fiscal 2000 through 2004,
the accounting for which we restated in March 2005.

The remaining action against the company was filed on February 15,
2007 in the federal district court for the Southern District of
New York and docketed as Civ. A. No. 1:07-cv-01204-JFK in that
court.  The claims in this action include claims against the
company and one or more of its former officers alleging securities
and common law fraud, breach of contract, deceptive practices
and/or rescissory damages liability, based on the restated results
of one or more fiscal periods included in the company's restated
consolidated financial statements referenced in the class action.

This action was brought by persons who purchased 566,665 shares of
the company's common stock in a private placement.  Certain
motions to dismiss filed by other defendants were resolved on
May 5, 2009, and discovery is in process.  The claims in the
380544 Canada action are for damages totaling at least $4.0
million, not including claims for attorneys' fees.

The company plans to defend the 380544 Canada action vigorously.


AXIS CAPITAL: Still Facing Insurance Bid Manipulation Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Axis Capital Holdings Limited continues to defend itself against
charges of manipulation of insurance bids, disclosed the Company's
November 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In 2005, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Axis
Capital's U.S. insurance subsidiaries.

Specifically, In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation was
filed on August 15, 2005, in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey and includes as defendants numerous
insurance brokers and insurance companies.

The lawsuit alleges antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act violations in connection with the payment of
contingent commissions and manipulation of insurance bids and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

On October 3, 2006, the District Court granted, in part, motions
to dismiss filed by the defendants, and ordered plaintiffs to file
supplemental pleadings setting forth sufficient facts to allege
their antitrust and RICO claims.

After plaintiffs filed their supplemental pleadings, defendants
renewed their motions to dismiss.

On April 15, 2007, the District Court dismissed without prejudice
plaintiffs' complaint, as amended, and granted plaintiffs 30 days
to file another amended complaint and/or revised RICO Statement
and Statements of Particularity.

In May 2007, plaintiffs filed (i) a Second Consolidated Amended
Commercial Class Action complaint, (ii) a Revised Particularized
Statement Describing the Horizontal Conspiracies Alleged in the
Second Consolidated Amended Commercial Class Action Complaint, and
(iii) a Third Amended Commercial Insurance Plaintiffs' RICO Case
Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(B)(4).

On June 21, 2007, the defendants filed renewed motions to dismiss.
On September 28, 2007, the District Court dismissed with prejudice
plaintiffs' antitrust and RICO claims and declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining state law
claims.

On October 10, 2007, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of all
adverse orders and decisions to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, and a hearing was held in April 2009.

On August 16, 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the District Court's dismissal of the antitrust and RICO claims
arising from the contingent commission arrangements and remanded
the case to the District Court with respect to the manipulation of
insurance bids allegations.

Axis Capital believes that the lawsuit is completely without merit
and will continue to vigorously defend the filed action.


BAYER AG: Opt-Out Deadline Set in N.C. Synthetic Rubber Suit
------------------------------------------------------------

         State of North Carolina, County of Buncombe
               In the General Court of Justice
                    Superior Court Division

    Mitchell Teague, on behalf )
    of himself and all others  )
    similarly situated,        )
                               )
                   Plaintiff,  )
                               )   Case No. 05CVS90
         v.                    )
                               )
    Bayer AG, et al.,          )
                               )
                   Defendants. )

             NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

To: All persons (excluding Defendants, any entity in which
   Defendants have a controlling interest, any employees,
   officers, and directors, legal representatives,
   successors or assigns of Defendants, and any judicial
   officer or juror hearing this case and his/her
   relatives) who indirectly purchased products made with
   synthetic rubber composed of ethylene, propylene and
   diene monomers (hereinafter "EPDM") in the State of
   North Carolina for end use (and not resale), including
   but not limited to purchasing such items as roofing,
   pond liners, weather stripping, seals, belts, and hoses
   at any time during the period January 1, 1994 through
   December 31, 2002.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU MAY BE
A MEMBER OF THE CLASS. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOU
SHOULD READ THIS NOTICE BECAUSE IT WILL AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS. THIS
NOTICE IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION BY THE COURT AS TO THE
MERITS OF ANY OF THE CLAIMS OR DEFENSES ASSERTED BY EITHER SIDE IN
THIS LITIGATION. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE IS TO INFORM YOU
OF THE LAWSUIT SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION AS TO
WHETHER YOU SHOULD REMAIN IN OR OPT OUT OF THIS CLASS ACTION.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The named plaintiff, a resident of North Carolina, alleges that
from January 1, 1994 through December 31, 2002, defendants
violated the North Carolina antitrust laws through combination and
conspiracy to fix the price and control the market for EPDM.  EPDM
is a synthetic rubber composed of ethylene, propylene and diene
monomers, used in the manufacture of certain end use products,
including but not limited to roofing materials, pond liners,
weather-stripping, seals, belts, and hoses. The Plaintiff alleges
that as a result of defendants" unlawful conduct, the price of
EPDM was substantially higher than it would otherwise have been in
a competitive market.  Consequently, Plaintiff claims that Class
Members paid higher prices for products manufactured with EPDM
than they otherwise would have, during the time period January 1,
1994, through December 31, 2002.  The defendants vigorously deny
these claims and charges.

CLASS ACTION RULING

Plaintiff and Defendant DSM Copolymer, Inc. ("DCI") have
stipulated that this lawsuit may be maintained as a class action
as and against DCI. The Court has approved that stipulation. As a
result, the final outcome of this lawsuit -- whether favorable to
the Plaintiff Class or to DCI -- will apply in like manner to ever
Class Member, that is, to all North Carolina purchasers of end use
products manufactured with EPDM who indirectly purchased EPDM for
end use and not for resale at any time between January 1, 1994,
through December 31, 2002, who do not timely elect to be excluded
from the Plaintiff Class (see "Election by Plaintiff Class
Members" below).

YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER if you are a purchaser of end use products
manufactured with or containing EPDM in North Carolina, not for
resale, which EPDM was manufactured and/or sold by the defendants
between January 1, 1994, through December 31, 2002 ("Class
Member," "Plaintiff Class" or "Plaintiff Class Member").

YOU ARE NOT A CLASS MEMBER if you are a direct purchaser of EPDM,
or an indirect purchaser of EPDM who purchased EPDM or EPDM-
containing products for resale, or if you are an indirect
purchaser of EPDM who purchased EPDM or EPDM-containing products
outside of the State of North Carolina.

ELECTION BY CLASS MEMBERS

If you fit the above description of a Class Member, you have a
choice whether or not to remain in the Class on whose behalf this
lawsuit is being maintained. You should understand the
consequences of this choice in making your decision.

    1. If you want to remain a member of the Plaintiff Class, you
do not have to do anything at this time. By remaining a Class
Member, any claims you may have against DCI for damages under the
North Carolina antitrust laws arising from defendants" conduct as
alleged by the Class representative Plaintiff will be determined
in this case.

    2. If you want to be excluded from the Plaintiff Class, you
must send written notice of your desire to be excluded from the
Class. The written notice must be sent to Plaintiffs" counsel,
Wimer & Jobe, 349 Haywood Road, Asheville, North Carolina 28806,
by mail postmarked no later than [60 days after Nov. 15, 2010].
By making this election to be excluded:

         a. you will not share in any recovery that might be paid
to Class Members as a result of trial or settlement of this
lawsuit;

         b. you will not be bound by any decision in this lawsuit
favorable to DCI; and

         c. you may present any claims you may have against DCI by
filing your own lawsuit at your own expense.

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF PLAINTIFF CLASS MEMBERS

If you want to remain a CLASS MEMBER, you do not have to do
anything.

    1. Counsel for the Plaintiff Class -- Rex Sharp, Isaac Diel,
Daniel Karon, Krishna Narine, Amiel Rossabi and

         Michael G. Wimer, Esq.
         WIMER & JOBE
         349 Haywood Road
         Asheville, NC 28806
         Telephone: (828) 350-9799
         Fax: (828) 350-9894
         E-mail: mwimer@wimerjobe.com

-- will continue to act as your counsel.

    2. Your participation in any recovery that may be obtained
from DCI through trial or settlement will depend on the results of
this lawsuit. If no recovery is obtained from the Plaintiff Class,
you will be bound by that result and will recover nothing.


    3. You may be required as a condition to participating in any
recovery to the present evidence to a claims administrator (by
testimony, affidavit, or documents) of your past purchases of
products containing EPDM. You should, therefore, keep any records
you have reflecting those part purchases.

    4. If ordered by the Court, you will be entitled to notice and
an opportunity to be heard concerning any proposed settlement of
the class claims.

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

Discovery on the merits of the case has been stayed pending final
resolution of two related federal class actions -- In re EPDM
Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1542, Case No. 3:03 MD 1542 (D. Conn.)
and In re Polychloroprene Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1642, Case No.
3:05 MD 1642 (D. Conn.).  No trial date in this case has been set.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Any questions you have concerning the matters contained in this
notice should not be directed to the Court but should be directed
in writing to Wimer & Jobe at 349 Haywood Road, Asheville, North
Carolina 28806. The pleadings and other records in this litigation
may be examined at any time during regular office hours at the
Office of the Clerk of Court, Buncombe County Courthouse,
Asheville, North Carolina.

DO NOT CALL OR WRITE TO THE COURT OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT.
ADDRESS ALL INQUIRIES IN WRITING TO THE CLASS ADMINISTRATOR AT THE
ADDRESS SET FORTH ABOVE.


BBG COMMUNICATIONS: Accused in Calif. Suit of Cheating Customers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that BBG Communications cheats
customers who use credit or debit cards to make calls on its pay
phones in airports, subway and train stations, a class action
claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Safjr, et al. v. BBG Communications,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-02341 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/15/PayPhones.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP OF CALIFORNIA
          9466 Black Mountain Road, Suite 225
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Telephone: (619) 308-5034
          E-mail: alan@clgca.com

               - and -

          John Mattes, Esq.
          1666 Garnet Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92109
          Telephone: (858) 412-6081

               - and -

          Joe R. Whatley, Esq.
          Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS LLC
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 447-7070


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Arbitration in Calif. Suit Gets Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Arbitration relating to a class action commenced by BJ's
Restaurants, Inc.'s former employee has been dismissed after
parties entered into a settlement, according to the company's
November 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On February 5, 2004, a former employee of the company, on behalf
of herself, and allegedly other employees, filed a class action
complaint in Los Angeles County, California, Superior Court, and
on March 16, 2004, filed an amended complaint, alleging causes of
action for: (1) failure to pay reporting time minimum pay; (2)
failure to allow meal breaks; (3) failure to allow rest breaks;
(4) waiting time penalties; (5) civil penalties; (6) reimbursement
for fraud and deceit; (7) punitive damages for fraud and deceit;
and, (8) disgorgement of illicit profits.

On June 28, 2004, the plaintiff stipulated to dismiss her second,
third, fourth and fifth causes of action. During September 2004,
the plaintiff stipulated to binding arbitration of the action.  On
March 2, 2008, and on March 19, 2008, one of plaintiff's attorneys
filed a notice with the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency, alleging failure to keep adequate pay records and to pay
plaintiff minimum wage.  To the company's knowledge, the Agency
has not responded to either of these notices.  In November 2008,
the parties agreed to settle this matter subject to final approval
from the arbitrator and confirmation from the court.

The arbitrator approved the settlement and the arbitration was
dismissed in September 2010.  The terms of this proposed
settlement are not considered by the company to be material to its
consolidated financial position.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Gets Tentative Approval of Class Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court preliminarily approved a settlement of a class
action complaint in Orange County, California involving BJ's
Restaurants, Inc., according to the company's November 3, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On April 6, 2009, an employee filed a class action complaint in
Orange County, California, Superior Court on behalf of himself and
allegedly other employees.  The complaint alleges causes of action
for failure to pay plaintiff and other alleged class members
regular wages and overtime pay, failure to maintain the designated
wage scale and secret payment of lower wages, the greater of
actual damages or penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and restitution of wages and injunction for violation
of California Business and Professions Code. The complaint also
seeks interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 1, 2010, the court preliminarily approved to settle
this case as requested by the parties in February 2010.  The terms
of this proposed settlement are not considered by the company to
be material to its consolidated financial position.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Discover Still Ongoing in California Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc., remains a defendant in a class action
arising from the company's alleged failure to pay wages on time,
according to the company's November 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On February 4, 2009, an employee, on behalf of himself and
allegedly other employees filed a class action complaint in Fresno
County, California, Superior Court, which complaint was served on
the company in the second quarter of 2009.  The complaint alleges
causes of action for failure to pay wages for on-call time, for
violation of California Business and Professional Code and for
penalties for unpaid wages.

The complaint also seeks a constructive trust on money found
unlawfully acquired, an injunction against failure to pay wages,
restitution, interest, attorney's fees and costs.  On August 14,
2009, a first amended complaint was filed, in which two other
employees joined the action as plaintiffs.

The parties are engaged in discovery, the company has filed an
answer to the amended complaint, and the company intends to
vigorously defend its position in this action.


CARTER'S INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carter's Inc. is awaiting an oral argument date or court ruling on
its motion to dismiss a consolidated class action complaint filed
in Georgia, according to the company's November 1, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 2, 2010.

A shareholder class action lawsuit was filed on September 19, 2008
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia entitled Plymouth County Retirement System v. Carter's,
Inc., No. 1:08-CV-02940-JOF.  The Amended Complaint filed on May
12, 2009 in the Plymouth Action asserted claims under Sections
10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, and
alleged that between February 1, 2006 and July 24, 2007, the
Company and certain current and former executives made
misrepresentations to investors regarding the successful
integration of OshKosh into the Company's business, and that the
share price of the Company's stock later fell when the market
learned that the integration had not been as successful as
represented.  Defendants in the Plymouth Action filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under
the federal securities laws on July 17, 2009, and briefing of that
motion was complete on October 22, 2009.

A separate shareholder class action lawsuit was filed on November
17, 2009 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia entitled Mylroie v. Carter's, Inc., No. 1:09-
CV-3196-JOF.  The initial Complaint in the Mylroie Action asserted
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Securities
Exchange Act, and alleged that between April 27, 2004 and November
10, 2009, the Company and certain current and former executives
made misstatements to investors regarding the Company's accounting
for discounts offered to some wholesale customers.

The Court consolidated the Plymouth Action and the Mylroie Action
on November 24, 2009.  On March 15, 2010, the plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Action filed their amended and consolidated
complaint.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 30,
2010, and briefing of the motion was complete on July 23, 2010.


CELGENE CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement of Abraxis Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation has reached a settlement of a class action
lawsuit related to the Company's acquisition of Abraxis BioScience
Inc.

Abraxis, the members of the Abraxis board of directors and the
Celgene Corporation are named as defendants in putative class
action lawsuits brought by Abraxis stockholders challenging the
Merger in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The plaintiffs in assert claims for breaches of fiduciary duty
arising out of the Merger and allege that Abraxis' directors
engaged in self-dealing and obtained for themselves personal
benefits and failed to provide stockholders with material
information relating to the Merger.  The plaintiffs also allege
claims for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty against
the Company and Abraxis.

On September 14, 2010, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the actions pursuant to the Memorandum of
Understanding.  Without admitting the validity of any allegations
made in the actions, or any liability with respect thereto, the
defendants elected to settle the actions in order to avoid the
cost, disruption and distraction of further litigation.

Under the MOU, the defendants agreed, among other things, to make
additional disclosures relating to the Merger, and to provide the
plaintiffs' counsel with limited discovery to confirm the fairness
and adequacy of the settlement.  Abraxis, on behalf of itself and
for the benefit of the other defendants in the actions, also
agreed to pay the plaintiffs' counsel $600,000 for their fees and
expenses.

The parties agreed to use their best efforts to agree upon,
execute and present to the court a formal stipulation of
settlement and other documents as may be necessary to obtain
approval by the court of the settlement and the dismissal with
prejudice of the actions.

The parties intend to present the stipulation in advance of a
preliminary approval hearing.  Pending execution of that
stipulation, the parties agreed to stay all proceedings in the
actions, except those relating to the settlement, Celgene
disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On October 15, 2010, Celgene acquired all of the outstanding
common stock of Abraxis, resulting in Abraxis becoming a wholly
owned subsidiary of the Company.  The transaction, referred to as
the Merger, will be accounted for in accordance with the
acquisition method of accounting for business combinations
described in Accounting Standard Update 805.  Under the
acquisition method of accounting for business combinations, the
assets and liabilities of Abraxis will be recorded at their
respective fair values on the acquisition date and consolidated
with those of the Company.


CNA FINANCIAL: Briefing on Claims Dismissal Requests Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on dismissal requests of remanded claims in an insurance
brokerage antitrust litigation involving CNA Financial Corporation
must be completed this month, the Company disclosed in its
November 2, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In August 2005, CNA Financial and certain insurance subsidiaries
were joined as defendants, along with other insurers and brokers,
in a multidistrict litigation pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, In re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, Civil No. 04-5184 (GEB).

The plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint alleges bid
rigging and improprieties in the payment of contingent commissions
in connection with the sale of insurance that violated federal and
state antitrust laws, the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act and state common law.

After discovery, the District Court dismissed the federal
antitrust claims and the RICO claims, and declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their complaint to the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

In August 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's
dismissal of the antitrust claims and the RICO claims against CNAF
and certain insurance subsidiaries, but vacated the dismissal of
those claims against other parties.

The Court of Appeals also vacated and remanded the dismissal of
the state law claims against CNAF and certain insurance
subsidiaries and other parties to allow for further proceedings
before the District Court.

The District Court has ordered that the briefing on any further
motions to dismiss the remanded claims be completed in November
2010.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the action and
intends to defend the case vigorously.


CONSOL Energy: Continues to Defend CNX Shareholders Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. continues to defend itself from class action
lawsuits filed by alleged shareholders of CNX Gas, according to
the company's November 1, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

CONSOL Energy has been named as a defendant in five putative class
actions brought by alleged shareholders of CNX Gas challenging the
tender offer by CONSOL Energy to acquire all of the shares of CNX
Gas common stock that CONSOL Energy did not already own.  The
cases are: Schurr v. CONSOL Energy and others (No. 2010-2333),
filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County,
Pennsylvania on March 29, 2010;  Gummel v. CONSOL Energy (No.
5377-VCL), filed March 29, 2010 in the Delaware Court of Chancery;
Polen v. CONSOL Energy and others (No. 2010-2626), filed in the
Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Pennsylvania on
April 12, 2010;  Gaines v. CONSOL Energy and others (No. 5378),
filed March 30, 2010 in the Delaware Court of Chancery;  and
Hurwitz v. CONSOL Energy and others (No. 5405), filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery on April 13, 2010.  Other than the
Gummel case, the suits also name CNX Gas and certain officers and
directors of CONSOL Energy and CNX Gas as defendants.

All five actions generally allege that CONSOL Energy has breached
and/or has aided and abetted in the breach of fiduciary duties
purportedly owed to CNX Gas public shareholders.  Among other
things, the actions seek a permanent injunction against or
rescission of the proposed tender offer, damages, and attorneys'
fees and expenses.  The Delaware Court of Chancery denied an
injunction against the tender offer and CONSOL Energy acquired all
of the outstanding shares of CNX Gas.  The Delaware Court of
Chancery certified to the Delaware Supreme Court the question of
what standard should be applied to the tender offer, which would
determine whether the shareholders can proceed with a damage
claim. The Delaware Supreme Court declined to accept the appeal
pending a final judgment.


CONSOL Energy: Continues to Defend Virginia Suit by Gas Owners
--------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. continues to defend itself from a class action
lawsuit filed in Virginia, 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.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010
in U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia, styled Hale v. CNX
Gas Company LLC et. al.  The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff
class consists of oil and gas owners, that the Virginia Supreme
Court has decided that coalbed methane (CBM) belongs to the owner
of the oil and gas estate, that the Virginia Gas and Oil Act of
1990 unconstitutionally allows forced pooling of CBM, that the Act
unconstitutionally provides only a 1/8 royalty to CBM owners for
gas produced under the forced pooling orders, and that the Company
only relied upon control of the coal estate in force pooling the
CBM notwithstanding the Virginia Supreme Court decision holding
that if only the coal estate is controlled, the CBM is not thereby
controlled.

The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of ownership of the CBM
and that the entire net proceeds of CBM production, i.e. the 1/8
royalty and the 7/8 of net revenues since production began, be
distributed to the class members.


CORBIS CORP: Sued for Illegally Selling Licenses to Use Images
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that singer-actress Shirley Jones
filed a federal class action against Corbis, claiming it sells
licenses to use her name and image, and others' names and images,
on the Internet without consent.

A copy of the Complaint in Jones v. Corbis Corporation, Case No.
10-cv-08668 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/15/JonesvCorbis.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur S. Gold, Esq.
          GOLD & COULSON
          11 S. LaSalle St., Suite 2402
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 372-0777
          E-mail: asg@gcjustice.com

               - and -

          Grant A. Carlson, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN, ENRIQUEZ, & CARLSON, LLP
          433 N. Camden Drive, Suite 965
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 273-0777
          E-mail: gcarlson@go4law.com

               - and -

          Jay B. Ross, Esq.
          JAY B. ROSS & ASSOCIATES
          838 West Grand Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60622
          Telephone: (312) 633-9000

               - and -

          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT G. KLEIN
          555 West Fifth Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90013-1010
          Telephone: (213) 996-8508


CORVEL CORP: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement in Illinois Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement agreement entered between Corvel Corporation and
Kathleen Roche in a putative class action is subject to final
approval by a federal court, according to the company's
November 2, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

In February 2005, Kathleen Roche, D.C., as plaintiff, filed a
putative class action in Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial
District, St. Clair County, Illinois, against the company.  The
case sought unspecified damages based on the company's alleged
failure to direct patients to medical providers who were members
of the CorVel CorCare PPO network and also alleged that the
Company used biased and arbitrary computer software to review
medical providers' bills.

On October 29, 2010, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement providing for the payment of $2.1 million to class
members and up to an additional $700,000 for attorneys' fees and
expenses.

The company denies that its conduct was improper in any way and
has denied all liability.  The final settlement agreement must
receive final approval by the Circuit Court before it becomes
effective.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Believes Hertz Merger-Related Suits Now Moot
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. disclosed in its November 2,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, that the
class action complaints relating to the proposed merger
transaction with Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., are now moot since
the agreement has been terminated.

On April 25, 2010, Dollar Thrifty, Hertz and HDTMS, Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Hertz, entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger providing for Hertz to acquire the Company.  On October 1,
2010, Hertz notified the Company that it had terminated the Merger
Agreement.

The complaints allege that the consideration Dollar Thrifty
stockholders would have received in connection with the proposed
transaction with Hertz was inadequate and that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders in
negotiating and approving the Merger Agreement.  These complaints
also allege that the proxy materials that were sent to the
Company's stockholders to approve the Merger Agreement are
materially false and misleading.

The cases and their current status are:

   (1) Henzel v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., et al.
       (Consolidated Case No. CJ-2010-02761, Dist. Ct. Tulsa
       County, Oklahoma) -- the hearing on the Company's motion
       for reconsideration of the Company's motion to dismiss was
       set for September 28, 2010, but the parties agreed that it
       would not go forward on that day and no new date for the
       hearing has yet been set;

   (2) In Re: Dollar Thrifty Shareholder Litigation (Consolidated
       Case No. 5458-VCS, Delaware Court of Chancery) -- the Court
       denied the motion for preliminary injunction on Sept. 8,
       2010; and

   (3) Rice v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., et al.
       (Consolidated Case No. 10-CV-0294-CVE-FHM, U.S. Dist. Ct.
       for the Northern Dist. of Oklahoma) -- the parties filed a
       stipulation of dismissal of this action on October 15,
       2010, and the court has dismissed the action.

The Company believes that these complaints are without merit and
have been rendered moot as a result of the termination of the
Merger Agreement.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Appeal of Colorado Consumer Act Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal of a dismissed lawsuit filed against Dollar
Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., in Colorado, is still pending,
according to the Company's November 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

Dollar Thrifty is a defendant in several class action lawsuits in
California and one in Colorado.

The California lawsuits allege that the pass through of the
California trade and tourism commission and airport concession
fees violate antitrust laws and various other rights and laws by
compelling out-of-state visitors to subsidize the passenger car
rental tourism assessment program.  The Colorado lawsuit alleges
violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

The lawsuit in Colorado was dismissed in July 2010, and the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on August 19, 2010.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend these matters.


DR PEPPER: Sued for Violations of False Advertising Law
-------------------------------------------------------
Julia Meaunrit, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-05153
(N.D. Calif. November 12, 2010), accuses the flavored beverages
producer of making false and misleading statements about the
health benefits of the "Snapple Acai Mixed Berry Red Tea Immunity"
in its advertising and labeling of the product, in violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False
Advertising Law, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

According to the Complaint, Snapple has established no competent
and reliable scientific evidence to support its claim that the use
of the product would help support a healthy immune system.  As a
result of these false representations, Ms. Meaunrit says she and
other purchasers of the product suffered injury in fact and have
lost money.

The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury and is represented by:

          Howard W. Rubinstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN
          P.O. Box 4839
          Aspen, CO 81612
          Telephone: (832) 715-2788
          E-mail: howardr@pdq.net

               - and -

          Howard M. Hewell, Esq.
          HEWELL LAW FIRM
          105 West F Street, Second Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 235-6854
          E-mail: hmhewell@hewell-lawfirm.com


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Reports Conclusion of Calif. Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
E*Trade Financial Corporation relates that a state class action
filed in California is concluded, according to the company's
November 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

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

On February 7, 2008, class certification was granted and the class
defined to consist of (1) all persons in California who received
telephone calls from the Company and whose calls were recorded
without their consent within three years of October 11, 2006, and
(2) all persons who made calls from California to the Beverly
Hills branch of the Company on August 8, 2006.  Plaintiffs sought
to recover unspecified monetary damages plus injunctive relief,
including punitive and exemplary damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.

On October 16, 2009, the court granted final approval of the
parties' proposed settlement agreement.  Objectors to the court's
order granting final approval of the parties' settlement agreement
filed notices of appeal which were subsequently dismissed on
January 26, 2010.  The Company paid the settlement amount to the
Claims Administrator on March 5, 2010.  Administration of the
settlement was completed in August 2010 and the action is now
concluded.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Securities Suit Still Pending in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
E*Trade Financial Corporation remains a defendant in a class
action over alleged violations of the federal securities laws,
according to the company's November 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On October 2, 2007, a class action complaint alleging violations
of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and its then Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, Mitchell H. Caplan and Robert J. Simmons by Larry
Freudenberg on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated.  On July 17, 2008, the trial court consolidated this
action with four other purported class actions, all of which were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and which were based on the same facts and
circumstances.

On January 16, 2009, plaintiffs served their consolidated amended
class action complaint in which they also named Dennis Webb, the
company's former Capital Markets Division President, as a
defendant.  Plaintiffs contend, among other things, that the value
of the company's stock between April 19, 2006 and November 9, 2007
was artificially inflated because defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that the
Company was experiencing a rise in delinquency rates in its
mortgage and home equity portfolios; failed to timely record an
impairment on its mortgage and home equity portfolios; materially
overvalued its securities portfolio, which included assets backed
by mortgages; and based on the foregoing, lacked a reasonable
basis for the positive statements made about the company's
earnings and prospects.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages in an amount to be proven at
trial, including interest and attorneys' fees and costs.
Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on April 2, 2009, and
briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss was completed on August
31, 2009.  On May 11, 2010, the Court issued an order denying
defendants' motion to dismiss.  The company filed an Answer to the
Complaint on June 25, 2010.  Discovery is expected to continue
until June 17, 2011.

The company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Awaits Dismissal of "Oughtred" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
E*Trade Financial Corporation continues to await a decision on its
request to dismiss a class action filed by John W. Oughtred,
according to the company's November 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On April 2, 2008, a class action complaint alleging violations of
the federal securities laws was filed by Mr. Oughtred on his own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company.  Plaintiff contends, among other things, that
the company committed various sales practice violations in the
sale of certain auction rate securities to investors between
April 2, 2003, and February 13, 2008 by allegedly misrepresenting
that these securities were highly liquid and safe investments for
short term investing.

On December 18, 2008, plaintiffs filed their first amended class
action complaint.  Defendants filed their pending motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint on February 5, 2009, and
briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss was completed on April
15, 2009.  Plaintiffs seek to recover damages in an amount to be
proven at trial, or, in the alternative, rescission of auction
rate securities purchases, plus interest and attorney's fees and
costs.  On March 18, 2010, the District Court dismissed the
complaint without prejudice.  On April 22, 2010, Plaintiffs
amended their complaint.

The company has moved to dismiss the amended complaint.  Decision
on this motion is pending.  The Company intends to continue to
vigorously defend itself against the claims raised in this action.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Initial Discovery in Calif. Suit to End March 6
------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court set March 6, 2011, as the date on which the
initial phase of discovery will conclude in a California class
action against E*Trade Securities LLC, according to E*Trade
Financial Corporation's November 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On February 3, 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against E*TRADE Securities LLC by Joseph Roling on his
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The
lead plaintiff alleges that E*TRADE Securities LLC unlawfully
charged and collected certain account activity fees from its
customers.  Claimant, on behalf of himself and the putative class,
asserts breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of
California Civil Code Section 1671 and seeks equitable and
injunctive relief for alleged illegal, unfair and fraudulent
practices under California's Unfair Competition Law, California
Business and Professional Code Section 17200 et seq.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, certification of the
class action on behalf of alleged similarly situated plaintiffs,
unspecified damages and restitution of amounts allegedly
wrongfully collected by E*TRADE Securities LLC, attorneys fees and
expenses and injunctive relief.  The company moved to transfer
venue on the case to the Southern District of New York; that
motion was denied. The court granted E*TRADE's motion to dismiss
in part and denied the motion to dismiss in part.

The Court bifurcated discovery to permit initial discovery on
individual claims and class certification.  Discovery on the
merits will not commence unless a class is certified.  The Court
set March 6, 2011, as the date on which the initial phase of
discovery will conclude.

The company intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims
raised in this action.


ENCORE CAPITAL: Sued for Robo-Signing Default Judgments
-------------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that a Bellevue
law firm works with collection agencies to mislead courts and
consumers by using "robo-signers" in Minnesota who sign up to 400
affidavits a day, falsely swearing they have "personal knowledge"
of cases in Washington state, to secure speedy default judgments,
according to a federal class action.

The class claims that Encore Capital Group, Midland Funding, and
Midland Credit Management work with the Suttell & Hammer law firm,
faxing a boilerplate form to a "legal specialist" in Minnesota,
who signs the affidavit before any supporting documents are
attached.

"Encore Capitol Group ('Encore Capitol') has developed a
proprietary, sophisticated, 'system driven' collection process
based on the 'predictive behavior' of consumers (and state
courts).  In conjunction with its subsidiaries and 'franchisee'
law firms (including the Suttell Law Firm) it engages in computer
automated, high volume, state court litigation in the collection
of distressed debt (purchased at pennies on the dollar).

"That predictive behavior results in a very high default rate of
judgments of unproven cases or for inflated amounts: 1) because
the filing of the collection lawsuit by an attorney implicitly
misrepresents that the attorney has had meaningful involvement in
developing and evaluation of the case against the consumer-debtor,
2) because consumer-debtors frequently default if it is made to
appear that a creditor, represented by an attorney rather than a
collection agency has sued them, and 3) because that state courts
reviewing high volume filings of defaults and summary judgments
will enter judgments if it appears on the surface that
documentation supporting the debt has been properly attached to
the default or summary judgment package.  The debt collectors
collecting purchased distressed debt have a significant hurdle to
overcome in the collection of large portfolios of distress debt
(much of it aged) using the state courts.  Due to the nature of
the purchased distressed debt, the high volumes, and automation
the defendants are unable to meet the requirements of the rules of
evidence of providing proof of the records of the debt without
misleading the state courts and consumer debtors.

"Instead of providing actual admissible evidence of the proof
required in a breach of contract lawsuit, the Encore defendants
(with the knowledge of the Suttell attorney defendants) hire
collection agency employees as 'Robo-signers,' according to the
complaint.  "The Robo-signers sign several hundred affidavits a
day falsely claiming that they are a business records custodian
with personal knowledge of the facts.  They falsely claim in the
affidavit knowledge of the assignment(s) of the debt, the amount
of the debt, the interest rate, the default of the debt, the
alleged credit card terms and conditions, and the record keeping
procedures of every bank in America.

"It is made to appear to the state court judges that the debt
records filed with the court were attached to the affidavit by the
affiant.  This is not true.  The affidavits are signed in
Minnesota by a Midland Credit Management (a licensed collection
agency) employee.  Only the two (2) page affidavit is shipped to
the Suttell Law Firm in Bellevue Washington.  A non-attorney
Suttell employee sometime later, as needed, selects and attaches
documents to the 'business records affidavit' to send to the court
for filing whenever a default or summary judgment motion is
required.  The court is lead to believe that the affiant has
authenticated and established the reliability of the records but
the affiant does not even know what records will be later attached
to the affidavit by the Suttell employees."

The complaint adds: "The affidavit is printed on a printer at the
desk of a randomly selected MCMI employee, employed in St. Cloud,
Minnesota.  The person selected to sign the affidavit is based
upon when the affidavit comes off the printer and which printer
rather than any personal knowledge of the affiant of the account
being collected."

The class claims that each "legal specialist" signs 100 to 400
affidavits a day.  One specialist who swore she had personal
knowledge that "the plaintiff's predecessor in interest sold and
assigned all right, title and interest" did not "have any personal
knowledge of who the plaintiff, Midland Funding LLC's predecessor
in interest was or even know what a 'predecessor in interest' was,
nor what it means to have 'sold and assign all right title and
interest,'" according to the complaint.

The class claims that Encore developed its business using a
sophisticated process that predicts the behavior of consumers.

Defendant Midland Funding is wholly owned by defendant Midland
Portfolio Service, which is owned by defendant Midland Credit
Management, which is owned by defendant Encore Capitol Group,
which is a publicly owned corporation that trades on the NASDAQ
under the symbol ECPG, according to the complaint.  All work out
of the same address in San Diego.

Defendants are Mark Case, Malisa Gurule, Karen Hammer, Isaac
Hammer and William Suttell are all attorneys in Washington state,
and all are employees of Suttell & Hammer, the complaint states.

The class claims false affidavits were "served and filed in
thousands of cases," in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, the Washington Consumer Protection Act and the
Washington Collection Agency Act.

The class seeks treble damages, disgorgement of interest, service
charges, attorneys' fees, collection costs, delinquency charges or
any other fees collected by the defendants, and injunctive relief.

A copy of the Complaint in Lauber, et al. v. Encore Capital Group
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-05132 (E.D. Wash.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/15/Encore.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael D. Kinkley, Esq.
          Scott M. Kinkley, Esq.
          MICHAEL D. KINKLEY, P.S.
          4407 N. Division, Suite 914
          Spokane, WA 99207
          Telephone: (509) 484-5611
          E-mail: mkinkley@qwestoffice.net
                  skinkley@qwestoffice.net

               - and -

          Kirk D. Miller, Esq.
          KIRK D. MILLER, P.S.
          209 E. Sprague Ave.
          Spokane, WA 99202
          Telephone: (509) 413-1494
          E-mail: kmiller@millerlawspokane.com


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Reports Updates on 13 Insurance-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc., disclosed in its November 2,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, updates with
respect 13 putative class actions filed against it and its
affiliates.

The 13 putative class actions, filed in February 2008, were
commenced against several title insurance companies, including
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, Chicago Title Insurance
Company, Security Union Title Insurance Company, Alamo Title
Insurance Company, Ticor Title Insurance Company of Florida,
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, LandAmerica New Jersey
Title Insurance Company (now Continental Title Insurance Company),
Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, Transnation Title Insurance
Company (which merged into Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation),
and Ticor Title Insurance Company -- the "Fidelity Affiliates".

The complaints also name Fidelity National Financial, Inc., as a
defendant based on its ownership of the Fidelity Affiliates.

The complaints, which are brought on behalf of a putative class of
consumers who purchased title insurance in New York, allege that
the defendants conspired to inflate rates for title insurance
through the Title Insurance Rate Service Association, Inc., a New
York State-approved rate service organization which is also named
as a defendant.

Each of the complaints asserts a cause of action under the Sherman
Act and several of the complaints include claims under the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act as well as New York State
statutory and common law claims.  The complaints seek monetary
damages, including treble damages, as well as injunctive relief.
Subsequently, similar complaints were filed in many federal
courts.

A motion was filed before the Multidistrict Litigation Panel to
consolidate or coordinate these actions in the United States
District Court in the Southern District of New York.  However,
that motion was denied.  Where there are multiple cases in one
state, they have been consolidated before one district court judge
in each state and scheduled for the filing of consolidated
complaints and motion practice.

In 2009, the complaints filed in Texas and New York were dismissed
with prejudice, but the plaintiffs appealed.  On appeal, both the
Fifth and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of the complaints.  In October 2010, the U.S. Supreme
Court denied review in both cases.  A count of the complaint
alleging RESPA violations in New York remains; however, Fidelity
believes it is meritless and anticipate that it will be dismissed
on a motion that was orally argued on October 15, 2010.  The court
heard the oral argument and has taken the matter under submission.
The judge has not indicated how he would rule on the motion.

The complaints in Arkansas and Washington were dismissed with
leave to amend, but the plaintiffs have not amended.

The complaint in California was dismissed with leave to amend, the
plaintiffs have amended, and the companies have moved to dismiss
the amended complaint and the court denied the motion.  The
companies moved to appeal from the interlocutory denial of the
motion to dismiss and the motion was granted by the District
Court.  The companies filed a petition in the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals for review of the interlocutory order, but that
petition was denied.  The parties are engaged in discovery.

The complaint in Delaware was dismissed, but the plaintiffs were
permitted to amend to state a claim for injunctive relief.  The
plaintiffs amended, and the defendants have moved to dismiss the
amended complaint, and that motion was granted, but plaintiffs
appealed.

The damage claims in the Pennsylvania cases were dismissed, but
the plaintiffs were permitted to pursue injunctive relief.  The
plaintiffs were permitted limited discovery.  The defendants filed
a motion for summary judgment on March 22, 2010.

The Ohio complaint was dismissed on March 31, 2010, but plaintiffs
appealed.

In New Jersey, Fidelity's motion to dismiss the amended complaint
was granted, but plaintiffs appealed.

In West Virginia, the case has been placed on the inactive list
pending the resolution of the Chapter 11 filing by LandAmerica.

The complaints filed in Florida and Massachusetts were all
voluntarily dismissed.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Unit Continues to Defend Against Missouri Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed against an affiliate of Fidelity National
Financial, Inc., alleging overcharging of government recording
fees remains pending in Missouri, according to the Company's
November 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

There are class actions pending against Fidelity National
Financial, Inc., Fidelity National Title Group and several title
insurance companies, including Fidelity National Title Insurance
Company, Chicago Title Insurance Company, Lawyers Title Insurance
Corporation, Transnation Title Insurance Company, United Title
Company, Inc., and Ticor Title Insurance Company, alleging
overcharges for government recording fees.

These cases allege that the named defendant companies charged fees
in excess of the fees charged by government entities in closing
transactions and charged for documents releasing encumbrances that
were never recorded by Fidelity.  These suits seek various
remedies including compensatory damages, prejudgment interest,
punitive damages and attorney's fees.

One case filed in Missouri in the summer of 2008 but removed to
the Federal District Court in Missouri, seeks to certify a
national class against Chicago Title Insurance Company.

One of Fidelity's title insurance companies, Security Union
Title Insurance Company, merged into Chicago Title Insurance
Company on June 30, 2010.

Although the Federal District Court in Kansas refused to certify a
national class previously filed by the same plaintiff's attorneys,
this suit seeks to overcome that Court's objections to
certification.

In September 2009, Fidelity filed a motion to deny class
certification, and that motion was recently granted.  And,
although similar cases filed in Indiana were decertified by the
appellate court and trial court, the Missouri courts have refused
to decertify a case now pending, which has been assigned to a
judge.

On July 9, 2010, the Missouri court ordered Chicago Title to
perform an accounting for all Missouri class members to determine
the amount of the overcharges.

Fidelity says Chicago Title will vigorously challenge the order.
The most recent recording fee case was filed on January 26, 2009,
in New Jersey, and the parties are engaging in discovery.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Reconveyance Fee-Related Suits Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
There are class actions pending against Fidelity National
Financial, Inc.'s title insurance companies -- Fidelity National
Title Company, Fidelity National Title Company of Washington,
Inc., and Chicago Title Insurance Company -- alleging that the
named defendants in each case charged unnecessary reconveyance
fees without performing any separate service for those fees which
was not already included as a service for the "escrow fee."

Additionally, one of the cases alleges that the named defendants
wrongfully earned interest or other benefits on escrowed funds
from the time funds were deposited into escrow until any
disbursement checks cleared the account.

Motions for class certification were filed in both of these cases,
and Fidelity then moved for summary judgment in both cases and to
continue the briefing of the class certification motions until the
summary judgment motions were determined.

Both courts granted the motions to continue class certification
briefing until the summary judgment motions were determined and
those motions were fully briefed and submitted.

In one of the cases, the court granted summary judgment for the
defendants.  The other motion for summary judgment was partially
granted and denied.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and a
motion for class certification, which Fidelity opposed.

No updates were reported in the Company's November 2, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: California Suits on Fee Disputes Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Two lawsuits filed against affiliates of Fidelity National
Financial, Inc., in California state court remains pending,
according to the Company's November 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On February 26, 2010, two class actions alleging Fidelity National
Title Company and Chicago Title Company overcharged for notary
fees were filed in state court in California.  The companies have
answered and are engaged in discovery.

On May 28, 2010, a class action was filed in state court in
California against Fidelity National Title Company, Fidelity
National Title Company of California and Fidelity National Title
Insurance Company alleging that the companies charged more than
their filed rates for title and escrow services.

No updates were reported in the Company's November 2, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Suit Asserting Unfair Trade Practices Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed in state court in Hawaii against
Fidelity National Financial, Inc.'s affiliate, Fidelity National
Title Company, and Escrow of Hawaii, Inc., alleging that the
defendants wrongfully released funds from escrow thereby engaging
in unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of state
statute.

The suit seeks damages, treble damages, prejudgment interest,
attorney's fees and costs.

The Defendants have answered the complaint and are investigating
the allegations informally and through discovery.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Still Facing Lawsuits Over Unjust Enrichment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two class action complaints are pending in the Illinois state
court against Chicago Title Insurance Company, Ticor Title
Insurance Company, Chicago Title and Trust Company and Fidelity
National Financial, Inc. alleging the companies violated the
Illinois Title Insurance Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act
and have been unjustly enriched through the practice of paying
Illinois attorney's agency fees, according to the Company's
November 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The complaints allege the payments are in exchange for the
referral of business and the attorneys do not perform any "core
title services".

The motions to certify the classes were denied on May 26, 2009,
but the plaintiffs appealed.  The appeal was fully briefed and the
court heard oral arguments on February 25, 2010.

On April 15, 2010, the Illinois District Court of Appeal issued an
order reversing the lower court and directing that class
certification be granted.

The companies have petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court for
review of the decision.  The petition was denied.

The case will now be remanded to the trial court for entry of an
order certifying the class.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Units Reach Settlement of Calif. Labor Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Affiliates of Fidelity National Financial, Inc., reached a
preliminary settlement of labor-disputes embodied in two class
action lawsuits pending in California, according to the Company's
November 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The two affiliates are Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company
and Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, which merged into
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company on June 30, 2010.

On December 3, 2007, a former title officer in California filed a
putative class action suit against Lawyers Title Company, and
LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc.

The lawsuits were later amended to include Commonwealth Land Title
Company, Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation and Commonwealth Land
Title Insurance Company as defendants in the Superior Court of
California for Los Angeles County.

A similar putative class action was filed against the Defendants
by former escrow officers in California, in the same court on
December 12, 2007.

The plaintiffs' complaints in both lawsuits allege failure to pay
overtime and other related violations of the California Labor
Code, as well as unfair business practices under the California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200 on behalf of all
current and former California title and escrow officers.

The underlying basis for both lawsuits is an alleged
misclassification of title and escrow officers as "exempt"
employees for purposes of the California Labor Code, which
resulted in a failure to pay overtime and provide for required
meal and rest breaks.

Although the employees were reclassified as "non-exempt" beginning
on January 1, 2006, the complaints allege similar violations of
the California Labor Code even after that date for alleged "off-
the-clock" work.

The plaintiffs' complaints in both cases demand an unspecified
amount of back wages, statutory penalties, declaratory and
injunctive relief, punitive damages, interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

The plaintiffs did not file a motion for class certification, as
the parties have agreed to mediation.  The parties mediated the
case on April 28, 2010, and again on September 20, 2010.

The parties have reached a preliminary settlement, pending final
court approval.


FMC CORP: Awaits Final Approval of Indirect Purchaser Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation is awaiting final court approval of its settlement
of indirect purchaser class claims that cite antitrust law
violations, according to the Company's November 2, 2010 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In February 2005, putative direct and indirect purchaser class
action complaints were filed against six U.S. hydrogen peroxide
producers and certain of their foreign affiliates in various
federal courts alleging violations of antitrust laws.

In January 2009, FMC reached an agreement to settle with the
direct purchaser class for $10 million, with a pro rata credit for
opt outs.

Ten companies, predominantly paper producers, opted out of the
class settlement.  FMC settled with two of the ten companies for
an amount within the opt out credit.  The remaining eight opt outs
filed suit against FMC and, in some cases, FMC Foret, S.A.  These
cases were assigned to the same judge as the class action.

FMC's motion to dismiss the opt out claims to the extent they were
based on foreign purchases was granted on April 1, 2010.

FMC has settled the remaining claims of these eight opt outs for
$1.7 million, which is net of a $0.3 million opt out credit.

Another individual opt out case was dismissed following the
bankrupt opt out's decision to participate in the class
settlement.

FMC settled the indirect purchaser class claims for $0.25 million.
The settlement has been preliminarily approved by the Court.

All remaining state court cases will be dismissed following final
approval of the indirect purchaser settlement.


FMC CORP: Continues to Defend Canadian Purchasers' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010, that it continues to defend itself against class actions
commenced in Canada.

The putative class actions were filed against the six major U.S.
hydrogen peroxide producers, including FMC Corp., in provincial
courts in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia under the laws of
Canada.

Four of the defendants have settled their claims for a total of
approximately $20.5 million.

On September 28, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
certified a class of direct and indirect purchasers of hydrogen
peroxide.

FMC moved for leave to appeal the class certification decision,
which was denied in June 2010.

The Company says it intends to defend these cases.


GILLETTE CO: Agrees to Settle MDL 1704 for $7.5 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Gillette Company has agreed to settle In re M3Power Razor System
Marketing & Sales Practice Litigation, MDL No. 1704; Master Docket
No. 05-11177 (D. Mass.) (Woodlock, J.), which alleges
misrepresentations by Gillette in the marketing of shaving devices
between May 1, 2004, and Oct. 31, 2005, for $7.5 million.

Objections to the settlement and opt-out notices must be filed by
Mar. 4, 2011.  The Court has scheduled a hearing on Mar. 25, 2011,
to consider the fairness of the settlement.  Class members --
which does not include resellers -- must file their claims by
May 2, 2011.

The lawsuit challenges the accuracy of Gillette's advertisements
for the M3Power Razor.  Plaintiffs claim Gillette's advertisements
that the M3Power Razor "raises or stimulates hair up and away from
the skin" were false and misleading and violated consumer-related
laws in the USA and Canada.  In mid-2005, Gillette deleted those
representations from its ads. Gillette denies all the allegations
but has agreed to the proposed settlement to resolve this class
action.

The proposed settlement offers benefits (including cash refunds,
cash rebates, or a new Gillette manual men's razor) to persons in
the United States or Canada who purchased or otherwise acquired
for use and not resale an M3Power Razor in the United States
between May 1, 2004 and September 30, 2005, or in Canada between
May 1, 2004 and October 31, 2005, and who submit valid and timely
claims.

Additional information about the Settlement and Claims Process is
available at http://www.m3powersettlement.com/which is maintained
by Rust Consulting, Inc., which is serving as the Claims
Administrator.

The Plaintiff Class is represented by:

         Ben Barnow, Esq.
         Barnow and Associates, P.C.
         One North La Salle Street, Suite 4600
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: 312.621.2000
         Fax: 312.641.5504

              - and -

         Robert M. Rothman, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Telephone: 631.367.7100
         Telephone: 631.367.1173

Gillette Company is represented by:

         Harvey J. Wolkoff, Esq.
         Ropes & Gray LLP
         Prudential Tower
         800 Boylston Street
         Boston, MA 02199
         Telephone: 519.679.9660


GMAC MORTGAGE: Faces Class Suits Over Foreclosure Robo-Signing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports the
expected litigation frenzy against mortgage lenders that used
"robo-signing" tactics -- mass signing and approval of foreclosure
documents without verification -- has launched, with class actions
in Florida and Maine and a lawsuit by Ohio's attorney general
filed this month, all against GMAC Mortgage.

Other purported class actions involving robo-signing have been
filed in federal courts in Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland and New
Jersey in recent weeks.  Lawyers expect many more to follow.

Gary Mason, a partner at Washington-based Mason LLC who filed a
purported class action in the Middle District of Florida, predicts
that there will be a multidistrict litigation.  "I'm quite certain
that there will be enough lawsuits," Mason said.

"Courts are realizing that this has infected the integrity of the
judicial system and are more sympathetic to homeowners who are
challenging the foreclosure proceedings," Mr. Mason said.

The suit he filed, Huber v. GMAC LLC, claims that GMAC engaged in
"systematically fabricating evidence in the form of fraudulent
affidavits" in Florida foreclosure proceedings.  The plaintiffs
want the court to declare the affidavits null and void.
Geoffrey Huber and three other plaintiffs are named in the suit,
filed on Nov. 4.

Although he's sure there will be more cases, Mr. Mason said "it's
difficult to predict how a wrongful foreclosure action is going to
fare."  The cases seem to be trying on different legal claims, he
said.

The legal claims in the Huber case include violation of
constitutional rights under color of law, abuse of process,
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
and unclean hands.

"I don't think there's much precedent for many of the causes of
action being alleged, particularly not in the context of a class
action," Mr. Mason said.

The lawsuit in Maine, Archibald v. GMAC Mortgage was first filed
in state court then transferred to the District of Maine on
Nov. 4.  Steven Archibald and five other named plaintiffs sued
GMAC for "submitting false representations" regarding foreclosure
actions in Maine's state and federal courts.  The plaintiffs claim
GMAC employees never fully read the affidavits and certifications
they signed.

The Archibald plaintiffs claim that "robo-signing should lead to
cancellation of any summary judgment or any other kind of judgment
that was based on a false and fraudulent affidavit," said
Charles Delbaum, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law
Center.  The center is co-lead counsel on the case.

The legal claims in the Archibald case include violations of the
Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, abuse of process, fraud on the
court and breach of good faith and fair dealing.

The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary and final injunction
against GMAC foreclosures in Maine.  They also want the court to
order the company to meet the legal requirements for future
filings of mortgage paperwork.

"We're not contending the process couldn't be done again if in
fact the paperwork is available," Mr. Delbaum said.

Ohio's attorney general, Richard Cordray, has also gotten in on
the act.  He filed State of Ohio v. GMAC Mortgage in state court,
and it was removed to the Northern District of Ohio on Nov. 5.
The lawsuit claims that GMAC, its parent company Ally Financial
and GMAC Mortgage foreclosure team leader Jeffrey Stephan
committed fraud by signing and causing the filing of "hundreds of
false affidavits and assignment of notes," in Ohio courts.

Mr. Cordray is seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction
against GMAC and Ally to stop them from finishing foreclosures
with faulty affidavits.  He is also seeking actual damages for
consumers: civil penalties of $25,000 for each violation of the
state sales law, plus punitive damages.

"These so-called 'robo-signed' affidavits disrespect the courts
and the private property rights of homeowners," stated
Mr. Cordray, in a press release about the lawsuit.  "As we seek to
uncover the extent to which GMAC used such tactics, we are taking
this action . . . to make sure that these faulty affidavits are no
longer used in foreclosure proceedings."

Lawyers for GMAC either referred questions to the company or did
not respond to requests for comment.  Ally Financial also did not
respond to requests for comment.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Shareholder Securities Action Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., continues to defend
itself against a consolidated class action brought by shareholders
before a Connecticut court, according to the company's November 2,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In November and December 2008, following a decline in the share
price of the company's common stock, seven putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut on behalf of certain participants in the
company's Investment and Savings Plan (the "Plan"), which offers
the company's common stock as one of many investment options.

These lawsuits have been consolidated, and a consolidated amended
class-action complaint was filed on March 23, 2009, alleging that
the Company and certain of its officers and employees violated
ERISA by allowing the Plan's participants to invest in the
company's common stock and by failing to disclose to the Plan's
participants information about the company's financial condition.

The lawsuit seeks restitution or damages for losses arising from
the investment of the Plan's assets in the company's common stock
during the period from December 10, 2007 to the present.  In
January 2010, the district court denied the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

The company disputes the allegations and intends to defend this
action vigorously.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Continues to Face New York Securities Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., and its directors
remain defendants in a putative securities class action in New
York, according to the company's November 2, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The company and certain of its present or former officers are
defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York in March 2010.

The operative complaint, filed in October 2010, is brought on
behalf of persons who acquired Hartford common stock during the
period of July 28, 2008 through February 5, 2009, and alleges that
the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, by making false or misleading
statements during the alleged class period about the company's
valuation of certain asset-backed securities and its effect on the
company's capital position.

The Company disputes the allegations and intends to defend this
action vigorously.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Fair Credit" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2007, the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon gave final approval of The Hartford Financial
Services Group, Inc.'s settlement of a lawsuit brought on behalf
of a class of homeowners and automobile policy holders alleging
that the company willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
by failing to send appropriate notices to new customers whose
initial rates were higher than they would have been had the
customer had a more favorable credit report.

The Company paid approximately $84.3 to eligible claimants and
their counsel in connection with the settlement, and sought
reimbursement from the company's Excess Professional Liability
Insurance Program for the portion of the settlement in excess of
the company's $10 self-insured retention.  Certain insurance
carriers participating in that program disputed coverage for the
settlement, and one of the excess insurers commenced an
arbitration that resulted in an award in the company's favor and
payments to the Company of approximately $30.1, thereby exhausting
the primary and first-layer excess policies.

In June 2009, the second-layer excess carriers commenced an
arbitration to resolve the dispute over coverage for the remainder
of the amounts paid by the Company.  Management believes it is
probable that the company's coverage position ultimately will be
sustained.

No further updates were found in the company's November 2, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


INTEL CORP: Continues to Defend Against Antitrust Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous class suits on antitrust violations against Intel
Corporation are currently ongoing and the Company continues to
defend its interests in the matter, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 25, 2010.

At least 82 separate class actions have been filed in the U.S.
District Courts for the Northern District of California, Southern
District of California, District of Idaho, District of Nebraska,
District of New Mexico, District of Maine, and District of
Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and Tennessee
state courts against the Company.  The actions generally repeat
the allegations made in a now-settled lawsuit filed against Intel
by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. in June 2005 in United States
District Court for the District of Delaware.

Like the AMD lawsuit, the class action suits allege that Intel
engaged in various actions in violation of the Sherman Antitrust
Act and other laws, by, among other things:

   -- providing discounts and rebates to the company's
      manufacturer and distributor customers conditioned on
      exclusive or near exclusive dealing that allegedly unfairly
      interfered with AMD's ability to sell its microprocessors;

   -- interfering with certain AMD product launches; and

   -- interfering with AMD's participation in certain industry
      standards-setting groups.

The class actions allege various consumer injuries, including that
consumers in various states have been injured by paying higher
prices for computers containing Intel microprocessors.

All of the federal class actions and the Kansas and Tennessee
state court class actions have been consolidated by the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel to the District of Delaware, and
the Court has appointed a Special Master to address issues in the
litigation as assigned by the Court.

In January 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed a
motion for sanctions for the company's failure to preserve
evidence.  The motion largely copies a motion previously filed by
AMD in the AMD litigation, which has settled.  The putative class
in the coordinated actions also moved for certification of a class
of members who purchased certain personal computers containing
products sold by Intel.

On July 28, 2010, the Special Master issued a Report and
Recommendation (Class Report) denying the motion to certify a
class.  Thereafter, in August 2010, the Special Master approved a
stipulation among the parties that provides that all pending
motions in the matter would be withdrawn and that the plaintiffs
would file with the District Court their Objections to the Class
Report in October 2010.

The Company expects the briefing on the plaintiff's Objections to
be completed by the end of 2010.

All California class actions have been consolidated to the
Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County.  The
plaintiffs in the California actions have moved for class
certification, which the Company is in the process of opposing.

At Intel's request, the Court in the California actions has agreed
to delay ruling on the motion until after the Delaware District
Court rules on the similar motion in the coordinated actions.

The Company disputes the class action claims and intends to defend
the lawsuits vigorously.


INTEL CORP: Accused in California Suit of Not Paying Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Intel cheats workers on
overtime, a class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Subega v. Intel Corporation,
Case No. 10-cv-05025 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/15/Intel.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Salinas, Esq.
          Hunter Pyle, Esq.
          Pamela Kong, Esq.
          Jorge Aguilar, Esq.
          SUNDEEN SALINAS & PYLE
          428 13th Street, 8th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 663-9240
          E-mail: bob@ssrplaw.com
                  hpyle@ssrplaw.com
                  pkong@ssrplaw.com
                  jaguilar@ssrplaw.com

               - and -

          Adam Allen Arant, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ADAM ALLEN ARANT
          39111 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite 203
          Fremont, CA 94538
          Telephone: (510) 764-1544
          E-mail: aaa@arantlaw.com


INTERNET BRANDS: Faces Two Lawsuits Over Hellman & Friedman Merger
------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Brands, Inc., was sued by its stockholders as a result of
the Company's proposed merger with Hellman & Friedman Capital
Partners VI, L.P., disclosed the Company's November 2, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Internet Brands, its directors and control stockholder have been
named as defendants in two purported class actions filed on behalf
of the public stockholders of the Company challenging a proposed
transaction pursuant to which an affiliate of Hellman & Friedman
will acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company's common
stock for $13.35 per share in cash pursuant to the terms and
conditions of a merger agreement between the parties.

Specifically, Tandem Trading filed suit on October 7, 2010,
against the Company, Hellman & Friedman Capital Partners VI, L.P.,
Idealab, Howard Lee Morgan, Robert N. Brisco, Kenneth B. Gilman,
Marcia Goodstein, William Gross, Martin R. Melone, James R.
Ukropina, W. Allen Beasley -- the "Class Action Defendants", Micro
Holding Corp., and Micro Acquisition Corp., in the Superior Court
of Los Angeles County, California.

On October 13, 2010, John Norton filed suit against the Class
Action Defendants in the Court of Chancery in Delaware.

The complaints in these actions contain substantially similar
allegations.  Among other things, plaintiffs allege that the
director defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders in pursuing the proposed transaction,
including by accepting an unfair and inadequate acquisition price
and failing to take appropriate steps to maximize stockholder
value in connection with the sale of the Company.  Plaintiffs
seek, among other things, compensatory and other unspecified
damages.  Plaintiff in the Norton action also includes a request
that the proposed transaction be enjoined.

The defendants in each of these actions are actively contesting
these claims.


INVESCO LTD: Awaits Finality of Settlement of Maryland Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Invesco Ltd. is awaiting the finality of certain settlements
reached in several lawsuits, including a putative shareholder
class action, according to the company's November 2, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Following the industry-wide regulatory investigations in 2003 and
2004, multiple lawsuits based on market timing allegations were
filed against various parties affiliated with Invesco.  These
lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland, together with market timing lawsuits
brought against affiliates of other mutual fund companies, and on
September 29, 2004, three amended complaints were filed against
company-affiliated parties: (1) a putative shareholder class
action complaint brought on behalf of shareholders of AIM funds
formerly advised by Invesco Funds Group, Inc.; (2) a derivative
complaint purportedly brought on behalf of certain AIM funds and
the shareholders of such funds; and (3) an ERISA complaint
purportedly brought on behalf of participants in the company'
401(k) plan.  The company and plaintiffs have agreed to settle
these lawsuits.

The settlements call for a payment by the company of $9.8 million,
recorded in general and administrative expenses in the
Consolidated Statement of Income in 2007, in exchange for
dismissal with prejudice of all pending claims.  In addition,
under the terms of the settlements, the company may incur certain
costs in connection with providing notice of the proposed
settlements to affected shareholders.

Based on information currently available, it is not believed that
any such incremental notice costs will have any material effect on
the consolidated financial position or results of operations of
the company.  The court approved the settlements on October 21,
2010.  The settlements may be appealed prior to November 25, 2010.

Barring an appeal, the settlements would then become final.


KEATLEY SURVEYING: Ontario Land Surveyors File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports Ontario land surveyors say land
registry offices in the province are selling unauthorized copies
of their work, and they are seeking millions in damages.

A proposed class action has been filed in Ontario Superior Court
of Justice by Keatley Surveying Ltd. on behalf of all land
surveyors in Ontario.

The surveyors claim their drawings, maps, charts and plans that
were registered, deposited or filed in Ontario land registry
offices have been copied and sold without their consent.

The claim seeks $50 million in general damages, an injunction to
prevent future use of copyrighted material without permission, and
other damages from land registry operator Teranet Inc.

The surveyors claim unauthorized copies are being sold to the
public for a fee and they are receiving none of the proceeds.

They say this business model is based on selling unauthorized
copies for a profit and is in violation of the Copyright Act.

"The federal Copyright Act provides automatic protection for the
creator of drawings, maps, charts and plans," Keatley said Monday
in a release.

Teranet has "more than 900,000 unauthorized copies of surveyors'
works in its database," Keatley said in the statement of claim.

It goes on to say that the revenue from the sale of unauthorized
copies "exceeds $10 million per year."

Allegations made in the statement of claim have not been proven in
court.


KRAFT FOODS: Oscar Mayer Employees File Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports employees at the Oscar Mayer meat
processing plant in Davenport, Iowa, have filed a class action
lawsuit seeking compensation for time they spend putting on and
taking off their safety equipment.

The lawsuit claims employees are not paid while they don and doff
uniforms, safety footwear, hairnets, glasses and other equipment
before and after their shifts in violation of the law.

Four current employees are the plaintiffs in the case.  Their
attorneys are seeking to represent a class of 1,750 employees at
the plant, which processes pork, beef and poultry.

The lawsuit names Oscar Mayer's parent company, Northfield,
Ill.-based Kraft Foods Inc.

Kraft spokeswoman Rachel Larsen says the company believes it is in
full compliance with state and federal law.


MARSHALL & ILSLEY: Continues to Defend 2 ERISA Suits in Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2010, two substantially identical putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin against Marshall & Ilsley
Corporation, M&I Retirement Plan Investment Committee, and certain
of the Corporation's officers and directors.

The lawsuits were purportedly filed on behalf of M&I Retirement
Program, three other retirement savings plans and a class of
former and current participants in those plans, relating to the
holdings of Corporation common stock during the period from
November 10, 2006, to December 17, 2009.

The complaints allege breaches of fiduciary duties in violation of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act relating to
Corporation common stock being offered as an investment
alternative for participants in the retirement plans and seek
monetary damages.

The Corporation says it intends to vigorously defend these
lawsuits.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


MARSHALL & ILSLEY: Wisconsin Consumer Act Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2010, Marshall & Ilsley Corporation's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Marshall & Ilsley Bank, was named as a defendant in a
putative class action alleging that M&I Bank's posting of debit
card transactions is a breach of the implied obligation of good
faith and fair dealing, is a breach of the Wisconsin Consumer Act,
is unconscionable, constitutes conversion, and unjustly enriches
the Corporation.

The plaintiff alleges that the daily high to low postings of debit
card entries, rather than chronological postings, results in
excessive overdraft fees.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a
nationwide class for all of the claims except that involving the
Wisconsin Consumer Act, for which it seeks to represent a class of
Wisconsin customers of M&I Bank.

The lawsuit, while initially filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, has been transferred for
pretrial purposes in a multi-district litigation proceeding in the
Southern District of Florida, in which numerous other putative
class actions against financial institutions asserting similar
claims are pending.

The consolidation in the MDL is for pre-trial discovery and motion
proceedings.

M&I Bank says it intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


MASTERCARD INC: Appeal on Ruling Approving MDL Settlement Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal filed by several parties from a New York Court's
approval of MasterCard Incorporated's settlement of a multi-
district class action is still ongoing, according to the Company's
November 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International
Corp., several member banks including Citibank (South Dakota),
N.A., Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A. (USA),
MBNA, and Citicorp Diners Club Inc. are defendants in a number of
federal putative class actions that allege, among other things,
violations of federal antitrust laws based on the asserted one
percent currency conversion "fee."

Pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the federal complaints have been consolidated in MDL
No. 1409 before Judge William H. Pauley III in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In July 2006, MasterCard and the other defendants in the MDL
action entered into agreements settling the MDL action and related
matters.  Pursuant to the settlement agreements, MasterCard paid
approximately $72 million to be used for the defendants'
settlement fund to settle the MDL action.

In November 2006, Judge Pauley granted preliminary approval of the
settlement agreements, which were subject to both final approval
by Judge Pauley and resolution of all appeals.

Subsequently, in November 2006, the plaintiff in one of the New
York state court cases appealed the preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

In November 2009, Judge Pauley signed a Final Judgment and Order
of Dismissal granting final approval to the settlement agreements,
and subsequently the same plaintiff in the New York state cases
filed notice of appeal of final settlement approval in the MDL
action.

Within the time period for appeal in the MDL action, 12 other
notices of appeal were filed.  Subsequently, several plaintiffs
have requested to withdraw their appeals.

Briefing on the remaining appeals is ongoing.


MASTERCARD INC: Sherman Act Violation Lawsuit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2005, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a
group of merchants in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut
against MasterCard International Incorporated, Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
Visa International Service Association and a number of member
banks alleging, among other things, that MasterCard's and Visa's
purported setting of interchange fees violates Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, which prohibits contracts, combinations and
conspiracies that unreasonably restrain trade.

In addition, the complaint alleges MasterCard's and Visa's
purported tying and bundling of transaction fees also constitutes
a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The suit seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief.

Since the filing of this complaint, there have been approximately
50 similar complaints -- the majority of which are styled as class
actions, although a few complaints are on behalf of individual
plaintiffs -- filed on behalf of merchants against MasterCard and
Visa in federal courts in California, New York, Wisconsin,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky and Connecticut.

In October 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring these cases to Judge Gleeson of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for
coordination of pre-trial proceedings in MDL No. 1720.

In April 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a
First Amended Class Action Complaint.  Taken together, the claims
in the First Amended Class Action Complaint and in the complaints
brought on the behalf of the individual merchants are generally
brought under both Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 2 of
the Sherman Act, which prohibits monopolization and attempts or
conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry.

Specifically, the complaints contain some or all of these claims:

   (1) that MasterCard's and Visa's setting of interchange fees
       (for both credit and off-line debit transactions) violates
       Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

   (2) that MasterCard and Visa have enacted and enforced various
       rules, including the no surcharge rule and purported anti-
       steering rules, in violation of Section 1 or 2 of the
       Sherman Act;

   (3) that MasterCard's and Visa's purported bundling of the
       acceptance of premium credit cards to standard credit cards
       constitutes an unlawful tying arrangement; and

   (4) that MasterCard and Visa have unlawfully tied and bundled
       transaction fees.

In addition to the claims brought under federal antitrust law,
some of these complaints contain certain unfair competition law
claims under state law.  These interchange-related litigations
seek treble damages, as well as attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.

In June 2006, MasterCard answered the complaint and moved to
dismiss or, alternatively, moved to strike the pre-2004 damage
claims that were contained in the First Amended Class Action
Complaint and moved to dismiss the Section 2 claims that were
brought in the individual merchant complaints.

In January 2008, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs' pre-
2004 damage claims.  In May 2008, the court denied MasterCard's
motion to dismiss the Section 2 monopolization claims.  Fact
discovery has been proceeding and was generally completed by
November 2008.

Briefs have been submitted on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The court heard oral argument on the plaintiffs'
class certification motion in November 2009.  The parties are
awaiting a decision on the motion.

In January 2009, the class plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Class Action Complaint.  The allegations and claims in this
complaint generally mirror those in the first amended class action
complaint although plaintiffs have added additional claims brought
under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act against MasterCard, Visa
and a number of banks alleging, among other things, that the
networks and banks have continued to fix interchange fees
following each network's initial public offering.

In March 2009, MasterCard and the other defendants in the action
filed a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Class Action
Complaint in its entirety, or alternatively, to narrow the claims
in the complaint.  The parties have fully briefed the motion and
the court heard oral argument on the motion in November 2009.  The
parties are awaiting decisions on the motions.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


MASTERCARD INC: Enters Mediation to Resolve IPO Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated is involved in mediation talks with
plaintiffs of a lawsuit alleging violations of the Clayton act,
according to the Company's November 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

In July 2006, a group of purported class plaintiffs filed a
supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard Incorporated's
initial public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006
and certain purported agreements entered into between MasterCard
and its member financial institutions in connection with the IPO:

   (1) violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act because their effect
       allegedly may be to substantially lessen competition;

   (2) violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act because they allegedly
       constitute an unlawful combination in restraint of trade;
       and

   (3) constitute a fraudulent conveyance because the member banks
       are allegedly attempting to release without adequate
       consideration from the member banks MasterCard's right to
       assess the member banks for MasterCard's litigation
       liabilities in these interchange-related litigations and in
       other antitrust litigations pending against it.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and an order reversing and
unwinding the IPO.

In September 2006, MasterCard moved to dismiss all of the claims
contained in the supplemental complaint.

In November 2008, the district court granted MasterCard's motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' supplemental complaint in its entirety
with leave to file an amended complaint.

In January 2009, the class plaintiffs repled their complaint
directed at MasterCard's IPO by filing a First Amended
Supplemental Class Action Complaint.  The causes of action in the
complaint generally mirror those in the plaintiffs' original IPO-
related complaint although the plaintiffs have attempted to expand
their factual allegations based upon discovery that has been
garnered in the case.  The class plaintiffs seek treble damages
and injunctive relief including, but not limited to, an order
reversing and unwinding the IPO.

In March 2009, MasterCard filed a motion to dismiss the First
Amended Supplemental Class Action Complaint in its entirety.  The
parties have fully briefed the motion to dismiss and the court
heard oral argument on the motion in November 2009.  The parties
are awaiting a decision on the motion.

In July 2009, the class plaintiffs and individual plaintiffs
served confidential expert reports detailing the plaintiffs'
theories of liability and alleging damages in the tens of billions
of dollars.  The defendants served their expert reports in
December 2009 countering the plaintiffs' assertions of liability
and damages.

Briefing on dispositive motions, including summary judgment
motions, is currently scheduled to be completed in May 2011.

No trial date has been scheduled.  The parties have also entered
into court-recommended mediation.


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Removes "Buckland" Labor Suit to N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Buckland, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., et al.,
Case No. RG10535130(Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.) was filed on
September 7, 2010.  The Plaintiffs accuse the Maxim Healthcare,
which owns and operates home healthchare staffing agencies, travel
nurse and healthcare staffing agencies and government services
agencies throughout the United States, of nonpayment of overtime
wages and other labor code violations.

According to the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs were employed or formerly
employed by Defendant Maxim Healthcare as non-exempt employees in
the job position of "basic nurses" to provide in-home patient
care, health care services to government facilities, and travel
nurse services.

As this action involves a civil action in which the federal courts
have original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, Maxim
Healthcare on November 12, 2010, removed the lawsuit to the
Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned Case No.
10-cv-05145 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          Jason Kuller, Esq.
          THIERMAN LAW FIRM
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          E-mail: laborlawyer@pacbell.net
                  jkuller@callatg.com

               - and -

          Jennifer L. Hart, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JENNIFER L. HART
          1801 Century Park East, 24th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 903-0717
          E-mail: jhart@jhartlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rebecca D. Eisen, Esq.
          Rebecca Licht, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000


MAXIM INTEGRATED: Gets Court Approval of $173MM Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California court has granted final approval to Maxim Integrated
Products Inc.'s entry into a settlement of a class securities
suit, the Company disclosed in its November 1, 2010 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 25, 2010.

On February 6, 2008, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company, its former chief executive officer, now
deceased, and its former chief financial officer in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California alleging
claims under the federal securities laws based on certain alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in the Company's public
disclosures concerning its stock option accounting practices.

On May 15, 2008, the Court appointed the Cobb County Government
Employees Pension Plan, the DeKalb County Pension Plan and the
Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System as co-lead
plaintiffs.

On November 14, 2008, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint, which, among other things, added the Company's
former treasurer as a defendant.

On May 3, 2010, Lead Plaintiffs and the Company entered into a
memorandum of understanding reflecting an agreement in principle
to settle all claims asserted against all defendants in the
action, which provided for the payment of $173 million in cash by
the Company.

On June 18, 2010, Lead Plaintiffs and the Company entered into,
and Lead Plaintiffs filed with the Court, a formal stipulation of
settlement memorializing the agreement to settle all claims
against all defendants in the action.

On July 23, 2010, the Company paid the $173 million settlement
amount into an escrow fund in accordance with the terms of the
settlement.

On September 29, 2010, the Court issued its Final Order and
Judgment finally approving the settlement.


MEDCO HEALTH: Judgment Request for Two Gruer Cases Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In December 1997, a lawsuit captioned Gruer v. Merck-Medco Managed
Care, L.L.C. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Merck & Co., Inc. and Medco Health
Solutions, Inc.

The suit alleged that Medco Health should be treated as a
"fiduciary" under the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 and that the Company had breached fiduciary
obligations under ERISA in a variety of ways.

After the Gruer case was filed, a number of other cases were filed
in the same Court asserting similar claims.

In December 2002, Merck and the Company agreed to settle the Gruer
series of lawsuits on a class action basis for $42.5 million, and
agreed to certain business practice changes, to avoid the
significant cost and distraction of protracted litigation.

In September 2003, the Company paid $38.3 million to an escrow
account, representing the Company's portion, or 90%, of the
proposed settlement.  The release of claims under the settlement
applies to plans for which the Company administered a pharmacy
benefit at any time between December 17, 1994, and the date of
final approval.  It does not involve the release of any potential
antitrust claims.

In May 2004, the U.S. District Court granted final approval to the
settlement and a final judgment was entered in June 2004.

Various appeals were taken and in October 2007, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit overruled all but one objection to
the settlement that had been the subject of the appeals.

The appeals court vacated the lower court's approval of the
settlement in one respect, and remanded the case to the District
Court for further proceedings relating to the manner in which the
settlement funds should be allocated between self-funded and
insured plans.

Subsequently, a revised settlement that allocated a greater
percentage of the settlement funds to self-funded plans was
approved by the District Court.  Most of these settlement funds
were distributed to each plan in June 2010, and the remaining
funds will be distributed in the near future.

The plaintiffs in two actions in the Gruer series of cases,
Blumenthal v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C., et al., and United
Food and Commercial Workers Local Union No. 1529 and Employers
Health and Welfare Plan Trust v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc. and
Merck & Co., Inc., elected to opt out of the settlement.

In June 2010, the Company filed for summary judgment against both
of these plaintiffs.

The Company does not believe that it is a fiduciary under ERISA --
except in those instances in which it has expressly contracted to
act as a fiduciary for limited purposes --  and believes that its
business practices comply with all applicable laws and
regulations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 25, 2010.


MEDIACOM: Rigrodsky & Long Continues to Prosecute Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Monday disclosed that on July 29, 2010, the
Delaware Court of Chancery entered an Order of Consolidation and
Appointment of Lead Counsel appointing Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. as
Co-Lead Counsel in the class action lawsuit concerning the offer
by Mediacom Communications Corporation's Chief Executive Officer,
Rocco B. Commisso, to take the Company private.

A copy of the class action complaint and the Order are available
at http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/MediacomCommunicationsCorp

As court appointed Co-Lead Counsel, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
continues to prosecute the class action on behalf of Mediacom's
shareholders.

If you own the common stock of Mediacom, if you have information
or would like to learn more about these claims, or if you wish to
discuss these matters or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esquire or Noah R.
Wortman, Case Development Director, of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 919
N. Market Street, Suite 980, Wilmington, Delaware, by telephone at
(888) 969-4242, or by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and
Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class,
derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and
corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of
Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United
States.


MOTOROLA INC: ERISA Consolidated Suit Amended to Add Defendants
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint asserting ERISA claims against Motorola
Inc. was amended to include more defendants and to reduce the
class period, the Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 2, 2010.

Two purported class action lawsuits on behalf of all participants
in or beneficiaries of the Motorola 401(k) Plan between July 1,
2007 and the present and whose accounts included investments in
Motorola stock, Joe M. Groussman v. Motorola, Inc. et al. and
Angelo W. Orlando v. Motorola, Inc. et al., were filed against the
Company and certain current and former officers, directors, and
employees of the Company; the Motorola 401(k) Plan Committee; the
Advisory Committee of Motorola and other unnamed defendants on
February 10, 2010, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On May 20, 2010, the court ordered the cases to be consolidated.

On July 16, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  The amended complaint added as defendants additional
current and former employees, the Compensation and Leadership
Committee of Motorola, and the Motorola Retirement Benefits
Committee, and deleted the Advisory Committee of Motorola as a
defendant.  The amended complaint also reduced the class period to
run from July 1, 2007 to December 31, 2008.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of Sections
404 and 405 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.  The primary claims in the amended complaint are that, in
connection with alleged incorrect statements concerning Motorola's
financial projections and demand for Motorola phones during the
class period, various of the defendants:

   -- failed to prudently and loyally manage the Plan by
      continuing to offer Motorola stock as a Plan investment
      option;

   -- failed to provide complete and accurate information
      regarding the performance of Motorola stock to the Plan's
      participants and beneficiaries;

   -- failed to avoid conflicts of interest; and/or

   -- failed to monitor the Plan fiduciaries.

The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief
relating to the purported losses to the Plan and individual
participant accounts.

On October 7, 2010, the court dismissed the Retirement Benefits
Committee as a defendant.


MOTOROLA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola, Inc., continues to defend itself against a securities
class action case filed by the St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund, according to the company's
November 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 2, 2010.

A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of
Motorola securities between Dec. 6, 2007, and Jan. 22, 2008, St.
Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Fund v.
Motorola, Inc., et al., was filed against the company and certain
current and former officers and directors of the company on
Jan. 21, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as, in the case
of the individual defendants, the control person provisions of
the Securities Exchange Act.

The primary factual assertions in the complaint are that the
defendants knowingly or recklessly made materially misleading
statements concerning Motorola's financial projections and sales
demand for Motorola phones during the class period.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief relating
to the purported inflation in the price of Motorola shares during
the class period.

The suit is St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension
Trust Fund v. Moborola, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00427 (N.D.
Ill.).

No new developments occurred in the class action since the first
quarter of 2010.


NETEZZA CORP: Reaches Agreement to Settle Delaware Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Netezza Corporation reached an agreement to settle two class
actions filed by its stockholders in Delaware, according to the
company's November 1, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Netezza and its directors were named as defendants in four
putative class actions brought by Netezza stockholders.  The
first, which names IBM as an additional defendant, was filed on
September 21, 2010 in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, and is captioned Anthony Kolton v. Netezza Corporation,
et al., C.A. No. 5836.  The second, which names Netezza, certain
of its directors, certain of its officers, IBM and Onyx as
defendants, was filed on September 22, 2010 in the Middlesex
Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and is
captioned Adam Walker v. Netezza Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 10-
3583.  The third, which names Netezza, its directors and a former
director as defendants, is captioned Oklahoma Law Enforcement
Retirement System v. Netezza Corporation, et al., C.A. No., 1:10
cv 11644-JLT, and was filed on September 27, 2010 in the United
States District Court of the District of Massachusetts. The
fourth, which names Netezza, its directors, IBM and Onyx as
defendants, was filed on September 29, 2010 in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, and is captioned Erste-
Sparinvest KAG v. Netezza Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 5858.

The four actions, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
Netezza stockholders, generally allege that Netezza's directors
purportedly breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed merger by failing to maximize shareholder value and
obtain the best financial terms.  On October 5, 2010, the Erste-
Sparinvest KAG Delaware plaintiff amended its complaint to further
allege that Netezza failed to disclose material information
concerning the proposed merger.  All of the complaints include
requests for declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief,
including to enjoin Netezza and IBM from consummating the merger,
in addition to fees and costs.

On October 1, 2010, Netezza filed a motion to stay the proceedings
in the Massachusetts federal court Oklahoma Law Enforcement
Retirement System matter pending final judgment of the matters in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  On October 15,
2010, the plaintiff in the Massachusetts federal court action
advised the Court that it does not oppose Netezza's motion to
stay.

On October 4, 2010, both Netezza and IBM served motions to stay
the proceedings in the Massachusetts state court Walker matter
pending final judgment of the matters in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware.  On October 22, 2010, Netezza filed its
motion to stay with the Court, and notified the Court that no
opposition to the motion to stay had been received by Netezza
within the time allowed by the applicable rules for the
Massachusetts state court plaintiff to serve his opposition.  On
November 1, 2010, IBM filed its motion to stay with the Court, and
notified the Court that no opposition to the motion to stay had
been received by IBM within the time allowed by the applicable
rules for the Massachusetts state court plaintiff to serve his
opposition.

On October 6, 2010, the Erste-Sparinvest KAG Delaware plaintiff
filed a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion for
preliminary injunction.  On October 8, 2010, the plaintiffs in the
two Delaware actions submitted to the Court a proposed order
consolidating for all purposes their two actions in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (and advised the Court that the
defendants do not oppose consolidation).  The Court consolidated
these actions by Order dated October 18, 2010.  The consolidated
action is captioned In re Netezza Corporation Shareholder
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 5858-VCS, and the amended
complaint filed by the Erste-Sparinvest KAG plaintiff is the
operative complaint in the Consolidated Delaware Action.

In an effort to minimize the cost and expense of litigating such
lawsuits, on October 25, 2010, Netezza, the other defendants and
the plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to settle the
Consolidated Delaware Action.


NUTRACEA: Court Approves Securities Class Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
NutraCea disclosed that on October 27, 2010, the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona approved the
settlement of the securities class action lawsuit against NutraCea
and certain former officers and directors.  The order became final
and non-appealable on November 11, 2010.  The District Court for
the District of Arizona had previously approved the Stipulation on
October 4, 2010, and that order became final and non-appealable on
November 4, 2010.

Under the terms of the agreement, a settlement fund for class
members in the amount of $1.5 million will be paid by the
NutraCea's insurance company, plus 50% of any funds remaining in
the insurance policy after payment of all valid claims (including
legal fees), as long as there is $150,000 or more of funds
remaining in the policy.  Plaintiffs had been seeking damages
against NutraCea and certain former officers and directors for
alleged federal and Arizona state securities law violations.  The
settlement provides full and complete settlement for all claims
against all defendants.  Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation
and the approval received from the Bankruptcy Court, NutraCea has
no current or future payment obligation related to these
securities class action lawsuits.

W. John Short, Chairman and CEO, stated, "We are glad to put this
matter behind us.  The securities class action lawsuits filed
against NutraCea in early 2009 have been a distraction to a
management team who has been faced with enormous obstacles over
the past 18 months.  Further, these lawsuits resulted in
significant unrecoverable legal and other expenses required to
defend the charges filed in those suits.

With the final approval of this settlement, we can now turn our
full attention to the challenges and opportunities of building a
profitable and sustainable business for our shareholders and other
stakeholders."

                           About NutraCea

NutraCea -- http://www.NutraCea.com/-- claims to be a world
leader in production and utilization of stabilized rice bran.
NutraCea holds many patents for stabilized rice bran production
technology and proprietary products derived from SRB.  NutraCea's
proprietary technology enables the creation of food and nutrition
products to be unlocked from rice bran, normally a waste by-
product of standard rice processing.  NutraCea also produces
consumer Rice Bran health supplements which can be found at
http://www.nutraceaonline.com/


OCCAM NETWORKS: Being Sold to Calix for Too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Occam Networks is selling
itself too cheaply to Calix, for the equivalent of $7.75 per
share, in a cash and stock deal worth $171 million, shareholders
claim in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Kennedy, et al. v. Occam Networks,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-08665 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/15/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Vahn Alexander, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310-461-1426

              - and -

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Ave., Tenth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-983-9330

               - and -

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Rachelle R. Rickert, Esq.
          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Patrick H. Moran, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          Telephone: 619-239-4599
          E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com
                  manifold@whafh.com
                  moran@whafh.com


PMI GROUP: Court Sets Final Hearing on Settlement for Dec. 16
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court will consider final approval of a settlement
agreement in a consolidated securities class action against The
PMI Group, Inc., on December 16, 2010, according to the company's
November 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On July 13, 2010, lead plaintiff and defendants in the previously
disclosed consolidated securities class action captioned, In re
The PMI Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, agreed to a proposed
settlement of the class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased The PMI Group stock between November 2, 2006 through
March 3, 2008.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, defendant The PMI
Group, through its insurers, will pay $31,250,000 (inclusive of
attorneys' fees, administration costs, and costs of any kind
associated with the resolution of the action), and all claims
asserted in the lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice.  There
will be no contribution from any individual defendant.

The proposed settlement does not involve any admission of
wrongdoing or liability and The PMI Group and the individual
defendants will receive a full and complete release of all claims
asserted against them in the litigation.  Defendants will have the
option to terminate the settlement if 4% or more of the class
members or shares opt out of the settlement class.

On September 7, 2010, the Court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement.  This order also certified a class for
settlement purposes, provided for notice and administration of the
settlement, and scheduled a final approval hearing for the
settlement on December 16, 2010.


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Wage-and-Hour Class Action Suit on Remand
---------------------------------------------------------------
Westlaw News & Insight reports a defendant that failed to show
with "legal certainty" that the amount in controversy in a class
action met the minimum for federal court jurisdiction must
litigate the case in California state court, a federal judge has
ruled.

U.S. District Judge Garland Burrell of the Eastern District of
California rejected defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.'s
attempt to show that the amount in controversy met the $5 million
jurisdictional minimum under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005.

Progressive's evidence concerning class size and estimates of
unpaid overtime, waiting-time penalties, inaccurate wage
statements, statutory penalties and attorney fees was nothing more
than "speculation," Judge Burrell concluded.

He remanded the case to the Sacramento County Superior Court.

The two named plaintiffs in the suit, Chad Rhoades and Luis
Urbina, allege that over a period of four years they and other
insurance adjusters for Progressive did not receive overtime pay,
timely wages at termination and accurate itemized wage statements
as required by the California Labor Code.

They brought suit under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.A.
Sec. 1332.  CAFA expanded federal courts' jurisdiction to actions
where the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and the
proposed class includes citizens of a state different from the
defendants'.

Progressive removed the case to federal court, and the plaintiffs
moved to remand.  They argued that all their claims together did
not amount to the $5 million CAFA minimum and that their
individual claims did not meet the $75,000 minimum for federal
court jurisdiction.

Progressive countered that its "precise measurement" of the class
size was based on its human resources consultant and was therefore
accurate.  The company also claimed to have accurately calculated
the value of the claims in each of the subclasses based on its
payroll records.

Judge Burrell granted the remand motion based on Progressive's
"speculative" evidence on class size and the categories of damages
sought by the plaintiffs.

Progressive overestimated one subclass and failed to differentiate
between two classes of employees with respect to the amount of
recovery requested, the judge said.

He said the company ignored the allegations in the complaint that
limit the number of employees who potentially comprise the
overtime subclass.

"Defendant would have better tailored its estimate of the size of
the overtime class by addressing plaintiffs' specific allegations
with regard to the overtime subclass," the judge explained.

Next, Judge Burrell faulted Progressive for failing to provide
sufficient evidence in support of its argument that 544 class
members comprise the overtime subclass and that each of those
members worked 52 weeks a year.

"Absent more concrete evidence, it is nearly impossible to
estimate with any certainty the actual amount in controversy,"
he said.

The judge found the same evidentiary shortcomings with respect to
Progressive's figures for the class members who allegedly received
inaccurate wage statements.

The plaintiffs were represented by Michael Singer of Colehan
Khoury & Singer, San Diego.  Defense counsel was Alfred Sanderson,
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Sacramento, Calif.

Rhoades et al. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., No.
2:10-1788, 2010 WL 3958702 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2010).


R2C2 INC: Term Paper Web Site Operator Agrees to Pay $300,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
A notice posted at http://www.freeforessays.com/says that Rusty
R. Carroll and his business R2C2, Inc. acknowledge that on their
Term Paper Web sites they have offered others' works of authorship
without authorization; such works were submitted to their Web
sites by third parties.  Mr. Carroll and R2C2, Inc. acknowledge
that these actions constitute copyright infringement.  Mr. Carroll
and R2C2, Inc. sincerely apologize for any harm that was caused to
the authors of such works and the damage caused to academic
integrity as a whole.  Mr. Carroll and R2C2, Inc., have agreed to
permanently cease operations of all such Term Paper Web sites.

IF YOU AUTHORED OR OWN A COPYRIGHT IN AN ACADEMIC PAPER OR OTHER
WRITING, Your rights may be affected by a class action settlement
regarding the unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted
works on Web sites operated by Rusty Carroll and R2C2, Inc.,
including:

    -- doingmyhomework.com
    -- 123schoolwork.com
    -- learnessays.com
    -- freefortermpapers.com and
    -- freeforessays.com

Authors Chad Weidner and Karolien Walravens filed a class action
lawsuit against Rusty Carroll and R2C2, Inc., in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on October 6,
2006, alleging violations of the Copyright Act on behalf of
themselves and a class of individuals similarly situated.

What Does Settlement Provide?

The settlement, if court-approved, enjoins Defendants from
operating or participating in the ownership or operation of any
Web site that hosts works of authorship and provides for a
judgment in the amount of $300,000 against Defendants.  Plaintiffs
agree to stay the execution of the $300,000 judgment so long as
Defendants continue to comply with the terms of a permanent
injunction requiring the permanent shut down of all of Defendants'
Term Paper Web sites.  The settlement also provides that
Defendants pay $20,000 to be paid over the course of 7 years to
cover: (1) notice to class members of the settlement; (2)
reasonable attorneys' costs and expenses in bringing this lawsuit;
and (3) a $2,500 payment to each of the named class
representatives.

Who is Included?

The settlement class includes "all persons or entities who are the
owners of the materials offered to the public through Carroll's
Term Paper Web sites" except those individuals who both have the
legal authority to grant and who granted Defendants proper
authorization to use their materials.

What Should I Do?

You do not have the right to exclude yourself from the settlement
in this case.  The case was certified under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(1) as a "non-opt out" class action.  Therefore, you will be
bound by any judgments or orders that are entered in this Action
and, if the settlement is approved, you will be deemed to have
released Defendants Rusty Carroll and R2C2, Inc., from all claims
that were or could have been asserted in this case or otherwise
included in the release in the settlement, other than your right
to obtain the relief provided to you, if any, by the settlement.
Although you cannot opt out of the settlement agreement, you can
object to the settlement and ask the Court not to approve the
settlement in its current form.

The Court will hold a hearing in this case, Weidner, et al v.
Carroll, et al, Case No. 06-782-DRH-PMF, at 2:00 p.m., prevailing
Central Time, on January 20, 2011, to consider whether to approve
the settlement agreement.  You may ask to appear at the hearing,
but it is not required.


REWARDS NETWORK: Board Sued Over Sale to Equity Group
-----------------------------------------------------
Discovery Partners, on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated v. Ronald L. Blake, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-48639 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. November 10, 2010), accuses the board of
directors of Rewards Network Corporation of causing the Company to
enter into an agreement to sell all of the issued and outstanding
shares of the Company's common stock, via a tender offer of $13.75
per share in cash, to affiliates of Equity Group Investment, LLC,
in breach of their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders.

The lawsuit alleges that the sale agreement is not in the best
interest of the Company's shareholders, citing that the individual
defendants will collectively receive significant personal profits
as a result of the sale agreement.  Further, the lawsuit says that
the price to be paid for the Company grossly underestimates the
Company's intrinsic value and that the price to be paid by EGI is
at a significant discount to the Company's 52 week high of $15.32.

In addition, according to the Complaint, the sale agreement
includes preclusive deal protection devices that effectively
discourage other buyers from offering a superior price for the the
Company, including:

  -- a "Top-Up" Option which grants EGI an option to purchase at a
     price per share equal to the price pursuant to the sale
     agreement that number of additional shares sufficient to
     cause EGI to own one share more than 90% of the total
     outstanding shares of the Company, thus enabling EGI to
     effect a short-form merger without a shareholder vote;

  -- a Termination Fee of $2,180,000 plus reimbursement of EGI's
     expenses up to $750,000; and

  -- a No Solicitation Clause.

Rewards Network is a Delaware public traded corporation which
operates dining rewards programs in North America.

EGI is a private equity firm specializing in buyouts, distressed,
and turnaround investments in large companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leland E. Shalgos, Esq.
          2650 West 51st Street
          Chicago, IL 60632
          Telephone: (773) 925-1700

               - and -

          THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 952-0602


RINO INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Firms Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Monday disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the
common stock of RINO International Corporation during the period
from March 31, 2009 to November 11, 2010, inclusive, seeking to
recover damages for investors from violations of federal
securities laws.

To join the RINO class action, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip
Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.  The case is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE.  YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The Complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against RINO and certain of
its officers and directors for misrepresenting the Company's true
financial performance.  The Complaint alleges that contrary to the
Company's annual report filed with the SEC for fiscal 2009 which
reported $193 million of revenue, the Company's annual report
filed with the Chinese authorities reported only $11 million of
revenue for 2009.  This discrepancy, along with other accounting
inconsistencies, and questionable transactions between RINO and
its management, has raised red flags and prompted an internal
review.  The Complaint asserts that when the market learned of
this adverse information, the price of RINO stock dropped damaging
investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 11, 2010.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
          Telephone: 212-686-1060
          Toll Free: 866-767-3653
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


SANFORD BROWN: Judge Takes Class Certification Under Advisement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that after four hours of arguments, Madison County Circuit Judge
Daniel Stack asked attorneys for both sides in a class action suit
filed by former students against Sanford Brown Colleges for more
case law before he decides whether or not to certify the case.

Judge Stack is retiring next month.

While plaintiffs' attorney John Carey told Judge Stack that
Sanford Brown and its corporate parent were violating state law
and giving students "a worthless piece of paper," Sanford Brown's
attorney James Monafo III told the judge that the plaintiffs'
claims were too individual and unique for them to lead a class of
more than 2,000 Sanford Brown students.

Mr. Carey's clients, Jessica and Jenna Lilley, Cassandra Allen and
several others, propose to lead a class of up to 2,400 students
from the school's Collinsville campus who were enrolled in Sanford
Brown's medical assistants program from 2003 to the present.

The plaintiffs claim that Sanford Brown violated the Illinois
Private Business and Vocational Schools Act by not making
explanations required by law and skewing statistics about
graduates' jobs, salaries and other enrollment considerations.

Sanford Brown claims that the plaintiffs can't prove the school
caused any harm and suggested during Monday's arguments that
outside factors in the plaintiffs' lives accounted for their lack
of success.

Sanford Brown has also sued several of the plaintiffs over unpaid
tuition.

Mr. Carey argued that Sanford Brown systematically did not provide
the explanations required by law in order to "prey upon the
unsophisticated."

"They basically get a worthless program," Carey said. "This is
really a case about omission."

Mr. Carey argued that the plaintiffs and their claims met the
standards for class certification.

Mr. Carey's partner at the plaintiff's table, John Klamann of the
Klamann Law Firm in Kansas City, Mo., explained differences
between the Madison County class's claims and those filed by
individual plaintiffs in Missouri also against Sanford Brown.

Mr. Carey asked Judge Stack to certify the class.

Mr. Monafo took aim at the causation issues in the case, claiming
the plaintiffs couldn't be lumped together because each entered
the school's program for different reasons and under different
circumstances.

Mr. Monafo played several excerpts of depositions provided by
Cassandra Allen and others.

"This case is swamped with individual issues," Mr. Monafo said.
"This is putting lipstick on a pig, judge."

In those excerpts, the plaintiffs admitted they did not read
statistics forms about the medical assistants program provided by
the school.

The women also admitted differing reasons for enrolling at the
school.

Mr. Monafo went on to argue that even if the school had failed to
make the explanations required by law or tinkered with its
statistics, the plaintiffs could not prove what harm they came to.

Judge Stack, who admitted to knowing Cassandra Allen's
grandfather, took issue with Mr. Monafo's arguments about what
harm the school's alleged violations could have done.

"If someone had explained it to them, would it have changed their
attitude or what they did?" Judge Stack asked regarding the
plaintiffs' enrollment.  "How can you say someone enrolled for
something nobody told them about?"

Judge Stack asked several questions, at one point pounding his
fist on the bench for emphasis.

Following Mr. Monafo's arguments, Judge Stack questioned Mr. Carey
as to how the class would be shaped, assuming the plaintiffs'
could prove harm and lay out damages for what appeared to the
judge to be a diverse class.

At one point Judge Stack suggested they might have to be two
classes, one for those who graduated and one for those who didn't.

"I don't know how manageable that would be," Judge Stack said.

Mr. Carey countered that the act did not require his clients to
prove harm was caused, only that the school violated the Act.

Mr. Monafo disagreed.

Judge Stack expressed his doubts about the plaintiffs' theory
about causation but asked both parties for case law on the topic.

Judge Stack indicated he planned to rule well before his Dec. 3
retirement date.

The case is Madison case number 08-L-113


SAHARA DUNES: Accused in California Suit of Not Paying Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sahara Dunes Management dba
Lake Elsinore Hotel & Casino, and Lake Elsinore Resort stiff
workers for overtime and pay less than minimum wage, a class
action claims in Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in McArthur, et al. v. Sahara Dunes
Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 10021992 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Riverside Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/15/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq.
          Jason P. Fowler, Esq.
          Kitty Szeto, Esq.
          Douglas Han, Esq.
          R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
          42220 10th Street West, Suite 109
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949-2595

               - and -

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          Ghazaleh Hekmatjah, Esq.
          THE AIWAZIAN LAW FIRM
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020


SCHWEITZER-MAUDUIT: Securities Class Suit Still Pending in Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------------
Schweitzer-Mauduit International, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a class action commenced by the City of Pontiac General
Employees' Retirement System alleging that the company and its
officers' violated the Securities Act, according to the company's
November 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On March 31, 2010, the City of Pontiac General Employees"
Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, sued the company, its Chief Executive Officer,
Frederic P. Villoutreix, and its Chief Financial Officer, Peter J.
Thompson, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia for alleged violations of certain sections and
rules of the Securities Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs' identified a
putative class period covering August 5, 2009 to February 10,
2010.

The primary allegations of the suit contend that the defendants
misrepresented the strength of the company's competitive position
in the U.S. and its ability to withstand European competition,
particularly in the area of lower ignition propensity papers.
Further, the complaint alleges that the defendants concealed
threats to the company's relationship with Phillip Morris USA,
Inc.  As a consequence of these alleged misrepresentations or
omissions, the plaintiffs contend that the company's stock price
was artificially inflated causing the plaintiffs to be damaged in
an unspecified amount.

The court issued an order on August 26, 2010, appointing as co-
Lead Plaintiffs the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement
System and the Western Washington Laborers-Employers Pension
Trust.  Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd was appointed Lead Counsel.
Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint, which becomes
the operative complaint in the case going forward.

The company believes that the allegations are without merit as to
all defendants and intends to vigorously defend the matter as to
itself and its two officers.  The company believes the litigation
will not have a material adverse impact on its financial
condition.


SILICON GRAPHICS: Securities Class Suit in Calif. Is Terminated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Silicon Graphics International Corp. disclosed that lead
plaintiffs in a securities class action filed in California did
not appeal the dismissal of their lawsuit and thus the case is
terminated, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 24, 2010.

On January 16, 2009, the Company and certain of its former
officers were sued in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, in a matter captioned In Re
Rackable Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-09-0222-
CW. On April 16, 2009, the Court appointed Elroy Whittaker as Lead
Plaintiff and the Law Firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP as Lead
Plaintiff's Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint on June 15, 2009. The Amended Complaint asserts claims
for violations of (i) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and (ii) Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The allegations relate to the drops in the Company's
share price in early 2007 relating to its earnings reports for
2006 and Q4 2006.

On August 13, 2009, the Company and its former officers filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, which Lead Plaintiff
opposed. On January 13, 2010, the Court entered an order granting
the Motion to Dismiss, which dismissed the Amended Complaint with
leave to amend. On February 3, 2010, Lead Plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint asserting the same claims as the amended
complaint. On April 2, 2010, Lead Plaintiff filed a stipulated
proposed order requesting leave to file a supplemental second
amended complaint, which substituted new Lead Plaintiffs into the
action but otherwise did not change the allegations of the second
amended complaint. On April 5, 2010, the Court granted the
stipulated order and entered the supplemental second amended
complaint. On April 9, 2010, the Company and its former officers
filed a Motion to Dismiss the Supplemental Second Amended
Complaint. The Court granted the Motion to Dismiss and entered
judgment dismissing the action with prejudice on August 31, 2010.
Because Lead Plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal, the Court's
judgment is now final and the action is terminated.

Silicon Graphics International Corp., formerly Rackable Systems
Inc, -- http://www.sgi.com/-- incorporated in December 2002, is a
provider of servers, storage, and data center solutions targeting
data center deployments. The Company's products are designed to
provide benefits in the areas of density, power efficiency,
thermal management, ease of serviceability, and remote management.
Rackable Systems also offers control in component selection to
match the specific environmental and application requirements of
its customers. The Company bases its products on x86 platform,
such as processors from Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), Intel
Corporation (Intel), and operating systems, such as Linux and
Windows. On May 8, 2009, Rackable Systems completed the
acquisition of the operating assets of the former Silicon
Graphics, Inc. In February 2010, the Company acquired COPAN
Systems, Inc.


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Settles Securities Litigation for $3 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., reached a $3 million settlement of
a securities lawsuit filed in California, according to the
Company's November 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On July 24, 2009, a purported class action complaint captioned
Shepardson v. Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., et al., was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company, its chairman and chief executive officer, its
current chief financial officer, its former chief financial
officer, and investment banks that underwrote the Company's
initial public offering, on behalf of two classes of purchasers of
its securities.

On November 10, 2009, the District Court appointed lead plaintiffs
and co-lead counsel, re-captioned the action "In re Skilled
Healthcare Group Inc. Securities Litigation," and ordered that
lead plaintiffs file an amended class action complaint.

An amended class action complaint was filed on January 12, 2010,
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's Class A common stock
pursuant or traceable to the Company's initial public offering and
purchasers between May 14, 2007, and June 9, 2009, inclusive,
against the Company, its chairman and chief executive officer, its
president, its current chief financial officer, its former chief
financial officer, its largest stockholder and related entities,
and a director affiliated with that stockholder.

The amended class action complaint sought an unspecified amount of
damages (including rescissory damages), and asserted claims under
the federal securities laws relating to the Company's June 9, 2009
announcement that it would restate its financial statements for
the period from January 1, 2006, to March 31, 2009, and that the
restatement was likely to require cumulative charges against
after-tax earnings in the aggregate amount of between $8.0 million
and $9.0 million over the affected periods.

The complaint also alleged that the Company's registration
statement and prospectus, financial statements, and public
statements about its results of operations contained material
false and misleading statements.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended class action complaint on
March 15, 2010.

In September 2010, the parties reached a settlement in the amount
of $3.0 million.  The Company contributed the portion of its $1.0
million insurance retention that it had not incurred in legal fees
($0.5 million), and its insurance carriers contributed the balance
of the $3.0 million.


STEC INC: Hearing on Consolidated Suit Dismissal Set for Jan. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider dismissal of a consolidated class action
against Stec, Inc., has been set for January 10, 2011, according
the Company's November 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

From November 6, 2009, through March 2, 2010, seven purported
class action complaints were filed against the Company and several
of its senior officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.  The Court
consolidated these actions and appointed Lead Plaintiffs.  A
consolidated complaint was filed on April 9, 2010.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint on May 12, 2010.  On July 15, 2010, prior to hearing the
defendants' motion, the Court replaced the former Lead Plaintiffs
with a new Lead Plaintiff.  The new Lead Plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint on August 13, 2010, purportedly on
behalf of all persons and entities who acquired the Company's
common stock during the period of June 16, 2009, to February 23,
2010.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges claims against the
Company and several of its senior officers and directors for
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and claims against several of the
Company's senior officers and directors for violations of Section
20A and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In addition, the
consolidated amended complaint alleges claims against the Company,
several of its senior officers and directors, and four of its
underwriters for violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933; claims against the Company, several of its senior officers,
and one of its underwriters for violations of Section 12 (a)(2) of
the Securities Act; and claims against several of the Company's
senior officers and directors for violations of Section 15 of the
Securities Act.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks compensatory damages for
all damages sustained as a result of the defendants' alleged
actions including reasonable costs and expenses, rescission, and
other relief the Court may deem just and proper.

The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
on September 20, 2010, and a hearing is scheduled for January 10,
2011.

Stec Inc. believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself.


SYNGENTA CROP: Atrazine Class Action Lawsuit on Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports a
proposed class action suit filed six years ago over alleged water
contamination caused by the weed killer atrazine is on its way to
the appellate court in Mount Vernon.

Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder signed agreed upon
orders in the case filed against Syngenta Crop Protection Inc.
that certified questions for appeal from lead plaintiff Holiday
Shores Sanitary District.

Judge Crowder had certified questions from Syngenta and several
non-parties to the case earlier this month.

All of the questions relate to discovery requests made by Holiday
Shores to non-parties to the case including the Illinois Farm
Bureau, the Heartland Institute and chemical industry lobbying
groups.

Holiday Shores is leading several other Illinois municipalities
and water providers in six proposed class actions against Syngenta
and other companies that make or distribute atrazine.

The plaintiffs contend that atrazine runs off fields and into
drinking water supplies, contaminating them and leading to health
problems.

A nearly identical class action was filed by the plaintiffs'
attorneys, Stephen Tillery, Christie Deaton and others, earlier
this year in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.

It alleges nearly identical claims to the older Madison County
suits against Syngenta and its Switzerland-based parent.

The Syngenta defendants have moved to dismiss that suit and that
move is pending in the federal case.

Syngenta has unsuccessfully tried to have the Madison County suit
stayed or dismissed pending the outcome of the federal case.

Syngenta and the non-parties moved to quash the plaintiffs'
discovery requests in September and Judge Crowder heard arguments
on the matter last month.

Judge Crowder issued an order Oct. 29 limiting the discoverable
documents to those relating to Syngenta.

However, all sides took issue with what the order covered and
whether or not First Amendment protections trump parts of
Illinois' discovery rules.

Mr. Tillery and his team represent the plaintiffs in all of the
Madison County cases and the federal suit.

Kurtis Reeg represents Syngenta in all the cases.

Although Judge Crowder has overseen the latest disputes in the
Syngenta case, the case is technically under the oversight of
Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack until he retires Dec. 3.

Judge Stack also oversees the other atrazine suits.

The Syngenta atrazine case is Madison case number 04-L-710.

The atrazine cases are case numbers 04-L-708 to 04-L-713.


TENAHA: Plaintiffs' Lawyers in Traffic Class Suit in Mediation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donna McCollum, writing for KTRE.com, reports attorney Tim
Garrigan knows a class-action suit is a real gamble for everyone
involved.  Right before a judge could have announced his decision
on class-action certification, mediation came into the picture.

"The plaintiffs asked the judge to withhold ruling on the class
certification while this mediation process runs its course, to see
if the case can be settled," Mr. Garrigan said.

The parties have about 90 days to work matters out with the help
of a third party.  It's a complicated task concerning allegations
that Shelby County District Attorney Lynda K. Russell and numerous
city officials orchestrated illegal seizures of more than 140
motorists passing through Tenaha during a three-year period.  No
wonder the federal judge is encouraging mediation.

"Both parties have a real interest in trying to find a reasonable
grounds for settlement," Mr. Garrigan said.  "And that's where
this case sits right now."

Aside from the civil proceedings, defendants are targets in a
federal criminal investigation.  One more reason why a settlement
is in their best interest.

Mr. Garrigan knew from experience to expect a long legal battle.

"You don't enter into a class action without fully understanding
how complicated, how labor intensive it can be," Mr. Garrigan
said. "You don't do that sort of thing lightly."

His clients are learning as they go.

"They're very interested," Mr. Garrigan said.  "They're willing to
travel for the proceedings.  All that's very important in these
things."

It's still too early to determine if an agreement or a judge's
ruling will settle the matter.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Katrina-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation remains a defendant in three lawsuits
filed in late 2005 by and on behalf of patients, their family
members and others who were present and allegedly injured at two
of the company's former New Orleans area hospitals -- Memorial
Medical Center and Lindy Boggs Medical Center -- during Hurricane
Katrina and its aftermath.

The plaintiffs allege that the hospitals were negligent in failing
to properly prepare for the storm, failing to evacuate patients
ahead of the storm, and failing to have a properly configured
emergency generator system, among other allegations of general
negligence.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages in various and unspecified
amounts for the alleged wrongful death of some patients,
aggravation of pre-existing illnesses or injuries to patients who
survived and were successfully evacuated, and the inability of
patients and others to evacuate the hospitals for several days
under challenging conditions.

Class certification has been granted in two of the suits.

The class includes all persons at Memorial Medical Center between
August 29 and September 2, 2005, excluding employees, who
sustained injuries or died, as well as family members who
themselves sustained injury as a result of such injuries or deaths
to any person at Memorial, excluding employees, during that time.

The Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans will administer
the class proceedings; a trial of "bellwether plaintiff" claims
(which is a set of plaintiffs' claims deemed representative of
claims by all class members) is scheduled for March 2011, the
Company noted in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The class certification hearing in the remaining case, which was
also filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans,
has been postponed and not rescheduled at the request of the
plaintiffs' attorneys.

The Company noted in their SEC filing that they are unable to
predict the ultimate resolution of the lawsuits, but intend to
continue to vigorously defend the hospitals in the matters.


TEREX CORP: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Actions in Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corp. remains a defendant in four class action lawsuits
arising from the company's 401(k) and Retirement Savings Plan,
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.

The company has received complaints in a number of class action
lawsuits, which generally cover the period from February 2008 to
February 2009.  These lawsuits include four ERISA class action
lawsuits, three securities class action lawsuits, and one
stockholder derivative lawsuit.

The four ERISA class action lawsuits, all filed in the United
States District Court, District of Connecticut, have been
consolidated and an amended complaint was filed on September 20 by
Kenneth M. Lipman, Eddie Webb, Binyam Ghebreghiorgis, Scott
Hollander and Mark Caswell, individually and on behalf of the
Terex Corporation and Affiliates' 401(k) and Retirement Savings
Plan and all others similarly situated against Terex Corporation,
Ronald DeFeo, G. Chris Anderson, Paula H. J. Cholmondeley, Donald
DeFosset, William H. Fike, Thomas J. Hansen, Donald P. Jacobs,
David A. Sachs, Oren G. Shaffer, David C. Wang, Helge H. Wehmeier
and the Administrative Committee of the Terex Corporation and
Affiliates' 401(k) and Retirement Savings Plan.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that certain of the
company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false
and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class
when they purchased the company's securities and that there were
breaches of fiduciary duties and of ERISA disclosure requirements.
These actions are at the very early stages and the company has no
information other than as set forth in the complaints.

The complaints all seek, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages, costs and expenses.  The company believes
that the allegations in the suits are without merit, and Terex,
its directors and the named executives will vigorously defend
against them.  The company believes that it has acted, and
continues to act, in compliance with federal securities laws and
ERISA law with respect to these matters.


TEREX CORP: Securities Class Action Remains Pending in Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corp. continues to defend itself against a consolidated
securities stockholder class action in Connecticut, according to
the company's November 1, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

The Company has received complaints in a number of class action
lawsuits, which generally cover the period from February 2008 to
February 2009.  These lawsuits include four ERISA class action
lawsuits, three securities class action lawsuits, and one
stockholder derivative lawsuit.

The three securities class action complaints, all filed in the
United States District Court, District of Connecticut, are:

   * Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund, individually and
     on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex
     Corporation, Ronald M. DeFeo, Thomas J. Riordan and Phillip
     C. Widman, filed December 21, 2009;

   * Michael Glassman, Trustee on behalf of the Kathleen & Michael
     Glassman Family Trust, individually and on behalf of itself
     and all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation,
     Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman and Thomas J. Riordan,
     filed January 15, 2010; and

   * James C. Hays, individually and on behalf of himself and all
     others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, Ronald M.
     DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman and Thomas J. Riordan, filed
     February 5, 2010.

The securities class action complaints have been consolidated, but
the company has not yet received an amended complaint.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that certain of the
company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false
and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class
when they purchased the company's securities and that there were
breaches of fiduciary duties and of ERISA disclosure requirements.
These actions are at the very early stages and the Company has no
information other than as set forth in the complaints.

The complaints all seek, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages, costs and expenses.  The company believes
that the allegations in the suits are without merit, and Terex,
its directors and the named executives will vigorously defend
against them.  The company believes that it has acted, and
continues to act, in compliance with federal securities laws and
ERISA law with respect to these matters.


THEGLOBE.COM INC: Appeals on Suit Settlement Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Appeals on the settlement reached by TheGlobe.Com Inc. and certain
parties in about 300 coordinated cases are still pending,
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 and after August 3, 2001 six putative shareholder class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company, certain of its current
and former officers and directors, and several investment banks
that were the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering and secondary offering. The lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative
complaint, was filed in the Southern District of New York on
April 19, 2002.

The lawsuit purports to be a class action filed on behalf of
purchasers of the stock of the Company during the period from
November 12, 1998 through December 6, 2000. The purported class
action alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs allege that the
underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's
initial public offering and its secondary offering to certain
investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions
and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of
stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Plaintiffs
allege that the Prospectuses for the Company's initial public
offering and its secondary offering were false and misleading and
in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose
these arrangements. The action seeks damages in an unspecified
amount. On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the Individual
Defendants from the case without prejudice.  This dismissal
disposed of the Section 15 and 20(a) control person claims without
prejudice.

At the Court's request, plaintiffs selected six "focus" cases,
which do not include the Company.  The Court indicated that its
decisions in the six focus cases are intended to provide strong
guidance for the parties in the remaining cases.  On December 5,
2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a
decision by the District Court granting class certification in the
focus cases.  On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied a
petition for rehearing filed by plaintiffs, but noted that
plaintiffs could ask the District Court to certify more narrow
classes than those that were rejected.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
TheGlobe.Com, reached a settlement. The insurers for the issuer
defendants in the coordinated cases will make the settlement
payment on behalf of the issuers, including TheGlobe.Com.

On October 5, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement.  Objectors to the settlement filed six notices of
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit and one petition seeking permission to appeal.  Two
objectors to the settlement filed briefs in support of their
appeals.  Appellees have requested that the Court require
answering briefs to be filed by December 17, 2010.  The remaining
objectors withdrew their appeals with prejudice.


THEKKEK HEALTH: Sued in Calif. Over Inadequate Nursing Care
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Thekkek Health Services,
Sandhya, Kayal, Sagar and other corporations dba various nursing
homes fail to meet the state minimum requirements of 3.2 hours of
direct nursing care per day per patient, a class action claims in
Alameda County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Valentine v. Thekkek Health Services,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10546266 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/15/NursingHomes.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Arns, Esq.
          Jonathan E. Davis, Esq.
          THE ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 495-7800

               - and -

          Kathryn A. Stebner, Esq.
          Sarah Colby, Esq.
          STEBNER AND ASSOCIATES
          870 Market Street, Suite 1212
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 362-9800

               - and -

          Michael D. Thamer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D. THAMER
          Old Callahan School House
          12444 South Highway 3
          Post Office Box 1568
          Callahan, CA 96014-1568
          Telephone: (530) 467-5307

               - and -

          W. Timothy Needham, Esq.
          Michael J. Crowley, Esq.
          JANSSEN, MALLOY, NEEDHAM, MORRISON,
          REINHOLTSEN & CROWLEY, LLP
          730 Fifth Street
          Eureka, CA 95501
          Telephone: (707) 445-2071

               - and -

          Christopher J. Healey, Esq.
          LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS
          600 West Broadway, Suite 2600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 236-1414


TRILEGIANT: Sued for Fraudulent Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that Chase Bank
and 1-800-Flowers.com provide essential services for an online
racketeering scheme run by a "discount club" whose "insidious set
of business practices" have been exposed by Congress, a class
action claims in Federal Court.  Trilegiant and its corporate
parent Affinion "defraud the consumer into paying fees" to "clubs"
such as Great Fun and LiveWell "that consumer[s] never even
realized they had signed up for," according to the complaint.

"In reality, Trilegiant has developed an insidious set of business
practices intended to create consumer confusion and to ultimately
defraud the consumer into paying fees to such 'clubs' that
consumer never even realized they had signed up for," the
complaint states.

"Trilegiant's actions have been subject to congressional hearings
and prior governmental investigations.  Its business practices are
well known to the Internet merchant community and to the credit
card companies, each of whom is an essential part of Trilegiant's
fraudulent scheme.  Yet the Trilegiant Enterprise has continued to
function undaunted by all of this adverse attention: e-merchants
such as 1-800-Flowers continue to receive revenue from their
participation in Trilegiant's scheme, and the credit card
companies such as Chase continue to process charges from
Trilegiant despite explicit knowledge of Trilegiant's fraudulent
business practices.  Without any of the three corners of this
triangle of fraud, the enterprise would fail and the fraudulent
scheme would collapse."

The class claims Trilegiant's scheme has five steps: paying fees
to e-merchants to get access to customers' checkout process;
luring consumers with "post-transaction offers" of membership,
promising free gifts and cash back; obtaining credit card
information through unauthorized "data pass" arrangements;
charging up to $39.99 a month through "negative option billing";
and using "various tactics" to avoid crediting back customer's
accounts through "refund mitigation."

The complaint cites two U.S. Senate Committee reports: "Aggressive
Sales Tactics on the Internet and Their Impact on American
Consumers," of Nov. 16, 2009, which "concluded that:
'[Trilegiant/]Affinion . . . use aggressive sales tactics
intentionally designed to mislead online shoppers.
[Trilegiant/Affinion] exploit shoppers' expectations about the
online purchasing process to charge millions of consumers each
year for services the consumers do not want and do not understand
they have purchased.  Hundreds of e-commerce merchants --
including many of the best-known respected websites and retailers
on the Internet [such as 1-800-Flowers] -- allow these three
companies to use aggressive sales tactics against their customers,
and share in the revenues generated by these misleading tactics,'"
according to the complaint.

The class claims the Senate Committee published a second,
"Supplemental Report on Aggressive Sales Tactics on the Internet,"
on May 19, 2010, "that was based on information provided by
e-merchants such as 1-800-Flowers.  The Supplemental Report
concluded that e-merchants such as 1-800-Flowers have engaged in
deceptive conduct and have violated credit card company rules by
automatically transferring customers' credit card information to
Trilegiant/Affinion."

The complaint continues: "These new investigations follow on the
heels of settlements Trilegiant reached with sixteen attorneys
general in 2006 that required Trilegiant to cease certain business
practices.  But like a virus, Trilegiant has mutated its business
practices into their current form, which have given rise to these
new investigations and to this class action lawsuit.

"As a result of Defendants' fraudulent marketing scheme, plaintiff
and members of the putative class have been charged for
'memberships' to Trilegiant 'clubs' that they never wanted or
used, and which 'clubs' have little or no actual value.

The complaint adds: "These fees paid to e-merchants can be quite
substantial -- congressional records indicate that classmates.com
was paid in excess of $70 million from Trilegiant."

The class seeks restitution and punitive damages.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Axelrod, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-661-1100
          E-mail: rjaxelrod@pomlaw.com


WILMINGTON TRUST: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
Several class action lawsuits have been filed in Delaware Chancery
Court on behalf of the shareholders of Wilmington Trust Corp.

The actions allege that Wilmington Trust and its board of
directors violated applicable law by agreeing to sell Wilmington
Trust to M&T Bank Corporation for $351 million.  The complaints
allege that the defendants engaged in a flawed process designed to
ensure that the sale of Wilmington Trust to M&T were on terms
preferential to M&T.  The complaints further allege that the
company's shareholders will not likely receive adequate or fair
value for their Wilmington Trust stock.

No class has yet been certified in the action.  Until a class is
certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain
one.  Sohmer & Stark, LLC has not filed a lawsuit against the
defendants.

If you are a Wilmington Trust shareholder and want to discuss your
legal rights, at no cost and without obligation, please contact:

          Amir M. Stark, Esquire
          SOHMER & STARK, LLC
          95 James Way, Suite 120
          Southampton, PA 18966
          Toll free: 888-811-7179
          E-mail: astark@sohmerstark.com

Sohmer & Stark, LLC litigates shareholder actions across the
United States.


WINN DIXIE: Reaches Agreement to Settle FCRA-Related Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. entered into an agreement to settle a class
action lawsuit filed by two former employees in Florida, according
to the company's November 1, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 22,
2010.

On August 21, 2009, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit filed by two former employees in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Winn-
Dixie Stores, Inc., alleging company-wide violations of the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act related to the Company's
background check procedures.

The Company denied all allegations raised in the lawsuit, answered
the complaint and filed motions asserting various defenses to the
claims.  On October 21, 2010, the parties reached a mutually
agreed upon resolution of the case.


* Investors Lending Money to Individual & Class Action Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Binyamin Appelbaum and Ben Hallman, writing for The Huftington
Post Investigative Fund, report major banks, hedge funds and
private investors are lending their money to individual and class
action lawsuits in an attempt to reap profits from the decisions.
Investors have about a billion dollars in various lawsuits at any
one time, according to an analysis by the Center for Public
Integrity, financing lawyers in cases like a New York medical
malpractice suit and a Texas class action claim against the BNSF
railroad.  In many cases the investors stand to make hundreds of
thousands of dollars in profit.  The effect is twofold: the
investors' money allows more people to have their day in court,
but it also fuels abuses of legal proceedings.

                             *********

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

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