CAR_Public/101123.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, November 23, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 231

                             Headlines

AIR TRANSPORT: Subsidiary Still Facing Immigration-Violation Suit
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Court Dismisses OrthoClear From "Weber" Suit
ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES: May Face Class Action Lawsuit
ALLSTATE LIFE: AIC Continues to Defend Against Two ERISA Suits
AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Sued in Tex. for Deceptive Trade Practices

AMERICAN DENTAL: Has Yet to Distribute Reimbursements
ANADIGICS INC: To Seek Dismissal of Securities Class Action Suits
AVAULTA: Class Action.org Evaluating Possible Vaginal Mesh Suit
BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Loses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
BIMINI CAPITAL: Fairness Hearing on Securities Set for Dec. 9

BRITISH AIRWAYS: Wins U.K. Appeal to Block Cartel Class Action
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Faces Lawsuits Over Lack of Fox Programming
CHARLES SCHWAB: YieldPlus Class Action Settlement May Go Ahead
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Sued for Misrepresenting Mortgage Quality
CVS CAREMARK: Securities Class Suit Still Pending in Rhode Island

DRIL-QUIP INC: Continues to Defend "Deepwater Horizon" Lawsuits
FBL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend EquiTrust Class Suits
FERDINAND MARCOS: Judge Approves $10-Mil. Class Action Settlement
FOOT LOCKER: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime Compensation
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Appeal on NY Securities Suit Dismissal Pending

HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Securities Suit Dismissal Becomes Final
HILLDALE CEMETERY: Trustees Mull Class Action v. Former Owners
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Continues to Defend Budeprion Purchasers Suit
INTERNAP NETWORK: Intends to Seek Dismissal of Securities Suit
JAKKS PACIFIC: Gets Final Court Approval of WWE Suits Settlement

LORAL SPACE: May be Liable to D&O Claims Related to Schwartz Suits
METLIFE INC: Made All Payments According to Settlement
METLIFE INC: Dismissal of ADA Suit Is Final
METLIFE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Thomas" Suit Still Pending
METLIFE INC: Defends Against "Market Rate" Tenants Lawsuit

METLIFE INC: Motion to Remand Brokerage Antitrust Suit Pending
METLIFE INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in "Clark" Suit
METLIFE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Faber" Suit Still Pending
METLIFE INC: Contract Breach Suits v. Medical Providers Pending
METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Against "Keife" Suit in Nevada

METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Sales Practices Litigation
MICROTUNE INC: Parties in Merger Dispute Seek to Settle Lawsuits
MORTON'S RESTAURANT: San Diego Class Action Suit Remains Pending
MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Costa Mesa Class Action Suit Ongoing
NORTH COUNTY: 9th Cir. Upholds Class Action Status Ruling

NORTHWEST PIPE: Consolidated Securities Class Action Still Pending
NUTRISYSTEM INC: Appeal on Dismissal of Consolidated Suit Ends
ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Court Dismisses Delaware Actions
ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Appeals on IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Appeal on Settlement in IPO Suit Still Pending

PACKAGING CORPORATION: Defends Five Containerboard Lawsuits
PG&E CORP: Continues to Install SmartMeter(TM) Units Despite Suit
PG&E CORP: Court Dismisses Electric Bill Overcharge-Related Suit
PG&E CORP: Faces Lawsuits Over San Bruno Fire Accident
PREMIER CHEMICALS: Sued Over Magnesium Oxide Price Fixing

PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
RIDEAU REGIONAL: Firm Seeks People to Join Class Action
SEQUENOM INC: Spends $44.9 Million in Trisomy Suit Settlement
SEQUENOM INC: Shareholders to Appeal Class Certification Order
SONY COMPUTER: 8th Suit Filed Over Removal of OS Option in PS3

SPORTCRAFT LTD: Recalls 3,100 Sport Super Bounce Pogo Sticks
STEWART INFORMATION: Continues to Defend Against Antitrust Suits
SUNRISE SENIOR: Court Stays Purnell Suit Pending Mediation
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII: Faces Class Action Over Data Breaches
UNUM GROUP: Obtains Favorable Final Judgment From District Court

VERTRO INC: Appeal in Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Awaits Approval of Consumer Claims Settlement
WAL-MART: Supreme Court to Decide on Class Action Appeal Today
WALNUT GROVE: Suit Complains About Deficient Security Policies
* Banks Face Class Action Threat Over Foreclosure Irregularities



                             *********

AIR TRANSPORT: Subsidiary Still Facing Immigration-Violation Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit asserting immigration law violations filed against a
subsidiary of Air Transport Services Group, Inc., remains pending,
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.

ATSG is a holding company whose principal subsidiaries include an
aircraft leasing company, Cargo Aircraft Management, Inc., and
three independently certificated airlines, ABX Air, Inc., Capital
Cargo International Airlines, Inc., and Air Transport
International, LLC.

On December 31, 2008, a former ABX employee filed a complaint
against ABX, a total of four current and former executives and
managers of ABX, Garcia Labor Company of Ohio, and three former
executives of the Garcia Labor companies, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The case was filed as a putative class action against the
defendants, and asserts violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Practices Act.

The complaint, which was later amended to include a second former
employee plaintiff, seeks damages in an unspecified amount and
alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme to hire illegal
immigrant workers to depress the wages paid to hourly wage
employees during the period from December 1999 to January 2005.

On March 18, 2010, the Court issued a decision in response to a
motion filed by ABX and the other ABX defendants, dismissing three
of the five claims constituting the basis of plaintiffs'
complaint.

Most recently, the Court issued a decision on October 7, 2010,
permitting the plaintiffs to amend their complaint for the purpose
of reinstating one of their dismissed claims.

On October 26, 2010, ABX and the other ABX defendants filed an
answer denying the allegations contained in plaintiffs' second
amended complaint.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Court Dismisses OrthoClear From "Weber" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York has
dismissed OrthoClear Inc. and OrthoClear Holdings Inc. from a
consumer class action lawsuit filed by Debra A. Weber, according
to Align Technology, Inc.'s November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.

The suit was filed by Ms. Weber on May 18, 2007, against the
company, OrthoClear, Inc. and OrthoClear Holdings, Inc. (d/b/a
OrthoClear, Inc.).

The complaint alleges two causes of action against the OrthoClear
defendants and one cause of action against the company for breach
of contract.  The cause of action against the company titled
"Breach of Third Party Benefit Contract" references the company's
agreement to make Invisalign treatment available to OrthoClear
patients, alleging that the company failed "to provide the
promised treatment to Plaintiff or any of the class members".

On June 2, 2010, the Court granted the company's motion for
summary judgment and dismissed the company from the action.

On June 29, 2010, Ms. Weber requested that the Court enter final
judgment as to Align pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(b) in order to certify Align's dismissal for immediate appeal.

The company filed an opposition to Ms. Weber's request on July 19,
2010, on the grounds that Ms. Weber failed to show that
exceptional circumstances warranted the entry of a final judgment
where fewer than all claims or parties had been dismissed.

On Aug. 20, 2010, the Court denied Ms. Weber's motion.  On
Oct. 29, 2010, the Court dismissed the action against OrthoClear
and OrthoClear Holdings Inc. with prejudice at the request of the
remaining parties pursuant to a settlement.

The Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice entered by
the Court provides that the settlement and dismissal does not
affect any rights Weber may have to appeal dismissal of the action
as against the company.


ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES: May Face Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Metal Bulletin reports depending on whose valuation you favor,
Allegheny Technologies Inc.'s $778-million proposed acquisition of
Ladish Co. could have been higher or was a bit "pricey."

Some securities analysts don't think ATI is getting a bargain,
even though they support the transaction.

Meanwhile, at least seven law firms said they were "investigating"
the proposed acquisition of Ladish as they troll for Ladish
shareholders to participate in potential class-action litigation.

The Pittsburgh-based specialty metals producer announced at 8:30
a.m. on Wednesday, Nov. 17, that it would buy Ladish, a Cudahy,
Wis., producer of primarily aerospace forgings and castings, for a
combination of stock and cash.


ALLSTATE LIFE: AIC Continues to Defend Against Two ERISA Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Insurance Company continues to defend two class action
lawsuits relating to its agency program reorganization announced
in 1999 and alleging various violations of ERISA, according to
Allstate Life Insurance Company's Nov. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.

Allstate Life is wholly owned by Allstate Insurance.

A class action was filed in 2001 by former employee agents
alleging retaliation and age discrimination under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, breach of contract and ERISA
violations.  In 2004, the trial court issued a memorandum and
order that, among other things, certified classes of agents,
including a mandatory class of agents who had signed a release,
for purposes of effecting the court's declaratory judgment that
the release is voidable at the option of the release signer.  The
court also ordered that an agent who voids the release must return
to AIC "any and all benefits received by the [agent] in exchange
for signing the release."  The court also stated that, "on the
undisputed facts of record, there is no basis for claims of age
discrimination."  The plaintiffs asked the court to clarify or
reconsider its memorandum and order and in January 2007, the judge
denied their request.  In June 2007, the court granted AIC's
motions for summary judgment.  Following plaintiffs' filing of a
notice of appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
issued an order in December 2007 stating that the notice of appeal
was not taken from a final order within the meaning of the federal
law and thus not appealable at this time.  In March 2008, the
Third Circuit decided that the appeal should not summarily be
dismissed and that the question of whether the matter is
appealable at this time will be addressed by the Third Circuit
along with the merits of the appeal.  In July 2009, the Third
Circuit vacated the decision which granted AIC's summary judgment
motions, remanded the cases to the trial court for additional
discovery, and directed that the cases be reassigned to another
trial court judge.  In January 2010, the cases were assigned to a
new judge for further proceedings in the trial court.

A putative nationwide class action has also been filed by former
employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA, including a
worker classification issue.  These plaintiffs are challenging
certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and are seeking to
have exclusive agent independent contractors treated as employees
for benefit purposes.  This matter was dismissed with prejudice by
the trial court, was the subject of further proceedings on appeal,
and was reversed and remanded to the trial court in 2005.  In June
2007, the court granted AIC's motion to dismiss the case.
Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the Third
Circuit issued an order in December 2007 stating that the notice
of appeal was not taken from a final order within the meaning of
the federal law and thus not appealable at this time.  In March
2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should not
summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the matter
is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Third Circuit
along with the merits of the appeal.  In July 2009, the Third
Circuit vacated the decision which granted AIC's motion to dismiss
the case, remanded the case to the trial court for additional
discovery, and directed that the case be reassigned to another
trial court judge.  In January 2010, the case was assigned to a
new judge for further proceedings in the trial court.

In these agency program reorganization matters, plaintiffs seek
compensatory and punitive damages, and equitable relief.  AIC has
been vigorously defending these lawsuits and other matters related
to its agency program reorganization.

No further updates were reported in Allstate Life Insurance
Company's Nov. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Sued in Tex. for Deceptive Trade Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that American Commercial College
misrepresented its medical assisting classes, accreditation and
other elements of its programs and charged them for a "worthless
credential," 11 students claim in Ector County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Arcand, et al. v. American Commercial
College, Inc., Case No. A-130519 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Ector Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/18/ForProfit.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Julie E. Johnson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JULIE JOHNSON, PLLC
          3100 Monticello, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75205
          Telephone: (214) 265-7600


AMERICAN DENTAL: Has Yet to Distribute Reimbursements
-----------------------------------------------------
American Dental Partners, Inc., disclosed that no reimbursements
has been distributed as of September 30, 2010, with respect to the
class action settlement agreement it reached with plaintiffs in a
shareholder class action lawsuit.

The Company made the disclosure in its November 4, 2010 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On April 9, 2010, the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts approved a class action settlement
agreement, dated December 15, 2009, resolving the allegations
against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the
shareholder litigation.

On January 25, February 4, February 12, and March 13, 2008, the
Company and certain of its executive officers were named as
defendants in four actions filed in the Massachusetts District
Court:

   * Oliphant v. American Dental Partners, Inc. et. al., Civil
     Action number 1:08-CV-10119-RGS

   * Downey v. American Dental Partners, Inc. et. al., Civil
     Action number 1:08-CV-10169-RGS

   * Johnston v. American Dental Partners, Inc. et. al., Civil
     Action number 1:08-CA-10230-RGS

   * Monihan v. American Dental Partners, Inc., et. al., Civil
     Action number 1:08-CV-10410-RGS.

The actions each purported to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period
August 10, 2005 through December 13, 2007.

The complaints alleged that the Company and certain of its
executive officers violated the federal securities laws, in
particular, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 78, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17
C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, by making allegedly material
misrepresentations and failing to disclose allegedly material
facts concerning the lawsuit by Park Dental Group, or PDG, against
PDHC, Ltd., titled PDG, P.A. v. PDHC, Ltd., Civ. A. Nos. 27-CV-06-
2500 and 27-CV-07-13030, filed in the Fourth Judicial District of
Hennepin County, Minnesota on February 3, 2006 and conduct at
issue in that action during the class period, which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price of the company's stock.

Each complaint also asserted control person claims under Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against the executive
officers named as defendants.

On May 29, 2008, the Court appointed the Operating Engineers
Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and its counsel, the law firm of
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., as lead counsel.  The Court also ordered
that the four pending actions be consolidated under the caption,
In re American Dental Partners, Inc. Securities Litigation, civil
action number 1:08-CV-10119-RGS.

On or about June 5, 2008, one of the original named plaintiffs,
W.K. Downey, agreed to enter an order that dismissed his
individual claims with prejudice.

On September 29, 2008, the Operating Engineers Pension Fund filed
with the Court a consolidated amended complaint that alleged a new
class period of February 25, 2004, through December 13, 2007 and
asserted violations of the federal securities laws.

On December 15, 2009, the Company, the other defendants and the
lead plaintiff entered the Class Action Settlement Agreement to
settle and release all remaining claims.  Pursuant to its terms,
the insurance company that issued the Company's Directors,
Officers and Corporate Liability Insurance Policy has paid
$6,000,000 into a settlement fund that will be distributed in
accordance with the Court's Final Order dated April 9, 2010.

On February 22 and 23, 2010, Special Situations Fund III L.P.,
Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P., and Special Situations Fund
III Q.P., L.P. excluded themselves from the settlement and filed
an opt-out complaint in the District of Massachusetts, against the
Company and the same executive officers named as defendants in the
prior actions, entitled "Special Situations Fund III, L.P. et al.
v. American Dental Partners, Inc. et al.," civil action number
1:10-CV-10331, which is referred to as the Opt-Out Action.

The Opt-Out Action asserts that the plaintiffs purchased over
500,000 shares of the Company's common stock during the class
period, alleges the same violations of the federal securities
laws, and claims that certain of the alleged misrepresentations
also violated Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78(r).  The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of money
damages, costs and attorneys' fees and any other relief the Court
deems proper.

On June 11, 2010, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Opt-Out Action, which was fully briefed by
all parties as of September 20, 2010.  The Court has not yet
scheduled a hearing on the motion.

The Company intends to defend the matter vigorously.


ANADIGICS INC: To Seek Dismissal of Securities Class Action Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadigics, Inc., will ask a New Jersey court to dismiss a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed against the
Company in 2008, according to Anadigics' November 3, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended October 2, 2010.

On November 11, 2008, plaintiff Charlie Attias filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Charlie Attias v.
Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05572.

On November 21, 2008, plaintiff Paul Kuznetz filed a related class
action lawsuit in the same court, captioned Paul J. Kuznetz v.
Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05750.

The Complaints in the Class Actions, which were consolidated under
the caption In re Anadigics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:08-
cv-05572, by an Order of the District Court dated November 24,
2008, seek unspecified damages for alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in connection with, among other
things, Anadigics's manufacturing capabilities and the demand for
its products.

On October 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint, which names the Company, a current officer and a
former officer-director, and alleges a proposed class period that
runs from July 24, 2007, through August 7, 2008.

On December 23, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint; that motion was fully briefed as of
March 30, 2010.

After holding extensive oral argument on defendants' motion on
August 3, 2010, the District Court found plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint to be deficient, but afforded them another opportunity
to amend their pleading.  The District Court, therefore, denied
defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice to defendants'
renewing the motion in response to plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on October 4, 2010.

The Second Amended Complaint, which contains the same substantive
claims that were alleged in the First Amended Complaint, alleges a
proposed class period that runs from February 12, 2008, through
August 7, 2008.

Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is to
be filed by December 3, 2010.  The briefing in connection with
defendants' motion is expected to be completed by March 2011.


AVAULTA: Class Action.org Evaluating Possible Vaginal Mesh Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class Action.org is alerting women who have been implanted with
the Avaulta vaginal mesh to the serious complications of surgical
mesh systems.  Manufactured by C.R. Bard, Avaulta surgical mesh
systems, which include the Avaulta Solo, Avaulta Plus and Avaulta
Biosynthetic, have been linked to a number of side effects
including mesh erosion, deformation of vaginal tissues and
scarring.  These Avaulta complications can cause persistent pain,
infection and the need for multiple surgeries to remove the mesh
system.

If you have experienced Avaulta mesh complications, visit
http://www.classaction.org/avaulta-transvaginal-mesh.htmland
complete the Free Case Evaluation form.  You may be able to
participate in a vaginal mesh lawsuit to recover compensation for
damages, which may include pain and suffering and medical expenses
associated with the treatment of your Avaulta vaginal mesh
complications.  Several Avaulta mesh lawsuits have already been
filed alleging that the design of the surgical mesh was defective
and that C.R. Bard failed to warn doctors and patients of the
Avaulta vaginal mesh complications.

The problems with the Avaulta vaginal sling first came to the
public's attention when the FDA released a warning in October 2008
about the complications of surgical mesh systems.  The FDA
received, within a three-year time span, more than 1000 reports of
surgical mesh complications from nine manufacturers, including
C.R. Bard.  Women who were implanted with the Avaulta mesh, which
is used to treat pelvic organ prolapse, complained of the
following surgical mesh side effects: infection; pain during sex;
mesh erosions and extrusions; permanent nerve damage;
inflammation; pelvic pain; rectal or vaginal problems; and
scarring and deformation of vaginal tissues.

Women who have been experiencing Avaulta mesh complications can
visit http://www.classaction.org/avaulta-transvaginal-mesh.htmlto
learn more about the side effects of surgical mesh systems and to
receive a free online case review which can help determine whether
they can participate in an Avaulta vaginal mesh lawsuit.  Class
Action.org is offering this online legal consultation at no cost
and remains dedicated to protecting consumers who were injured due
to defective medical devices.

                      About ClassAction.org

ClassAction.org is dedicated to protecting consumers and investors
in class actions and complex litigation throughout the United
States.  ClassAction.org keeps consumers informed about product
alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them take
action against the manufacturers of defective products, drugs, and
medical devices. Information about consumer fraud issues and
environmental hazards is also available on the site.  Visit
http://www.classaction.org/today for a no cost, no obligation
case evaluation and information about your consumer rights.


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Loses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bandell, writing for Tampa Bay Business Journal, reports a
jury has ruled that BankAtlantic Bancorp and its officials
violated federal securities laws.

After more than a week of deliberations, the jury came back with a
verdict Thursday, finding that the price of the bank's stock was
inflated during parts of 2007 because of misstatements by the
company.

Also held liable were BankAtlantic Bancorp Chairman and CEO Alan
Levan and CFO Valerie Toalson.

BankAtlantic has 19 locations and about $340 million in total
deposits in the Tampa Bay area.  It's Tampa operations are on the
sale block, and the bank took a $4.5 million charge in the third
quarter related to the planned sale.

Attorneys for BankAtlantic shareholders, led by Mark Arisohn of
Labaton Sucharow in New York, accused the Fort Lauderdale-based
company (NYSE: BBX) of making misleading statements about its loan
portfolio from October 2006 through October 2007 that violated
securities laws and inflated the value of its stock.

BankAtlantic attorney Eugene Stearns told jurors that the bank
repeatedly warned investors that it had Florida land loans and
those would suffer if the market deteriorated.  He said the bank
had a culture of disclosure.

The bank's $30 million loss in the third quarter of 2007 and the
subsequent $2.93 drop in its stock price was caused by the
catastrophic meltdown of the Florida real estate market, Stearns
argued.

The plaintiffs asked to collect the $2.93-a-share drop as damages
because they blamed the drop on the bank's concealing information
about its deteriorating land loan portfolio.  They also asked for
37 cents a share in damages in the first half of the class period.

The jury ruled that BankAtlantic made several false statements
during the first half of the class period, but they caused no
damages.  However, during the period from April 26 through
Oct. 26, 2007, BankAtlantic made eight false statements, which
caused damages of $2.41 a share, the jury ruled.

Mr. Arisohn called the verdict a great victory for shareholders.

"The banks and bank management better take a good look at this
verdict because it means they can't get away with lying to their
shareholders about the risks of their lending," Mr. Arisohn said.

Mr. Stearns said the plaintiffs failed to make a valid case for
damages because they didn't separate external factors, such as the
Florida real estate meltdown, from the alleged fraud.  He is
expected to appeal.

With the per-share amount of damages set, the next step is
appointing a claims officer to identify the shareholders who would
be eligible to collect.  Shareholders who bought the stock during
the class period and did not sell it during that time would be
eligible.  For investors who bought and sold stock within the
class period, the issue would need to be worked out.

Unless BankAtlantic can get the verdict overturned, paying damages
could deal a significant blow to its hopes of raising more
capital.  The bank has lost money since the third quarter of 2007
and has used several public offerings -- led by its controlling
shareholder, BFC Financial Corp. (Pink Sheets: BFCF) -- to retain
"well capitalized" levels.  The prospect of contributing money to
pay damages may not sit well with some potential investors.

It also marks a troubling turn of events for Mr. Levan, who has
led the bank since 1985.  While he has built up many companies,
the recession has picked apart some of his ventures.

National homebuilder Levitt & Sons entered bankruptcy in 2007 and
had its assets liquidated.  Core Communities recently agreed to
turn over its massive Tradition Florida project, a Port St. Lucie
development Mr. Levan spearheaded, to its lender.  Mr. Levan was
not held personally liable for the debt in either of those cases,
yet the value of his investments has suffered.

BankAtlantic shares were unchanged at 82 cents in midday trading.
The 52-week high was $3.28 on April 26.  The 52-week low was 75
cents on Sept. 22.


BIMINI CAPITAL: Fairness Hearing on Securities Set for Dec. 9
-------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing will be conducted on December 9, 2010, on
Bimini Capital Management, Inc.'s settlement of a securities class
action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida for $2.35 million, according to the company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On September 17, 2007, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida by William Kornfeld
against Bimini Capital, certain of its current and former officers
and directors, Flagstone Securities, LLC and BB&T Capital Markets
alleging various violations of the federal securities laws and
seeking class action certification.  At a mediation held on
February 12, 2010, the parties reached a tentative settlement of
this matter for $2.35 million.  Bimini Capital made no admission
of liability in connection with the settlement.

As of December 31, 2009, the Company had accrued approximately
$0.5 million related to the settlement.  This amount represented
the remainder of the $1.0 million retention that the Company was
required to pay under the terms of its Directors and Officers
insurance policy.  On October 14, 2010, the remaining $0.4 million
of the accrual was remitted to an escrow account established by
plaintiff to be included in the settlement fund.  The remainder of
the settlement will be paid by the D&O carrier.

A written stipulation of settlement was presented to the Court and
a preliminary approval was granted on September 14, 2010.  Notices
were sent to members of the Class in order to provide the members
of the class an opportunity to opt out of the settlement.  Members
had until November 11, 2010, to elect out of the settlement.

A final fairness hearing will be held on December 9, 2010.  If the
requisite percent of members (5%) do not opt out of the
settlement, the settlement will become final.  If the settlement
is not finalized, the class action would continue.  While the
Company expects that this settlement will be finalized and
approved by the Court, there is no guarantee that the settlement
will be finalized.  The Company said the failure to finalize the
settlement could have a material adverse impact on it.


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Wins U.K. Appeal to Block Cartel Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Larson, writing for Bloomberg News, reports British Airways
Plc won a U.K. appeal to block hundreds of air-cargo customers
from forming a group in a U.S.-style class-action lawsuit over the
carrier's role in a price-fixing cartel.

Two flower shippers that sued British Airways in 2008 can't
represent all direct and indirect customers of the carrier, a
group that could run into the hundreds of thousands, because there
was no way to know if they had the same interest in the case, the
Court of Appeal in London ruled on Thursday.

The decision "is a clear rejection of an attempt to fit a U.S.-
style class action within the existing English rules of civil
procedure," said Euan Burrows, a lawyer with the firm Ashurst LLP
in London, who isn't involved in the case.  "This attempt was
always ambitious."

The decision comes a week after British Airways was fined
EUR104 million (US$142 million) by the European Union following a
three-year probe of the cartel.  In 2007, the London-based company
pleaded guilty in the U.S. to related charges and was fined $300
million.

Justice John Mummery, who wrote the decision on behalf of a three-
judge panel, said the customers' request for a so-called
representative action was "fatally flawed."

The flower shippers appealed an April 2009 ruling by Judge Andrew
Morritt in the High Court in London denying their request because
the proposed group was too ill-defined and had too many potential
conflicts.  Anthony Maton, a lawyer for the flower shippers, said
Thursday's ruling was "disappointing."

Representative Basis

"Proceeding on a representative basis would have simplified the
steps required of the cartel's victims in order to make good their
claims against BA, ultimately saving all parties involved
significant time and costs," Mr. Maton, a lawyer at Hausfeld & Co.
LLP, said in a statement.

Jonathan Sinclair, a lawyer who leads the antitrust practice at
Stewarts Law in Leeds, England, said that legislation is needed in
order to broadly define groups in class-action lawsuits that allow
customers to "opt out," as they do in the U.S.

"Large businesses can contemplate bringing damages claims, but
when you talk about smaller businesses, the complexities and risks
of bringing litigation are still very great," Mr. Sinclair said.
"The mechanisms currently available do not make that easy for
them."

Other Carriers

British Airways in July asked the court to add Air France-KLM
Group, Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. and 30 others as defendants to
protect itself against payments it may be ordered to make in the
case.  The court is still considering the request.

The airline could use different defenses against different members
of the proposed class, by arguing direct customers had already
passed on higher prices to the indirect customers, Thursday's
ruling said.

British Airways isn't the only carrier facing civil cartel claims.
Air France and its Dutch Martinair unit were sued in September in
the Netherlands for as much as 500 million euros over the
carriers' alleged involvement in the cartel.

About 300 shipping customers, including Royal Philips Electronics
NV and Ericsson AB, joined the Dutch case claiming that they paid
too much for services in Europe from 2000 to 2006, according to
Claims Funding International Plc, the Dublin-based company that
organized the case.

The European Commission said last month it is considering
expanding the use of group lawsuits for customers affected by
antitrust violations in all of the EU's 27 nations.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Faces Lawsuits Over Lack of Fox Programming
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation remains a defendant in class
action lawsuits filed by Cablevision customers, according to the
company's November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

Several class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of
Cablevision customers seeking recovery for the lack of Fox
programming.  The plaintiffs in those lawsuits have asserted
claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer
fraud.

The company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend these lawsuits vigorously.


CHARLES SCHWAB: YieldPlus Class Action Settlement May Go Ahead
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Fender, writing for the San Francisco Chronicle, reports
it looks like the Schwab YieldPlus class action settlement will go
ahead after all, with some modifications.

"Late [Wednes]day, we reached an agreement in principle to allow
the Schwab YieldPlus settlement to move forward, pending the
court's final approval," Steve Berman, a lawyer for YieldPlus
shareholders, said in a statement.

This spring, Charles Schwab agreed to settle a class-action suit
filed on behalf of certain shareholders in its YieldPlus ultra-
short-term bond fund, which suffered losses in mortgage-related
securities that accelerated as investors withdrew their money.

Under the settlement, Schwab agreed to pay $235 million, of which
$35 million went to California shareholders who were eligible to
sue under a state law.

Earlier this month, Schwab pulled out of the agreement over a
dispute about whether shareholders outside of California who
participated in the settlement could sue the company again under
the California law.  Schwab thought they could not.  Mr. Berman's
firm said they could.  The federal judge in the case, William
Alsup, ruled they could.  Judge Alsup scheduled a hearing for
Thursday, November 18, on Schwab's decision to withdraw from the
settlement.

"The issue was whether investors outside California had the
ability to bring a separate claim against Schwab under
California's consumer laws, or if the settlement agreement we
reached with Schwab released those claims," Mr. Berman said.

"We've agreed to release those claims in exchange for Schwab's
agreement to allow those plaintiffs (outside of California) the
opportunity to opt out of the current settlement agreement and
pursue those claims if they wish."

Plaintiffs who opt out would have to pursue individual arbitration
claims against Schwab.  Any money they would have received from
the settlement will be subtracted from the amount owed by Schwab,
a spokesman for Mr. Berman's firm said.

No comment yet from Schwab.


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Sued for Misrepresenting Mortgage Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Western Conference of
Teamsters Pension Trust Fund, the biggest multi-employer pension
plan in the country, claims Countrywide Financial Corp.
misrepresented the quality of the mortgages it pooled and
securitized.  The Teamsters also sued a slew of major financial
institutions involved in the issues, in a class action in Superior
Court.


CVS CAREMARK: Securities Class Suit Still Pending in Rhode Island
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS Caremark Corporation
stock between May 5, 2009 and Nov. 4, 2009.  The lawsuit names the
company and certain officers as defendants and includes
allegations of securities fraud relating to public disclosures
made by the company concerning the PBM business and allegations of
insider trading.

No further updates were reported in CVS Caremark Corporation's
Nov. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


DRIL-QUIP INC: Continues to Defend "Deepwater Horizon" Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dril-Quip, Inc., remains a defendant in several class action and
other lawsuits arising out of the "Deepwater Horizon" incident,
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 22, 2010, a deepwater Gulf of Mexico drilling rig known
as the Deepwater Horizon, operated by BP Exploration & Production,
Inc., sank after an explosion and fire that began on April 20,
2010.  The Company is a party to an ongoing contract with an
affiliate of BP to supply wellhead systems in connection with BP's
Gulf of Mexico operations, and the Company's wellhead and certain
of its other equipment were in use on the Deepwater Horizon at the
time of the incident. Due to the inability to stop the escaping
crude oil for a substantial period of time, a moratorium was
placed on offshore deepwater drilling on May 28, 2010, in the U.S.
Gulf of Mexico which was scheduled to be in place through November
2010. The moratorium was lifted on October 12, 2010. During the
pendency of the moratorium, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Regulation and Enforcement of the U.S. Department of the Interior
issued various new regulations intended to improve offshore safety
systems and environmental protection. The Company believes these
new regulations, which increase the complexity of the drilling
permit process, will result in delays for the receipt of drilling
permits relative to past experience. The Company is currently
unable to quantify the extent of the impact that the Gulf of
Mexico drilling moratorium and subsequent delay in the issuance of
permits will have on its future revenues.

The company has been named, along with other unaffiliated
defendants, in eight class action and seven other lawsuits that
allege pollution damage claims, personal injuries and business
losses arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident.  These
actions were filed against the company between April 28, 2010, and
September 24, 2010.

As of November 1, 2010, 12 of the lawsuits have been consolidated
and are pending in the federal court in the Eastern District of
Louisiana.  The remaining three cases are pending in federal court
in the Southern District of Alabama, the Southern District of
Texas and the Northern District of Florida, respectively.

On October 28, 2010, a conditional transfer order was signed for
these cases to begin the process of transferring them to the
Eastern District of Louisiana.

The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, violation of
state and federal environmental and other laws and regulations,
negligence, gross negligence, strict liability and property
damages and generally seek awards of unspecified economic,
compensatory and punitive damages.

The company intends to vigorously defend any litigation, fine and
penalties relating to the Deepwater Horizon incident.


FBL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend EquiTrust Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
FBL Financial Group Inc. is currently is a defendant in two
purported class action lawsuits filed against its life insurance
subsidiary, EquiTrust Life Insurance Company, on behalf of
annuities purchasers.

The Company relates in its November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it believes that
many of the asserted claims will be defeated by dispositive
motions.

The first case is Tabares v. EquiTrust Life Insurance Company,
filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on May 5, 2008.  Tabares is a
purported California class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased certain deferred annuities from EquiTrust Life.  The
complaint asserts a sub-class of purchasers that were age 60 or
older at the time of purchasing those annuities from EquiTrust
Life.  Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief on behalf of all class
members, compensatory damages for breach of contract and punitive
damages under a common law cause of action for fraud.  Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification was heard on June 22, 2010, and on
August 6, 2010, the Company was notified by the trial court that
they had issued an order denying class certification for
Plaintiff's unfair competition and fraud claims.  The court did,
however, grant certification for Plaintiff's breach of contract
and declaratory relief claims.  Granting certification does not
represent a finding on the merits of Plaintiff's claims, rather it
allows the case to go forward as a class action, the Company
clarifies.  The Company says it continues to vigorously defend the
litigation. It may seek appellate review of the class
certification order, or seek an order decertifying the class and
sub-class after further discovery into the merits of the case.  No
trial date has been set.

The second case is Eller v. EquiTrust Life Insurance Company,
filed in United States District Court for the District of Arizona,
on January 12, 2009.  The purported national class action includes
all persons who purchased EquiTrust Life index annuities, with one
sub-class for all persons age 65 and older that purchased an
EquiTrust Life index annuity contract with a maturity date beyond
the annuitant's actuarial life expectancy; and a 17-state sub-
class under various consumer protection and unfair insurance
practices statutes.  The Eller Complaint seeks rescission and
injunctive relief including restitution and disgorgement of
profits on behalf of all class members, compensatory damages,
unjust enrichment and punitive damages.  Discovery in the Eller
Complaint continues through mid-December 2010 and Plaintiffs are
required to file their class certification motion no later than
January 12, 2011.


FERDINAND MARCOS: Judge Approves $10-Mil. Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports a $10 million settlement over land in
Texas could help compensate victims of ex-Philippines President
Ferdinand Marcos.

U.S. District Judge Terry Means on Nov. 16 approved settlement of
a class-action lawsuit involving more than 9,500 Filipinos.  The
dispute involves companies that own land believed bought with
funds from the Marcos estate.  He died in 1989 in Hawaii.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports the plaintiffs or their
relatives are seeking compensation for being victims of torture,
financial abuse or other corruption at the hands of the Marcos
regime.

Plaintiffs attorney Robert Swift says the companies are expected
to sell the 4,000 acres in the Fort Worth area and 520 acres in
Colorado.

Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell, representing the defendants, did not
immediately comment Thursday.


FOOT LOCKER: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Foot Locker shaves timecards
and cheats on overtime, a class action claims in Camden County
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Hernandez, et al. v. Foot Locker, Inc.,
et al., Case No. L-5655-10 (N.J. Super. Ct., Camden Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/18/Foot%20Locker.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Appeal on NY Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal of the dismissal of a class action against General
Electric Co. under the federal securities laws is pending,
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.

In September 2010, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the Company's motion to
dismiss in its entirety with prejudice a purported class action
under the federal securities laws naming the Company as defendant,
as well as the Company's chief executive officer and chief
financial officer.

In this action, the plaintiffs alleged that during a conference
call with analysts on September 25, 2008, defendants made false
and misleading statements concerning (i) the state of GE's
funding, cash flows, and liquidity and (ii) the question of
issuing additional equity, which caused economic loss to those
shareholders who purchased GE stock between September 25, 2008 and
October 2, 2008, when the company announced the pricing of a
common stock offering.

Plaintiffs have filed notice of appeal.


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Securities Suit Dismissal Becomes Final
--------------------------------------------------------
In re Harley-Davidson, Inc., Securities Litigation was a
consolidated shareholder securities class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin. On October 2, 2006, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which named the Company and
certain former Company officers as defendants, that alleged
securities law violations and sought unspecified damages relating
generally to the Company's April 13, 2005 announcement that it was
reducing short-term production growth and planned increases of
motorcycle shipments.

In 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint. On October 8, 2009, the judge granted defendants'
motion to dismiss, and the clerk of court entered judgment
dismissing the consolidated lawsuit. No appeal was taken from the
final judgment and the dismissal of the case became final.

Subsequently, on March 18, 2010, a group of individuals who appear
to be inmates in a federal correctional institution filed a motion
to intervene which was immediately dismissed by the District Court
because judgment had already been entered. On April 5, 2010, two
of the individuals filed notices of appeal of the dismissal. On
May 27, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
dismissed the appeals for failure to pay the required docketing
fees. The dismissal of the action again became final.

No further updates were reported in Harley-Davidson, Inc.'s Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 26, 2010, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2010.


HILLDALE CEMETERY: Trustees Mull Class Action v. Former Owners
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike LaBella, writing for Eagle-Tribune, reports the trustees of
Hilldale Cemetery said they are prepared to file a lawsuit to
obtain missing plot deeds needed to operate the cemetery.

"In order to find the truth, we're considering a class action suit
against all parties that were once responsible for handling
Hilldale's affairs," said Thomas Spitalere, president of the
Hilldale Cemetery Association.

But before taking such a step, the trustees are making a plea to
anyone with information about family members buried at the
cemetery, including plot deeds and records of payment for
perpetual care.

The trustees said they are missing about a third of the deeds that
show where people are buried in the 4,816-grave private cemetery,
as well as how many people are buried in each family plot.

"Whenever we have a new burial, we have to ask the family for a
copy of their deed, if they have it," Mr. Spitalere said.

For example, if the deed is missing for a family plot where a
husband and wife are buried, the trustees are uncertain of the
exact location of each coffin.  Mr. Spitalere said that can cause
confusion when the family plans to bury another relative there,
and forces a careful examination of the ground to find available
burial space and make sure no coffins are disturbed when the new
grave is dug.

"If we don't have details about the plot, our diggers have to
probe the ground," he said.

In addition to missing deeds, the Hilldale trustees also are
missing information as to perpetual care, which families paid for
as part of their plot package.

Mr. Spitalere said his board is required to keep an account for
perpetual care, which it has, but there was only $8,000 to $9,000
left in the account when his group took over.

While touring the cemetery Wednesday with fellow trustee William
Copeland and an Eagle-Tribune reporter, Mr. Spitalere displayed a
copy of one of the cemetery's oldest deeds, dated September 1898,
for Alfred Smith.

"This is an example of what we are missing," Mr. Spitalere said.

The Hilldale trustees, a group that took over management of the
cemetery last year, are missing copies of more than 1,500 of the
cemetery's deeds after taking over from the previous group that
was in charge.

The Eagle-Tribune sought comment for this story from former
cemetery board President Richard Becker, but learned that
Mr. Becker has died.  Attempts to contact other former cemetery
board members were unsuccessful.

"It is our duty as trustees to maintain the cemetery and its
paperwork," Mr. Copeland said.  "It's a slow process finding each
plot."

Mr. Spitalere said that when his group took over, the former
trustees told him they had donated their records to the public
library's special collections department.

"The former trustees gave us a box of files when we took over, and
the library has since added to it," MR. Spitalere said.  "But we
feel that what they gave us is incomplete."

Theresa Brown, secretary and treasurer of the trustees, is
updating a computerized list of burial permits that was provided
by the library.

"I don't have all of the burial permits or deeds I need to
complete the list and I'm still trying to figure it out," Brown
said.  "Since we took over, I created a second set of records for
new burials."

Mr. Spitalere said his board believes the library's special
collections room storage area might still hold records his group
needs.  That room houses a variety of historical documents from
sources throughout the city.

"We know the library may not have the resources to search, so we
are willing to put in the man hours if they let us into that
storage area," Mr. Spitalere said.

Anyone with deeds to graves in the cemetery is asked to contact
Tom Spitalere at 978-289-8271, or Theresa Brown at 978-289-8270.
Information may also be sent to the Hilldale Cemetery Association,
P.O. Box 5368, Bradford, MA 01835.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Continues to Defend Budeprion Purchasers Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit remains pending against Impax Laboratories,
Inc., in relation to the Company's manufacture of the anti-
depressant drug, Budeprion.

In June 2009, the Company was named a co-defendant in class action
lawsuits filed in California state court in an action titled Kelly
v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd, et al., No. BC414812 (Calif.
Superior Crt. L.A. County).  Subsequently, additional class action
lawsuits were filed in Louisiana (Morgan v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
Indus. Ltd, et al., No. 673880 (24th Dist Crt., Jefferson Parish,
LA.), North Carolina (Weber v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus., Ltd.,
et al., No. 07 CV5002556, (N.C. Superior Crt., Hanover County),
Pennsylvania (Rosenfeld v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.. et al.,
No. 2:09-CV-2811 (E.D. Pa.), Florida (Henchenski and Vogel v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., et al., No. 2:09-CV-470-FLM-29SPC
(M.D. Fla.), Texas (Anderson v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus., Ltd.,
et al., No. 3-09CV1200-M (N.D. Tex.), Oklahoma (Brown et al. v.
Teva Pharmaceuticals Inds., Ltd., et al., No. 09-cv-649-TCK-PJC
(N.D. OK), Ohio (Latvala et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Inds.,
Ltd., et al., No. 2:09-cv-795 (S.D. OH), Alabama (Jordan v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd et al., No. CV09-709 (Ala. Cir. Crt.
Baldwin County), and Washington (Leighty v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
Indus. Ltd et al., No. CV09-01640 (W. D. Wa.).

All of the complaints involve Budeprion XL, a generic version of
Wellbutrin XL(R) that is manufactured by the Company and marketed
by Teva, and allege that, contrary to representations of Teva,
Budeprion XL is less effective in treating depression, and more
likely to cause dangerous side effects, than Wellbutrin XL.

The actions are brought on behalf of purchasers of Budeprion XL
and assert claims like unfair competition, unfair trade practices
and negligent misrepresentation under state law.

Each lawsuit seeks damages in an unspecified amount consisting of
the cost of Budeprion XL paid by class members, as well as any
applicable penalties imposed by state law, and disclaims damages
for personal injury.

The state court cases have been removed to federal court, and a
petition for multidistrict litigation to consolidate the cases in
federal court has been granted.  These cases and any subsequently
filed cases will be heard under the consolidated action entitled
In re: Budeprion XL Marketing Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2107, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to certify that
order for interlocutory appeal, both of which were denied.

Discovery is proceeding, and no trial date has been scheduled, the
Company noted in its November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.


INTERNAP NETWORK: Intends to Seek Dismissal of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Internap Network Services Corporation plans to file a motion to
dismiss an amended complaint before a Georgia court, according to
the company's November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On November 12, 2008, a putative securities fraud class action
lawsuit was filed against the company and its former chief
executive officer in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, captioned Catherine Anastasio and
Stephen Anastasio v. Internap Network Services Corp. and James P.
DeBlasio, Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-3462-JOF.  The complaint
alleges that the company and the individual defendant violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
individual defendant also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act as a "control person" of Internap.  Plaintiffs purport to
bring these claims on behalf of a class of the company's investors
who purchased the company's common stock between March 28, 2007
and March 18, 2008.

Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class
period, the company made misleading statements and omitted
material information regarding (a) integration of VitalStream
Holdings, Inc., which the company acquired in February 2007, (b)
customer issues and related credits due to services outages and
(c) the company's previously reported 2007 revenue that the
company subsequently reduced in 2008 as announced on March 18,
2008.  Plaintiffs assert that the company and the individual
defendant made these misstatements and omissions to keep its stock
price high.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

On August 12, 2009, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file an
Amended Class Action Complaint.  The Amended Complaint added a
claim for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act based on
alleged misrepresentations in the company's proxy statement in
connection with the company's acquisition of VitalStream.  The
Amended Complaint also added the former chief financial officer as
a defendant and lengthened the putative class period.

On September 11, 2009, the company and the individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss.  On November 6, 2009, plaintiffs filed a
Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint.  On December 7, 2009,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint to add allegations regarding, inter alia, an
alleged failure to conduct due diligence in connection with the
VitalStream acquisition and additional statements from purported
confidential witnesses.

On September 15, 2010, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss in part and denied the individual defendants' motion to
dismiss.  The Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section
14(a) of the Exchange Act.  With respect to plaintiffs' claims
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, the Court held that the
Amended Complaint failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, but allowed
plaintiffs' one final opportunity to amend the complaint.

On October 26, 2010, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Class
Action Complaint.

The company intends to file a motion to dismiss this complaint.


JAKKS PACIFIC: Gets Final Court Approval of WWE Suits Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAKKS Pacific Inc. has obtained a final order from a New York
court on a $3.9 million settlement of a class action litigation
related to its WWE licenses, the Company disclosed in its
November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In November 2004, several purported class action lawsuits were
commenced against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York:

   (1) Garcia v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 04-
       8807 (filed on November 5, 2004)

   (2) Jonco Investors, LLC v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil
       Action No. 04-9021 (filed on November 16, 2004)

   (3) Kahn v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 04-
       8910 (filed on November 10, 2004)

   (4) Quantum Equities L.L.C. v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al.,
       Civil Action No. 04-8877 (filed on November 9, 2004)

   (5) Irvine v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 04-
       9078 (filed on November 16, 2004)

The complaints in the Class Actions alleged that defendants issued
positive statements concerning increasing sales of their World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., licensed products which were false
and misleading because the WWE licenses had allegedly been
obtained through a pattern of commercial bribery, their
relationship with the WWE was being negatively impacted by the
WWE's contentions and there was an increased risk that the WWE
would either seek modification or nullification of the licensing
agreements with the Company.  The Plaintiffs also alleged that the
defendants misleadingly failed to disclose the alleged fact that
the WWE licenses were obtained through an unlawful bribery scheme.

The plaintiffs in the Class Actions were described as purchasers
of the Company's common stock, who purchased from as early as
October 26, 1999 to as late as October 19, 2004.

The Class Actions sought compensatory and other damages in an
undisclosed amount, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by each of the
defendants (namely the Company and Messrs. Friedman, Berman and
Bennett), and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
Messrs. Friedman, Berman and Bennett.

On January 25, 2005, the Court consolidated the Class Actions
under the caption, "In re JAKKS Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class
Action Litigation, Civil Action No. 04-8807."

On May 11, 2005, the Court appointed co-lead counsels and provided
until July 11, 2005 for an amended complaint to be filed; and a
briefing schedule thereafter with respect to a motion to dismiss.

The motion to dismiss was fully briefed and argument occurred on
November 30, 2006.  The motion was granted in January 2008 to the
extent that the Class Actions were dismissed without prejudice to
plaintiffs' right to seek leave to file an amended complaint based
on statements that the WWE licenses were obtained from the WWE as
a result of the long-term relationship with WWE.

A motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint was granted
and an amended complaint filed.

Briefing was completed with respect to a motion to dismiss that
was scheduled for argument in October 2008.  The Court adjourned
the argument date.

The parties subsequently notified the Court that an agreement to
resolve the action was reached.  In November 2009, a motion was
filed by plaintiffs' counsel for preliminary approval of the
agreement, which provides for the matter to be settled for $3.9
million, without any admission of liability on the part of the
Company, or its officers and directors.

On June 29, 2010, the Court found preliminary that the settlement
was fair and scheduled the Fairness Hearing for October 19, 2010.

On October 19, 2010, the Court approved the settlement of the
Class Actions.


LORAL SPACE: May be Liable to D&O Claims Related to Schwartz Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Loral Space & Communications Inc. disclosed that it may be
accountable to certain directors & officers' claims in the class
action litigation involving its former CEO and CFO, the Company
noted in a November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

In August 2003, plaintiffs Robert Beleson and Harvey Matcovsky
filed a purported class action complaint against Bernard L.
Schwartz, the former Chief Executive Officer of Old Loral, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The complaint sought, among other things, damages in an
unspecified amount and reimbursement of plaintiffs' reasonable
costs and expenses.

The complaint alleged:

   (i) that Mr. Schwartz violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
       Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
       by making material misstatements or failing to state
       material facts about the Company's financial condition
       relating to the sale of assets by Old Loral to Intelsat
       Global S.A. and Old Loral's chapter 11 filing; and

  (ii) that Mr. Schwartz is secondarily liable for those alleged
       misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the
       Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person" of Old
       Loral.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Old Loral common stock during
the period from June 30, 2003 through July 15, 2003.

In November 2003, three other complaints against Mr. Schwartz with
substantially similar allegations were consolidated into the
Beleson case.  The November 2003 complaints were filed by
plaintiffs Tony Christ, individually and as custodian for Brian
and Katelyn Christ, Casey Crawford, Thomas Orndorff and Marvin
Rich in the New York District Court.  The Complaints also name
Richard J. Townsend, the former chief financial officer of Old
Loral.

Mr. Christ filed a motion for summary judgment in July 2008, and
plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment in
September 2008.  In February 2009, the court granted defendant's
motion and denied plaintiffs' cross motion.  In March 2009,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with respect to the court's
decision.

Pursuant to stipulations entered into in February, May, July,
August and October 2010 among the parties and the plaintiffs in
the Christ case, the appeal, which has been consolidated with the
Christ case, was withdrawn, provided however, that plaintiffs may
reinstate the appeal on or before November 19, 2010.

Since the case was not brought against Old Loral, but only against
one of its officers, the Company believes, although no assurance
can be given, that, to the extent that any award is ultimately
granted to the plaintiffs in this action, the liability of Loral,
if any, with respect is limited solely to the D&O Claims.

The Company estimates that in no event will indemnity claims
against Old Loral exceed $25 million.


METLIFE INC: Made All Payments According to Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
In August 2010, MetLife Inc. made all payments required under a
settlement in the consolidated court class action styled In re
MetLife Demutualization Litigation, according to the company's
November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The company is a defendant a lawsuit challenging the fairness of
the Plan and the adequacy and accuracy of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's disclosure to policyholders regarding MLIC's
plan of reorganization, as amended.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated federal court class action, In
re MetLife Demutualization Litig. (E.D.N.Y., filed April 18,
2000), sought rescission and compensatory damages against MLIC and
the Holding Company.  Plaintiffs asserted violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Plan, claiming that the Policyholder
Information Booklets failed to disclose certain material facts and
contained certain material misstatements.  The court certified a
litigation class of present and former policyholders.

The parties to the lawsuit entered into a settlement agreement in
November 2009.

The federal court approved the settlement in orders issued on
Feb. 12, 2010.  On March 2, 2010, the federal court entered final
judgment confirming the approval of the settlement and dismissing
the action.

On March 15, 2010, an objector filed a notice of appeal of the
federal court's order approving the settlement.

On June 28, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
dismissed the only notice of appeal filed with respect to the
settlement.

In August 2010, MetLife made all payments required under the
settlement.


METLIFE INC: Dismissal of ADA Suit Is Final
-------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., disclosed that the dismissal of the putative class
action lawsuit entitled The American Dental Association, et al. v.
MetLife, Inc., et al., is final, according to the company's
November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The suit was filed May 19, 2003, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

The American Dental Association and three individual providers had
sued the company, Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. and other non-
affiliated insurance companies in a putative class action lawsuit.

The plaintiffs purported to represent a nationwide class of in-
network providers who alleged that their claims were being
wrongfully reduced by downcoding, bundling, and the improper use
and programming of software.

The complaint alleged federal racketeering and various state law
theories of liability.

On Feb. 10, 2009, the district court granted the company's motion
to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint, dismissing all of
plaintiffs' claims except for breach of contract claims.

Plaintiffs were provided with an opportunity to re-plead the
dismissed claims by Feb. 26, 2009.

Since plaintiffs never amended these claims, they were dismissed
with prejudice on March 2, 2009.

By order dated March 20, 2009, the district court declined to
retain jurisdiction over the remaining breach of contract claims
and dismissed the lawsuit.

On April 17, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from this
order.

On May 14, 2010, the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision affirming
the district court's dismissal of the lawsuit.

Since the plaintiffs have not sought Supreme Court review of the
Eleventh Circuit's decision within the required time period, the
dismissal is final.


METLIFE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Thomas" Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of plaintiffs on the order dismissing the class action
lawsuit captioned Thomas, et al., v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,
et al., remains pending.

A putative class action complaint was filed against MLIC and
MetLife Securities, Inc.

Plaintiffs assert legal theories of violations of the federal
securities laws and violations of state laws with respect to the
sale of certain proprietary products by the company's agency
distribution group.

Plaintiffs seek rescission, compensatory damages, interest,
punitive damages and attorneys' fees and expenses.

In January and May 2008, the court issued orders granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss in part, dismissing all of
plaintiffs' claims except for claims under the Investment Advisers
Act.

Defendants' motion to dismiss claims under the Investment Advisers
Act was denied.

In March 2009, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

In August 2009, the court granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment.

On Sept. 29, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
court's order dismissing the lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the company's November 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


METLIFE INC: Defends Against "Market Rate" Tenants Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., continues to defend the matter Roberts, et al., v.
Tishman Speyer Properties, et al., according to the company's
November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court, New York County, on
Jan. 22, 2007.  The lawsuit was filed by a putative class of
"market rate" tenants at Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village
against parties including Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance
Company and Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company.  This
group of tenants claim that the Company, and since the sale of the
properties, Tishman Speyer as current owner, improperly charged
market rents when only lower regulated rents were permitted.  The
allegations are based on the impact of so-called J-51 tax
abatements.  The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief and damages for
rent overcharges.

In August 2007, the trial court granted the company's motion to
dismiss and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

In March 2009, New York's intermediate appellate court reversed
the trial court's decision and reinstated the lawsuit.  The
defendants appealed this ruling to the New York State Court of
Appeals, which in October 2009 issued an opinion affirming the
ruling of the intermediate appellate court.

The action has been remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings.  Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint and the
company has filed a motion to dismiss.  In August 2010, Manhattan
state Supreme Court Justice Richard Lowe III ruled against a
motion to dismiss the case against MetLife.

The current owner is pursuing potential settlement of the claims
against it.


METLIFE INC: Motion to Remand Brokerage Antitrust Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion to remand the class action entitled In Re Ins.
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation to state court in Florida is
pending.

The suit was filed Feb. 24, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for
the District Court of New Jersey.

In this multi-district class action proceeding (MDL No. 1663;
Master Docket Nos. 04-5184 and 05-1079), plaintiffs' complaint
alleged that MetLife, Inc., Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
several non-affiliated insurance companies and several insurance
brokers violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, and antitrust laws and committed other misconduct in the
context of providing insurance to employee benefit plans and to
persons who participate in such employee benefit plans.

In August and September 2007 and January 2008, the court issued
orders granting defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice the
federal antitrust, the RICO, and the ERISA claims.

In February 2008, the court dismissed the remaining state law
claims on jurisdictional grounds.

Plaintiffs' appeal from the orders dismissing their RICO and
federal antitrust claims is pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.

A putative class action alleging that the company and other non-
affiliated defendants violated state laws was transferred to the
District of New Jersey but was not consolidated with other related
actions.  Plaintiffs' motion to remand this action to state court
in Florida is pending.

No further updates were reported in the company's November 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


METLIFE INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in "Clark" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the putative class action lawsuit Clark, et al.,
v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, has appealed to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the order
granting Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion for summary
judgment, according to MetLife, Inc.'s November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada on March 28, 2008.

This lawsuit alleges breach of contract and breach of a common law
fiduciary and/or quasi-fiduciary duty arising from use of the
Total Control Account to pay life insurance policy death benefits.
As damages, plaintiffs seek disgorgement of the difference between
the interest paid to the account holders and the investment
earnings on the assets backing the accounts.

In March 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part MLIC's
motion to dismiss, dismissing the fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment claims but allowing a breach of contract claim and a
special or confidential relationship claim to go forward.  In
December 2009, MLIC filed a motion for summary judgment and
plaintiff filed a motion seeking class certification.

On September 9, 2010, the court granted MLIC's motion for summary
judgment.  On September 20, 2010, plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.


METLIFE INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Faber" Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of plaintiffs on the dismissal of the putative class
action lawsuit Faber, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, according to MetLife, Inc.'s November 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on Dec. 4, 2008.

The suit alleges that MLIC's use of the Total Control Account as
the settlement option under group life insurance policies violates
MLIC's fiduciary duties under ERISA.  As damages, plaintiffs seek
disgorgement of the difference between the interest paid to the
account holders and the investment earnings on the assets backing
the accounts.

On Oct. 23, 2009, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss with
prejudice.  On Nov. 24, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


METLIFE INC: Contract Breach Suits v. Medical Providers Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Putative nationwide class actions against Metropolitan Property
and Casualty Ins. Co. remain pending.

Two putative nationwide class actions, styled Shipley v. St. Paul
Fire and Marine Ins. Co. and Metropolitan Property and Casualty
Ins. Co. (Ill. Cir. Ct., Madison County, filed Feb. 26 and July 2,
2003), have been filed against Metropolitan Property and Casualty
Ins. Co. in Illinois.

One suit claims breach of contract and fraud due to the alleged
underpayment of medical claims arising from the use of a
purportedly biased provider fee pricing system.  The second suit
currently alleges breach of contract arising from the alleged use
of preferred provider organizations to reduce medical provider
fees covered by the medical claims portion of the insurance
policy.

Motions for class certification have been filed and briefed in
both cases.

Simon v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co. (W.D. Okla.,
filed Sept. 23, 2008), a third putative nationwide class action
lawsuit relating to payment of medical providers, is pending in
federal court in Oklahoma.

No further updates were reported in MetLife, Inc.'s November 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Against "Keife" Suit in Nevada
---------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit was filed in Nevada in July 2010
captioned Keife, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
according to MetLife, Inc.'s November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada on July 30, 2010, and removed to federal court on Sept. 7,
2010.

This putative class action lawsuit alleges breach of contract,
breach of a common law fiduciary duty, breach of duties arising
from a special or confidential relations hip, and breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising from MLIC's use of
the TCA to pay life insurance benefits under the FEGLI program.

As damages, plaintiffs seek disgorgement of the difference between
the interest paid to the account holders and the investment
earnings on the assets backing the accounts.

In Sept. 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
of the breach of contract claim, which the court has stayed.  MLIC
has not yet filed a response to the complaint.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Sales Practices Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., continues to defend claims in pending sales
practices litigation matters.

Over the past several years, the company has faced numerous
claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper
marketing or sales of individual life insurance policies,
annuities, mutual funds or other products.

Some of the current cases seek substantial damages, including
punitive and treble damages and attorneys' fees.

At Dec. 31, 2009, there were approximately 130 sales practices
litigation matters pending against the company.

No further updates were reported in the company's November 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


MICROTUNE INC: Parties in Merger Dispute Seek to Settle Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the lawsuits relating to Microtune Inc.'s merger
transaction entered into a memorandum of understanding in an
effort to settle class action lawsuits pending in Texas and
Delaware, according to the company's Form 8-K filing dated
November 3, 2010.

Six putative class actions were filed on behalf of holders of
Microtune common stock in Collin County, Texas.  These six
lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into In re Microtune
Litigation, Lead Case No. 219-03729-2010.  Each of the six
lawsuits underlying the Texas Action named as defendants each
member of Microtune's board of directors, and three of the
underlying lawsuits named Justin Chapman as a defendant.

Each of the lawsuits underlying the Texas Action also names
Microtune, Zoran Corporation and Maple Acquisition Corp.  The
Texas Action seeks relief based on allegations that the Merger
constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties owed to the Company's
stockholders by the Individual Defendants and included allegations
that the Company and Zoran Defendants aided and abetted those
breaches of fiduciary duties.

On September 9, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas by Steven Goldstein, which was voluntarily dismissed on
September 25, 2010.

On September 17, 2010, Mr. Goldstein filed a purported class
action now pending in Delaware Chancery Court, captioned Goldstein
v. Fontaine, et al., Case No. 5825 which makes substantially
similar allegations to those in the Texas Action.  The Delaware
Action also names as defendants each of the Microtune Defendants
and each of the Zoran Defendants.

On November 3, 2010, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding reflecting an agreement in
principle to settle the Actions.  The settlement includes the
Company's agreement to provide certain additional disclosures
relating to the Merger.

The Defendants in the Actions, including the Company, each have
denied, and continue to deny, any wrongdoing whatsoever in
connection with the Merger, and the Company's directors expressly
maintain that they complied with their fiduciary duties.  The
Defendants in the Actions, including the Company, believe the
Actions are without merit and they entered into the Memorandum of
Understanding solely to avoid the burdens and expense of further
litigation and because they believe that the Merger is in the best
interests of the Company's stockholders.

The Memorandum of Understanding is subject to customary conditions
including completion of appropriate settlement documentation,
completion of due diligence to confirm the fairness of the
settlement, approval by the District Court of Collin County,
Texas, and consummation of the Merger.  If the settlement is
consummated, and the other conditions to settlement are met, the
Actions will be dismissed with prejudice and the Defendants and
other released persons will receive from or on behalf of all
record holders and beneficial owners of the Company's common stock
on September 8, 2010 through the date of consummation of the
Merger a release of all claims relating to the Merger, the Merger
Agreement and the transactions contemplated therein, other than
rights provided to stockholders under Delaware law to seek
appraisal of the value of their shares.

Members of the purported plaintiff class will be sent notice of
the proposed settlement, and a hearing before the District Court
of Collin County, Texas will be scheduled regarding, among other
things, approval of the proposed settlement and any application by
Plaintiffs' counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses
(which will be in an amount not to exceed $415,000).

The Company said there can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the
District Court of Collin County, Texas will approve the settlement
even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation or the
amount of the attorneys' fees and expenses that Plaintiffs'
counsel may be awarded.  In the event the court does not approve
the proposed settlement, the terms of the settlement contemplated
under the Memorandum of Understanding may be terminated.
Notwithstanding, the special meeting of the stockholders of the
Company to approve the proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement
remains scheduled for November 19, 2010.


MORTON'S RESTAURANT: San Diego Class Action Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2010, two former employees of Morton's Restaurant
Group, Inc.'s San Diego steakhouse filed a class action complaint
against Morton's of Chicago/San Diego, Inc. in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of San Diego, alleging
certain violations of the California Labor Code and the California
Unfair Competition Law for failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, failure to pay overtime and failure to provide employees
with accurate wage statements.

The plaintiffs are seeking recovery of statutory penalties, unpaid
wages and overtime, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief
and attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company is contesting this
matter vigorously.

The Company says the plaintiffs in this matter have not stated the
amount of damages sought and, at this stage of the proceedings, it
is not possible to state the estimated damages sought by the
plaintiffs.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 3,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 3, 2010.


MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Costa Mesa Class Action Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a class action complaint filed in Chicago alleging labor
code violations, according to the Company's November 3, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended October 3, 2010.

In August 2010, a former employee of the Company's Costa Mesa
steakhouse filed a state-wide class action complaint against
Morton's of Chicago, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, alleging certain
violations of the California Labor Code and the California Unfair
Competition Law for failure to provide meal and rest breaks,
failure to pay overtime and failure to provide employees with
accurate wage statements as a result of the classification of
California-based Assistant Managers and Day Managers as salaried
exempt.

The plaintiff is seeking recovery of statutory penalties, unpaid
wages and overtime, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief
and attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company is contesting this
matter vigorously.

In September 2010, the Company removed the case to Federal court
and the plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to remand, which is
currently pending.

The Company says the plaintiff in this matter has not stated the
amount of damages sought and, at this stage of the proceedings, it
is not possible to state the estimated damages sought by the
plaintiff.


NORTH COUNTY: 9th Cir. Upholds Class Action Status Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Bradley J. Fikes, writing for the North County Times, reports the
North County Times has lost an appeal of a decision granting
class-action status to a lawsuit filed on behalf of its newspaper
carriers.

A three-member panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled
2-1 Tuesday against the North County Times, the name under which
Lee Publications is doing business in San Diego County.

Seven individuals filed the lawsuit in August 2008 in the U.S.
District Court of Southern California, seeking class-action status
on behalf of an estimated 800 North County Times carriers. That
status was granted in July of this year.

The lawsuit is among several such lawsuits that carriers have
filed in recent years against newspapers, including the Orange
County Register and the Antelope Valley Press.  The lawsuits
allege the carriers were improperly categorized as independent
contractors to save the newspapers money.

The North County Times lawsuit says the carriers were supervised
and given training like employees, and so under labor law deserved
compensation as employees.  The carriers say they were denied
overtime, meal and rest breaks, payment of tips, and other
benefits that employees are legally entitled to receive.

The Times denies the allegations, and says that the carriers'
complaints are not sufficiently similar to warrant class action
status.

"We are disappointed that the reviewing panel decided not to have
the court address the class-action issue at this point in the
litigation; however, we believe our facts will ultimately
prevail," said Dan Hayes, a spokesman for Lee Enterprises, the
parent company of the North County Times.

The Times contended that the class-action decision could, in a
worst-case scenario, expose the company to an unsustainable $18
million in liability.

Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, who dissented from the Ninth Circuit
opinion, said that such financial exposure could put the company
under a "death-knell situation" that might force it to settle with
the carriers rather than risk losing the lawsuit.

However, C. Keith Greer, an attorney for the carriers, said his
own estimate of the liability was no more than $5 million, not the
$18 million claimed by the North County Times.

"I'll be asking the North County Times attorneys about that $18
million figure," Mr. Greer said.  "One of my next questions to
them is going to be, 'Please provide us with the documents and
facts on which you base your assessment that there's $18 million
worth of damages here.'"

David D. Kadue, an attorney for the North County Times, said the
maximum liability was calculated by adding up the individual
claims made in the lawsuit.

Mr. Kadue said the $18 million figure was first brought up in
2008, when the North County Times used it as justification to
shift the case to federal court from state court, where it was
originally filed earlier that year.

While the paper could appeal the decision to the entire Ninth
Circuit in an en banc hearing, Mr. Kadue said that probably
wouldn't happen.

Mr. Kadue said the North County Times will have two more chances
during the lawsuit to ask for revocation of class-action status,
first with the district court before trial begins, and later to
the Ninth Circuit if the North County Times loses the trial.

The lawsuit will probably move next to the discovery phase, Greer
said.  In discovery, the parties seek evidence from each other to
be used in the trial.


NORTHWEST PIPE: Consolidated Securities Class Action Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit filed against Northwest Pipe
Company in Washington remains pending, according to the Company's
November 4, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009.

On November 20, 2009, a complaint against Northwest Pipe Company,
captioned Richard v. Northwest Pipe Co. et al., No. C09-5724 RBL,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington.  The plaintiff is allegedly a purchaser of
Northwest Pipe stock.

In addition to Northwest Pipe, Brian W. Dunham, the Company's
former president and CEO, and Stephanie J. Welty, the Company's
current CFO, are named as defendants.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements between
April 23, 2008, and November 11, 2009.  Plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of persons who purchased Northwest Pipe stock
during the same period and seeks damages for losses caused by the
alleged wrongdoing.

A similar complaint, captioned Plumbers and Pipefitters Local
Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund v. Northwest Pipe Co. et
al., No. C09-5791 RBL, was filed against the Company in the same
court on December 22, 2009.  In addition to the Company, Brian W.
Dunham, Stephanie J. Welty and William R. Tagmyer, the Company's
current Chairman of the Board, are named as defendants in the
Plumbers complaint.  In the Plumbers complaint, as in the Richard
complaint, the plaintiff is allegedly a purchaser of Northwest
Pipe stock and asserts that defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements between
April 23, 2008, and November 11, 2009.  Plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of persons who purchased Northwest Pipe stock
during that period, and seeks damages for losses caused by the
alleged wrongdoing.

The Richard action and the Plumbers action were consolidated on
February 25, 2010.  Plumbers and Pipefitters Local No. 630
Pension-Annuity Trust Fund was appointed lead plaintiff in the
consolidated action.  Defendants and lead plaintiff subsequently
agreed that defendants do not need to respond to either of the two
outstanding complaints, and that a consolidated amended complaint
will be filed within 45 days of the Company having completed the
filing of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2009, and its 2009 Form 10-K with the SEC.  The
parties also have stipulated to a briefing schedule for motions to
dismiss to be filed after the filing of a consolidated amended
complaint.

Northwest Pipe says it intends to vigorously defend itself against
these claims, and that since the securities litigation is at a
very early stage, it is not possible to predict its outcome at
this time.


NUTRISYSTEM INC: Appeal on Dismissal of Consolidated Suit Ends
--------------------------------------------------------------
Commencing on Oct. 9, 2007, several putative class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania naming Nutrisystem, Inc., and certain of its officers
and directors as defendants and alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
complaints purported to bring claims on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased the company's common stock between Feb. 14,
2007 and Oct. 3, 2007 or Oct. 4, 2007.

The complaints alleged that the defendants issued various
materially false and misleading statements relating to the
Company's projected performance that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of its securities.

These actions were consolidated in December 2007 under docket
number 07-4215.

On Jan. 3, 2008, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel pursuant to the requirements of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and a consolidated amended
complaint was filed on March 7, 2008.  The consolidated amended
complaint raised the same claims but alleged a class period of
Feb. 14, 2007 through Feb. 19, 2008.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 6, 2008.  On
Aug. 31, 2009, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss.

On Sept. 29, 2009, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and the
appeal was fully briefed.  On May 19, 2010, upon motion by the
appellant, the appeal was dismissed without costs to either party.

No further updates were reported in the company's November 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Court Dismisses Delaware Actions
--------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery in the state of Delaware dismissed two
purported class actions where ON Semiconductor Corporation is a
defendant, according to the company's November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 1, 2010.

On Jan. 27, 2010, the company completed its acquisition of all of
the outstanding shares of common stock of California Micro Devices
Corporation through a cash tender offer of $4.70 per share which
was then followed by the merger of Pac-10 Acquisition Corporation,
the company's direct, wholly owned subsidiary, and CMD, in
accordance with the Dec. 14, 2009 definitive merger agreement
which the company previously announced it had entered into with
CMD.  Shortly after the company signed the Merger Agreement and
announced the tender offer, the company was named as a defendant
in three purported class action lawsuits, filed in California and
Delaware against the company, CMD, CMD's Board of Directors and
Pac-10 Acquisition.

On Dec. 14, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California captioned
Robert Varrenti, et al. v. Robert Dickinson, Edward Ross, John
Sprague, David Wittrock, David Sear, Jon Castor, John Fichthorn,
J. Michael Gullard, Kenneth Potashner, California Micro Devices,
ON Semiconductor Corporation and Pac-10 Acquisition Corporation
(No. 109CV159469).  On Dec. 29, 2009, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.

On Dec. 21, 2009, a second purported class action lawsuit was
filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware captioned
Annamarie Medeiros et al. v. California Micro Devices, Jon S.
Castor, Robert V. Dickinson, Edward C. Ross, John Fichthorn, J.
Michael Gullard, Kenneth Potashner, David L. Wittrock, Pac-10
Acquisition Corporation and ON Semiconductor Corporation (No.
5159).

On Jan. 4, 2010, a third purported class action lawsuit was filed
in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware captioned Sanjay
Israni, et al. v. California Micro Devices, Robert V. Dickinson,
Edward C. Ross, Jon S. Castor, John Fichthorn, J. Michael Gullard,
Kenneth Potashner, David L. Wittrock, ON Semiconductor Corporation
and Pac-10 Acquisition Corporation (No. 5181).

All three lawsuits contain similar allegations, stating generally
that the proposed Transaction is the product of a breach of
fiduciary duties by CMD's Board of Directors by failing to
adequately discharge their duties in negotiating and agreeing to
the Transaction and that the company and the Purchaser assisted in
that breach.  All three lawsuits requested an injunction enjoining
the consummation of the Transaction.

The Israni complaint also included a request for damages.

On Jan. 19, 2010, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the three lawsuits and on Feb. 18, 2010,
the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement.

The settlement, like the MOU, calls for CMD to agree to make
available to shareholders certain additional information, which
has been completed, and CMD or its insurer to agree to pay
plaintiffs' counsel for fees and expenses not to exceed $495,000.
The company expects CMD's insurer to pay $245,000 of this total
amount.  This payment did not affect the amount of consideration
paid to the stockholders of CMD in connection with the
Transaction.

The Stipulation was filed with the Court on March 29, 2010, and a
hearing to preliminarily approve the settlement was held on May 7,
2010.

On May 25, 2010, the Court preliminarily approved the Stipulation
and scheduled a settlement hearing on July 23, 2010.

At the July 23, 2010 hearing, the court approved the settlement,
but requested additional information from the plaintiffs regarding
fees and expenses.

On Aug. 2, 2010, the Court issued a final judgment approving the
settlement set forth in the Stipulation and dismissing the
California Action with prejudice.

On Sept. 8, 2010, the Delaware Court issued its order dismissing
the Delaware Actions with prejudice based on the preceding order
issued by the California Court.


ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Appeals on IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several appeals relating to a settlement of an initial public
offering litigation against certain issuers, including ON
Semiconductor Corporation, remain pending, according to the
company's November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 1, 2010.

On Oct. 6, 2009, the District Court issued an order granting final
approval to the settlement.  That order remains subject to appeal.
Several appeals have been filed objecting to the definition of the
settlement class and fairness of the settlement, and those appeals
remain pending.

During the period July 5, 2001 through July 27, 2001, the Company
was named as a defendant in three shareholder class action
lawsuits that were filed in federal court in New York City against
the Company and certain of its former officers, current and former
directors and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering.  The lawsuits allege violations of the federal
securities laws and have been docketed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York as: Abrams v. ON
Semiconductor Corp., et al., C.A. No 01-CV-6114; Breuer v. ON
Semiconductor Corp., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-6287; and Cohen v. ON
Semiconductor Corp., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-6942.

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a single consolidated
amended complaint that supersedes the individual complaints
originally filed.  The amended complaint alleges, among other
things, that the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering improperly required their customers to pay the
underwriters' excessive commissions and to agree to buy additional
shares of the Company's common stock in the aftermarket as
conditions of receiving shares in the Company's initial public
offering.

The amended complaint further alleges that these supposed
practices of the underwriters should have been disclosed in the
Company's initial public offering prospectus and registration
statement.  The amended complaint alleges violations of both the
registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities
laws and seeks unspecified damages.

The Company understands that various other plaintiffs have filed
substantially similar class action cases against approximately 300
other publicly-traded companies and their public offering
underwriters in New York City, which have all been transferred,
along with the case against the Company, to a single federal
district court judge for purposes of coordinated case management.

On July 15, 2002, together with the other issuer defendants, the
Company filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated,
amended complaints against the issuers on various legal grounds
common to all or most of the issuer defendants.  The underwriters
also filed separate motions to dismiss the claims against them.

In addition, the parties have stipulated to the voluntary
dismissal without prejudice of the Company's individual former
officers and current and former directors who were named as
defendants in the Company's litigation, and they are no longer
parties to the litigation.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the District Court issued its ruling on the
motions to dismiss filed by the underwriter and issuer defendants.
In that ruling the District Court granted in part and denied in
part those motions.  As to the claims brought against the Company
under the antifraud provisions of the securities laws, the
District Court dismissed all of these claims with prejudice, and
refused to allow plaintiffs the opportunity to re-plead these
claims.

As to the claims brought under the registration provisions of the
securities laws, which do not require that intent to defraud be
pleaded, the District Court denied the motion to dismiss these
claims as to the Company and as to substantially all of the other
issuer defendants as well.  The District Court also denied the
underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects.

In June 2003, upon the determination of a special independent
committee of the Company's Board of Directors, the Company elected
to participate in a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs in
this litigation.  Had it been approved by the District Court, this
proposed settlement would have resulted in the dismissal, with
prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the Company and
against any of the other issuer defendants who elected to
participate in the proposed settlement, together with the current
or former officers and directors of participating issuers who were
named as individual defendants.

This proposed issuer settlement was conditioned on, among other
things, a ruling by the District Court that the claims against the
Company and against the other issuers who had agreed to the
settlement would be certified for class action treatment for
purposes of the proposed settlement, such that all investors
included in the proposed classes in these cases would be bound by
the terms of the settlement unless an investor opted to be
excluded from the settlement in a timely and appropriate fashion.

On Dec. 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
issued a decision in In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation that six purported class action lawsuits containing
allegations substantially similar to those asserted against the
Company could not be certified as class actions due, in part, to
the Court of Appeals' determination that individual issues of
reliance and knowledge would predominate over issues common to the
proposed classes.

On Jan. 8, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a petition seeking rehearing
en banc of this ruling.  On April 6, 2007, the Court of Appeals
denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing of the Court of
Appeals' December 5, 2006 ruling.  The Court of Appeals, however,
noted that the plaintiffs remained free to ask the District Court
to certify classes different from the ones originally proposed
which might meet the standards for class certification that the
Court of Appeals articulated in its Dec. 5, 2006 decision.

In light of the Court of Appeals' December 5, 2006 decision
regarding certification of the plaintiffs' claims, the District
Court entered an order on June 25, 2007 terminating the proposed
settlement between the plaintiffs and the issuers, including the
Company.

On Aug. 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the
six focus cases.  The issuer defendants and the underwriter
defendants separately moved to dismiss the claims against them in
the amended complaints in the six focus cases.  On March 26, 2008,
the District Court issued an order in which it denied in
substantial part the motions to dismiss the amended complaints in
the six focus cases.

On Feb. 25, 2009, the parties advised the District Court that they
had reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the litigation in
its entirety.  A stipulation of settlement was filed with the
District Court on April 2, 2009.

On June 9, 2009, the District Court preliminarily approved the
proposed global settlement.  Notice was provided to the class, and
a settlement fairness hearing, at which members of the class had
an opportunity to object to the proposed settlement, was held on
Sept. 10, 2009.

On Oct. 6, 2009, the District Court issued an order granting final
approval to the settlement.  That order remains subject to appeal.
Several appeals have been filed objecting to the definition of the
settlement class and fairness of the settlement, and those appeals
remain pending.

The settlement calls for a total payment of $586 million from all
defendants, including underwriters, of which $100 million is
allocated to the approximately 300 issuer defendants.  Under the
settlement, the Company's insurers are to pay the full amount of
settlement share allocated to the Company, and the Company would
bear no financial liability.

The Company, as well as the officer and director defendants who
were previously dismissed from the action pursuant to tolling
agreements, are to receive complete dismissals from the case.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Appeal on Settlement in IPO Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several notices of appeal have been filed by class members from
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York's order approving a settlement in the securities class action
filed against Openwave Systems Inc., according to the company's
November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On Nov. 5, 2001, a securities fraud class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. In re Openwave Systems Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9744 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.),
related to In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
21MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.).  It is brought purportedly on behalf of
all persons who purchased shares of the Company's common stock
from June 11, 1999 through December 6, 2000.

The defendants are the Company and five of its present or former
officers, and several investment banking firms that served as
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and
secondary public offering.  Three of the individual defendants
were dismissed without prejudice, subject to a tolling of the
statute of limitations.

The complaint alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statements for the offerings did not disclose that :
(1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers to
purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for excess
commissions paid to the underwriters; and (2) the underwriters had
arranged for certain customers to purchase additional shares in
the aftermarket at predetermined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were
issued by Credit Suisse First Boston, Hambrecht & Quist, Robertson
Stephens, and Piper Jaffray.

No specific damages are claimed.  Similar allegations were made in
over 300 other lawsuits challenging public offerings conducted in
1999 and 2000, and the cases were consolidated for pretrial
purposes.

The Company had accepted a settlement proposal presented to all
issuer defendants.  Under the settlement proposal, plaintiffs
would have dismissed and released all claims against the Openwave
Defendants in exchange for a contingent payment by the insurance
companies responsible for insuring the issuers and for the
assignment or surrender of control of certain claims the Company
may have against the underwriters.

The Openwave Defendants would not be required to make any cash
payment in the settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by the
insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount of insurance
coverage.

The settlement required approval of the Court, which could not be
assured, after class members were given the opportunity to object
to or opt out of the settlement.

The Court held a hearing on April 24, 2006, to consider whether
final approval should be granted.  Subsequently, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the class
certification of plaintiffs' claims against the underwriters in
six cases designated as focus or test cases.  Miles v. Merrill
Lynch & Co. (In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation),
471F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006).

Thereafter, the District Court ordered a stay of all proceedings
in all of the lawsuits pending the outcome of plaintiffs' petition
to the Second Circuit for rehearing en banc and resolution of the
class certification issue.  On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit
denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, but clarified that the
plaintiffs may seek to certify a more limited class in the
District Court.

Accordingly, the parties withdrew the prior settlement, and
Plaintiffs submitted amended complaints in designated focus or
test cases with a revised class definition, in an attempt to
comply with the Second Circuit's ruling.

On April 2, 2009, the parties in all the lawsuits submitted a
settlement for the Court's approval.  Under the settlement, the
Openwave Defendants would not be required to make any cash
payment.

On Oct. 6, 2009, the Court approved the settlement, under which
the Openwave Defendants are not required to contribute any cash.
Subsequently, the Court entered a judgment on the settlement.

Several notices of appeal have been filed by putative class
members, challenging the settlement and the judgment.  The Company
believes a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable.
Therefore, no amount has been accrued as of September 30, 2010.


PACKAGING CORPORATION: Defends Five Containerboard Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Packaging Corporation of America is defending itself from five
class action lawsuits filed by its customers, according to the
Company's November 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

During September and October 2010, PCA and eight other U.S. and
Canadian containerboard producers were named as defendants in five
purported class action lawsuits filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging
violations of the Sherman Act.

Four of the suits have been designated as related; PCA expects
that the fifth complaint will be so designated as well.

The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to limit the
supply of containerboard, and that the purpose and effect of the
alleged conspiracy was to artificially increase prices of
containerboard products during the period of August 2005 to the
time of filing of the complaints.

The complaints were filed as purported class action suits on
behalf of all purchasers of containerboard products during such
period.  The complaints seek treble damages and costs, including
attorney's fees.


PG&E CORP: Continues to Install SmartMeter(TM) Units Despite Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation's operating unit, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, continues to install SmartMeter(TM) meters despite
suppliers being implicated in several class action litigation, the
Company noted in its November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

Class action lawsuits have been filed in federal and California
state court against the various companies that have supplied
SmartMeter(TM) devices, components, and software to Pacific Gas
and Electric.

The complaints allege that the new meters report electric
consumption in amounts materially greater than the electricity
that the class members actually consumed, resulting in electric
bill overcharges.

Pacific Gas and Company is not named as a defendant in the
complaints.

Pacific Gas and Company is continuing to install the new meters.

Various municipalities in Pacific Gas and Company's service
territory have approved ordinances to either suspend or prohibit
the installation of SmartMeter(TM) devices primarily based on
concerns about the health, environmental, and safety impacts of
the RF technology on which Pacific Gas and Company's
SmartMeter(TM) program relies.

The California Public Utilities Commission has stated that those
ordinances would interfere with its exclusive jurisdiction over
Pacific Gas and Electric's SmartMeter(TM) program.

The outcome, according to the Company, of the matters may have an
effect on Pacific Gas and Electric's ability to recover costs to
implement advanced metering if the CPUC finds that the costs are
not reasonable or are otherwise disallowed.  The Company adds that
if Pacific Gas and Electric's is prohibited from continuing to
install the new meters or if Pacific Gas and Electric otherwise
fails to recognize the expected benefits of its advanced metering
infrastructure, its and Pacific Gas and Electric's financial
condition, results of operations, and cash flows could be
materially adversely affected.


PG&E CORP: Court Dismisses Electric Bill Overcharge-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California court has dismissed a class action complaint asserted
against PG&E Corporation's operating unit, Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, for alleged overcharges in electric bills, the
Company reported in a November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

The class action lawsuit was filed against Pacific Gas and
Electric in the Superior Court in Bakersfield, California.  It
alleges that the new meters, wireless network, and software and
billing system that Pacific Gas and Electric utilized led to
electric bill overcharges.

Advanced electric meters, which record energy usage in hourly or
quarter-hourly increments, allow customers to track energy usage
throughout the billing month and thus enable greater customer
control over electricity costs, according to the Company.  Usage
date, the Company notes, is collected through a wireless
communication network and transmitted to Pacific Gas and
Electric's information system where the data is stored and used
for billing and other Pacific Gas and Electric business purposes.

The California Public Utilities Commission authorized Pacific Gas
and Electric's to recover about $1.8 billion of capital
expenditures to install about 10 million advanced electric and gas
meters throughout its service territory by the end of 2012.  In
connection with this, as of September 30, 2010, Pacific Gas and
Electric said it has incurred $1.9 billion in connection with its
SmartMeter(TM) program.  As of September 30, 2010, Pacific Gas and
Electric has 6.9 million meters installed.

Based on the tests that Pacific Gas and Electric has performed,
more than 99% of the meters perform accurately as designed and
within expectations, according to the Company.  Pacific Gas and
Electric avers that it has not found any material design defects,
but has found, as is to be expected with any new technology
applied on this scale, that a small percentage of the meters
recorded inaccurate energy usage; were not properly installed; or
were affected by issues relating to the meter's data storage
capabilities or wireless communication features.  When issues are
identified, Pacific Gas and Electric says it will be taking prompt
action with the technology and services vendors to remediate the
issues.

On June 17, 2010, the City and County of San Francisco filed a
petition requesting the CPUC to temporarily suspend the
installation of additional SmartMeter(TM) devices until the CPUC
has completed its independent assessment.  CCSF also filed a
motion requesting expedited treatment of its petition.  Several
municipalities filed pleadings in support of CCSF's petition.  On
September 2, 2010, the CPUC released the report of its independent
consultant that was engaged by the CPUC to assess Pacific Gas and
Electric's SmartMeter(TM) program, including meter and billing
accuracy, customer complaints, end-to-end operational processes,
and overall program planning and performance.  The consultant's
evaluation report found that Pacific Gas and Electric's
SmartMeter(TM) devices and related billing processes perform
accurately and as designed.  On September 22, 2010, a CPUC
administrative law judge denied CCSF's request for expedited
treatment of its petition and requested the parties to submit
comments on CCSF's petition in light of the consultant's report.
On October 15, 2010, Pacific Gas and Electric filed comments
urging the CPUC to dismiss CCSF's petition given the reports'
findings on meter and billing accuracy.  Other parties have
requested that the CPUC take additional steps before concluding
its investigation.

The CPUC is also considering two additional requests from private
groups to halt the installation of SmartMeter(TM) devices based on
concerns about the health, environmental, and safety impacts of
the radio frequency technology on which Pacific Gas and Electric's
SmartMeter(TM) program relies.  On October 26, 2010, a proposed
decision was issued that, if adopted by the CPUC, would dismiss
one of the requests on the basis that the SmartMeter(TM) devices
are licensed and certified by the Federal Communications
Commission and comply with all FCC requirements.

On October 25, 2010, the California Superior Court granted Pacific
Gas and Electric's request to dismiss the Overcharges-Related
Class Action Lawsuit.

The Court agreed with Pacific Gas and Electric that the lawsuit
should be dismissed because, among other reasons, the CPUC retains
exclusive jurisdiction over the issues raised in the lawsuit.

The Court's order permits the plaintiffs to file a new lawsuit
within 20 days in lieu of appealing the dismissal.

In addition, on September 17, 2010, the lawyer that filed the
Overcharges-Related Class Action Lawsuit filed an application at
the CPUC, on behalf of customers, requesting that the CPUC modify
its prior decisions and shift the costs of Pacific Gas and
Electric's SmartMeter(TM) technology upgrade to Pacific Gas and
Electric.

On October 27, 2010, Pacific Gas and Electric requested that the
CPUC dismiss the application because it improperly seeks to re-
litigate issues the CPUC has already decided on.


PG&E CORP: Faces Lawsuits Over San Bruno Fire Accident
------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation and its operating unit, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, has been named defendants in various lawsuits, including
two class action complaints, in relation to a fire accident that
broke out in Bruno, California.

On September 9, 2010, an underground 30-inch natural gas
transmission pipeline owned and operated by Pacific Gas and
Electric ruptured in a residential area located in the City of San
Bruno, California.  The ensuing explosion and fire resulted in the
deaths of eight people and injuries to numerous individuals.  At
least 34 houses were destroyed and many additional houses were
damaged.  The cause of the rupture remains unknown.  The
California Governor's office declared a state of emergency in San
Mateo County, where San Bruno is located, to mobilize state
emergency services and resources.

On September 10, 2010, the National Transportation Safety Board
began an investigation of the San Bruno Accident.  In addition to
reviewing the physical evidence collected from the site and
conducting further metallurgical tests, the NTSB is expected to
examine, among other aspects, the performance, qualifications and
experience of the relevant employees, and the emergency
preparedness and response of the Utility and of public emergency
personnel and other first responders.  While the NTSB
investigation is pending Pacific Gas and Electric generally is
prohibited from disclosing information related to the
investigation without approval from the NTSB.

On September 12, 2010, Pacific Gas and Electric announced that it
would provide up to $100 million to assist affected residents and
the City of San Bruno, California, to pay for (1) affected
residents' immediate expenses not otherwise covered by insurance,
including temporary living expenses, insurance deductibles, and
immediate medical expenses; (2) property replacement, repair or
purchase (in the case of homes destroyed or substantially
damaged); and (3) work needed to rebuild or replace public
property damaged or destroyed in the San Bruno Accident, as well
as costs incurred by emergency responders and government services
to respond to the fire.  These payments are not intended to
satisfy any potential claims for personal injury or wrongful
death, which will be addressed separately, the Company clarifies.

The lawsuits that have been commenced related to the San Bruno
Accident were filed by residents of San Bruno in the San Mateo
County Superior Court and San Francisco County Superior Court.

The class action lawsuits include a demand that the $100 million
Pacific Gas and Electric announced would be available for
assistance be placed under court supervision.  The lawsuits allege
causes of action for strict liability, negligence, public
nuisance, private nuisance, and declaratory relief.

Another lawsuit was filed in San Mateo County Superior Court as a
purported shareholder derivative lawsuit to seek recovery on
behalf of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by officers and directors,
among other claims.  The other lawsuits, including some that have
been filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, seek to recover
damages for wrongful death, property damage, and personal injury.

The Company discloses that as of September 30, 2010, Pacific Gas
and Electric has recorded a provision of $220 million for
estimated third-party claims related to the San Bruno Accident,
including personal injury and property damage claims, damage to
infrastructure, emergency response, and other damage claims.

Pacific Gas and Electric estimates that it may incur as much as
$400 million for third-party claims depending on the final outcome
of the NTSB and CPUC investigations and the number, nature, and
value of third-party claims.


PREMIER CHEMICALS: Sued Over Magnesium Oxide Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------
A group of farmers recently filed a national class-action lawsuit
against Premier Chemicals LLC, Sumitomo Corporation of America,
and YAS, Inc. for allegedly conspiring to fix prices of magnesium
oxide -- a compound widely used in farming and in animal feed --
that forced farmers and ranchers to overpay millions of dollars.

Filed on October 18, 2010 on behalf of the plaintiffs by Seattle-
based Hagens Berman in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey, the
suit claims Delaware-based Premier Chemicals, New York-based
Sumitomo Corp., and New Jersey-based YAS, Inc. routinely met to
control the price of magnesium oxide.

Magnesium oxide is used in two forms: Caustic magnesium oxide,
typically combined with animal feed given to cattle and sheep, and
dead-burned magnesium oxide, which is blended with fertilizers to
increase nutrients in farming soil.

"We intend to prove that the relationship between these three
companies was carefully conceived and coordinated to illegally
maximize their profits at the expense of farmers and ranchers,"
said Steve Berman, managing partner of Seattle-based Hagens Berman
and the attorney representing the proposed class.

According to the complaint, the defendants routinely discussed
portioning the market for the chemical product.  For example, at a
face-to-face meeting in a Tulsa, OK Holiday Inn hotel in 2004,
Sumitomo discussed expanding its market with YAS and a Premier
broker.  According to court records, the Premier broker told the
attendees he was worried about jeopardizing his relationship with
Premier.  A Sumitomo executive allegedly acknowledged that the
meeting was routine, following a pattern of daily conversations
with Premier to fix the price of caustic magnesium oxide and dead-
burned magnesium oxide.

The complaint also states that all three companies justified price
increases on the basis of short supplies, and increased energy and
freight costs.  However, the complaint shows that Sumitomo was
only using half of its entire capacity on a major barge route to
Tulsa in 2004 in order to protect its price-fixing arrangement
with Premier.

Attorneys believe that Sumitomo, which at that time focused solely
on the distribution of dead-burned magnesium oxide, had the
capacity, opportunity, and interest to enter into the caustic
magnesium oxide market, but chose not to, knowing it would upset
its pricing agreement with Premier.

Attorneys argue that Sumitomo's decision underscores the illegal
and anti-competitive relationship the company had with Premier.

"The more we dig into the basis of these meetings, we find that
these companies apparently agreed to and engaged in an anti-
competitive relationship that inflated costs for the farmers and
ranchers, two groups who already faced enormous financial
pressure," said Mr. Berman.

The U.S. and China are the world's leading producers of caustic
and dead-burned magnesium oxide.

In 2000, Premier controlled the majority of the domestic market
for caustic magnesium oxide and purchased dead-burned magnesium
oxide from Chinese suppliers.  When Premier started to see its
market share shrink due to increased competition from China, the
company began talks with other leading chemical suppliers,
including Sumitomo and YAS, to set the price of caustic and dead-
burned magnesium oxide in the U.S., the lawsuit charges.

The suit accuses the defendants of violating state and federal
trade laws by entering into an agreement that artificially
restrained commerce and manipulated prices of magnesium oxide.
Attorneys are asking the court to provide relief to indirect
purchasers of magnesium oxide, and request that these companies
stop engaging in anti-competitive practices.

The proposed class action seeks to represent all U.S. purchasers,
such as farmers and ranchers, of magnesium oxide or products
containing magnesium oxide that were manufactured or distributed
by Premier Chemicals LLC, Sumitomo Corporation of America, or YAS,
Inc. after Jan. 1, 2004.

If you purchased products containing magnesium oxide, you are
encouraged to contact Hagens Berman attorneys at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/MGO

                       About Hagens Berman

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com/-- represents whistleblowers, investors
and consumers in complex litigation.  The firm has offices in
Boston, Chicago, Colorado Springs, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San
Francisco and Washington, D.C.  Founded in 1993, HBSS continues to
successfully fight for investor rights in large, complex
litigation.  Visit the firm's class-action law blog at
http://www.classactionlawtoday.co/


PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on
Thursday disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been brought on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of PrivateBancorp, Inc.
between November 2, 2007 and October 23, 2009, inclusive, and
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired PrivateBancorp's
common stock in public offerings conducted on or about June 4,
2008 and May 11, 2009.

If you purchased PrivateBancorp common stock during the Class
Period and/or in the Offerings, you may move the Court for
appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than December 21, 2010.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.  Your share of
any recovery in this action will not be affected by your decision
of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.  You may retain
Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in this
action.

PrivateBancorp shareholders who wish to learn more about this
action and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff may visit
Lieff Cabraser's Web site at
http://lieffcabraser.com/cases.php?CaseID=357or contact attorney
Sharon Lee toll free at (800) 541-7358.

Background on PrivateBancorp Securities Class Litigation

The action, pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, was brought against PrivateBancorp,
certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the
Offerings for violations of federal securities laws.
PrivateBancorp, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, provides
various business and personal financial services to middle-market
commercial and commercial real estate companies, business owners,
executives, entrepreneurs, and families in the United States.

The action alleges that during the Class Period, defendants failed
to disclose that the Company generated hundreds of millions of
dollars in risky commercial and industrial loans pursuant to its
Strategic Growth and Transformation Plan and that the Company's
residential loan portfolio was suffering severe deterioration.
During the Class Period, while PrivateBancorp's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices as a result of defendants' material
misrepresentations, the Company conducted two public stock
offerings that generated hundreds of millions of dollars in net
proceeds to the Company.

On October 26, 2009, PrivateBancorp announced disappointing
financial results for the third quarter of 2009.  In addition, the
Company revealed that it held approximately $400 million in non-
performing loans as of the quarter, a substantial increase from
prior quarters.  In response to this news, the price of
PrivateBancorp fell $7.02 per share, or approximately 37%, to
close at $11.98.

                      About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.

Since 2003, the National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser
as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms in the nation.  In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examined recent
verdicts and settlements in addition to overall track records.
Lieff Cabraser is one of only two plaintiffs' law firms in the
United States to receive this honor for the last eight consecutive
years.


RIDEAU REGIONAL: Firm Seeks People to Join Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Roy, writing for Smiths Falls EMC News, reports David
McKillop, former Rideau Regional Centre resident, wants an apology
for what he alleges took place at the institution during his time.

To date, the class action lawsuit against the province of Ontario
is in the process of gathering information from former RRC
residents, staff members and family members who lived at the
centre from 1951-2009.  "We'd like people to come forward," said
David Rosenfeld, lawyer with the Koskie Minsky law firm which is
working on behalf of Mr. McKillop -- a representative plaintiff.

The mistreatment Mr. McKillop alleges he faced while living at the
RRC from 1955-1972 makes him a representative of a resident who
lived there at that time.  However, there is a gap in information
for the years between 1972-1990.

"It's stronger if there are more people who step forward,"
explains Vici Clarke, a litigation guardian for Mr. McKillop who
is helping him navigate the legal process.

Mr. McKillop didn't hesitate to be part of the class action
lawsuit when asked.

"I'll stand up for a lot of people," he said.

He remembers what he calls the feeling of intimidation and the
pain of silence that he lived through at the RRC.  "You couldn't
say nothing," he recalls.

Mr. McKillop won't stay silent any more.  In the Statement of
Claim filed with the courts, the Gananoque area resident details
his experiences.  Specifically, Mr. McKillop recalls the staff's
methods of punishment, which he says were sometimes used for no
reason at all.  According to the Statement of Claim, he alleges
residents could be required to kneel and hold a pail of water in
each hand for long periods of time, kneel against a wall with
their fingers and arms extended for an hour or two at a time or
clean the floors and toilets with a toothbrush.  Mr. McKillop
vividly recalls being punished for smoking cigarettes.  He told
the EMC that he was forced to eat a cigar as penance for
disobeying the no-smoking rule.

"I was sick green," Mr. McKillop said.  "I can't go near people
who smoke now."

His time at the RRC has plagued his memory.  Since starting the
legal battle this year, his wife, Eileen said Mr. McKillop has
been struggling with his memories.

"Sometimes he has nightmares too.  I have to wake him up," Eileen
said.

Despite these challenges, Mr. McKillop is passionate about
informing the public about what life at the RRC was really like.
He encourages others to step forward.

Those who are interested must call the Koskie Minsky law firm at
416-595-2700 before the end of the month.

Mr. McKillop admits the process has been hard, but the support he
has received from family, friends and those involved in the action
has eased this hardship.

"It helped me very well," he said.

To those who challenge the class action, Mr. McKillop replies:

"Try to live there and see how it feels."

The Rideau Regional Centre was in operation for 58 years (1951-
2009).  In that time it was home to more than 2,600 people labeled
mentally retarded.  They were placed there to receive medical care
and in some cases training.  In Mr. McKillop's case this training
never was in short supply.  In fact, it was only when he left
Rideau that he learned to read and write.

His journey through the legal process began when a former RRC
resident introduced the idea of a class action against the
government.

HURONIA

Mr. McKillop had his first meeting with the lawyers in July 2010
after they became aware of the class action lawsuit against the
province of Ontario involving the institution in Huronia.

"We started to say 'well, why not Rideau?'" Ms. Clarke said.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice earlier dismissed the
Crown's motion for leave to appeal in the Huronia case.  According
to a press release dated Nov. 10 this move should now clear the
path to trial in this case.  When asked if this decision will aid
those in the Rideau class action, Mr. Rosenfeld said:

"We certainly think so.  We think the two cases are virtually
identical."

The defendant attorney will have an opportunity to rebut this
position in court.

The Rideau Regional Centre action will have its first appearance
in court in September 2011 when both parties will have an
opportunity to put forward their positions.

A statement from the Ontario Attorney General's office regarding
this matter was received by the EMC Nov. 16 and reads as follows:

"The Statement of Claim was served upon the Ministry on September
29, 2010.  The case management judge appointed for this matter has
set a litigation timetable for the hearing of the certification
motion in this matter.  The certification motion will be heard on
September 29 and 30, 2011.  We will receive the Plaintiff's motion
materials starting in December 2010 and into May 2011.  Our
responding materials will be due in the Summer of 2011," writes
Brendan Crawley, spokesperson for the Ministry of the Attorney
General-Ontario in an e-mail.


SEQUENOM INC: Spends $44.9 Million in Trisomy Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sequenom, Inc., recorded $44.9 million in accrued litigation
settlement in connection with certain class action securities
lawsuits consolidated under the caption In re Sequenom, Inc.
Securities Litigation, according to the company's November 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Following an April 2009 announcement that the company's expected
launch of its test for Trisomy 21 had been delayed and that it was
no longer relying on its previously announced test data and
results for that test, as a result of inadequately substantiated
claims, inconsistencies and errors, several complaints were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against the company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of the company's
common stock.

The complaints included claims asserted under Sections 10 and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act and were brought as shareholder class actions.  In
general, the complaints alleged that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Trisomy 21 test under development,
thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's common
stock.

In September 2009, the complaints were consolidated under the
caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File
No. 3:09-cv-00921LAB-WMC.

On May 3, 2010, the court entered an order approving the
stipulation of settlement reached in the consolidated action.
Pursuant to the stipulation, the company paid $14 million in cash,
which was funded by insurance proceeds, and will issue
approximately 6.8 million shares of the company's common stock to
the plaintiffs' class.

In connection with the court's approval of the final settlement in
May 2010, the company recorded an initial litigation settlement
charge of approximately $42.8 million related to the common stock
issuable to the plaintiffs' class.  This charge was calculated
based on approximately 6.8 million shares at an initial fair value
of $6.28 per share.  Subsequently, the company recognized an
aggregate gain of approximately $2.5 million during the second
quarter of 2010 due to the revaluation to fair value for the
portion of the approved share settlement issued to plaintiffs'
counsel in accordance with the court's order awarding attorneys'
fees and the revaluation to fair value for the remaining shares
issuable to the members of the plaintiffs' class as of June 30,
2010.

In the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of Sept. 30, 2010,
the company has approximately $44.9 million in accrued litigation
settlement, which represents the approximate 6.4 million shares
still to be issued to the members of the plaintiffs' class and
includes a loss recognized in operations of approximately $7
million for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010, due to the
revaluation of these shares at a fair value of $7.01 per share.

Depending upon changes in the fairmarket value of its stock, the
company will be required to recognize further adjustments to the
accrued litigation settlement until the shares are issued to the
members of the plaintiffs' class.


SEQUENOM INC: Shareholders to Appeal Class Certification Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three shareholders filed a petition for permission to appeal a
class certification order in the IPO securities class action
against Sequenom, Inc., according to the company's November 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In November 2001, the company and certain of its current or former
officers and directors were named as defendants in a class action
shareholder complaint filed by Collegeware USA in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (now
captioned In re Sequenom, Inc. IPO Securities Litigation) Case No.
01-CV-10831.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the company and
certain of its underwriters, officers and directors violated the
federal securities laws because the company's registration
statement and prospectus contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted material facts regarding the compensation to be
received by and the stock allocation practices of the
underwriters.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
Similar complaints were filed in the same District Court against
hundreds of other public companies that conducted initial public
offerings of their common stock in the late 1990s and 2000 (the
IPO Cases).

In October 2002, the officers and directors were dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to a stipulated dismissal and tolling agreement
with the plaintiffs.  In February 2003, the District Court
dismissed the claim against the defendants brought under Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, without giving the plaintiffs leave to
amend the complaint with respect to that claim.

The District Court declined to dismiss the claim brought under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
Securities Act).

In September 2003, pursuant to the authorization of a special
litigation committee of its board of directors, the company
approved in principle a settlement offer by the plaintiffs.  In
September 2004, the company entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs.

In February 2005, the District Court issued a decision certifying
a class action for settlement purposes and granting preliminary
approval of the settlement subject to modification of certain bar
orders contemplated by the settlement.  In August 2005, the
District Court reaffirmed class certification and preliminary
approval of the modified settlement.

In Dec. 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
vacated the District Court's decision certifying as class actions
the six lawsuits designated as "focus cases."  Thereafter the
District Court ordered a stay of all proceedings in all of the
lawsuits pending the outcome of plaintiffs' petition to the Second
Circuit for rehearing en banc.

In April 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' rehearing
petition, but clarified that the plaintiffs may seek to certify a
more limited class in the District Court.  Accordingly, the
settlement as originally negotiated was terminated pursuant to
stipulation and will not receive final approval.

In Feb. 2009, liaison counsel for plaintiffs informed the District
Court that a new settlement of all IPO Cases had been agreed to in
principle, subject to formal approval by the parties and
preliminary and final approval by the District Court.  In April
2009, the parties submitted a tentative settlement agreement to
the District Court and moved for preliminary approval thereof.

In June 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval of
the tentative settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement
be published and mailed to class members.  In Sept. 2009, the
District Court held a final fairness hearing.  In October 2009,
the District Court certified the settlement class in each IPO Case
and granted final approval to the settlement.

Thereafter, three shareholders filed a Petition for Permission to
Appeal Class Certification Order, asserting that the District
Court's certification of the settlement classes violates the
Second Circuit's earlier class certification decisions in the IPO
Cases and a number of shareholders also filed direct appeals,
objecting to final approval of the settlement.

If the settlement is affirmed on appeal, the settlement will
become effective and will result in the dismissal of all claims
against the company and its officers and directors with prejudice,
and the company's pro rata share of the settlement fund will be
fully funded by insurance.


SONY COMPUTER: 8th Suit Filed Over Removal of OS Option in PS3
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Girardi, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., Case
No. 10-cv-05224 (N.D. Calif. November 17, 2010), brings claims
against Sony Computer to redress its willful violations of
the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, M.G.L. C 93A
Sections 2, 9.  Mr. Girardi says Sony Computer "unilaterally"
decided to terminate the "Install Other Operating System" feature
of its PlayStation(R)3, causing plaintiff and members of the Class
to suffer economic loss, as Sony Computer has taken away valuable
features and reduced the utility of their PS3 systems.

Mr. Girardi states that on April 1, 2010, Sony Computer announced
that it had issued a system software update, Firmware Update 3.21,
which would  permanently disable the ability of the PS3 to install
and run other operating systems.  Although PS3 users who wished to
retain the feature could do so by not running Update 3.21, the
failure to run Update 3.21 would cause PS3 users to forfeit
several other core, advertised features of the PS3, the suit
alleged.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
          Jason A. Pikler, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
                  wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com
                  jpikler@schubertlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Peter A. Lagorio, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. LAGORIO
          63 Atlantic Avenue
          Boston, Massachusetts 021110
          Telephone: (617) 367-4200
          E-mail: plagorio@lagoriolaw.com


SPORTCRAFT LTD: Recalls 3,100 Sport Super Bounce Pogo Sticks
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sportcraft Ltd., of Budd Lake, N.J., announced a voluntary recall
of about 3,100 Classic Sport Super Bounce Pogo Sticks.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The aluminum rivets on the pogo stick's frame tubes can break and
cause the support clamp to detach and release the spring, posing
fall and laceration hazards to consumers.

Sportcraft has received three reports of incidents with the pogo
sticks, including two reports of injuries to the consumers' inner
thigh and hands requiring medical attention.

This recall involves Classic Sport Super Bounce pogo sticks. The
pogo sticks are silver and blue with "Classic Sport" printed on
the front.  This recall involves pogo sticks manufactured in
February 2010 that have Sportcraft identification number
4112777F19414-02/10 printed on a tracking label on the base of the
foot pedals.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11041.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
the Sports Authority stores nationwide from April 2010 through
October 2010 for about $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled pogo sticks
and return the product to any The Sports Authority location.
Consumers will receive a full refund of $39.99 plus tax.  For
additional information, contact Sportcraft at (800) 526-0244
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.sportcraft.com/


STEWART INFORMATION: Continues to Defend Against Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Information Services Corporation has obtained, and
continues to seek, dismissal of antitrust class action lawsuits
filed against it in various courts, 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.

In February 2008, an antitrust class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against Stewart Title Insurance Company, Monroe Title Insurance
Corporation, Stewart Information Services Corporation, several
other unaffiliated title insurance companies and the Title
Insurance Rate Service Association, Inc.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act by collectively filing proposed rates
for title insurance in New York through TIRSA, a state-authorized
and licensed rate service organization.

Complaints were subsequently filed in the United States District
Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York and in
the United States District Courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Ohio, Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas, California, Washington,
West Virginia, Texas and Delaware.

All of the complaints make similar class action allegations,
except that certain of the complaints also allege violations of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and various
state antitrust and consumer protection laws.  The complaints
generally request treble damages in unspecified amounts,
declaratory and injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

As of November 3, 2010, 78 complaints have been filed, each of
which names the Company or one or more of its affiliates as a
defendant -- and have been consolidated in those states -- of
which seven have been voluntarily dismissed.

As of October 18, 2010, the Company obtained dismissals of the
claims in Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania (where plaintiffs may
pursue injunctive relief only), Texas and Washington.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss in West Virginia, where all
proceedings have been stayed and the docket closed, and has moved
for summary judgment on the claims for injunctive relief in
Pennsylvania.

The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal in Ohio to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the dismissal in
New Jersey to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

The dismissals in New York and Texas have been affirmed by the
United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Fifth Circuits,
respectively, and on October 4, 2010, the United States Supreme
Court denied the plaintiffs' petitions for review of those
decisions.

The Company has also moved to dismiss the remaining RESPA claims
which are pending in New York.

Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions,
it intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations and
does not believe that the outcome will materially affect its
consolidated financial condition or results of operations.


SUNRISE SENIOR: Court Stays Purnell Suit Pending Mediation
----------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings in a California class suit filed against Sunrise
Senior Living Inc.'s subsidiary, Sunrise Senior Living Management,
Inc., are currently stayed as the parties head off to a mediation
of their dispute, the Company related in a November 4, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On May 14, 2010, LaShone Purnell filed a lawsuit on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated in the Superior Court of the
State of California, Orange County, against Sunrise Senior Living
Management, Inc., captioned LaShone Purnell as an individual and
on behalf of all employees similarly situated v. Sunrise Senior
Living Management, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Case No. 30-2010-
00372725 (Orange County Superior Court).

The complaint is styled as a class action and alleges that Sunrise
failed to properly schedule the purported class of care givers and
other related positions so that they would be able to take meal
and rest breaks as provided for under California law.

The complaint asserts claims for:

   (1) failure to pay overtime wages;
   (2) failure to provide meal periods;
   (3) failure to provide rest periods;
   (4) failure to pay wages upon ending employment;
   (5) failure to keep accurate payroll records;
   (6) unfair business practices; and
   (7) unfair competition.

The Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages, statutory
penalties provided for under the California Labor Code, injunctive
relief, and costs and attorneys' fees.

On June 17, 2010, Sunrise removed the action to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

On July 16, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to
state court.

On August 10, 2010, the Court stayed all proceedings pending early
mediation by the parties.

Sunrise believes that Plaintiff's allegations are not meritorious
and that a class action is not appropriate in this case, and
intends to defend itself vigorously if mediation is unsuccessful.

Because of the early stage of the suit, the Company cannot at this
time estimate an amount or range of potential loss in the event of
an unfavorable outcome.


UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII: Faces Class Action Over Data Breaches
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gene Park, writing for The Honolulu Star Advertiser, reports the
University of Hawaii is now the target of a class-action lawsuit
filed November 18, as a result of recent data breaches.

The main plaintiff in the case, Philippe Gross, was a student at
the Manoa campus from 1990 through 1998.  He said four other names
have been attached to his social security number, and that his
credit card has been used in Georgia.

Since 2005, the University of Hawaii has been responsible for
259,000 private records being released.  In the latest instance,
the personal information of more than 40,000 students were
uploaded to the Internet by a faculty member at the UH-West Oahu
campus.

The lawsuit alleges that Gross was affected by that breach, as
well as a June 2009 breach that affected everyone who had done
business at the Manoa campus parking office.

"The university has exhibited both a cavalier and callous attitude
toward protecting privacy rights," said Thomas Grande, one of the
attorneys for the class.  "The university has clearly not taken
its privacy responsibilities seriously.  And once the security
breaches have occurred, the university has left it to the victims
of the breach to take actions to protect themselves."

UH officials have said they recognize that improvements are
necessary, and that "resources must be reallocated to improve IT
security."


UNUM GROUP: Obtains Favorable Final Judgment From District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group obtained a final judgment in its favor in the matter In
re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, according to the
company's Nov. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Unum Group and certain of its subsidiaries, along with many other
insurance brokers and insurers, have been named as defendants in a
series of putative class actions that have been transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings as part of multidistrict
litigation (MDL) No. 1663, In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation.

The plaintiffs in MDL No. 1663 filed a consolidated amended
complaint in August 2005, which alleges, among other things, that
the defendants violated federal and state antitrust laws, the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, and various state common law
requirements by engaging in alleged bid rigging and customer
allocation and by paying undisclosed compensation to insurance
brokers to steer business to defendant insurers.  Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint on Nov. 29, 2005.  On April 5,
2007, defendants' motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice
as to all counts except the ERISA counts.  Plaintiffs were granted
a last opportunity to file an amended complaint, and they did so
on May 22, 2007.

On Aug. 31, 2007, and Sept. 28, 2007, plaintiffs' federal
antitrust and RICO claims were dismissed with prejudice.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ERISA counts was
granted on Jan. 14, 2008.  All pending state law claims were
dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals of the order dismissing their federal antitrust and RICO
claims.

On August 16, 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff's federal antitrust and
RICO claims against the company and certain of its subsidiaries.

On September 27, 2010, the District Court entered final judgment
against plaintiffs and in favor of defendants, including the
company and certain of its subsidiaries.


VERTRO INC: Appeal in Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal filed by plaintiffs from a ruling of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida granting final judgment
in favor of the defendants in a consolidated securities suit
against Vertro, Inc., remains pending, according to the company's
November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In 2005, five putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were
filed against us and certain of the company's former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.

The complaints alleged that the Company and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the individual defendants also violated Section
20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of MIVA.  Plaintiffs sought
unspecified damages and other relief alleging that, during the
putative class period, the Company made certain misleading
statements and omitted material information.

The Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on
November 16, 2009, and the court entered final judgment in favor
of all Defendants on Dec. 7, 2009.  On Dec. 15, 2009, Plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal.  Oral argument of the appeal was
scheduled for Nov. 17, 2010.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Awaits Approval of Consumer Claims Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vonage Holdings Corp. is awaiting court approval of its proposed
settlement with plaintiffs for the release and dismissal of all
consumer claims pending in various courts, according the company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The Company has been named in several purported class actions
venued in California, New Jersey, and Washington alleging a wide
variety of deficiencies with respect to its business practices and
marketing disclosures.

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

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

   -- failed to disclose procedural impediments to cancellation;

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

   -- suppressed and concealed the true nature of its services and
      disseminated false advertising about the quality, nature and
      terms of its services;

   -- imposed an unlawful early termination fee; and

   -- invoked unconscionable provisions of its Terms of Service to
      the detriment of customers.

On May 11, 2007, plaintiffs in one action petitioned the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, seeking transfer and
consolidation of the pending actions to a single court for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.  In an Order dated August 15,
2007, the Panel transferred the pending actions to the United
States Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned In re
Vonage Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1862,
Master Docket No. 07-CV-3906 (USDC, D.N.J.).  On October 1, 2007,
counsel for one group of plaintiffs moved before the Court for
Consolidation and Appointment of Co-Lead Counsel of the actions,
and requested time to file an Amended Consolidated Complaint.  On
November 6, 2008, the Court entered an Order Granting
Consolidation and Appointment of Co-Lead Counsel, and ordered that
a consolidated Complaint be filed within 45 days, which Complaint
was filed on December 19, 2008.

On February 6, 2009, the Company filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration.  On September 1, 2009, the Court denied without
prejudice the Motion to Compel Arbitration.  On December 2, 2009,
the Company filed a Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration.
Briefing on the motion was completed in February 2010.  The
parties have engaged in limited discovery.

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

On September 23, 2010, the parties reached a proposed settlement
that includes a release and dismissal with prejudice of all
consumer claims against the Company and will provide a settlement
benefit of $4,750,000 into a common fund for the benefit of class
members.  The common fund will include all awarded fees, costs,
and expenses (including attorneys' fees and costs), the costs to
provide notice of settlement, administrative expenses, and
incentive awards, if any, with the remainder of the common fund to
be distributed to members of the class pursuant to a plan of
allocation among class members.  The settlement is subject to
negotiation of final documentation and Court approval.

On September 28, 2010, the Court entered a Joint Stipulation
staying the proceedings and terminating the pending Renewed Motion
to Compel Arbitration.  The Company has recorded a reserve of
$4,750,000 to reflect the proposed settlement.  Of this amount,
$2,750,000 was recorded in the quarter ended September 30, 2010;
with $1,500,000 and $750,000 recorded as a reduction to customer
equipment and shipping and telephony services revenue,
respectively, and $500,000 recorded as selling, general and
administrative expense in the consolidated statement of
operations.  The remaining $2,000,000 was recorded as selling,
general and administrative expense in the consolidated statement
of operations in the quarter ended March 31, 2010.


WAL-MART: Supreme Court to Decide on Class Action Appeal Today
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Biskupic, writing for USA TODAY, reports the Supreme Court is
scheduled to vote in private today, November 23, on whether to
accept Wal-Mart's appeal in a gigantic civil rights class-action
lawsuit covering hundreds of thousands of female workers.

If the justices agree to intervene, it would set the stage for a
closely watched battle between corporate interests and workers'
rights.  Nine sets of business groups and big corporations,
including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have filed briefs on
behalf of Wal-Mart urging the justices to step in.

In the case dating to 2001, Betty Dukes, a Wal-Mart "greeter" at a
Pittsburg, Calif., store, and five other women alleged sex
discrimination in pay and promotions and sought to represent Wal-
Mart workers nationwide.  They claim Wal-Mart's strong,
centralized approach fosters gender stereotyping and
discrimination.

In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in a
decision now before the justices, affirmed a trial judge's
conclusion that it would be better to handle the Dukes case as a
class action instead of allowing courts to be flooded with
individual bias lawsuits based on common Wal-Mart practices.

The legal question at this point is not whether Wal-Mart paid
women less than men or gave them fewer promotions -- as the Dukes
group alleges -- but whether they can bring the class-action
claim.

The justices are likely to announce whether they will take
Wal-Mart v. Dukes within a week.

Wal-Mart contends the lower courts violated federal rules for
class actions.  It says billions of dollars are at stake.

The company and businesses supporting them, including Intel Corp.,
say an improper class-action suit can pressure companies to settle
meritless claims rather than risk a multibillion-dollar verdict.

The Wal-Mart class consists of workers at its 3,400 stores, from
part-time entry-level hourly employees to salaried managers.

"There is simply no possible way that tens of thousands of
managers making decisions all over the country could have affected
millions of employees in the same way," says Wal-Mart lawyer
Theodore Boutrous in an interview.  "And that's what would be
required for a class action."

In his petition to the Supreme Court, he says potentially
1.5 million employees could be covered.  "The class is larger than
the active-duty personnel in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines
and Coast Guard combined," he writes, "making it the largest
employment class action in history by several orders of
magnitude."

Lower-court judges estimated the covered class closer to 500,000
workers.

The Berkeley, Calif.-based Impact Fund, which represents Dukes and
specializes in employment litigation, is urging the high court to
leave intact the lower-court decision allowing the class action.

"Wal-Mart cannot evade responsibility for its discriminatory
policies by claiming that those policies did not injure each woman
in precisely the same way," says Jocelyn Larkin, of the Impact
Fund.  "The law has long recognized that, in large companies,
policies will necessarily be implemented by numerous managers and
the extent of the victims' injuries may also vary."

In a brief urging the court to let the class-action suit move
forward, Dukes' lawyers say scores of women presented examples of
gender stereotyping. Among them: "Senior management often referred
to female store associates as 'little Janie Qs' and 'girls' " and
that an executive vice president "saw nothing wrong with a
district manager holding his management meetings at Hooters."

The 9th Circuit upheld the class action on a 6-5 vote.  The
majority, in an opinion by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, rebuffed
Wal-Mart and dissenters' repeated warnings about the huge size of
the class and said "given that the class is suing by far the
largest employer in the United States, we are unsurprised that
plaintiffs are seeking to represent such a large class."

One of the dissenters, 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, said
the women now covered "held a multitude of jobs ... with a
kaleidoscope of supervisors . . .  subject to a variety of
regional policies that all differed depending on each class
member's job, location and period of employment."


WALNUT GROVE: Suit Complains About Deficient Security Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News Service reports that
Mississippi underwrites a privately run juvenile prison where
youngsters "live in barbaric, unconstitutional conditions," where
rape, beatings, drug smuggling by guards and medical and
educational neglect are the norm, 13 boys and young men say in a
federal class action.  The Walnut Grove Youth Correctional
Facility, built with more than $41 million in taxpayer dollars,
"has generated approximately $100 million for the various for-
profit entities that have operated the prison since it opened its
doors in 2001," according to the complaint.

Mississippi taxpayers pay Walnut Grove Correctional Authority $14
million a year to run the prison.  "In turn, the WGCA contracts
with the GEO Group Inc., the second-largest private correctional
company in the United States, to oversee the prison's daily
operations," the complaint states.

Walnut Grove, the GEO Group, and top prison officials are named as
defendants, as are Health Assurance LLC, which provides medical
services in the prison, and the Superintendent of the Mississippi
Department of Education.

Walnut Grove is a private prison for 13- to 22-year-old offenders,
most of whom are jailed for nonviolent offenses.

The teens say the prison is extremely dangerous, with violent
fights every week.  They say they "live in unconstitutional and
inhumane conditions and endure great risks to their safety and
security."

Understaffing is the norm; the Joint Committee on Performance
Evaluation and Expenditure and a corrections auditor warned that
lack of staffing could cause an increase in violence.  The
complaint adds that the jail is "dangerously understaffed and
because existing staff lack the training and supervision necessary
to care for the youth in their custody, corruption and violence is
rampant."

One "young man was held hostage in his cell for almost 24 hours,
brutally raped and physically assaulted after prison staff failed
to heed his pleas for protection," the complaint states.  "Other
youth suffered multiple stabbings and beatings -- including one
youth who lives with permanent brain damage as a result of an
attack in which prison staff were entirely complicit."

Inmates attacked by cellmates say prison staff ignore requests to
be moved, and say the staff, especially those working in
protective custody, "routinely incite violence among prisoners by
leaving cell doors open."

They add that prison doors can be "rigged" to remain unlocked when
shut, which has led to numerous assaults.

"Prison staff exploit youth by selling drugs inside the facility,"
the complaint states.  "Other staff members abuse their power by
engaging in sexual relationships with the youth in their care. . .
. Youth who are handcuffed and defenseless have been kicked,
punched, and beaten all over their bodies.  For the sole purpose
of inflicting excruciating pain, some WGYCF staff have sprayed
dangerous chemical restraints on young men who are secure in their
cells.  Some youth are stripped naked and held in isolation for
weeks at a time."

Prison staff ignore inmates who are suicidal; one young man
committed suicide after telling guards he was going to kill
himself.  The staff put nonsuicidal inmates into a "suicide watch
cell" where they are stripped naked, forced to sleep on a steel
bed frame without a mattress, given only one blanket and confined
to the cell for 24 hours a day.

Inmates say they are denied the legally required "free and
appropriate education;" some have had to wait weeks or months for
medical treatment, and they have been denied necessary
medications.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment and an injunction,
correction of the unconstitutional abuses, costs and damages.

A copy of the Complaint in C.B., et al. v. Walnut Grove
Correctional Authority, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00663 (S.D. Miss.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/18/Parchman.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sheila A. Bedi, Esq.
          MISSISSIPPI YOUTH JUSTICE PROJECT
          921 N. President Street, Suite B
          Jackson, MS 39202
          Telephone: 601-948-8882

               - and -

          Marion Chartoff, Esq.
          Jadine Johnson, Esq.
          Dominique Nong, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          400 Washington Ave.
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: 334-956-8200
              - and -

          Robert B. McDuff, Esq.
          767 North Congress Street
          Jackson, MS 39202
          Telephone: 601-969-0802

               - and -

          Margaret Winter, Esq.
          THE NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT OF THE ACLU FOUNDATION, INC.
          915 15th Street, N.w., Seventh Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: 202-393-4930


* Banks Face Class Action Threat Over Foreclosure Irregularities
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Finch, writing for US Money Talk, reports class action
lawsuits are threatening to besiege banks that will saddle them
with even more losses and stifle the housing market recovery.  The
suits stem from allegations that banks foreclosed on homes using
fraudulent documentation.  Bank executives are already in talks
with the feds in regards to foreclosure irregularities, but the
lawsuits are a threat to banks on a new front.

Several Class Action Suits Already Filed

Suits have been filed in the states of Maryland, New Jersey and
Massachusetts and involve some of the biggest banks in the
country.  And Indiana lawsuit against Bank of America (NYSE: BAC )
charges that foreclosure miscues amounted to racketeering and was
filed under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations,
or RICO statute, that could potentially triple any damages
awarded.  BofA stocks have already been hard hit this year, down
21% for the year and creating a drag on the Dow Jones industrial
average.

Negotiations With States' Attorneys General

The attorneys general from all 50 states are participating in a
federal investigation of banks that had employees signing off on
thousands of foreclosure documents a day, many without reading
them, or even having the authority to sign them.  Negotiations may
go well beyond revamping the document process.

A possible compensation fund may be created, much like the one
British Petroleum (NYSE: BP ) set up after an oil spill off the
Louisiana coast.  Officials would also like banks to end what is
known as "dual track" processes, where homeowners in loan
modification programs are simultaneously being foreclosed upon.
There is currently no deal though between banks and the attorneys
general investigating the scandal.

                             *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *