CAR_Public/101124.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, November 24, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 232

                             Headlines

ADVOCAT INC: Continues to Defend Lawsuit in Arkansas
ALLIANCE ONE: Continues to Defend "Tobacco Contracts" Lawsuit
AON CORP: Reports No Appeals Were Filed From ERISA Suit Dismissal
AON CORP: Awaits Court Approval of Buckner Suit Settlement
AQUA DOTS: Voluntary Refund Program Defeated Class Certification

ASTORIA FINANCIAL: January 25 Fairness Hearing Set
AT&T MOBILITY: Justices Remand Class Action to Brooke County
AT&T MOBILITY: Argument in Consumer Arbitration Case Heard
AVX CORP: Continues to Defend Suit on Environmental Contamination
BAYER CORP: Supreme Court to Decide on Class Certification in 2011

BAYER CORP: Court Dismisses OCSPA Class Action Allegations
BECKMAN COULTER: Faces Two Securities Suits in California
BRP US: Recalls 1,000 Ski-Doo (R) Snowmobiles
BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Seeks Approval of Broadbased Suit Settlement
CALAMOS ASSET MANAGEMENT: Parties Move Lawsuit to District Court

CALAMOS ASSET MANAGEMENT: Plaintiff Refiles Suit in Circuit Court
CARGILL MEAT: Class Action Over Wages Set for Trial Next Month
CASCADE BANCORP: Faces Firkins Class Suit in Idaho
CBS CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in New York
CELERA CORP: Continues to Defend Against "Washtenaw" Suit

CELERA CORP: Has Indemnity Agreement With Life Technologies
CHARLES SCHWAB: Court to Rule on Class Settlement This Week
CIBC TRUST: Faces Class Action Over Trust Fund Embezzlement
CLEARWIRE CORP: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in "Minnick" Suit
CLEARWIRE CORP: Class Certification Briefing Set for This Quarter

COLLEGE NOTRE DAME: Two More Plaintiffs Join Class Action Suit
CONVERIUM HOLDING: Dutch Court Can Declare Settlement Binding
DOMTAR CORP.: Faces Price-Fixing Lawsuits & Seeks Dismissal
DUCATI NORTH: Sued for Violations of Consumer Protection Laws
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: AMR Awaits Court Approval of Suit Settlement

EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Four Wage & Hour Violations Suits Still Pending
FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
FRANKLIN AMERICAN: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wage
FULL SPEED: Recalls 9,300 Full Speed Ahead Gossamer Crank Sets
GREEN BANKSHARES: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action

HANOVER INSURANCE: Continues to Defend "Durand" Litigation
HANOVER INSURANCE: Appeal in "Hurricane Katrina" Suit Pending
HARLAND CLARKE: Ill. Court Approves Settlement in "Kitson" Suit
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Ruling on Russell Suit Dismissal Plea

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Agrees to $5MM Inkjet Settlement in N.D. Calif.
HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Consolidated Complaint in Calif.
HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Suit Over Early Termination Fees
HUNTSMAN CORP: Court Sets May 2012 Hearing for Antitrust Suits
HURON CONSULTING: Discovery in Consolidated Illinois Suit Ongoing

INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Motion to Dismiss Pending in Arizona Suit
INTEGRYS ENERGY: Final Settlement Hearing Set for November 30
KEYCORP: Faces Two Lawsuits Alleging ERISA Violations in Ohio
KINDER MORGAN: Judge Approves $200MM Class Action Settlement
KKR FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending

KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Against Contamination Suit
LIVE NATION: Stay on Live Concert Antitrust Litigation Lifted
LIVE NATION: Motion to Decertify UPS Consumer Class Suit Pending
LIVE NATION: Canadian Consumer Class Action Litigation Ongoing
LIVE NATION: U.S. Consumer Class Action Litigation Ongoing

LIZ CLAIBORNE: Seeks Dismissal of NY Securities Lawsuit
MCAFEE INC: Motion to Dismiss Data-Pass Class Action Denied
MEAD JOHNSON: Court Certifies Class in Enfamil FDUTPA Suit
NEWS CORP: Parties Agree to Settle California Consolidated Suit
NIGHTHAWK RADIOLOGY: Shareholder Class Suit Still Pending in Idaho

NIGHTHAWK RADIOLOGY: Faces Seven vRad Merger-Related Suits
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Motion to Dismiss Nevada Suit Still Pending
PNM RESOURCES: Appeal on Dismissal of Navajo Suit Pending
QWEST CORP: Parent Continues to Defend Suit Over Retirees Benefits
REACHLOCAL INC: Still Faces Class Action Suit in California

SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: Accused of Breach of Fiduciary Duty
SCANA CORP: Awaits Court Ruling on Rights-of-Way Suit Settlement
SCE&G CO: Settles "Right-of-Way" Lawsuit & Awaits Final Approval
SEARS ROEBUCK: 7th Cir. Halts Repetitive Class Suits Over Dryers
SEI INVESTMENTS: Unit Faces Lawsuits Over Leveraged Funds

SEI INVESTMENTS: Securities Lawsuit Ongoing in East Baton Rouge
SMART BALANCE: Has Yet to Answer Complaint Involving Nucoa
SMART TECHNOLOGIES: May Face Securities Class Action Lawsuit
SOMFY SYSTEMS: Recalls 4,600 Motorized Awnings
STRYKER CORP: Securities Class Action Lawsuit Still Pending

TIME WARNER: Files Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Lawsuits
TIME WARNER: Class Certification Hearing Set for February 14
TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Gives Tentative Ruling on Acceleration Cases
UNITED STATES: Senate Approves Cobell Class Action Settlement
WELLCARE HEALTH: Settles Suit; Estimates $200 Million Liability

* EBG Sees Significant Rise in Discrimination Class Actions
* Rule 23(b)(2) Class Suits Easier to Certify, Greenberg Says



                             *********

ADVOCAT INC: Continues to Defend Lawsuit in Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------
Advocat Inc. remains a defendant in a lawsuit currently pending in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas, 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 January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
breached their statutory and contractual obligations to the
residents of the Facility over the past five years.  The lawsuit
remains in its early stages and has not yet been certified by the
court as a class action.

The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.


ALLIANCE ONE: Continues to Defend "Tobacco Contracts" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance One Brazil Exportadora de Tobaccos Ltda. remains a
defendant in an action seeking, among other things, the
modification of other contractual terms historically used in the
purchase of tobacco, according to Alliance One International,
Inc.'s November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On June 6, 2008, Alliance One Brazil Exportadora de Tobaccos Ltda.
and a number of other tobacco processors were notified of a class
action initiated by the ALPAG -- Associacao Lourenciana de
Pequenos Agricultrores.  The class action's focus is a review of
tobacco supplier contracts and business practices, specifically
aiming to prohibit processors from notifying the national credit
agency of producers in debt, prohibiting processors from deducting
tobacco suppliers' debt from payments for tobacco, and seeking the
modification of other contractual terms historically used in the
purchase of tobacco.

The Company presented its defense locally and the case has been
transferred to the Federal Court in Brasilia.  No hearing date has
been set.

The Company believes this claim to be without merit and intends to
vigorously defend it.  Ultimate exposure if an unfavorable outcome
is received is not determinable, the Company said.


AON CORP: Reports No Appeals Were Filed From ERISA Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aon Corporation reports that no appeals were filed from the
dismissal of ERISA class action lawsuits, according to the
Company's November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

At the time of the 2004-2005 investigation of the insurance
industry by the Attorney General of New York and other regulators,
putative classes filed actions against Aon in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the federal
securities laws and ERISA.

Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action originally
submitted purported expert reports estimating a range of alleged
damages of $353 million to $490 million, and plaintiffs in the
ERISA class actions originally submitted revised purported expert
reports estimating a range of alleged damages of $74 million to
$349 million.

To protect against the uncertain outcome of litigation and to
contain exposure to the Company, Aon settled the securities suit
for $30 million in 2009 and later the ERISA suit for $1.8 million.

On November 24, 2009, the Court entered a final order approving
the securities settlement and dismissing the securities suit.

On September 15, 2010, the Court entered a final order approving
the ERISA settlement and dismissing the lawsuit.  No appeals were
taken from that order.


AON CORP: Awaits Court Approval of Buckner Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Aon Corporation is awaiting final court approval of its settlement
of a class action lawsuit captioned Buckner v. Resource Life,
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 putative class action was filed in state court in Columbus,
Georgia, against a former subsidiary of Aon Corporation, Resource
Life Insurance Company.

The complaint alleged that Resource Life, which wrote policies
insuring repayment of auto loans, was obligated to identify and
return unearned premiums to policyholders whose loans terminated
before the end of their scheduled terms.

In connection with the sale of Resource Life in 2006, Aon agreed
to indemnify Resource Life's buyer in certain respects relating to
this action.

In October 2009, the court certified a nationwide class of
policyholders whose loans terminated before the end of their
scheduled terms and who Resource Life cannot prove received a
refund of unearned premium.

Resource Life took an appeal from that decision.

Also in October 2009, Aon filed a lawsuit in Illinois state court
seeking a declaratory judgment with respect to the rights and
obligations of Aon and Resource Life under the indemnity
agreement.

In July 2010, Aon entered into settlements of both cases, subject
to providing notice to the Buckner class and obtaining court
approval of the Buckner settlement.  Aon agreed to pay $47,750,000
on Resource Life's behalf in complete settlement with the
plaintiff class in Buckner, of which a pretax expense of
$37,750,000 was reflected in Income (loss) from discontinued
operations before income taxes in the second quarter 2010
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income.  A portion of this
payment may be returned to Aon if checks are undeliverable or some
class members do not cash their settlement payments.  Subject to
certain limitations, the return payment, if any, would be divided
50% to Aon and 50% to a fund to be used for charitable purposes.
Additionally, the settlement agreement with Resource Life provides
potential future benefits from Resource Life.

At this time, the amount of future payments, if any, cannot be
determined and Aon says it will record any amounts when they are
determinable.

The Georgia court set a hearing for final approval of the
settlement for November 22, 2010.


AQUA DOTS: Voluntary Refund Program Defeated Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to James C. Martin, Esq., and Colin E. Wrabley, Esq., at
Reed Smith, class action defense litigators, particularly those
involved in putative product mislabeling or warranty class
actions, should be aware of a recent federal district court
decision that accepted a creative option for defeating class
certification -- the defendant's implementation of a voluntary
product refund and replacement program providing a comparable
remedy to what the putative class might recover in court.  In re
Aqua Dots Prods. Liab. Litig., 2010 WL 3927611 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 4,
2010).  In so doing, the decision in Aqua Dots is in keeping with
a trend in class action jurisprudence concerning the scope of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)'s requirement that class
litigation be "superior to other available methods for fair and
efficient adjudication of the controversy."  Despite Rule
23(b)(3)'s express reference to other "methods . . . of
adjudication" (emphasis added), the court in Aqua Dots adopted the
majority "policy" approach to construing the superiority
requirement and concluded that the existence of superior "non-
judicial methods" for resolving disputes-such as voluntary refund
and replacement programs-can defeat certification.

The 'Textual' And 'Policy' Approaches To Construing Rule 23's
                   Superiority Requirement

The debate over the effect of a "non-judicial" resolution
mechanism on Rule 23(b)(3)'s superiority requirement can be traced
to Berley v. Dreyfus & Co., 43 F.R.D. 397 (S.D.N.Y. 1967), a
putative securities fraud class action.  The Berley court denied
certification because it found that defendant's offer to refund
investors the purchase price of the security at issue was superior
to a class action.  The court acknowledged that the refund was
"not quite 'another method for . . . adjudication'" under Rule
23(b)(3).  But the court rejected a literal interpretation of that
provision because, "read as a whole [Rule 23] reflects a broad
policy of economy in the use of society's difference-settling
machinery[,]" a policy that would be negated if class litigation
were permitted in the face of "readily available" refunds.  A
majority of courts have adopted Berley and its "policy" approach
to interpreting and applying the superiority requirement.  See In
re Con-Agra Peanut Butter Prods. Liab. Litig., 251 F.R.D. 689,
699-700 (N.D. Ga. 2008) (denying certification where defendants
offered refunds to purchasers of potentially salmonella-tainted
peanut butter that likely would exceed any judicial disgorgement
remedy); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 214
F.R.D. 614, 622 (W.D. Wash. 2003) (denying certification based on
defendants' refund to purchasers of PPA-containing products); Chin
v. Chrysler Corp., 182 F.R.D. 448, 463 (D.N.J. 1998) (denying
certification based on defendant's offer to reimburse repair costs
for defective anti-lock brake systems); see also 7AA Wright,
Miller & Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure Sec. 1779 ("The court
need not confine itself to other available 'judicial' methods of
handling the controversy in deciding the superiority of the class
action" because a non-judicial alternative may obviate the need
for court involvement at all).

A few courts have refused to follow the "policy" approach,
favoring instead a literal construction of Rule 23(b)(3) that
limits the superiority analysis to whether a class action would be
superior to judicial methods of resolution.  See Amalgamated
Workers Union of Virgin Islands v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands, 478
F.2d 540, 543 (3d Cir. 1973) ("We find no suggestion in the
language of Rule 23, or in the committee notes, that the value of
a class suit as a superior form of action was to be weighed
against the advantages of an administrative remedy"); Turner v.
Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 597, 610 (E.D. La. 2006)
(rejecting argument that private settlement program for oil spill
damages was "superior" because the "argument confuses the
superiority standard under Rule 23[, which considers] whether the
class action format is superior to other methods of adjudication,
not whether a class action is superior to an out-of-court, private
settlement program").

                            Aqua Dots

The district court in Aqua Dots expressly rejected the "textual"
approach to interpreting Rule 23(b)(3)'s superiority requirement
in favor of the "policy" approach.  The distributor of Aqua Dots,
a craft kit for children, issued recalls of the kits following
reports that children had fallen comatose after swallowing beads
in the kits tainted with the so-called "date rape" drug, GHB.  The
distributor offered widely publicized refund and replacement
options for purchasers, and in fact provided hundreds of thousands
of refunds to purchasers on request.  Plaintiffs, who purchased
Aqua Dots but declined to return them for the promised refund,
sought to certify a putative non-personal injury class action.
Defendants argued that class certification should be denied
because a class action would not be superior to the distributor's
refund and replacement program.

The district court agreed with defendants and denied
certification.  The court first identified the "threshold legal
question": "whether a defendant-administered refund program may be
found superior to a class action within the meaning of Rule
23(b)(3). . . ." The court acknowledged that as a textual matter,
"it makes little sense to describe an out-of-court remedy as an
'adjudication' of a claim[,]" but it nonetheless adopted the
"policy" approach because, in its view, that approach best served
the "animating purpose of the superiority requirement"-"to ensure
that the court's resources are put to efficient use. . . ." The
"policy" approach fostered this purpose because "when a defendant
is already offering an effective remedy for putative class members
through out-of-court channels, a class action threatens to consume
substantial judicial resources to no good end."

The court found that the "policy" approach also best protected the
interests of class members, which often diverge from those of
class counsel.  "Where available refunds afford class members a
comparable or even better remedy than they could hope to achieve
in court, a class action would merely divert a substantial
percentage of the refunds' aggregate value to the class lawyers."
As a result, the court reasoned, "rational class members would not
choose to litigate a multiyear class action just to procure
refunds that are readily available here and now."  Class counsel,
however, have a conflicting view because they are interested in
their fees.  The "policy" approach protects class members because
it "allows the court [to] ensure that a putative class action is
grounded in the realistic prospect of a remedy that class members
could not otherwise obtain."  The "textual" approach, on the other
hand, "permits (or even requires) the court to certify class
actions that, at best, offer no advantage for the class members,
and at worst, benefit class counsel at their expense."

The court rejected plaintiffs' contention that the voluntary
refund program was not superior because plaintiffs had sought
punitive damages and injunctive and declaratory relief, remedies
not available through any out-of-court program, including
defendants'.  If a request for injunctive or declaratory relief
"automatically render[ed] a class action superior to an out-of-
court refund program[,]" the court concluded, "a plaintiff could
easily fashion a request for an injunction that would accomplish
nothing more than the out-of-court remedy already in place,
thereby turning the superiority requirement into a trivial
pleading hurdle."  See also PPA, 214 F.R.D. at 615 (rejecting same
argument where plaintiffs sought injunction in the form of a
notice to consumers still in possession of the recalled products);
Chin, 182 F.R.D. at 451 (rejecting same argument where plaintiffs
sought injunction ordering defendant to offer rescission of
vehicle sales contract or to recall all allegedly defective brake
systems).  Nor would the "theoretical availability of punitive
damages-which at best offers a remote possibility of a marginally
greater recovery per class member-[be] enough to support a finding
of superiority when a putative class action has nothing else to
recommend it."

                             Analysis

Aqua Dots and the other courts that have adopted the "policy"
approach signal that several features are important to designing a
superiority-defeating voluntary refund program.  First, the refund
or replacement option presented to purchasers must be comparable,
if not superior, to the remedy that could be recovered in court-
illusory promises of private redress will not suffice.  Second,
the offered refund must be widely and readily available to
purchasers-roadblocks to obtaining the refund will undermine its
claim of superiority over a judicial remedy (though note that in
PPA, the court was unmoved by plaintiffs' protest that a
requirement that they produce proof of purchase was unduly
burdensome because such a requirement was an "extraordinarily
commonplace practice amongst retailers").  Third, the refund or
replacement option must be widely publicized and clearly explained
so that putative class member purchasers likely will become aware
of the private remedy and easily understand how to obtain it
(though note that the court in In re Con-Agra held that the
standard for sufficient notice of a voluntary program was not that
for notice of a class action suit.).  And fourth, although not
itself a feature of a refund program, proof that a significant
number of refunds already have been paid out will increase the
likelihood that a court will find the program superior to a class
action because it will substantiate the effectiveness and
publicity of the program.

One could envision, for example, a voluntary refund program
including these features that might defeat certification of a
putative product mislabeling class.  If the mislabeled products
retain value to their purchasers despite the mislabeling, the
defendant manufacturer might design a voluntary refund and
replacement program that offers purchasers the option either to
(a) complete a short refund form in exchange for 50 percent of
what they paid for the product or (b) return the mislabeled
product in exchange for the same, properly labeled product, or, if
possible, a comparable but different product.  The manufacturer
would want to take steps to ensure the program is widely
publicized by, for example, informing the public of the program on
its company Web site, mobilizing its public relations resources to
issue press releases and to convey the existence of the program to
national print publications and major news outlets, and otherwise
broadly advertising the program.  The manufacturer also would want
to be sure that the program is clearly explained to purchasers,
easy to access (perhaps by creating a web-based intake system for
claimants), and provides the promised refund or replacement
through a streamlined procedure that reduces delay and minimizes
the possibility that purchasers rightfully entitled to the refund
or replacement are turned away.

Indeed, it is possible to extend this reasoning and approach to
any sort of product defect or consumer fraud lawsuit (including
those related to financial, mortgage, or insurance products) where
the class complaints generically relate to not having received
fair value for what was purchased, or where a replacement product
or service could provide a substitute for the consumer good,
service or product that was purchased.

Reed Smith represents many of the world's leading companies in
complex litigation and other high-stakes disputes, cross-border
and other strategic transactions, and crucial regulatory matters.


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: January 25 Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------
If You Repaid A Residential (Not Commercial) Mortgage Loan,
Cooperative Loan, Home Equity Loan Or Home Equity Line Of Credit
To Astoria Federal Savings And Loan Association, Astoria Federal
Mortgage Corporation Or Long Island Savings Bank, FSB, Anytime
Between March 16, 1998 And July 30, 2010, Please Read This Notice
Carefully, As It Describes A Class Action Settlement That May
Affect Your Rights.

A federal court authorized this Notice.  This is not a
solicitation from a lawyer.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DAVID McANANEY, CAROLYN McANANEY, JOHN
REILLY, CONSTANCE REILLY, PHILIP RUSSO,
CYNTHIA RUSSO and GEOFFREY HORN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.                         Civil Action No. CV-04-1101

ASTORIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ASTORIA
Hon. Joseph F. Bianco, USDJ
FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION,
Hon. William D. Wall, USMJ
ASTORIA FEDERAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
LONG ISLAND BANCORP, INC. and LONG ISLAND
SAVINGS BANK, FSB,

Defendants.

What is the Lawsuit About?

In this class action (the "Lawsuit"), Plaintiffs, individually and
on behalf of the Class (as defined below) allege that Defendants
improperly demanded and collected certain fees (the "Disputed
Fees") from borrowers who repaid residential (but not commercial)
mortgage loans, cooperative loans, home equity loans or home
equity lines of credit, when the Disputed Fees were either
prohibited by contract or state or federal laws.  The Disputed
Fees consist of the following fees listed on payoff letters or
payoff statements sent by Defendants or on Defendants' behalf by
their loan servicer, Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc. ("DMI"): 1) Atty
Doc Prep Fee a/k/a Satisfaction Fee; 2) Facsimile Fee a/k/a Fax /
Fed Ex Fee; 3) Recording Fee a/k/a County Clerk Fee; 4) UCC-3
Termination Fee; and 5) Legal Attendance Fee a/k/a Legal Fee paid
directly to any of the Defendants.  It is not alleged that
borrowers were required by Defendants to pay each of the Disputed
Fees.  In 2006, the Court certified the Lawsuit as a class action.

Defendants have denied and continue to deny any and all
allegations of wrongdoing, liability or unlawful conduct
whatsoever in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint filed in
the Lawsuit.  In 2009, defendants Astoria Financial Corporation
("AFC") and Long Island Bancorp, Inc. ("LIB") were dismissed by
the Court from the Lawsuit.  In 1998, defendant Long Island
Savings Bank, FSB merged with and into defendant Astoria Federal
Savings and Loan Association and thereafter ceased to separately
exist.

After more than six years of litigation, and before the Court
ultimately decided this case in favor of Plaintiffs or Defendants,
on July 30, 2010, Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed to a settlement
(the "Settlement") to resolve this class action.  The terms of the
Settlement are contained in a Stipulation and Agreement of Class
Action Settlement (the "Stipulation"), which is available for
review at www.AstoriaFederalClassSettlement.com

The Plaintiffs and Class Counsel think the Settlement is fair and
reasonable for all Class members.  Members of the Class that paid
any Disputed Fee to any Defendant between March 16, 1998 and July
30, 2010 (the "Class Period"), and who do not request to be timely
excluded from the Settlement, are entitled to submit a claim to be
eligible to receive a cash payment as described herein.

Who is Included in the Class?

On September 19, 2006, the Court certified the Lawsuit as a class
action and certified the following class (the "Class") of past and
current residential borrowers of Defendants:

All consumers or borrowers in the United States who had or
currently have a mortgage or residential loan originated or
purchased by any of the defendants and who wrongfully paid or will
be demanded to pay closing fees, satisfaction fees, discharge
fees, prepayment fees (or penalties), refinance fees (or
penalties), attorney document preparation fees, facsimile fees,
recording fees and any other fees, charges, false debts or finance
charges in contravention of their mortgage or loan contracts or
applicable laws.

The Court's decision and order certified Plaintiffs as
representatives for the Class and their counsel, Whalen & Tusa,
P.C. and Law Offices of G. Oliver Koppell & Associates, as counsel
for the Class ("Class Counsel").

What are the Terms of the Settlement?

In exchange for the Settlement and dismissal of the Lawsuit,
Defendants have agreed to pay and create a common settlement fund
of $7,850,000.00 (the "Common Settlement Fund"), which will be
used, after payment of settlement administration costs, court-
approved incentive awards to the Plaintiffs, and payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses to Class Counsel, to make payments to
Class members who paid any Disputed Fees during the Class Period
and who timely complete and submit a valid Proof of Claim and
Release Form (the "Claim Form").  In addition, at various points
during the course of the Lawsuit, Defendants or their servicing
agent, DMI, stopped collecting some of the Disputed Fees and
corrected a software error that caused the Atty Doc Prep Fee a/k/a
Satisfaction Fee to be mistakenly imposed on certain Class
members.  To address allegations that Defendants collect Recording
Fees a/k/a County Clerk Fees to file lien releases that are also
collected by title insurers or their agents, Defendants have
agreed to remind certain title insurers of Defendants' Recording
Fee a/k/a County Clerk Fee collection policies.

Unless you exclude yourself from this Settlement by January 11,
2011, you will remain a member of the Class and if the Settlement
is finally approved by the Court you will release your claims in
the Lawsuit against Defendants, which means you cannot sue,
continue to sue, or be part of any lawsuit against the Defendants
or the "Released Parties" about the "Released Claims," including
"Unknown Claims" as those terms are defined in the Claim Form
enclosed with this Notice and in the Stipulation.  If you remain a
member of the Class, all of the Court's orders will apply to you
and legally bind you.  The "Releases" are set forth in Paragraphs
29, 30, 38, 74 of the Stipulation, available for review at
www.AstoriaFederalClassSettlement.com and in the accompanying
Claim Form.

Why Did I Receive This Notice?

You received this Notice because Defendants reasonably believe
based on their records and/or those of their loan servicer that
you are a Class member who paid Disputed Fees during the Class
Period.

How Will Payments to Each Class Member from the Common Settlement
Fund be Calculated?

All Class member claims will be paid from the Common Settlement
Fund based on the Total Disputed Fees Paid (as listed in the Claim
Form) by all Class members who timely submit a valid Claim Form
(after distributions from the Common Settlement Fund approved by
the Court (the "Net Common Settlement Fund")).  If sufficient
funds remain in the Net Common Settlement Fund, Class members who
timely submit a valid Claim Form will receive 100% of their Total
Disputed Fees Paid.  If insufficient funds remain in the Net
Common Settlement Fund to pay 100% of Class member claims, all
timely and valid Class member claims will be reduced in equal
percentages until the total claims paid equals the Net Common
Settlement Fund.  The Court may, without further notice to the
Class, modify the plan of allocation, which modification will not
affect the validity or finality of the proposed Settlement.

How Can a Class Member Make a Claim Under the Terms of the
Settlement?

To receive a payment under the Settlement, a Class member must
make a claim to the Settlement Administrator in any of the
following three ways: 1) by completing, certifying and mailing the
Claim Form included with this Notice to the Settlement
Administrator at Astoria Federal Class Settlement, c/o Rust
Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 2387, Faribault, MN 55021-9087; 2) by
completing, certifying and sending by facsimile the Claim Form
included with this Notice to the Settlement Administrator at (800)
441-7025; or 3) by completing, certifying and electronically
submitting the Claim Form to the Web site maintained by the
Settlement Administrator for this Settlement,
www.AstoriaFederalClassSettlement.com

Please submit only one Claim Form for each Loan Number.  TO BE
VALID, ALL CLAIMS MUST BE POSTMARKED OR SUBMITTED TO THE
SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR NO LATER THAN JANUARY 11, 2011.

Can I Exclude Myself From the Settlement?

Yes.  If you are a member of the Class, you may request exclusion
by mailing a letter requesting to be "excluded" from the
Settlement to the Settlement Administrator at Astoria Federal
Class Settlement, c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 2387,
Faribault, MN 55021-9087.  If you exclude yourself, you will keep
any right you may have to sue or continue to sue the Defendants
and the other Released Parties about the Released Claims, and you
will not be eligible to a refund or payment of any Disputed Fees
under the Settlement.  TO BE VALID, ALL EXCLUSION REQUESTS MUST BE
POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN JANUARY 11, 2011.

Can I Object to the Settlement or Class Counsel's Request for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses?

Yes.  If you are a member of the Class and do not request
exclusion, you or your attorney on your behalf and at your own
expense, may object to the Settlement or Class Counsel's request
for attorneys' fees and expenses.  Such objection must be in
writing and shall contain a caption or title that identifies it as
"Objection to Class Settlement in McAnaney v. Astoria Federal
Savings and Loan Ass'n, EDNY Civil Action No. 04-cv-1101" and
shall also contain information sufficient to identify the
objecting Class member and their residential mortgage,
cooperative, home equity or home equity line of credit loan
number, as well as a clear and concise statement of the Class
member's objection, the facts supporting the objection, and the
legal grounds on which the objection is based.  If an objecting
party chooses to appear at the Fairness Hearing (as defined and
discussed more fully below), then a notice of intention to appear,
either in person or through an attorney, at the objector's own
expense, must be filed with the Court and list the name, address
and telephone number of the attorney, if any, who will appear.  TO
BE VALID, ALL OBJECTIONS AND NOTICES TO APPEAR AT THE FAIRNESS
HEARING MUST BE POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN JANUARY 11, 2011 AND
MAILED TO THE COURT AND THE FOLLOWING ATTORNEYS:

To the Court:

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

To Class Counsel:

To Defendants' Counsel:

Clerk of Court
Joseph S. Tusa
Alfred W.J. Marks
WHALEN & TUSA, P.C.
33 West 19th Street, 4th Floor
7 Times Square
100 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10011

DAY PITNEY LLP
Times Square Tower
Central Islip, NY 11722
New York, NY 10036

What if I Do Nothing?

If you do nothing, you will not receive any payment from the
Common Settlement Fund.  If the Court finally approves the
Settlement, you will be precluded from starting a lawsuit,
continuing a lawsuit, or being part of any other lawsuit against
the Defendants and the other Released Parties about the Released
Claims, including the Unknown Claims, ever again.

Who Represents the Class?

Class Counsel represent Plaintiffs and were certified by the Court
as counsel for the Class.  Class members have the right to hire
their own lawyers, at their own expense, although there is no
obligation to do so, and Class Counsel will represent all members
of the Class in the Lawsuit who do not object or retain their own
lawyer.

How Will Class Counsel Be Paid?

Class Counsel have not been paid for representing Plaintiffs and
the Class during the Lawsuit.  Class Counsel will make an
application to the Court for the payment of attorneys' fees not to
exceed 30% of the value of the Settlement, which Class Counsel
believes is valued in excess of twelve million dollars
($12,000,000.00), but in an amount not to exceed four million
dollars ($4,000,000.00).  Class Counsel will also request the
reimbursement of unpaid expenses incurred during the Lawsuit.

When will the Court Hold a Hearing to Consider the Settlement and
Related Issues?

The Honorable Joseph F. Bianco, a District Judge in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (the
"Court"), will hold a hearing (the "Fairness Hearing") at the
federal courthouse located at 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, NY
11722 on January 25, 2011 to consider whether to approve the
Settlement, Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and
the reimbursement of expenses, the application for incentive
awards to Plaintiffs, Class member objections, and other matters
related to the Settlement.  You or your lawyer, at your own
expense, may appear at the Fairness Hearing but do not have to do
so.  If you filed a timely objection, the Court will consider it
whether or not you attend the Fairness Hearing in person.  Any
changes to the date or time of the Fairness Hearing will be posted
on the Settlement Web site, www.AstoriaFederalClassSettlement.com
but will not be the subject of additional notice by mail.

How Can a Class Member Obtain More Information?

Class members can ask questions, complete a Claim Form and review
documents concerning the Lawsuit at
www.AstoriaFederalClassSettlement.com by calling the Settlement
Administrator toll-free at (877) 895-9274, or by writing the
Settlement Administrator at Astoria Federal Class Settlement, c/o
Rust Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 2387, Faribault, MN 55021-9087.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS
NOTICE.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT


AT&T MOBILITY: Justices Remand Class Action to Brooke County
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports West
Virginia's Supreme Court of Appeals interrupted a class action
against AT&T Mobility so Brooke Circuit Judge Ronald Wilson can
think twice about his jurisdiction.

On Oct. 28, all five Justices directed Judge Wilson to review
AT&T's motion for enforcement of an arbitration clause in a
contract former customer Charlene Shorts signed.

Judge Wilson declared the clause unconscionable because it
prohibited class actions, but the Justices found he failed to
engage in meaningful analysis.

"In reviewing the motion, the trial court is required to make
specific findings on the issue of unconscionability," they wrote
in an unsigned opinion.

Ms. Shorts seeks to represent all West Virginians who signed
contracts with Cingular or AT&T since 2002.  She set up an account
with AT&T in 2003, and failed to make timely payments.

AT&T terminated the contract, added an early termination fee of
$150, and sold the debt to Palisades Collection.

Palisades filed a complaint against Ms. Shorts in Brooke County
magistrate court in 2006, seeking to recover more than $1,000 in
debt and interest.

Ms. Shorts denied owing anything and asserted a counterclaim under
the state Consumer Credit and Protection Law.

Palisades removed the case to circuit court, where Ms. Shorts
added AT&T as defendant and proposed a class action seeking
damages, debt cancellation and attorney's fees.

AT&T removed the case to Federal Court pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act, which steers most new class actions to
federal courts.

District Judge Irene Keeley remanded it to Brooke County, and
appeals judges of the U.S. Fourth Circuit in Richmond affirmed the
decision.

AT&T sought review at the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Court denied
it.

AT&T then asked Judge Wilson to compel arbitration, not under the
contract Ms. Shorts and AT&T signed but under one she and Cingular
signed in 2005.

Last December, Judge Wilson declared prohibition of class actions
unconscionable under Dunlap v. Berger, a Supreme Court decision
from 2002.

The Justices found he misinterpreted the decision.

"Standing alone, the lack of class action relief does not render
an arbitration agreement unenforceable on grounds of
unconscionability under this Court's decision in Dunlap," they
wrote.

They wrote that according to Dunlap, every dispute must be
examined on the basis of language in a particular contract in
conjunction with specific facts.

They told Judge Wilson to examine relative positions and
bargaining power of the parties.  They told him to specify unfair
terms in the contract.

They told him to inquire whether the contract prevents a claimant
from vindicating rights and whether costs of arbitration are
burdensome.

They apparently answered the last question for him.  "Ms. Shorts
bears no costs with regard to an arbitration proceeding," they
wrote.

They wrote that the contract provides a minimum recovery of
$10,000 for a customer whose arbitration award exceeds the
company's last settlement offer.

Jeffrey Wakefield, of Flaherty, Sensabaugh and Bonasso in
Charleston, represented AT&T, along with Archis Parasharami and
Evan Tager of Washington, D.C.

Robert Bailey, William Wilmoth, and Michael McCarthy, all of
Steptoe and Johnson in Charleston, represented Palisades
Collections.

Christopher Regan, James Bordas Jr., and Jason Causey, all of
Bordas and Bordas in Wheeling, represented Ms. Shorts, along with
Thomas McIntire of Wheeling.

Chanler Langham, Jonathan Bridges, and William Merrill, all of
Susman Godfrey in Dallas, Texas, also represented Ms. Shorts.


AT&T MOBILITY: Argument in Consumer Arbitration Case Heard
----------------------------------------------------------
Lewis S. Wiener, Esq., Gail L. Westover, Esq., Brendan Ballard,
Esq., Wilson G. Barmeyer, Esq., and Evan J. Taylor, Esq., at
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, writing for the firm's
Sutherland's Legal Alert, report that on November 9, 2010, the
U.S. Supreme Court heard the much-anticipated oral argument in
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion.  The November 12, 2010 edition of
the Class Action Reporter ran a story on the hearing.

The Concepcions, who entered into a wireless service contract with
AT&T, filed a class action against the company in 2006 alleging
various violations of California's consumer protection statutes.
AT&T moved to compel individual arbitration of the dispute
pursuant to the contract's arbitration agreement, which contained
a class action waiver.  The U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denied the motion, finding the agreement
unconscionable under California law because it precluded class
actions.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed.  Certiorari was granted to
decide "[w]hether the Federal Arbitration Act ["FAA"] preempts
States from conditioning the enforceability of an arbitration
agreement on the availability of particular procedures -- here,
class-wide arbitration -- when those procedures are not necessary
to ensure that the parties to the arbitration agreement are able
to vindicate their claims."  Sutherland's Legal Alert on the grant
of certiorari is available at http://is.gd/hwETX

Counsel for AT&T focused the Court's attention on the FAA's
"revocation savings clause."  Section 2 of the FAA provides that
an arbitration agreement may be held unenforceable only on such
grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.  The company
argued that a law that renders an arbitration agreement
unconscionable if it precludes class proceedings does not apply to
contracts generally and runs afoul of the FAA.  The Court,
however, questioned AT&T's interpretation of the "any contract"
language.  Justice Ginsburg noted that the FAA was enacted to
ensure that courts would not favor the judicial forum over the
arbitral forum and, consistent with that purpose, California's
unconscionability analysis applies equally to judicial class
action waivers and class arbitration waivers.  AT&T maintained
that the test for FAA preemption is not whether a law applies
equally to arbitration and litigation.  If that were the case a
state could require full discovery, a judge, a jury, and
application of the federal or state rules of evidence and
procedure in every arbitration-requirements that, though equally
applicable to court proceedings, would clearly discriminate
against arbitration, in violation of the FAA.

In response, counsel for Concepcion asserted that the class waiver
at issue transforms the arbitration agreement from a forum
selection clause into an exculpatory clause that effectively
immunizes AT&T from large-scale liability for violations of state
law.  Justices Roberts and Alito expressed their skepticism,
questioning whether an inability to represent the interests of
third parties in arbitration could form the basis for a finding of
unconscionability, particularly where the terms of the arbitration
agreement allow individual rights to be vindicated in a bilateral
proceeding.  It was, however, Justice Ginsburg who posed a key
question for many since the Court's April 27, 2010, decision in
Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp.: "So why isn't
Stolt-Nielsen dispositive in this case?" In Stolt-Nielsen, the
Supreme Court held that a party to an arbitration agreement cannot
be compelled to submit to class arbitration unless the party
explicitly agrees to do so.  (Sutherland's Legal Alert on the
Stolt-Nielsen decision is available at http://is.gd/hwFd5)Counsel
for Concepcion attempted to distinguish Stolt-Nielsen by arguing
that its reach is limited to contract interpretation, not contract
enforceability.  Justice Ginsburg seemed unconvinced, emphasizing
that "here you have an unwilling defendant who doesn't want class
arbitration."

Throughout the argument, the Court pushed the parties to define a
generally applicable test that would enable it to distinguish
contract law defenses that are preempted under the FAA from those
that are not, particularly where a defense may appear on its face
to be neutral.  As Justice Sotomayor asked Concepcion's counsel,
"How would you propose to distinguish between facially neutral
contract law defenses that implicitly discriminate against
arbitration and those that do not? What's the test you would use
to tell the difference between the two?"  That question has
plagued courts confronted with challenges to the enforceability of
arbitration agreements since enactment of the FAA, and neither
side's responses appeared to satisfy the Justices.

Because courts in many states have held that class action waivers
may be found unconscionable under state contract unconscionability
principles, the Supreme Court's decision has the potential to mark
a significant shift in the arbitration arena.  It is expected that
the decision will be issued in the Spring of 2011.  For more
information on the possible implications of Concepcion and other
recent Supreme Court decisions addressing arbitration and class
action waivers, Sutherland's article "Supreme Court's 2009-2010
term sets up showdown over class-action waivers in arbitration
agreements" is available at http://is.gd/hwFtS

Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP is a law firm with global reach
known for solving challenging business problems and resolving
sophisticated legal issues for many of the world's largest
companies.  Founded in 1924, the firm handles matters throughout
the United States and worldwide.  Seven major practice areas --
corporate, financial services, energy and environmental,
intellectual property, litigation, real estate, and tax -- provide
the framework for an extensive range of focus areas, allowing
Sutherland attorneys to serve a diverse client base that ranges
from small and medium-sized start-up businesses to a significant
number of Fortune 100 companies.


AVX CORP: Continues to Defend Suit on Environmental Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AVX Corporation remains a defendant in an action in South Carolina
arising from alleged migration of certain pollutants to areas
adjacent to the company's property, 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 September 2007, the company received notice from Horry Land
Company, the owner of property adjacent to the company's Myrtle
Beach, South Carolina factory, that Horry Land Company's property
value had been negatively impacted by alleged migration of certain
pollutants from the company's property and demanding $5,400 in
compensatory damages, exclusive of costs that have not been
determined.  The company investigated the allegations and
determined that the demanded payment was not justified and that
issues of liability, among other issues, exist under environmental
laws.

As a result, in October 2007, the company filed a declaratory
judgment action in United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina under the CERCLA and the Federal Declaratory
Judgment Act, seeking a declaration that the company is not liable
for the property damages claimed by Horry Land Company and for a
determination and allocation of past and future environmental
response costs.  Horry Land Company has asserted its claims in
this suit and it is now proceeding.

In addition, two other suits have been filed against the company
relating to the same contamination.

One suit was filed in the South Carolina State Court on
November 27, 2007 by certain individuals seeking certification as
a class action which has not yet been determined.

The other suit is a commercial suit filed on January 16, 2008 in
South Carolina State Court by John H. Nance and JDS Development of
Myrtle Beach, Inc.

Both of these suits are pending in South Carolina state court.
AVX has also sought to join the United States Air Force as a
potentially responsible party.

The company intends to defend vigorously the claims that have been
asserted in the three related lawsuits.


BAYER CORP: Supreme Court to Decide on Class Certification in 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Simon, Esq., at Wildman Harrold Allen & Dixon LLP,
reports that in August 2001, George McCollins filed a putative
class action in West Virginia state court against Bayer and other
defendants.  Mr. McCollins sought to represent a West Virginia
class that alleged claims based on the sale of Baycol, a
cholesterol lowering medication.  After defendants removed the
case to federal court, it was consolidated through multidistrict
litigation with thousands of other Baycol cases in Minnesota.

In September 2001, Kevin Smith and two others filed a similar
action in West Virginia state court against Bayer and other
defendants.  Defendants could not remove Smith to federal court
because two West Virginia citizens were defendants, destroying
diversity jurisdiction.

In August 2008, defendants in McCollins moved the federal court to
deny certification of the proposed West Virginia class and to
enter summary judgment.  The federal court granted both motions.
There was no appeal.

In September 2008, the Smith plaintiffs asked the West Virginia
state court to certify the West Virginia class they proposed to
represent.  Defendants responded by asking the federal court that
had decided McCollins to enjoin the Smith plaintiffs from
litigating their request for class certification.  Defendants
contended that the Smith plaintiffs were members of the proposed
McCollins class, and the federal court's decision in McCollins
barred members of the proposed McCollins class from re-litigating
in state court whether the same class should be certified.

The federal court held that it had personal jurisdiction over the
Smith plaintiffs because they were members of the proposed
McCollins class, and the "relitigation exception" of the Anti-
Injunction Act permitted the federal court to issue the requested
injunction pursuant to the All Writs Act.  The federal court then
issued the injunction, finding that the Smith plaintiffs were
collaterally estopped from seeking to certify the same class that
the federal court refused to certify in McCollins.  The Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the order granting the
injunction.  In re Baycol Products Litig., 593 F.3d 716 (8th Cir.
2010).

The Smith plaintiffs then petitioned the United Sates Supreme
Court for a writ of certiorari, asserting that the McCollins
federal court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over them
based on their membership in a class that was not certified, and
the Anti-Injunction Act and the All Writs Act do not authorize the
issuance of an injunction against their litigation of class
certification issues in state court.  On September 28, 2010, the
Supreme Court granted the petition and decided to review the
Eighth Circuit's ruling.  A decision in Smith v. Bayer Corp., No.
09-1205 is likely in 2011.  The decision is expected to determine
whether a defendant that defeats the certification of a class in a
federal court case may use that decision to preclude certification
of the same class in a state court case.

Wildman Harrold Allen & Dixon LLP is a 200-attorney national law
firm.  It was founded in 1967 by Max Wildman, Bernard Harrold,
Thomas D. Allen, and Stewart S. Dixon.


BAYER CORP: Court Dismisses OCSPA Class Action Allegations
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael R. Blankshain, Esq., at Wildman Harrold Allen & Dixon LLP
reports that in McKinney v. Bayer Corp., 2010 WL 3834327 (N.D.
Ohio, Sept. 30, 2010), plaintiff alleged that Bayer falsely
advertised that its One-A-Day Men's Health and One-A-Day Men's 50+
Advantage vitamins promoted prostate health and could reduce the
risk of prostate cancer.  Alleging he purchased the vitamins in
reliance on these false representations, plaintiff asserted claims
for violations of Ohio's consumer fraud statutes and for breach of
warranty.  He sought to represent a class of all persons who
purchased the vitamin products in Ohio.

Bayer moved to dismiss the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act
(OCSPA) class action claim, arguing that the OCSPA allows a
consumer class action only if the defendant acted with prior
notice that its conduct was deceptive or unconscionable.  Ohio
Rev. Code Sec. 1345.09(B).  The requisite notice must be in the
form of (1) a rule adopted by the Ohio Attorney General, or (2) a
judicial decision involving substantially similar conduct. Id.
Bayer moved to dismiss the class action claim because plaintiff
had not alleged that Bayer's conduct had been previously declared
deceptive or unlawful. Plaintiff countered that the Supreme
Court's decision in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v.
Allstate Ins, Co., ___ S. Ct. ___, 2010 WL 1222272 U.S. (2010),
precluded the court from applying the state's prohibition on class
actions.

In Shady Grove, a divided Supreme Court addressed a motion to
dismiss a class action pursuant to a New York law, N.Y. Civ. Prac.
Law Ann. Sec. 901(b), that prohibited class actions in suits
seeking penalties or statutory minimum damages.  In a 5-4
decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the New York provision
did not preclude a federal district court sitting in diversity
from entertaining a class action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.

In an opinion by Justice Scalia, four justices found that Rule 23
was purely procedural and, as such, would prevail over any state
law, whether substantive or procedural.  Accordingly, the federal
district court should apply Rule 23, not the New York law, and
deny the motion to dismiss.  Justice Stevens cast the deciding
fifth vote that prevented application of the New York class action
ban, but he did not agree with Justice Scalia's reasoning.
According to Justice Stevens's formulation, even though it is
procedural, Rule 23 cannot be applied to displace a state law that
is nominally procedural "but is so intertwined with a state right
or remedy that it functions to define the scope of the state-
created right." 2010 WL 1222272 at *16.  Because the New York rule
before the Court was not such a state law, Justice Stevens agreed
the case could proceed under Rule 23.

Applying Shady Grove to the McKinney case, the court first
determined Shady Grove's holding by using the Supreme Court's
"narrowest grounds" rule: "When a fragmented Court decides a case
and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of
five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that
position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on
the narrowest grounds."  Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188,
193, 97 S.Ct. 990, 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977).  Under this "narrowest
grounds" rule, Justice Stevens's opinion, and not the sweeping
pronouncement of Justice Scalia, would control.

Applying Justice Stevens's reasoning, the court concluded that the
Ohio limitation on class actions was a substantive limitation on
the right to recover for consumer fraud, a right created within
the same statute that imposed the limitation.  Applying Federal
Rule 23 to allow a class action would alter the balance of
substantive rights under Ohio law and would therefore exceed the
power conferred by the Rules Enabling Act.  The McKinney court
relied on two recent district court opinions to support its
conclusion.  In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods.
Liab. Litig., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69254, *6-8 (N.D. Ohio July
12, 2010) (dismissing the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act class
action); Bearden v. Honeywell Int'l Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
83996, *25-26 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 16, 2010) (dismissing Tennessee
Consumer Protection Act class action).

McKinney is an important indicator of how the lower federal courts
will interpret Shady Grove and suggests state imposed limitations
on class actions will remain viable defenses to many putative
federal class actions.

Wildman Harrold Allen & Dixon LLP is a 200-attorney national law
firm.  It was founded in 1967 by Max Wildman, Bernard Harrold,
Thomas D. Allen, and Stewart S. Dixon.


BECKMAN COULTER: Faces Two Securities Suits in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Beckman Coulter, Inc., is a defendant in two purported class
actions in California against the company and certain of its
officers, 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 September 3, 2010 and September 7, 2010, City of Southfield
Fire and Police Retirement System and Warren Pinchuck,
respectively, filed in the U.S. District Court in the Central
District of California separate purported class actions against
the company, Scott Garrett, the Company's former Chairman of the
Board, former President and former Chief Executive Officer, and
Charles P. Slacik, the Company's Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, alleging federal securities laws violations.

The complaint includes two counts: (i) violation of Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder
against all defendants, and (ii) violation of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against the individual
defendants.  The Purported Class Actions assert identical
allegations, including that, between July 31, 2009 and July 22,
2010, the defendants allegedly issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business and
financial results, and allegedly failed to disclose issues related
to the company's troponin test kits and quality issues.

The Purported Class Actions seek unspecified damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, and unspecified injunctive relief.

The company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims and any additional related lawsuits that may be filed.


BRP US: Recalls 1,000 Ski-Doo (R) Snowmobiles
---------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
BRP US Inc., of Sturtevant, Wisconsin, announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,000 Ski-Doo (R) Snowmobiles.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

Electrostatic changes can accumulate and spark in the fuel tank
when the engine is left idling, posing an explosion hazard that
could result in serious injuries or death.

The firm has received three reports of explosions, one involving
minor burns to face and hands.

This recall involves Ski-Doo (R) model names listed below.  Model
names are located on the side panel.

    Model Year          Name                         Color
    ---------           ----                         -----

       2005      Expedition TUV 600 H.O. SDI     Black or Seashore
       2007      Skandic SWT V-800                   Yellow
       2008      Skandic SUV 600 HO SDI               Black
       2008      Skandic SWT V-800               Yellow and Black
       2009      Skandic SWT V-800               Yellow and Black
       2010      Skandic SWT V-800               Yellow and Black

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11709.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Finland and sold
through Ski-Doo dealers nationwide from March 2004 through March
2010 for between $9,000 and $10,000.

Consumers should stop using these vehicles immediately and contact
any Ski-Doo dealer to schedule an appointment for a free repair.
Registered owners have been directly notified about this recall by
mail.  All models already repaired under previous recalls due to
laceration hazard from projectiles, fire hazard, or explosion must
be repaired again.  For more information, contact BRP toll-free at
(888) 638-5397 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.ski-doo.com/


BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Seeks Approval of Broadbased Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Buckeye Partners, L.P., disclosed in a Form 8-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2010, that
it has entered into a proposed settlement of a consolidated class
action titled Broadbased Equities v. Forrest E. Wylie, et al.

The Partnership previously disclosed that on August 24, 2010, the
District Court of Harris County, Texas, entered an order
consolidating three previously filed putative class actions under
the caption of Broadbased Equities v. Forrest E. Wylie, et al.,
and appointing interim co-lead class counsel and interim co-
liaison counsel. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a consolidated
amended class action and derivative complaint on September 1,
2010. The Complaint purports to be a putative class and derivative
action alleging that MainLine Management LLC, and its directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Buckeye GP Holdings L.P.'s
public unitholders in connection with the merger of Buckeye GP
Holdings and Grand Ohio, LLC, by, among other things, accepting
insufficient consideration and failing to disclose all material
facts in order that Holdings' unitholders may cast an informed
vote on the Merger Agreement, and that the Partnership,
Partnership GP, Holdings GP, MergerCo, BGH GP Holdings, LLC,
ArcLight Capital Partners, LLC, and Kelso & Company, aided and
abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty.

On October 29, 2010, the parties to the litigation entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding in connection with a proposed
settlement of the class action and the Complaint. The MOU provides
for dismissal with prejudice of the litigation and a release of
the defendants from all present and future claims asserted in the
litigation in exchange for, among other things, the agreement of
the defendants to amend the Merger Agreement to reduce the
termination fees payable by the Partnership upon termination of
the Merger Agreement and to provide the Partnership's unitholders
with supplemental disclosure to the Partnership and Holdings'
joint proxy statement or prospectus, dated September 24, 2010. The
supplemental disclosure is set forth in a joint proxy statement or
prospectus supplement, dated October 29, 2010, that was filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2010.

In addition, the MOU provides that, in settlement of the
plaintiffs' claims (including any claim against the defendants by
the plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees or expenses related to
the litigation), the defendants (or their insurers) will pay a
cash payment of $900,000, subject to final court approval of the
settlement. The proposed settlement is subject to further
definitive documentation and to a number of conditions, including,
without limitation, completion of certain confirmatory discovery
by the plaintiffs, the drafting and execution of a formal
Stipulation of Settlement, the consummation of the Merger and
court approval of the proposed settlement. There is no assurance
that these conditions will be satisfied.


CALAMOS ASSET MANAGEMENT: Parties Move Lawsuit to District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Calamos Asset Management, Inc., was
removed from the circuit court to the district court of Illinois,
according to the company's November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company and Calamos Advisors, LLC, an indirect subsidiary,
were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed on
July 15, 2010 (Christopher Brown et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et
al., No. 10-CV-04422 (N.D. Ill.)) by a putative common shareholder
of the Calamos Convertible Opportunities and Income Fund (CHI).

The action was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff in the U.S.
District Court and re-filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois on September 13, 2010 (Christopher Brown et al. v John P.
Calamos, Sr. et al., Civil Action No. 10CH39590).  Other
defendants include CHI and current and former trustees of CHI;
namely John P. Calamos, Sr., Weston W. Marsh, John E. Neal,
William R. Rybak, Stephen B. Timbers, David D. Tripple, Joe F.
Hanauer and unspecified defendants John and Jane Does 1-100.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Calamos Advisors aided
and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and were unjustly enriched in connection with the
redemption of auction rate preferred securities of CHI.

As to the Company and Calamos Advisors, the plaintiff is seeking:
(i) declaratory judgments that the Company and Calamos Advisors
aided and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and were unjustly enriched; (ii) an injunction
against the Company and Calamos Advisors serving as advisor or
otherwise earning fees for services to CHI; (iii) an unspecified
amount of monetary relief plus interest; (iv) an award of
attorney's fees and expenses; and (v) such other and further
relief, including punitive damages, as may be available to the
plaintiff and the class that plaintiff seeks to represent.

On October 13, 2010, the Company, Calamos Advisers, and the other
defendants removed this action from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Christopher Brown et al. v John P. Calamos,
Sr. et al., No. 10-CV-06558 (N.D. Ill.))


CALAMOS ASSET MANAGEMENT: Plaintiff Refiles Suit in Circuit Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Calamos Asset Management, Inc., shifts its defense of a lawsuit
filed by shareholders from the district court to the circuit
court, according to the company's November 4, 2010 Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The Company and Calamos Advisors LLC were named as defendants in a
class action complaint filed on September 14, 2010 (Russell
Bourrienne et al. v John P. Calamos, Sr. et al., No. 10-CV-10-5833
(N.D. Ill.)) by a putative common shareholder of the Calamos
Convertible Opportunities and Income Fund (CHI).

The action was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff in the U.S.
District Court and re-filed in Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois on October 18, 2010 (Russell Bourrienne et al. v John P.
Calamos, Sr. et al., No. 10CH345119 ).

Other defendants include current and former trustees of CHI;
namely John P. Calamos, Sr., Weston W. Marsh, John E. Neal,
William R. Rybak, Stephen B. Timbers, David D. Tripple, Joe F.
Hanauer and unspecified defendants John and Jane Does 1-100. The
plaintiff alleges that the Company and Calamos Advisors aided and
abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty and were unjustly enriched in connection with the redemption
of auction rate preferred securities of CHI. As to the Company and
Calamos Advisors, the plaintiff is seeking: (i) declaratory
judgments that the Company and Calamos Advisors aided and abetted
the individual defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and
were unjustly enriched; (ii) an injunction against serving as
advisor or otherwise earning fees for services to CHI; (iii) an
unspecified amount of monetary relief plus interest; (iv) an award
of attorney's fees and expenses; and (v) such other and further
relief, including punitive damages, as may be available to the
plaintiff and the class that plaintiff seeks to represent.


CARGILL MEAT: Class Action Over Wages Set for Trial Next Month
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports a trial has been ordered for next
month in a class-action lawsuit against Cargill Meat Solutions
Corp. over wages at its Schuyler meatpacking plant.

Former Cargill workers sued last year, saying hourly employees
spend a substantial amount of time each day on work duties without
getting paid.  Those duties include dressing in protective gear,
sanitizing tools, and walking to and from work stations.

The former workers say federal law requires the company to pay for
preparation and cleanup time.

Cargill denies any wrongdoing and says the union contract
specifically excludes that time from paid time.

The trial is set to begin Dec. 13 in U.S. District Court in
Lincoln.

Similar lawsuits are pending against other Nebraska meatpackers.


CASCADE BANCORP: Faces Firkins Class Suit in Idaho
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit titled Russell Firkins & Rena Firkins v.
Bank of the Cascades is in its initial stages, Cascade Bancorp
said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 3, 2010.

On August 18, 2010, the Bank was sued in an asserted class action
lawsuit, Russell Firkins & Rena Firkins v. Bank of the Cascades,
Case No. 1:10-cv-414-BLW in the United States District Court for
the District of Idaho.

The lawsuit alleges that, in 2004, the Bank's predecessor (Farmers
and Merchants Bank), acting as trustee under three similar trust
indentures, inappropriately disbursed the proceeds of three bond
issuances, supposedly resulting years later in the bondholders'
loss of their collective investment of approximately $23.5
million.  Recovery is sought on theories of breach of the
indentures, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion.  The lawsuit
is in its initial stages and the class has not been certified.

While the outcome of this proceeding cannot be predicted with
certainty, based on management's review, management believes that
the lawsuit is without merit and plans to vigorously pursue its
defenses.  Management also believes that if any liability were to
result, it would not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated liquidity, financial condition or results
of operations.


CBS CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation seeks the dismissal of an amended complaint filed
by the City of Pontiac General Employees Retirement Systems,
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 December 12, 2008, the City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System filed a self-styled class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, and Treasurer,
alleging violations of federal securities law.

The complaint, which was filed on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the company's common stock between February 26, 2008
and October 10, 2008, alleges that, among other things, the
company's failure to timely write down the value of certain assets
caused the company's reported operating results during the Class
Period to be materially inflated.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory damages.  On February 11, 2009, a motion was filed in
the case on behalf of The City of Omaha, Nebraska Civilian
Employees' Retirement System, and The City of Omaha Police and
Fire Retirement System seeking to appoint the Omaha Funds as the
lead plaintiffs in this case; on March 5, 2009, the court granted
that motion.

On May 4, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which
removes the Treasurer as a defendant and adds the Executive
Chairman.  On July 13, 2009, all defendants filed a motion to
dismiss this action.  On March 16, 2010, the court granted the
Company's motion and dismissed this action as to the Company and
all defendants.

On April 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
serve an amended complaint.  On September 23, 2010, the court
issued an order granting leave to amend.  On October 8, 2010, the
Company was served with an Amended Complaint, which redefines the
Class Period to be April 29, 2008 to October 10, 2008 and alleges
that the impairment charge should have been taken during the first
quarter of 2008.

The company planned to file a motion to dismiss this Amended
Complaint by November 19, 2010.  The company believes that the
plaintiffs' claims are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself in the litigation.


CELERA CORP: Continues to Defend Against "Washtenaw" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Celera Corporation said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 25, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 4, 2010, that it continues to defend itself
against a class action lawsuit in California.

On June 14, 2010, a purported class action captioned Washtenaw
County Employees' Retirement System v. Celera Corporation was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging that from April 24, 2008 through
July 22, 2009, Celera and certain of its directors and current and
former officers made false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results. The action seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of
the Company's stock during this period, as well as an award to
plaintiff of their costs and attorneys' fees. On September 23,
2010, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and renamed the action
In re Celera Corp. Securities Litigation. An amended complaint was
filed on October 15, 2010. Celera believes that the allegations
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.


CELERA CORP: Has Indemnity Agreement With Life Technologies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Celera Corporation said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 25, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 4, 2010, that it has agreed to indemnify
Life Technologies for liabilities resulting from a class action
lawsuit to the extent not covered by Life Technologies' insurance.

On March 16, 2010, the parties to a class action lawsuit brought
on behalf of purchasers of PE Corporation Celera Genomics Group
tracking stock in a follow-on public offering conducted in
February 2000 entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement.  On July 15, 2010, a fairness hearing was held and the
Settlement Agreement was approved by the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut. The Settlement Agreement provides for
a settlement in the aggregate amount of $11.0 million, which
amount was funded entirely by Life Technologies Corporation's (as
successor to PE Corporation) insurance carrier. Under the terms of
the company's separation agreement with Life Technologies, Celera
agreed to indemnify Life Technologies for liabilities resulting
from the class action lawsuit to the extent not covered by Life
Technologies' insurance.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Court to Rule on Class Settlement This Week
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Sullivan, writing for Advisor One, reports a class action
suit brought by plaintiffs' attorneys against Charles Schwab & Co.
over the investment giant' YieldPlus Fund appears to be settled.

The suit stems from investments contained within the YieldPlus
portfolio, which included mortgage-backed securities and other
credit instruments that declined significantly during the
worldwide economic crisis beginning in late 2007.

"Schwab met with the plaintiffs' attorneys and reached an
agreement," said Schwab spokesperson Greg Gable.  "We had a
hearing Thursday and the judge said he will rule on the agreement
sometime soon, which we believe might be early next week."

The case has been marked by on-again, off-again agreements between
the two parties.  The most recent agreement was called off by
Schwab on Nov. 8 when the company notified the court it was
backing out.

Schwab said it notified counsel for the plaintiffs that it was
backing out of the agreement because plaintiff lawyers claimed the
settlement was not all-encompassing, and they still had legal
right to sue the company on behalf of other investors.

According to Schwab, in the spring of 2010 it agreed to a
settlement of $235 million to settle all claims in the YieldPlus
class action proceedings, regardless of their merit.  Schwab said
it was fully prepared to contest the allegations at trial but
"wanted to provide significant and speedy financial benefit to
valued clients who purchased or held the fund during the period
covered by the lawsuit and to put the matter behind us."
Plaintiffs' lawyers at the time praised the settlement as one in
which clients would receive "real money" and "a high percentage of
recovery."

The company argues that until the credit crisis, the YieldPlus
Fund was consistently one of the best performing funds in its
category for eight years and held a Morningstar 5-star rating from
December 2004 through September 2007.  Even in the face of the
credit crisis, the company notes YieldPlus shareholders lost, on
average, only 7.5% of their investment when dividends are counted.


CIBC TRUST: Faces Class Action Over Trust Fund Embezzlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sherri Zickefoose, writing for Calgary Herald, reports a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the Piikani Nation's chief
and council and CIBC Trust Corp. alleging the embezzlement of
$40 million from a nearly decade-old trust fund.

A statement of claim was filed in Alberta Court of Queen's Bench
on Nov. 3, naming the defendants as Chief Reg Crowshoe, fellow
members of the band's council, and CIBC Trust.

The lawsuit, launched by former council member Brian Jackson,
alleges the band council breached its fiduciary relationship in
connection to money held in trust from compensation for the
construction of the Oldman River Dam.

Mr. Jackson negotiated the original settlement with the provincial
and federal governments.

While some of the settlement was distributed to band members, the
remaining $45 million was deposited into a trust, which was
intended to provide long-term benefits to all tribal members, said
lawyer Bill Klym.  "The whole purpose of the trust had at its base
the improvement of life on the nation, which is troubled by all
sorts of social problems," said Mr. Klym.

"They were hopeful this $64 million would improve people's lives,
provide employment for the youth, and deal with housing, which is
disastrous."

The statement of claim alleges CIBC wrongfully paid out $19
million from the trust, resulting in a further loss of about $13
million.  None of the allegations have been proven in court.

The southern Alberta Peigan Reserve sits along Highway 3 between
Fort Macleod and Pincher Creek.

Calls to Piikani administration were not returned.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in "Minnick" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire Corporation is awaiting a ruling on an appeal from the
dismissal of a class action lawsuit in Washington, according to
the company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2010.

On April 22, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Clearwire U.S. LLC in Superior Court in King County,
Washington by a group of five plaintiffs from Hawaii, Minnesota,
North Carolina and Washington (Chad Minnick, et al.).  The lawsuit
generally alleges that the Company disseminated false advertising
about the quality and reliability of its services; imposed an
unlawful early termination fee; and invoked unconscionable
provisions of its Terms of Service to the detriment of customers.
Among other things, the lawsuit seeks a determination that the
alleged claims may be asserted on a class-wide basis; an order
declaring certain provisions of the company's Terms of Service,
including the early termination fee provision, void and
unenforceable; an injunction prohibiting the Company from
collecting early termination fees and further false advertising;
restitution of any early termination fees paid by its subscribers;
equitable relief; and an award of unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees.  On May 27, 2009, an amended complaint was filed
and served, adding seven additional plaintiffs, including
individuals from New Mexico, Virginia and Wisconsin. On June 2,
2009, plaintiffs served the amended complaint.

The Company removed the action to the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington.  On July 23, 2009, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court
stayed discovery pending its ruling on the motion. The Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety on
February 2, 2010.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs filed their opening
brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 16, 2010. The
Company filed an answering brief on July 30, 2010. Plaintiffs
filed a reply brief on August 27, 2010. The Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals set oral argument for November 3, 2010.

This case is in the early stages of litigation, and its outcome is
unknown, the Company stated.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Class Certification Briefing Set for This Quarter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification briefing has been scheduled for the fourth
quarter 2010 in the class action lawsuit filed by representative
plaintiff Rosa Kwan against Clearwire Corporation, according to
the company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 4,
2010.

On September 1, 2009, the Company was served with a purported
class action lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court, brought
by representative plaintiff Rosa Kwan.  The complaint alleges the
Company placed unlawful telephone calls using automatic dialing
and announcing devices and engaged in unlawful collection
practices.  It seeks declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief
and actual and statutory damages under federal and state law.

On October 1, 2009, the Company removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington.  On
October 22, 2009, the Court issued a stipulated order granting
plaintiff until October 29, 2009, to file an Amended Complaint.
The parties further stipulated to allow a Second Amended
Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on December 23, 2009.  The
Company then filed a motion to dismiss that was fully briefed on
January 15, 2010.  On February 22, 2010, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss in part, dismissing certain claims
with prejudice and granting plaintiff leave to amend the
complaint.

Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint adding additional state
law claims and joining Bureau of Recovery, a purported collection
agency, as a co-defendant. On May 5, 2010, Clearwire filed an
Answer to the Third Amended Complaint.  The Company said it is
currently engaged in discovery.  The Court has scheduled class
certification briefing for fourth quarter 2010. This case is in
the early stages of litigation, and its outcome is unknown.


COLLEGE NOTRE DAME: Two More Plaintiffs Join Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Montreal Gazette reports a request seeking permission to
launch a class-action suit on behalf of victims of alleged sexual
abuse at College Notre Dame in the 1970s and '80s by brothers of
the Congregation of Holy Cross has been amended to include two
more plaintiffs -- one of them from a second college run by the
order.

The new plaintiffs, identified only by their initials -- F.L. and
L.R.A. -- now appear on the request, along with that of the family
of the late Rene Cornellier Jr., who attended College Notre Dame
in the 1970s for four years starting when he was 12.

L.R.A. also attended College Notre Dame between 1967 and 1974 and
alleges he was sexually assaulted by one of the brothers at the
school.  However, in the 1980s, F.L. was a student at College
St. Cesaire, a school near Granby also run by the Congregation of
Holy Cross.  In the amended request, F.L. alleges he was sexually
assaulted by a brother at College St. Cesaire during the year he
attended the school.

The congregation sold College St. Cesaire in 1991.  It closed its
doors in 1998.

The allegations of abuse at College Notre Dame first came to light
in an award-winning series of articles by reporter Sue Montgomery
in The Gazette published two years ago.  Other media followed the
story, most recently the investigative news program Enquete.  The
Congregation of Holy Cross issued an apology following the
broadcast, and Montreal police launched an investigation into
allegations of abuse, inviting anyone who believed they had been
victimized to contact them or their local police department.

The hearing for the class-action suit, which includes all Quebec
residents who attended College Notre Dame between 1960 and 2001
and College St. Cesaire between 1960 and 1991, is scheduled for
Dec. 13.


CONVERIUM HOLDING: Dutch Court Can Declare Settlement Binding
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ruud Hermans, Esq., Robert Polak, Esq., Marnix Leijten, Esq., Ton
Schutte, Esq., Ernest Meyer Swantee, Esq., and Geert Potjewijd,
Esq., at De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, writing for the firm's
Legal Alert International Litigation, relate that on November 12,
2010, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal delivered an important
decision regarding an international collective settlement of mass
claims using the Shell decision as a precedent.  The court assumed
jurisdiction to declare an international collective settlement
binding in a case where none of the potentially liable parties and
only a limited number of the potential claimants were domiciled in
the Netherlands.  The decision is provisional, but if it becomes
final, which is highly likely, it will have to be recognized in
all European Members States, Switzerland, Iceland and Norway under
the Brussels I Regulation and the Lugano Convention.  The
Netherlands is the only European country where a collective
settlement of mass claims can be declared binding on an entire
class on an "opt out" basis.  This makes the Netherlands an
attractive venue for settling international mass claims,
irrespective of whether any (class action) litigation has taken
place in the Netherlands.  This is even more so since the U.S.
Supreme Court in Morisson v. National Australia Bank and Hoffman-
La Roche v. Empagran denied non-U.S. claimants in securities and
anti-trust cases the right to bring their claims before U.S.
courts.

                      Background of the case

Converium Holding AG is a Swiss reinsurance company (currently
known as SCOR Holding AG).  Converium was a wholly owned
subsidiary of Zurich Financial Services Ltd until 2001, when ZFS
sold all its Converium shares through an initial public offering.
Converium shares were listed on the SWX Swiss Exchange and
Converium ADSs were listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
Converium's share price declined after the company announced
increases to its loss reserves in the period from 2002 through
2004.  These announcements led to securities class actions in the
United States under U.S. securities laws against Converium and ZFS
on behalf of a worldwide putative class of all purchasers of
Converium securities during the relevant period.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York certified a class consisting of all U.S. persons who had
purchased Converium securities on any exchange, as well as all
persons (regardless of their residence) who had purchased
Converium securities on a U.S. exchange.  However, the U.S. Court
excluded from the class all non-U.S. persons who had purchased
Converium securities on any non-U.S. exchange (the
"Non-U.S. Purchasers").  The U.S. class action was settled and the
settlement was approved by the U.S. Court.  Converium and ZFS
agreed to collectively settle the potential claims of all Non-U.S.
Purchasers under Dutch law with a Dutch foundation established for
that purpose that represented the Non-U.S. Purchasers.  The
Non-U.S.  Purchasers were predominantly domiciled in Switzerland
and the U.K.  Only a few were domiciled in the Netherlands.  De
Brauw acts as legal counsel to ZFS in this settlement and in the
proceedings before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal requesting this
settlement be declared binding.

      Dutch Act on the Collective Settlement of Mass Claims

The Dutch Act on the Collective Settlement of Mass Claims[i] (Wet
collectieve afwikkeling massaschade, the "WCAM") entered into
force on July 27, 2005.  Pursuant to the WCAM, the parties to a
settlement agreement may request the Amsterdam Court of Appeal
(the "Court") to declare the settlement agreement binding on all
persons to which it applies according to its terms (the
"interested persons").  The settlement agreement must have been
entered into between one or more potentially liable parties and
one or more foundations or associations representing the interests
of the interested persons.  If the Court declares the settlement
agreement binding, all interested persons are bound by its terms,
unless an interested person timely submits an "opt out" notice.
All other interested persons have a claim for settlement relief
and are bound by the release in the settlement agreement.  The
Court will refuse to declare the settlement agreement binding if,
among other things, the amount of settlement relief provided for
in the settlement agreement is not reasonable or the petitioners
jointly are not sufficiently representative regarding the
interests of the interested persons.  Since the entry into force
of the WCAM in 2005, the Court has declared a settlement agreement
binding in five cases.  To date, the most eminent case has been
the Shell settlement, approved by the Court on May 29, 2009.
Although no case law on this issue exists at this point, the Shell
decision implies that the binding declaration must be recognized
by the courts in all EU Member States under the Brussels I
Regulation, and also in Switzerland, Iceland and Norway under the
Lugano Convention.

                             Decision

The Court followed substantially the same line of reasoning for
its provisional ruling on jurisdiction as in the Shell decision.
The most important difference is that the Converium settlement is
of an even more international nature.  The Shell settlement
concerned a worldwide settlement between a Dutch and a British
Shell entity and the worldwide group of Shell's shareholders,
excluding all U.S. shareholders, who purchased their shares during
the relevant period in relation to Shell's recategorization of
certain of its oil and gas reserves in 2004.  A substantial number
of these shareholders were domiciled in the Netherlands.  In the
Converium settlement, however, none of the potentially liable
parties and only a limited number of the interested persons were
domiciled in the Netherlands.  The Court furthermore emphasized
the importance of the fact that a Dutch foundation represents the
interested persons and is obliged under the settlement agreement
to distribute the settlement relief, suggesting that even without
any Netherlands domiciled interested persons the Court may have
jurisdiction to declare the settlement binding.

The ruling on jurisdiction is provisional until the interested
persons have been notified and given the opportunity to submit a
defense.  However, it is highly unlikely that the ruling on
jurisdiction will be reversed.  The final hearing of the case will
most likely take place during the summer of 2011.

It should be noted that the Court is fully aware of the
significance of its judgment in creating an alternative venue to
declare international collective settlements in mass claims
binding on all class members.  The Court explicitly referred to
the limitations for the U.S. courts to do so in securities and
anti-trust cases as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions
in Morrison v. National Australia Bank and Hoffman-La Roche v.
Empagran.

                           Implications

The WCAM is the only European statute that provides for a
procedure to declare a collective settlement in a mass litigation
case binding on all class members on an "opt out" basis.  Using
the Shell decision as a precedent, the Converium decision confirms
that the Amsterdam Court has not only jurisdiction to declare an
international collective settlement binding on all class members,
whether they are domiciled in Europe, the United States or
elsewhere, but also an appetite to facilitate such settlements
even if the parties to the settlement and the class members hardly
have any connection to the Netherlands.

The judgment of the Court must be recognized in all EU Member
States, Switzerland, Iceland and Norway.  Whether the judgment is
able to be recognized in other countries depends on their
respective laws.  As the Ahold decision proves, the Netherlands is
willing to recognize a court-approved U.S. class action settlement
so that any class members who did not opt out are bound by the
settlement.  Whether that would be sufficient for U.S. courts to
recognize a court-approved WCAM settlement remains to be seen.

Because the Netherlands is the only European country in which a
collective settlement in a mass litigation case can be declared
binding on all class members on an "opt out" basis and such a
decision has to be recognized in the rest of Europe, the
Netherlands is Europe's most attractive venue to facilitate such
settlements.  It is irrelevant in this respect whether the
settlement is the outcome of class action litigation or not and if
so, in which country such litigation took place.

De Brauw is a premium full-service international law firm.  The
firm's practice areas include: corporate law, mergers and
acquisitions, private equity, banking, equity and debt capital
markets, asset, project structured finance, insolvency,
restructuring, investment management, tax, corporate and
commercial litigation, arbitration, EU and competition law,
intellectual property, information technology and communication,
economic regulation, real estate, planning & zoning and employment
law.


DOMTAR CORP.: Faces Price-Fixing Lawsuits & Seeks Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Domtar Corporation has been named as a defendant in several
lawsuits for alleged price-fixing, according to the Company's
November 4, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In September 2010, Kleen Products LLC filed a class action suit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corporation of America,
et al, naming among others the Company, Norampac Inc. and Cascades
Inc., as defendants.  Kleen alleged that the defendants conspired
to fix prices and reduce output of containerboard in the United
States between August 2005 and October 2010.

Four additional suits with essentially the same allegations have
been filed in the same court since Kleen, the last of them not
including Domtar as a defendant.

In 1997, Domtar Inc., transferred all of its containerboard assets
to Norampac, a corporation which was a joint venture with
Cascades, and in which Domtar Inc. and Cascades were each 50-
percent shareholders. Domtar Inc. sold its 50 percent share of
Norampac to Cascades in December 2006. Since the Company and
Domtar Inc. did not sell any containerboard in the United States
during the Class Action Period, the Company intends to vigorously
contest the allegations made against it on that basis and on other
grounds, and the Company will seek a prompt dismissal from the
litigation.


DUCATI NORTH: Sued for Violations of Consumer Protection Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonas Sugarman, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Ducati North America, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-05246 (N.D. Calif.
November 18, 2010), asserts violations of consumer protection
laws.  Mr. Sugarman, a resident of Florida and the owner of a 2009
Ducati 1198 motorcycle, accuses the American subsidiary of the
Italian motorcycle manufacturer Ducati Motor Holding S.p.A. of
selling Ducati motorcycles equipped with defective plastic fuel
tanks, despite knowing that these plastic fuel tanks were
incompatible with the motorcycles' fuel and would create a number
of unsafe conditions as they degraded and deformed.

Mr. Sugarman narrates that, among other things, as the plastic
degrades and deforms, the fuel tanks interfere with the full range
of steering, leak fuel onto the engine, and destabilize the
motorcycle's weight distribution, such that the motorcycle cannot
be safely operated after only a few thousand miles of use.

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

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Dylan Hughes, Esq.
          Geoffrey A. Munroe, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com
                  dsh@girardgibbs.com
                  gam@girardgibbs.com


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: AMR Awaits Court Approval of Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
On December 13, 2005, a lawsuit purporting to be a class action
was commenced against American Medical Response, Inc., in
Washington State Court, Spokane County.

The complaint alleged that AMR billed patients and third party
payors for transports it conducted between 1998 and 2005 at higher
rates than contractually permitted.

The court has certified a class in this case which is comprised of
approximately 15,000 Spokane County residents.

In September 2010, the Company and class representatives reached
an agreement to resolve the claims for approximately $1.1 million,
which amount includes all remaining refunds due to class members
and attorney's fees for the plaintiffs' counsel.

The settlement is expected to be approved and finalized by the
court by the end of January 2011, according to the Company's
November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Four Wage & Hour Violations Suits Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Four different lawsuits purporting to be class actions continue to
be pending against Emergency Medical Services Corp.'s subsidiary,
American Medical Response, Inc., and certain subsidiaries in
California alleging violations of California wage and hour laws,
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 four lawsuits are:

     (1) commenced by Lori Bartoni in the Superior Court for the
         State of California, County of Alameda, on April 16,
         2008;

     (2) filed by Vaughn Banta in the Superior Court of the
         State of California, County of Los Angeles, on July 8,
         2008;

     (3) filed by Laura Karapetian in the Superior Court of the
         State of California, County of Los Angeles, on Jan. 22,
         2009; and

     (4) filed by Melanie Aguilar in the Superior Court of the
         State of California, County of Los Angeles, on
         March 11, 2010.

The Banta and Karapetian cases have been coordinated with the
Bartoni case in the Superior Court for the State of California,
County of Alameda.  At the present time, the courts have not
certified classes in any of these cases.

Plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR entities failed to pay
overtime charges pursuant to California law, and failed to
provide required meal breaks or pay premium compensation for
missed meal breaks.  Plaintiffs are seeking to certify the
classes and are seeking lost wages, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and other sanctions permitted under California law for
violations of wage hour laws.


FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors of the important November 30,
2010 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action lawsuit the firm
filed on behalf of purchasers of FalconStor Software, Inc. common
stock during the period beginning February 5, 2009 through
September 29, 2010, seeking remedies under the federal securities
laws.

To join the class action against FalconStor, go to the Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653.  You may also email
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com  for information on
the class action.

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

The Complaint alleges that FalconStor and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing false
and misleading statements about the Company's financial condition
and prospects.  The Complaint asserts that defendants failed to
disclose that FalconStor was making improper payments to secure a
contract with at least one of its customers; the Company was
experiencing weak demand for its products and services; and
consequently defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their
statements about the Company's prospects.  The Complaint asserts
that when the truth was disclosed to the market on September 29,
2010, the price of FalconStor stock fell, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 30, 2010.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing and overseeing the litigation.  If you wish to join the
litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action, please contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim,
Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via
e-mail at lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com

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

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


FRANKLIN AMERICAN: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wage
--------------------------------------------------------
Gina McKeen-Chaplin, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Franklin American Mortgage Company, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-05243 (N.D. Calif. November 18, 2010), accuses the
privately-held mortgage banking firm of failing to pay her and the
Class members she represents overtime compensation as required by
federal and state law.

Ms. McKeen-Chaplin, a resident of Martinez, California, was
employed by FAMC from February 2009 through late October 2010 as a
mortgage underwriter in its Concord, California office.

The Plaintiff alleges that FAMC classified its mortgage
underwriters as exempt from the Fair Labor and Standards Act and
state wage and hour protections until January 2010 when it
reclassified its mortgage underwriters to "non-exempt." Ms.
McKeen-Chaplin relates that prior to the reclassification, FAMC
had uniformly misrepresented to Plaintiff and the other mortgage
underwriters that they were ineligible to receive overtime pay,
despite the fact that the work they did for the Defendant was
"production work directly related to mortgage sales."

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

          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 277-7235
          E-mail: Helland@nka.com


FULL SPEED: Recalls 9,300 Full Speed Ahead Gossamer Crank Sets
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Full Speed Ahead, of Woodinville, Wash., announced a voluntary
recall of about 9,300 full Speed Ahead BB30 Gossamer crank sets
installed on numerous makers of bicycles.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

If the fixing bolt is over-tightened on the non-drive crank arm,
the bolt shoulder can crack or break.  If this occurs, the non-
drive arm can fall off the bicycle causing the rider to crash and
suffer injuries.

Full Speed Ahead has received 11 reports of incidents, including
two cases where injuries have been reported.

A crank set is the component of the bicycle that the chain and
pedals attach to for pedaling.  The recalled models are either
painted black with "Gossamer" printed in white on the arm or white
with "Gossamer" printed in black on the arm.  There are two drive
gears (referred to as "double") on the crank set.  The recalled
crank arms were assembled as original equipment on the following
bicycle models:

   Bianchi       2010 Sempre Ultegra
   Cannondale    2010 CAAD9 5, CAAD9 5 Feminine
                 2010 Six Carbon 5
                 2010 Slice 4, Slice 4 Nytro, Slice 5
                 2010 Synapse Carbon 4, Carbon 4 Feminine,
                 Carbon 5
                 2011 CAAD10 5 105, CAAD10 5 105 Feminine
                 2011 Slice 5, Slice 5 Womens
                 2011 SuperSix 5 105, SuperSix 5 105 Womens
                 2011 Synapse Carbon 4 Rival, Carbon 4 Rival
                 Womens, Carbon 5
                 2011 CAAD8 5 105
                 2011 CAADX 105 Cyclocross
   Felt          2011 F75
                 2011 F75X
   Fuji          2010 ACR 1.0
                 2010 ACR 2.0
                 2010 ACR 3.0
   Quintana Roo  2010 CD.0.1
   Litespeed     2010 C3
   Raleigh       2011 RX 1.0
                 2010 RX 1.0
   Scattante     2010 CFR Comp

Gossamer BB30 non-drive crank arms that are included in the recall
have serial numbers beginning with 10B, 10C, and 10D. Serial
numbers are located on the backside of the crank arm by pedal
threads.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11045.html

Assembled as standard original equipment on the bicycles listed.
Sold by independent bicycle retailers nationwide from February
2010 through October 2010.

Consumers should immediately stop using bicycles that have the
recalled crank arm sets and return bicycle to the dealer.  The
dealer will install the new non-drive crank arm free of charge.

For additional information on obtaining a free replacement non-
drive crank arm, contact Full Speed Ahead toll-free at (877) 743-
3372 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through
Friday, via email to recall@fullspeedahead.com, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.fullspeedahead.com/


GREEN BANKSHARES: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased the securities of Green
Bankshares, Inc., (Nasdaq:GRNB) between January 19, 2010, and
November 9, 2010, inclusive.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP.  Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or
Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com/ or visit our Web site at
http://www.glancylaw.com/

The Complaint charges the Company and certain of its executive
officers with violations of federal securities laws.  Green
Bankshares operates as the bank holding company for GreenBank,
which provides commercial banking services primarily in Tennessee.
GreenBank offers a range of deposit products and it also provides
a portfolio of loan products, including commercial real estate
loans; residential real estate loans, such as one-to-four family,
owner-occupied residential mortgage loans; commercial loans for
various business purposes, including working capital, inventory
and equipment, and capital expansion; and consumer loans for
personal, family, or household purposes.  The Complaint alleges
that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Green Bankshares' business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading.  Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose: (1) that the Company was overvaluing the collateral
of certain loans; (2) that, as such, the Company was failing to
timely take impairment charges to reduce the carrying values of
certain loans to appropriate market values; (3) that the Company
lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) that, as
a result, the Company's financial results were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 20, 2010, Green Bankshares announced its financial
results for the 2010 fiscal third quarter and disclosed that the
Company's net charge-offs increased on a sequential basis to $36.5
million from $4.9 million in the prior quarter.  Moreover, the
Company indicated that it had engaged an independent third-party
loan reviewer, which contributed to the asset quality-impact
reflected in its third quarter results.  On this news, shares of
the Company declined $2.79 per share, more than 43%, to close on
October 21, 2010, at $3.68 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

Then, on November 9, 2010, after the market closed, the Company
announced that in consultation with the Federal Reserve Bank of
Atlanta, Green Bankshares had given notice to the U.S. Treasury
Department that the Company was suspending the payment of regular
quarterly cash dividends on the Company's Fixed Rate Cumulative
Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A, issued to the U.S. Treasury
Department.  Further, the Company disclosed that "two large
relationships totaling approximately $31.4 million, after charge-
offs of $20.7 million," had defaulted during the third quarter.
According to the Company, "these borrowers had been paying
interest only and were current but new appraisals ordered during
the quarter showed collateral shortfalls that caused the Company
to move these relationships to non-accrual and charge them down to
the collateral values."

As a result of this news, shares of the Company declined $1.08 per
share, more than 29.5%, to close on November 10, 2010, at $2.57
per share, on unusually heavy volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with
significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice, to
serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal
requirements.  If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg,
Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at
(310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com/  or visit our Web site at
http://www.glancylaw.com/


HANOVER INSURANCE: Continues to Defend "Durand" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., remains a defendant in a lawsuit
filed by a former employee regarding a miscalculation of lump sum
pending in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky, 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 March 12, 2007, a putative class action suit captioned Jennifer
A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., The Allmerica
Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.  The named
plaintiff, a former employee who received a lump sum distribution
from the Company's Cash Balance Plan at or about the time of her
termination, claims that she and others similarly situated did not
receive the appropriate lump sum distribution because in computing
the lump sum, the Company understated the accrued benefit in the
calculation.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the
Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, which motion
was granted without prejudice in a decision dated November 7,
2007.  This decision was reversed by an order dated March 24, 2009
issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, and the case was remanded to the district court.

The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on December 11, 2009.  In
response, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 30,
2010.  In addition to the pending calculation of the lump sum
distribution claim, the Amended Complaint includes:

   (a) a claim that the Plan failed to calculate participants'
       account balances properly because interest credits were
       based solely upon the performance of each participant's
       selection from among various hypothetical investment
       options (as the Plan provided) rather than crediting the
       greater of that performance or the 30 year Treasury rate;

   (b) a claim that the 2004 Plan amendment, which changed
       interest crediting for all participants from the
       performance of participant's investment selections to the
       30 year Treasury rate, reduced benefits in violation of the
       Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 for
       participants who had account balances as of the amendment
       date by not continuing to provide them performance-based
       interest crediting on those balances; and

   (c) claims for breach of fiduciary duty and ERISA notice
       requirements for not properly informing participants of the
       various interest crediting and lump sum distribution
       matters of which Plaintiffs complain.

In the Company's judgment, the outcome is not expected to be
material to its financial position, although it could have a
material effect on the results of operations for a particular
quarter or annual period and on the funding of the Plan.


HANOVER INSURANCE: Appeal in "Hurricane Katrina" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the Hurricane Katrina Litigation remains pending in
the Louisiana Supreme Court, according to Hanover Insurance Group,
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 Company has been named as a defendant in various litigation
including putative class actions, relating to disputes arising
from damages which occurred as a result of Hurricane Katrina in
2005.  As of September 30, 2010, there were approximately 50 such
cases.  These cases have been filed in both Louisiana state courts
and federal district courts.  These cases generally involve, among
other claims, disputes as to the amount of reimbursable claims in
particular cases, as well as the scope of insurance coverage under
homeowners and commercial property policies due to flooding, civil
authority actions, loss of landscaping, business interruption and
other matters.  Certain of these cases claim a breach of duty of
good faith or violations of Louisiana insurance claims handling
laws or regulations and involve claims for punitive or exemplary
damages.

On August 23, 2007, the State of Louisiana (individually and on
behalf of the State of Louisiana, Division of Administration,
Office of Community Development) filed a putative class action in
the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of
Louisiana, entitled State of Louisiana, individually and on behalf
of State of Louisiana, Division of Administration, Office of
Community Development ex rel The Honorable Charles C. Foti, Jr.,
The Attorney General For the State of Louisiana, individually and
as a class action on behalf of all recipients of funds as well as
all eligible and/or future recipients of funds through The Road
Home Program v. AAA Insurance, et al., No. 07-8970.  The Complaint
named as defendants over 200 foreign and domestic insurance
carriers, including the Company.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and former
Louisiana citizens who have applied for and received or will
receive funds through Louisiana's "Road Home" program.  On
August 29, 2007, Plaintiff filed an Amended Petition in this case,
asserting myriad claims, including claims for breach of: contract,
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fiduciary
duty and Louisiana's bad faith statutes.  Plaintiff seeks relief
in the form of, among other things, declarations that:

   (a) the efficient proximate cause of losses suffered by
       putative class members was windstorm, a covered peril under
       their policies;

   (b) the second efficient proximate cause of their losses was
       storm surge, which Plaintiff contends is not excluded under
       class members' policies;

   (c) the damage caused by water entering affected parishes of
       Louisiana does not fall within the definition of "flood";

   (d) the damages caused by water entering Orleans Parish and the
       surrounding area was a result of a man-made occurrence and
       are properly covered under class members' policies;

   (e) many class members suffered total losses to their
       residences; and

   (f) many class members are entitled to recover the full value
       for their residences stated on their policies pursuant to
       the Louisiana Valued Policy Law.

In accordance with these requested declarations, Plaintiff seeks
to recover amounts that it alleges should have been paid to
policyholders under their insurance agreements, as well as
penalties, attorneys' fees, and costs.  The case has been removed
to the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana.

On March 5, 2009, the court issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants.  The
court dismissed all claims for bad faith and breach of fiduciary
duty and all claims for flood damages under policies with flood
exclusions or asserted under the Valued Policy Law, but rejected
the insurers' arguments that the purported assignments from
individual claimants to the state were barred by anti-assignment
provisions in the insurers' policies.

On April 16, 2009, the court denied a Motion for Reconsideration
of its ruling regarding the anti-assignment provisions, but
certified the issue as ripe for immediate appeal.  On April 30,
2009, Defendants filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which was
granted.  Defendants' appeal is currently pending.  On July 28,
2010, the Fifth Circuit certified the issue to the Louisiana
Supreme Court.

The Company has established its loss and LAE reserves on the
assumption that it will not have any liability under the "Road
Home" or similar litigation, and that it will otherwise prevail in
litigation as to the cause of certain large losses and not incur
extra contractual or punitive damages.


HARLAND CLARKE: Ill. Court Approves Settlement in "Kitson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2008, Kenneth Kitson, purportedly on behalf of himself
and a class of other alleged similarly situated commercial
borrowers from the Bank of Edwardsville, an Illinois-based
community bank, filed in an Illinois state court an amended
complaint that re-asserted previously filed claims against BOE
and added claims against Harland Financial Solutions, Inc.

The amended complaint alleged, among other things, that HFS's
LaserPro software permitted BOE to generate loan documents that
were deceptive and usurious in that they failed to disclose
properly the effect of the "365/360" method of calculating
interest.  Following the removal of the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, the
District Court entered an order granting with prejudice HFS's
motion to dismiss Mr. Kitson's claims.

In August 2009, Mr. Kitson, individually and as class
representative, and BOE agreed to settle and dismiss with
prejudice all remaining claims.  Separately but concurrently,
BOE's warranty claim against HFS was settled, in exchange for,
among other things, payment by HFS of $200,000.  The class
settlement agreement was approved by the District Court in
January 2010.

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


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated purported securities class
action, according to the company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 3, 2010.

On October 1, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
Cheolan Kim against Harman and certain of the company's officers
in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons
who purchased the company's common stock between April 26, 2007
and September 24, 2007. The original complaint alleged claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and
business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with KKR and
GSCP was entered into, there would not have been a merger
agreement, or it would have been at a much lower price, and the
price of the company's common stock therefore would not have been
artificially inflated during the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff
alleged that, following the reports that the proposed merger was
not going to be completed, the price of the company's common stock
declined, causing the plaintiff class significant losses.

On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension
Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and
certain of its officers in the Court seeking compensatory damages
and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's
common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The
allegations in the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical
to the allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the
original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims
for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period through
January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the violations
alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose 'significant
problems' relating to its PND sales forecasts, production,
pricing, and inventory" prior to January 14, 2008. The amended
complaint claimed that when "Defendants revealed for the first
time on January 14, 2008, that shifts in PND sales would adversely
impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share in fiscal
2008," that led to a further decline in the company's share value
and additional losses to the plaintiff class.

On February 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing
of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the
consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR). That
same day, the Court appointed Arkansas Public Retirement System as
lead plaintiff and approved the law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld
and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead counsel.  On March 24, 2008,
the Court ordered, for pretrial management purposes only, the
consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman International
Industries, Incorporated, et al., with In re Harman International
Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint. The Consolidated Complaint, which extends the Class
Period through February 5, 2008, contends that Harman and certain
of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing
false and misleading disclosures regarding the company's financial
condition in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In particular,
the Consolidated Complaint alleges that defendants knowingly or
recklessly failed to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG
radios, PNDs and the company's capital expenditures.  The
Consolidated Complaint alleges that when Harman's true financial
condition became known to the market, the price of the company's
common stock declined significantly, causing losses to the
plaintiff class.

On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2,
2008. The motion is now fully briefed.


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Ruling on Russell Suit Dismissal Plea
------------------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on its
motion to dismiss a purported class action filed by Patrick
Russell, which has been fully briefed, according to the company's
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2010.

Patrick Russell filed a complaint on December 7, 2007, in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia and an
amended purported putative class action complaint on June 2, 2008
against Harman and certain of its officers and directors alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
and seeking, on behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of
the Harman International Industries, Incorporated Retirement
Savings Plan, compensatory damages for losses to the Plan as well
as injunctive relief, imposition of a constructive trust,
restitution, and other monetary relief. The amended complaint
alleges that from April 26, 2007, to the present, defendants
failed to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's assets, thereby
breaching their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by causing
the Plan to invest in the company's common stock notwithstanding
that the stock allegedly was "no longer a prudent investment for
the Participants' retirement savings."  The amended complaint
further claims that, during the Class Period, defendants failed to
monitor the Plan fiduciaries, failed to provide the Plan
fiduciaries with, and to disclose to Plan participants, adverse
facts regarding Harman and the company's businesses and prospects.
The Russell Plaintiff also contends that defendants breached their
duties to avoid conflicts of interest and to serve the interests
of participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan with undivided
loyalty. As a result of these alleged fiduciary breaches, the
amended complaint asserts that the Plan has "suffered substantial
losses, resulting in the depletion of millions of dollars of the
retirement savings and anticipated retirement income of the Plan's
Participants."

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al., with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on
August 5, 2008. The Russell Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 19, 2008, and defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 20,
2008. The motion is now fully briefed.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Agrees to $5MM Inkjet Settlement in N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company has agreed to a $5 million settlement in
In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, Case No. 05-cv-03580 (N.D.
Calif.), and, on Oct. 1, 2010, the Court gave preliminary approval
to the settlement and certified a settlement class of purchasers
and owners of certain inkjet printers.

To be a class member, you must have purchased the printer for your
own use or received it as a gift in the United States (and not for
resale or distribution) between September 6, 2001 and September 1,
2010.  A list of printers at issue in this settlement is available
at:

  https://www.hpinkjetprintersettlement.com//Documents/AffectedModelsList.pdf

Opt-out notices and any objections to the settlement pact must be
filed Jan. 3, 2011.

Claims for $5, $2, and $6 e-credits must be filed by Feb. 15,
2011.

This lawsuit is a combination of three separate class action
lawsuits filed against HP.  The first lawsuit (Ciolino) claims
that HP sold certain inkjet printers that provide "low on ink"
messages with accompanying graphics that suggest to consumers that
replacement of a cartridge is needed when the cartridge is not
empty and is capable of additional printing, that the messages and
graphics misled and confused customers into prematurely replacing
their inkjet cartridges, and that HP's "SureSupply" program and
related marketing materials were deceptive and misleading.  This
lawsuit claims that consumers were thus deprived of the ability to
use all of the ink in their HP inkjet cartridges and that
consumers did not get the full value of what they paid for and
were promised.

The second lawsuit (Rich) claims that HP failed to disclose to
consumers that certain HP color inkjet printers may use color ink
in addition to black ink when printing black text and images and
without providing consumers with the option of printing black text
and images using ink from the black inkjet cartridge only.  This
lawsuit further claims that HP published and made representations
regarding the page yield specifications for its inkjet printers
and cartridges but misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the
actual page yield customers would receive for the products at
issue, including the true basis for the page yield and cost per
page information provided to consumers.  This lawsuit further
claims that HP failed to disclose its use of color ink when
printing black in connection with stating its page yields for
color inkjet printers and cartridges, thereby increasing the
actual costs of printing black text and images.

The third lawsuit (Blennis) claims that HP designed certain of its
inkjet printers and cartridges to shut down on an undisclosed
expiration date, at which point consumers are prevented from using
the ink that remains in the expired cartridge and from using all
of the printer's functions (including scanning or faxing
documents) until the expired cartridge is replaced . The lawsuit
also claimed that HP failed to disclose and/or actively concealed
information regarding its use of expiration dates in certain of
its inkjet printers and cartridges, and that HP interfered with
the right of plaintiffs and the class members to possess and use
all of the ink in the HP inkjet cartridges that they purchased.

HP denies all these claims.

The Settlement Administrator can be reached at:

         HP Inkjet Settlement Administrator
         P.O. Box 5270
         Portland, OR 97208-5270
         Facsimile: 877-341-4607
         E-Mail: Info@HPInkjetPrinterSettlement.com

Counsel for the Plaintiff Class is:

         Niall P. McCarthy, Esq.
         Justin T. Berger, Esq.
         COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY
         San Francisco Airport Office Center
         840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
         Burlingame, CA 94010
         Telephone: (650) 697-6000
         E-mail: jberger@cpmlegal.com

              - and -

         Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
         Richard L. Kellner, Esq.
         Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
         KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
         644 South Figueroa Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Telephone: (213) 217-5000
         E-mail: at@kbklawyers.com

Counsel for HP is:

         Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq.
         Christopher Chorba, Esq.
         Dhananjay S. Manthripragada, Esq.
         GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         E-mail: DManthripragada@gibsondunn.com


HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Consolidated Complaint in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hughes Communications, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
consolidated complaint pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On May 18, 2009, the company and its subsidiary, Hughes Network
Systems, LLC, received notice of a complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by two
California subscribers to the HughesNet service.

The plaintiffs complained about the speed of the HughesNet
service, the Fair Access Policy, early termination fees and
certain terms and conditions of the HughesNet subscriber
agreement.  The plaintiffs seek to pursue their claims as a class
action on behalf of other California subscribers.

On June 4, 2009, the company and HNS received notice of a similar
complaint filed by another HughesNet subscriber in the Superior
Court of San Diego County, California.  The plaintiff in this case
also seeks to pursue his claims as a class action on behalf of
other California subscribers.

Both cases have been consolidated into a single case in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

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


HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Suit Over Early Termination Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hughes Communications, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
complaint relating to its early termination fees under the
subscriber agreement, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On Dec. 18, 2009, the company and its subsidiary, Hughes Network
Systems, LLC, received notice of a complaint filed in the Cook
County, Illinois, Circuit Court by a former subscriber to the
HughesNet service.

The complaint seeks a declaration allowing the former subscriber
to file a class arbitration challenging early termination fees
under the subscriber agreement.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Court Sets May 2012 Hearing for Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas has scheduled a
May 2012 trial for class action lawsuits against Huntsman
Corporation and Huntsman International LLC alleging price-fixing,
according to their joint November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q for Sept. 30,
2010, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Companies were named as defendants in civil class action
antitrust suits alleging that between 1999 and 2004, they
conspired with Bayer, BASF, Dow and Lyondell to fix the prices of
MDI, TDI, polyether polyols, and related systems sold in the U.S.
in violation of the federal Sherman Act.

The cases are consolidated as the "Polyether Polyols" cases in
multidistrict litigation known as In re Urethane Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1616, Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW, pending
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.


HURON CONSULTING: Discovery in Consolidated Illinois Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is currently ongoing in connection with the consolidated
complaint filed against Huron Consulting Group Inc. in Illinois,
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.

Seven purported shareholder class action complaints have been
filed in connection with Huron Consulting's restatement in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois: (1) a complaint in the matter of Jason Hughes v. Huron
Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren and Gary L. Burge, filed on
August 4, 2009; (2) a complaint in the matter of Dorothy DeAngelis
v. Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge,
Wayne Lipski and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on August 5,
2009; (3) a complaint in the matter of Noel M. Parsons v. Huron
Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge, Wayne
Lipski and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on August 5, 2009;
(4) a complaint in the matter of Adam Liebman v. Huron Consulting
Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge and Wayne Lipski, filed
on August 5, 2009; (5) a complaint in the matter of Gerald Tobin
v. Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on August 7, 2009, (6) a
complaint in the matter of Gary Austin v. Huron Consulting Group
Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge and Wayne Lipski, filed on
August 7, 2009 and (7) a complaint in the matter of Thomas Fisher
v. Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge,
Wayne Lipski and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on September 3,
2009.

On October 6, 2009, Plaintiff Thomas Fisher voluntarily dismissed
his complaint.  On November 16, 2009, the remaining suits were
consolidated and the Public School Teachers' Pension & Retirement
Fund of Chicago, the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System,
the City of Boston Retirement Board, the Cambridge Retirement
System and the Bristol County Retirement System were appointed
Lead Plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
on January 29, 2010.  The consolidated complaint asserts claims
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against Huron Consulting Group, Inc., Gary
Holdren and Gary Burge and claims under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against Gary Holdren, Gary Burge and Wayne Lipski.
The consolidated complaint contends that the Company and the
individual defendants issued false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial results and compliance with
GAAP.

Lead Plaintiffs request that the action be declared a class
action, and seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive
relief, and reimbursement for fees and expenses incurred in
connection with the action, including attorneys' fees.

On March 30, 2010, Huron, Gary Burge, Gary Holdren and Wayne
Lipski jointly filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.  On August 6, 2010, the Court denied the motion to
dismiss.  The Court entered a scheduling order in the matter on
August 16, 2010, and the parties have commenced discovery.


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Motion to Dismiss Pending in Arizona Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court dismisses a consolidated securities derivative actions
against Insight Enterprises, Inc., et al., pending in Arizona,
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.

Starting in March 2009, three purported class action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities during the period April 22, 2004 to February 6, 2009.
Two plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaints, and the
District Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

The plaintiff in the remaining action filed an amended complaint
in September 2009, seeking unspecified damages, and the District
Court dismissed the amended complaint on April 30, 2010.  On
June 1, 2010, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
which asserts claims under the federal securities laws relating to
the Company's February 9, 2009 announcement that it expected to
restate its financial statements and also includes additional
allegations regarding other purported accounting and revenue
recognition issues during the class period.  All defendants have
filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint, briefing on
the motions to dismiss has been completed and oral argument on the
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint will be heard in
November 2010.


INTEGRYS ENERGY: Final Settlement Hearing Set for November 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peoples Energy Corporation entered into a settlement with its
customers regarding a lawsuit alleging violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act pending in
Circuit Court, according to Integrys Energy Group, Inc.'s Nov. 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In February 2004, a purported class action suit was filed in Cook
County Circuit Court against Peoples Energy Corporation, The
Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company, and North Shore Gas Company by
customers of PGL and NSG, alleging among other things, violation
of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act related to matters at issue in the utilities' fiscal year 2001
Gas Charge reconciliation proceedings.  In the suit, Alport et al.
v. Peoples Energy Corporation, the plaintiffs seek disgorgement
and punitive damages.  PGL and NSG have been dismissed as
defendants and the only remaining counts of the suit allege
violations of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act by PEC and that PEC acted in concert with others to commit a
tortious act.

On November 19, 2009, the court entered an order certifying a
class composed of customers of PGL and NSG during the period
April 26, 2000, through September 30, 2002.  The case remained
pending in Circuit court.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement on September 23,
2010, that was preliminarily approved by the court on
September 27, 2010.  The hearing for final approval is scheduled
for November 30, 2010.

At September 30, 2010, Integrys Energy Group had an $8.8 million
liability recorded related to the settlement agreement.


KEYCORP: Faces Two Lawsuits Alleging ERISA Violations in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
KeyCorp faces two new lawsuits alleging ERISA violations in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
styled Anthony Lobasso, et al,v. KeyCorp, et al., and Thomas J.
Metyk, et al., v. KeyCorp, 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.

On August 11, 2008, a purported class action case was filed
against KeyCorp, its directors and certain employees, captioned
Taylor v. KeyCorp et al., in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio.  On September 16, 2008, a second
and related case was filed in the same district court, captioned
Wildes v. KeyCorp et al.  The plaintiffs in these cases seek to
represent a class of all participants in the Company's 401(k)
Savings Plan and allege that the defendants in the lawsuit
breached fiduciary duties owed to them under ERISA.

On January 7, 2009, the Court consolidated the Taylor and Wildes
lawsuits into a single action.  Plaintiffs' consolidated complaint
continues to name certain employees as defendants but no longer
names any outside directors.  Following briefing and argument on
the Company's motion to dismiss for, among other things, failure
to make a demand on the board of directors, the Court dismissed
Taylor on August 12, 2010.

On September 12, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal.  The
Company filed a notice of Cross-Appeal on September 23, 2010.

Following the Court's dismissal of Taylor, two cases with similar
allegations and causes of action were filed on September 21, 2010,
in the same district court; these actions are styled Anthony
Lobasso, et al, v. KeyCorp, et al., and Thomas J. Metyk, et al.,
v. KeyCorp, et al.  The Company strongly disagrees with the
allegations asserted against it in these actions, and intend to
vigorously defend against them.


KINDER MORGAN: Judge Approves $200MM Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Hollingsworth, writing for The Associated Press, reports a
class action lawsuit that accused gas pipeline company Kinder
Morgan shortchanged shareholders when it was taken private has
been settled for $200 million, according to a judge's ruling
issued Friday.

Judge David E. Bruns called it "fair, reasonable and adequate"
when he signed off on the deal in a written ruling in Shawnee
County District Court in Topeka, Kan. Both sides had previously
agreed to the settlement.

"I am very pleased by it," Randall Baron, one of two lead
attorneys for shareholders, said in a phone interview.  "I think
it is a spectacular and groundbreaking response for shareholders."

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

Kinder Morgan Chairman and Chief Executive Richard Kinder joined
with private equity firms to offer shareholders $107.50 per share.
That's a premium of 27 percent over the stock's closing price on
the last trading day before the investor group's proposal to take
the company private.

Kinder Morgan denied allegations of wrongdoing in a written
statement and pointed out that shareholders voted overwhelmingly
to approve the merger.  The company is headquartered in Houston,
but the case was consolidated and heard in Kansas because the
company was incorporated in the state.

"We are pleased that the judge granted final approval of the
settlement as fair and reasonable," company spokesman Larry Pierce
said in the written statement.

"While the company and the investor group believes that the
acquisition of KMI's public shares was accomplished through a
completely open and fair process and denies any and all
allegations of wrongdoing, we believe that it is in the best
interests of all parties to avoid the expense and uncertainly of
continued litigation by resolving these claims," he said.


KKR FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
KKR Financial Holdings LLC is awaiting a ruling on its motion to
dismiss an amended complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, according to the company's
Nov. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On Aug. 7, 2008, the members of the company's board of directors
and certain of its current and former executive officers and the
company were named in a putative class action complaint filed by
Charter Township of Clinton Police and Fire Retirement System in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On March 13, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which deleted as defendants the members of the company's board of
directors and named as defendants only the company's former chief
executive officer Saturnino S. Fanlo, former chief operating
officer David A. Netjes, current chief financial officer Jeffrey
B. Van Horn and the company.

The amended complaint alleges that the company's April 2, 2007,
registration statement and prospectus and the financial statements
incorporated therein contained material omissions in violation of
Section 11 of the Securities Act, regarding the risks and
potential losses associated with the company's real estate-related
assets, the company's ability to finance the company's real
estate-related assets and the adequacy of the company's loss
reserves for its real estate-related assets.

The amended complaint further alleges that, pursuant to Section 15
of the Securities Act, Messrs. Fanlo, Netjes and Van Horn each
have legal responsibility for the alleged Section 11 violation.
On April 27, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the
Securities Act.

Oral argument on the defendants' motion to dismiss took place on
October 5, 2010, and the parties are awaiting a decision from the
Court.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Against Contamination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself in a lawsuit
for allegedly contaminating a community in Florida, according to
its November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In April 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, by
residents of Gainesville, Florida which named Koppers Inc. Beazer
East and Cabot Corporation, Inc. as defendants.

In October 2010, an amended class action complaint was filed which
added the Company and Beazer Limited as defendants and dropped
Cabot Corporation as a defendant.

The plaintiffs purport to represent anyone who has owned property
or lived within a two mile radius of the defendants' former
utility pole treatment plant and an adjacent site owned by Cabot
Corporation.  The plaintiffs allege that their property has been
contaminated by various toxic substances.

Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in
Gainesville from 1988 until its closure late in 2009.  The
property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was located
was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East, Inc. in the first quarter
of 2010.  Prior to 1988, Beazer East, Inc. conducted various wood
treating operations at the utility pole treatment plant site.

The plaintiffs allege that their property's value has been
impacted and that they are at an increased risk of developing
adverse health effects as a result of the alleged contamination.
Plaintiffs seek, among other things, class certification, the
creation and funding of comprehensive community property
remediation and medical monitoring programs, compensatory and
punitive damages in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limit of
the Court and other equitable relief. No trial date has been set.


LIVE NATION: Stay on Live Concert Antitrust Litigation Lifted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., disclosed that the stay on 22
class action lawsuits has been lifted, according to the Company's
November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Malinda
Heerwagen in June 2002 in U.S. District Court. The plaintiff, on
behalf of a putative class consisting of certain concert ticket
purchasers, alleged that anti-competitive practices for concert
promotion services by the Company nationwide caused artificially
high ticket prices. In August 2003, the District Court ruled in
the Company's favor, denying the plaintiff's class certification
motion. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. In
January 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the plaintiff
then dismissed her action that same month.

Subsequently, twenty-two putative class actions were filed by
different named plaintiffs in various U.S. District Courts
throughout the country, making claims substantially similar to
those made in the Heerwagen action, except that the geographic
markets alleged are regional, statewide or more local in nature,
and the members of the putative classes are limited to individuals
who purchased tickets to concerts in the relevant geographic
markets alleged. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory,
punitive and treble damages, declaratory and injunctive relief and
costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. The Company has filed
its answers in some of these actions and has denied liability.

In April 2006, granting the Company's motion, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation transferred these actions to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings. In June 2007, the District
Court conducted a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and also that month the Court entered an order to
stay all proceedings pending the Court's ruling on class
certification. In October 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion and certified classes in the Chicago, New England, New
York/New Jersey, Colorado and Southern California regional
markets. In November 2007, the Court extended its stay of all
proceedings pending further developments in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In February 2008, the Company filed
with the District Court a Motion for Reconsideration of its
October 2007 class certification order.

In October 2010, the District Court denied the Company's Motion
for Reconsideration and lifted the stay of all proceedings. The
Company intends to vigorously defend all claims in all of the
actions.


LIVE NATION: Motion to Decertify UPS Consumer Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to decertify a UPS Consumer Class Action lawsuit is
pending, according to Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.'s Nov. 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On January 25, 2010, Live Nation merged with Ticketmaster
Entertainment LLC and changed its name from Live Nation, Inc., to
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.

In October 2003, a purported representative action was filed in
the Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's
charges to online customers for UPS ticket delivery and alleging
that its failure to disclose on its Web site that the charges
contain a profit component is unlawful. The complaint asserted a
claim for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and
sought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i)
the total UPS delivery fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection
with online ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii)
the amount that Ticketmaster actually paid to UPS for delivery of
those tickets. In August 2005, the plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint, then pleading the case as a putative class action and
adding the claim that Ticketmaster's website disclosures in
respect of its ticket order-processing fees constitute false
advertising in violation of California's False Advertising Law.
On this new claim, the amended complaint seeks restitution or
disgorgement of the entire amount of order-processing fees charged
by Ticketmaster during the applicable period. In April 2009, the
Court granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint adding new claims that (a) Ticketmaster's order
processing fees are unconscionable under the UCL, and (b)
Ticketmaster's alleged business practices further violate the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiff later filed a
third amended complaint, to which Ticketmaster filed a demurrer in
July 2009. The Court overruled Ticketmaster's demurrer in October
2009.

The plaintiff filed a class certification motion in August 2009,
which Ticketmaster opposed. In February 2010, the Court granted
certification of a class on the first two causes of action, which
allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents or omits the fact of a
profit component in its UPS and order processing fees. The class
would consist of California consumers who purchased tickets
through Ticketmaster's Web site from 1999 to present. The Court
denied certification of a class on the third and fourth causes of
action, which allege that Ticketmaster's UPS and order processing
fees are unconscionably high.

In March 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate
with the California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a
motion for reconsideration of the Superior Court's class
certification order. In April 2010, the Superior Court denied
plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's class
certification order, and the Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's
Petition for Writ of Mandate. In June 2010, the Court of Appeal
granted the plaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered
the Superior Court to vacate its February 2010 order denying
plaintiffs' motion to certify a national class and enter a new
order granting plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on
the first two claims. In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed its
Motion for Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the
Superior Court, and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion
for Summary Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted
by Ticketmaster. In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion
to Decertify Class. The Company intends to vigorously defend the
action.


LIVE NATION: Canadian Consumer Class Action Litigation Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2009, five putative consumer class action complaints
were filed in various provinces of Canada against TicketsNow,
Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster Canada Ltd. and Premium Inventory, Inc.
All of the cases allege essentially the same set of facts and
causes of action. Each plaintiff purports to represent a class
consisting of all persons who purchased a ticket from
Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster Canada Ltd. or TicketsNow from February
2007 to present and alleges that Ticketmaster conspired to divert
a large number of tickets for resale through the TicketsNow Web
site at prices higher than face value. The plaintiffs characterize
these actions as being in violation of Ontario's Ticket
Speculation Act, the Amusement Act of Manitoba, the Amusement Act
of Alberta or the Quebec Consumer Protection Act. The Ontario case
contains the additional allegation that Ticketmaster and
TicketsNow's service fees run afoul of anti-scalping laws.

Each lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of
the class. The Company intends to vigorously defend all claims in
all of the actions.

No further updates were reported in Live Nation Entertainment,
Inc.'s Nov. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On January 25, 2010, Live Nation merged with Ticketmaster
Entertainment LLC and changed its name from Live Nation, Inc., to
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.


LIVE NATION: U.S. Consumer Class Action Litigation Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
From February through June 2009, eleven purported class action
lawsuits asserting causes of action under various state consumer
protection laws were filed against Ticketmaster and TicketsNow in
U.S. District Courts in California, New Jersey, Minnesota,
Pennsylvania and North Carolina. The lawsuits allege that
Ticketmaster and TicketsNow unlawfully deceived consumers by,
among other things, selling large quantities of tickets to
TicketsNow's ticket brokers, either prior to or at the time that
tickets for an event go on sale, thereby forcing consumers to
purchase tickets at significantly marked-up prices on
TicketsNow.com instead of Ticketmaster.com. The plaintiffs further
claim violation of the consumer protection laws by Ticketmaster's
alleged "redirecting" of consumers from Ticketmaster.com to
Ticketsnow.com, thereby engaging in false advertising and an
unfair business practice by deceiving consumers into inadvertently
purchasing tickets from TicketsNow for amounts greater than face
value. The plaintiffs claim that Ticketmaster has been unjustly
enriched by this conduct and seek compensatory damages, a refund
to every class member of the difference between tickets' face
value and the amount paid to TicketsNow, an injunction preventing
Ticketmaster from engaging in further unfair business practices
with TicketsNow and attorney fees and costs.

In July 2009, all of the cases were consolidated and transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint in
September 2009, to which Ticketmaster filed its answer the
following month.

In July 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Company intends to vigorously defend all claims in all of the
actions.

No further updates were reported in Live Nation Entertainment,
Inc.'s Nov. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On January 25, 2010, Live Nation merged with Ticketmaster
Entertainment LLC and changed its name from Live Nation, Inc., to
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.


LIZ CLAIBORNE: Seeks Dismissal of NY Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Liz Claiborne, Inc., has asked a New York court to dismiss a class
action complaint captioned Angela Tyler (individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated) v. Liz Claiborne, Inc.,
Trudy F. Sullivan and William L. McComb, according to the
Company's November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 2,
2010.

The purported class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court in the Southern District of New York on
April 28, 2009, against the Company, its chief executive officer,
William L. McComb and Trudy Sullivan, a former president of the
Company.

The complaint alleges certain violations of the federal securities
laws, claiming misstatements and omissions surrounding the
Company's wholesale business.

The Company believes that the allegations contained in the
complaint are without merit, and the Company intends to defend
this lawsuit vigorously.

The Company moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint
on October 4, 2010.


MCAFEE INC: Motion to Dismiss Data-Pass Class Action Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP reports that in the latest data-pass
news, a federal judge denied a motion to dismiss several counts in
a class action against security software company McAfee.  The suit
alleges that McAfee transferred consumers' credit card information
immediately after they purchased software but before they
downloaded it.  Pop-up ads would appear from a third party with a
"Try It Now" button that, when clicked by consumers, would enroll
them in a monthly program.

The plaintiffs claim they believed they needed to click on the
button to download their software and that McAfee received a fee
for each customer who subscribed to the services of Arpu, Inc. via
the ad on McAfee's site.  The complaint alleges that the
plaintiffs only later learned they were enrolled in a monthly
program with Arpu, costing $4.95 per month, and that McAfee
transferred their confidential billing information without
adequately disclosing what they were signing up for.

U.S. District Court Judge Lucy H. Koh said the plaintiffs could
sue under California's unfair business practices statute even
though they could not claim any actual damages.  Because the
plaintiffs sought disgorgement of profits and restitution from
McAfee based on the company's business practices, their claims
satisfied the state law, she said.

Discussing the plaintiffs' allegations, the judge said there were
several facets of the pop-up ad that could deceive a "significant
portion of the public" into believing that the ad was affiliated
with McAfee.  The sequential placement of the ad, the fact that
Arpu's name appears nowhere on the pop-up, and the fact that the
only reference to a third party appears in fine print makes it
"difficult not to view the ad as an attempt to conceal [the]
source and to pass off both the ad and the product as McAfee's
own," the judge said.

Judge Koh also noted differences that could have tipped consumers
off, adding that the plaintiffs were "unable to allege with any
precision McAfee's role in or responsibility for the content of
the pop-up ad."  Although the court allowed the plaintiffs' state
law claims to continue, it dismissed claims under the Lanham Act,
determining that the allegedly deceptive elements of the pop-up ad
were not sufficient to establish a likelihood of injury by direct
diversion of sales or a lessening of goodwill.

A copy of the complaint in Ferrington v. McAfee is available at:
http://is.gd/hwPdb

A copy of the motion to dismiss in Ferrington v. McAfee is
available at http://is.gd/hwPjl

Why it matters: The suit is the most recent headline about
data-pass marketing lately, following Senator Jay Rockefeller's
(D-W.Va.) proposed legislation, the Restore Online Shoppers'
Confidence Act, which would establish prohibitions and
restrictions for all online post-transaction offers and limit the
use of "negative option" sales.  In addition, the three major
post-transaction companies -- Affinion, Vertrue, and Webloyalty --
changed their practices earlier this year to require consumers to
re-enter their credit card information to enroll in their discount
clubs.  The companies and their online retail partners have also
faced scrutiny from state attorneys general; Webloyalty and
Affinion and various partners both recently reached multi-million
dollar settlements with the state of New York.

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP is a law firm with service areas
including: advertising; antitrust; banking; bankruptcy and
financial restructuring; corporate finance and securities;
environmental; government and regulatory; healthcare; insurance;
intellectual property, including patent, trademark and copyright;
internet and e-commerce; labor and employment; litigation and
trial; mergers and acquisitions; motion picture and television;
music; real estate and land use; tax, benefits and compensation;
and venture capital.


MEAD JOHNSON: Court Certifies Class in Enfamil FDUTPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
David M. Simon, Esq. at Wildman Harrold Allen & Dixon LLP reports
that Allison Nelson filed a putative class action alleging that
Mead Johnson violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act by misrepresenting its Enfamil LIPIL infant formula
as the only infant formula that contains DHA and ARA.  Ms. Nelson
moved to certify a class of "[a]ll Florida consumers who purchased
Enfamil(R) LIPIL(R) within the applicable statute of limitations."

In ruling on Ms. Nelson's class certification motion, the Florida
federal court held that unlike a claim for common law fraud, a
claim for violation of FDUTPA does not require a purchaser to
prove actual reliance on a misrepresentation.  FDUTPA, the court
held, instead only requires a purchaser to prove that a "practice
was likely to deceive a consumer acting reasonably in the same
circumstances."  The class members, the court thus further held,
"need not submit individualized proof to establish causation."
Common proof as to whether Mead's representations would deceive a
reasonably-acting consumer could establish liability under FDUTPA
as to all class members.

Based on this interpretation of FDUTPA, the court ruled that
plaintiff's class claims satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 23's commonality
and typicality requirements and that, as also required by Rule 23,
common issues predominate over individualized issues and a class
action is the superior method of adjudicating the case.  The court
accordingly granted Ms. Nelson's motion and certified the class.
Nelson v. Mead Johnson Nutrition Co., 2010 WL 4282106 (S.D. Fl.
Nov. 1, 2010).

Ms. Nelson's holding that FDUTPA does not require a purchaser to
prove actual reliance and accordingly does not require
individualized proof of causation highlights that statutory (or
consumer) fraud claims often provide a basis for class
certification under circumstances in which a common law fraud
claim would not.

Wildman Harrold Allen & Dixon LLP is a 200-attorney national law
firm.  It was founded in 1967 by Max Wildman, Bernard Harrold,
Thomas D. Allen, and Stewart S. Dixon.


NEWS CORP: Parties Agree to Settle California Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a consolidated class action lawsuit in
connection with a transaction whereby Intermix Media, Inc., was to
be acquired by Fox Interactive Media, a subsidiary of News
Corporation.

On June 14, 2006, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned Jim
Brown v. Brett C. Brewer, et al., was filed against certain former
Intermix directors and officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.  The plaintiff asserted claims for
alleged violations of Section 14a of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule
14a-9, as well as control person liability under Section 20a of
the Exchange Act.

The plaintiff alleged that certain defendants disseminated false
and misleading definitive proxy statements on two occasions: one
on Dec. 30, 2003, in connection with the stockholder vote on
Jan. 29, 2004, on the election of directors and ratification of
financing transactions with certain entities of VantagePoint
Venture Partners; and another on August 25, 2005, in connection
with the stockholder vote on the FIM Transaction.

The complaint named as defendants certain VantagePoint-related
entities, the former general counsel and the members of the
Intermix Board who were incumbent on the dates of the proxy
statements.  Intermix was not named as a defendant, but has
certain indemnity obligations to the former officer and director
defendants in connection with these claims and allegations.

On Aug. 25, 2006, plaintiff amended his complaint to add certain
investment banks as defendants.  Intermix has certain indemnity
obligations to the Investment Banks as well.  Plaintiff amended
his complaint again on Sept. 27, 2006, which defendants moved to
dismiss.

On Feb. 9, 2007, the case was transferred to Judge George H. King,
the judge assigned to a derivative action captioned LeBoyer v.
Greenspan, et al., pending against various former Intermix
directors and officers in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, on the grounds that it raises
substantially related questions of law and fact as LeBoyer,
and would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by
different judges.

On June 11, 2007, Judge King ordered the Brown case be
consolidated with the LeBoyer action, ordered plaintiffs' counsel
to file a consolidated first amended complaint, and further
ordered the parties to file a joint brief on defendants'
contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated first amended
complaint.

On July 11, 2007, plaintiffs filed the consolidated first amended
complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss.  By order dated
Jan. 17, 2008, Judge King granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the 2003 proxy claims (concerning VantagePoint transactions) and
the 2005 proxy claims (concerning the FIM Transaction), as well as
a claim against the VantagePoint entities alleging unjust
enrichment.  The FIM Transaction was the transaction whereby
Intermix was to be acquired by Fox Interactive Media, a subsidiary
of the company.

The court found it unnecessary to rule on dismissal of the
remaining claims, which are related to the 2005 FIM Transaction,
because the dismissal disposed of those claims.

On Feb. 8, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended
complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss on Feb. 28, 2008.  By
order dated July 15, 2008, the court granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion to dismiss.

The 2003 claims and the claims against the Investment Banks were
dismissed with prejudice.  The Section 14a, Section 20a and the
breach of fiduciary duty claims related to the FIM Transaction
remain against the officer and director defendants and the
VantagePoint defendants.

On Nov. 14, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification
to which defendants filed their opposition on Jan. 14, 2009. On
June 22, 2009, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification, certifying a class of all holders of Intermix
common stock from July 18, 2005 through consummation of the FIM
Transaction, who were allegedly harmed by defendants' improper
conduct as set forth in the complaint.

The parties have completed fact and expert discovery.

On June 17, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' summary judgment motion filed on Oct. 19, 2009.
Specifically, the court denied plaintiff's motion for summary
adjudication of a factual issue and denied defendants' motion to
exclude plaintiff's damages expert, which was filed on Nov. 30,
2009.

In the court's June 17 order, the court found that plaintiff could
not proceed on any fiduciary duty claim based upon alleged
violations of the duty of care, but found material issues of fact
prohibiting summary judgment on alleged violations of fiduciary
duty of loyalty.

On plaintiff's Section 14a claim, the court found material issues
of fact that prohibited summary judgment on the entire claim, but
granted defendants' motion as to certain purported omissions,
finding the allegedly omitted information immaterial.  Further,
the court granted defendants' motion as to two damage theories for
the Section 14a claim, finding benefit of the bargain damages not
viable and lost opportunity damages too speculative, and
permitting plaintiff to proceed only based upon a theory of out-
of-pocket damages.

No trial date was set.

On October 21, 2010, the parties agreed to a settlement of the
action, which is subject to approval by the court.  The terms of
the settlement remain confidential pending submission of a formal
stipulation of settlement to the court, according to the company's
Nov. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010.


NIGHTHAWK RADIOLOGY: Shareholder Class Suit Still Pending in Idaho
------------------------------------------------------------------
NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself
from an amended complaint, styled In re Nighthawk Radiology
Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, filed in Idaho, 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 December 17, 2009, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company and certain of its former officers
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.  The case is
captioned City of Marysville General Employees Retirement System
v. NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 09-
659-N-CWD.  On July 13, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint under the new caption In re Nighthawk Radiology
Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 09-cv-00659
(EJL/CWD).  The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
stock during the period May 2, 2007 to May 7, 2008, and asserts
claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Plaintiffs contend that the Company and the individual defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's operations,
business, and prospects during the purported class period, and
thereby artificially increased the price of the Company's stock.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 29, 2010, the court issued an order appointing Plymouth
County Contributory Retirement System as lead plaintiff.  On
May 13, 2010, competing plaintiff Miramar Firefighters' Pension
Fund filed an objection to the court's appointment of Plymouth as
lead plaintiff and requested that the court instead appoint
Miramar as lead plaintiff.  The court has yet to rule on that
motion.  Pending the court's ruling on this objection, all
deadlines have been taken off calendar, including defendants'
deadline to respond to the complaint.


NIGHTHAWK RADIOLOGY: Faces Seven vRad Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself
from seven class action lawsuits filed on behalf of the company's
stockholders in Arizona and Delaware in connection with its merger
with vRad, 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 connection with the Company's announcement of its merger
agreement with vRad, beginning on September 28, 2010, several
putative class action lawsuits were filed purportedly on behalf of
the Company's stockholders in the Superior Court of Maricopa
County, Arizona, docketed as Israni v. NightHawk Radiology
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. CV2010-025059; LaLone v.
NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. CV2010-
028112; La Torre v. NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc., et al.,
Case No. CV2010-028176; Watts v. Engert, et al., Case No. CV2010-
028127; Newman v. Engert, et al., Case No. CV2010-028262; and Yu
v. Engert, et al., Case No. CV2010-028403.  On October 8, 2010, a
purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the Company's
stockholders was filed in Delaware Chancery Court, docketed as
Scully v. NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
5890-VCL.  The complaints name the Company, each of the members of
the Company's board of directors, and vRad as defendants.  The
lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Company's board of
directors breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company's
stockholders by failing to take steps to maximize stockholder
value or to engage in a fair sale process when approving the
proposed merger with vRad.  The complaints also allege that the
Company and vRad aided and abetted the members of the company's
board of directors in the alleged breach of their fiduciary
duties.  In the Delaware action, the plaintiff also alleges that
the Company's preliminary proxy statement contains certain
material omissions, rendering some statements therein misleading.
The plaintiffs in these various actions seek relief that includes,
among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of
the proposed merger, a court order declaring that the board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties in entering into the
merger agreement, rescission -- to the extent the merger terms
have already been implemented, and the payment of plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and costs.


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Motion to Dismiss Nevada Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies Inc. is awaiting a decision on its motion to
dismiss a consolidated amended class action complaint against the
company, 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 the Company's public announcement that it would restate
certain of its financial results due to a change in the Company's
accounting treatment for certain exploration and development
costs, three securities class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada on
March 9, 2010, March 18, 2010 and April 7, 2010.  These complaints
assert claims against the Company and certain officers and
directors for alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  One complaint also asserts
claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933.  All three complaints allege claims on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Company stock between
May 6, 2008 or May 7, 2008 and February 23, 2010 or February 24,
2010.

These three lawsuits were consolidated by the Court in an order
issued on June 3, 2010, and the Court appointed three of the
Company's stockholders to serve as lead plaintiffs.  Lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on
July 9, 2010, that asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
Company stock between May 7, 2008, and February 24, 2010.  The
complaint alleges that certain of the Company's public statements
were false and misleading for failing to account properly for the
Company's exploration and development costs based on the Company's
announcement on February 24, 2010, that it was going to restate
its financial results to change its method of accounting for
exploration and development costs in certain respects.  The
complaint also alleges that certain of the Company's statements
concerning the North Brawley project were false and misleading.
The complaint seeks compensatory damages, expenses, and such
further relief as the Court may deem proper.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on August 13,
2010, which remains pending.


PNM RESOURCES: Appeal on Dismissal of Navajo Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
PNM Resources, Inc., in a Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 3, 2010, said an appeal on a district
court's order dismissing a putative class action allegedly filed
by members of the Navajo Nation.

A putative class action was filed against PNM and other utilities
on February 11, 2009, in the United States District Court in
Albuquerque. Plaintiffs claim to be allottees, members of the
Navajo Nation, who pursuant to the Dawes Act of 1887, were
allotted ownership in land carved out of the Navajo Nation.
Plaintiffs, including an allottee association, make broad, general
assertions that defendants, including PNM, are rights-of-way
grantees with rights-of-way across the allotted lands and are
either in trespass or have paid insufficient fees for the grant of
rights-of-way or both. The plaintiffs, who have sued the
defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, seek a constructive
trust. They have also included a breach of trust claim against the
United States and its Secretary of the Interior. PNM and the other
defendants filed motions to dismiss this action.

On March 31, 2010, the court ordered that the entirety of the
plaintiffs' case be dismissed. The court did not grant plaintiffs
leave to amend their complaint, finding that they instead must
pursue and exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking
redress in federal court.

On May 10, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. PNM intends to participate in order to
preserve its interests regarding any PNM-acquired rights-of-way
implicated in the appeal. As the administrative appeal process is
only in its initial stages, PNM cannot predict the outcome of the
proceeding at this time.


QWEST CORP: Parent Continues to Defend Suit Over Retirees Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International Inc., the ultimate parent
company of Qwest Corporation, continues to defend a lawsuit filed
against it in relation to the reduction of certain retiree
benefits, according to Qwest Corp.'s November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

A putative class action filed on March 30, 2007, on behalf of
certain of QCII's retirees was brought against QCII, the Qwest
Group Life Insurance Plan and other related entities in federal
district court in Colorado in connection with QCII's decision to
reduce the life insurance benefit for these retirees to a $10,000
benefit.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that QCII and other
defendants were obligated to continue their life insurance benefit
at the levels in place before QCII decided to reduce them.  The
plaintiffs seek restoration of the life insurance benefit to
previous levels and certain equitable relief.

The district court ruled in QCII's favor on the central issue of
whether QCII properly reserved its right to reduce the life
insurance benefit under applicable law and plan documents.

The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to assert
additional claims.

In 2009, the court dismissed or granted summary judgment to QCII
on all of the plaintiffs' claims.

The plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision to the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals.


REACHLOCAL INC: Still Faces Class Action Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against ReachLocal Inc. in California
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.

On March 1, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by two of the
Company's former employees in California Superior Court in Los
Angeles, California.  The complaint alleges wage and hour
violations in a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and a
California class action.  The classes for each action have not
been certified and potentially consist of approximately 1,000
persons for the federal collective action and approximately 250
persons for the California class action.  The case is at an early
stage and the Company has not yet determined the amount of
liability, if any, that may result from the lawsuit.


SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: Accused of Breach of Fiduciary Duty
----------------------------------------------------------
Safeguard Scientifics, Inc., is sued by purported shareholders of
Clarient Inc. in light of an acquisition of Clarient by a unit of
General Electric Company, according to Safeguard's November 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On October 22, 2010, Safeguard announced that Clarient had agreed
to be acquired by GE Healthcare, a unit of GE via a public tender
offer for all outstanding common and preferred shares of Clarient
at a price of $5.00 per common share and $20.00 per preferred
share, payable in cash, followed by a second step merger of
Clarient with an indirect subsidiary of GE.  The completion of the
transactions is subject to certain conditions, and is expected to
occur in late 2010 or early 2011.

Since the announcement of the proposed acquisition, several
lawsuits have been filed by purported shareholders of Clarient,
seeking class action status.  These actions are all substantially
similar in that they allege that breaches of various fiduciary
duties were committed in connection with the intended
transactions.

The actions make allegations against, and name as defendants,
Clarient and the members of Clarient's board of directors,
including the Safeguard executives who serve on Clarient's board
of directors.  One of the actions directly names Safeguard as a
defendant.

Safeguard is of the view that the claims made against it are
without merit and it will vigorously defend against the
allegations.


SCANA CORP: Awaits Court Ruling on Rights-of-Way Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scana Corporation continues to await a ruling from a Carolina
court on its settlement of a class action litigation related to
the use of electric transmission easements and rights of way, the
company disclosed 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 May 2004, a purported class action lawsuit currently styled as
Douglas E. Gressette and Mark Rudd, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated v. South Carolina Electric & Gas
Company and SCANA Communications, Inc., was filed in South
Carolina's Circuit Court of Common Pleas for the Ninth Judicial
Circuit.

The plaintiffs alleged that SCE&G made improper use of certain
electric transmission easements and rights-of-way by allowing
fiber optic communication lines and wireless communication
equipment to transmit communications other than SCE&G's
electricity-related internal communications and asserted causes of
action for unjust enrichment, trespass, injunction and declaratory
judgment but did not assert a specific dollar amount for the
claims.

SCE&G believes its actions are consistent with governing law and
the applicable documents granting easements and rights-of-way.

In June 2007, the Circuit Court issued a ruling that limits the
plaintiffs' purported class to easement grantors situated in
Charleston County, South Carolina.

In February 2008, the Circuit Court issued an order to
conditionally certify the class, which remains limited to
easements in Charleston County.

In July 2008, the plaintiffs' motion to add SCI to the lawsuit as
an additional defendant was granted.

This case, with Circuit Court approval in August 2010, has been
tentatively settled as to all easements and rights-of-ways
currently containing fiber optic communication lines in South
Carolina, and the tentative settlement has been recognized.

The parties are proceeding to identify class members and resolve
other settlement related issues.

While the settlement is subject to a fairness hearing before it is
finally approved, SCE&G and SCI say they currently know of no
reason why such approval will not be given.


SCE&G CO: Settles "Right-of-Way" Lawsuit & Awaits Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company has settled with
plaintiffs Douglas E. Gressette and Mark Rudd regarding a lawsuit
alleging improper use of electric transmission easements and
rights-of-way, 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 May 2004, a purported class action lawsuit currently styled as
Douglas E. Gressette and Mark Rudd, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated v. South Carolina Electric & Gas
Company and SCANA Communications, Inc., was filed in South
Carolina's Circuit Court of Common Pleas for the Ninth Judicial
Circuit.

The plaintiffs alleged that SCE&G made improper use of certain
electric transmission easements and rights-of-way by allowing
fiber optic communication lines and wireless communication
equipment to transmit communications other than SCE&G's
electricity-related internal communications and asserted causes of
action for unjust enrichment, trespass, injunction and declaratory
judgment but did not assert a specific dollar amount for the
claims.  SCE&G believes its actions are consistent with governing
law and the applicable documents granting easements and rights-of-
way.

In June 2007, the Circuit Court issued a ruling that limits the
plaintiffs' purported class to easement grantors situated in
Charleston County, South Carolina.  In February 2008, the Circuit
Court issued an order to conditionally certify the class, which
remains limited to easements in Charleston County.  In July 2008,
the plaintiffs' motion to add SCI to the lawsuit as an additional
defendant was granted.

This case, with Circuit Court approval in August 2010, has been
tentatively settled as to all easements and rights-of-ways
currently containing fiber optic communication lines in South
Carolina, and the tentative settlement has been recognized.  The
parties are proceeding to identify class members and resolve other
settlement related issues.

While this settlement is subject to a fairness hearing before it
is finally approved, SCE&G and SCI currently know of no reason why
such approval will not be given.  This tentative settlement did
not have a material adverse impact on Consolidated SCE&G's results
of operations, cash flows or financial condition, the Company said
in the filing.


SEARS ROEBUCK: 7th Cir. Halts Repetitive Class Suits Over Dryers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Long, Esq., Greg Fowler, Esq., and Simon Castley, Esq., at
Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, writing for the firm's Product Liability
Litigation Report, dated November 11, 2010, report that the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has granted a Sears, Roebuck &
Co. request to enjoin the filing of class actions involving its
dryers with stainless steel drums and raising the same consumer
fraud claims alleged in a putative class action that the Seventh
Circuit refused to certify because individual issues predominated
over common ones.  Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 10-2407
(7th Cir., decided November 2, 2010).  The November 15, 2010
edition of the Class Action Reporter ran a story on the ruling.

The company sought relief under the All Writs Act after "a
virtually identical class action" (Murray) was filed in a
California federal court by the same attorney who had represented
the plaintiff in Thorogood.  The district court (sitting in
Illinois), which had entered the order decertifying the Thorogood
class, refused to enjoin the California action, saying that Sears
could "obtain adequate relief against being harassed by repetitive
litigation by pleading collateral estoppel" in subsequent
litigation.  The Seventh Circuit disagreed, noting that while such
relief would ordinarily protect against harassment by repetitive
litigation, "this case is unusual both because it involves class
action litigation and because of the specific tactics employed by
class counsel, which include, as we'll see, something close to
settlement extortion."

The California court refused to accept Sears' collateral estoppel
defense because plaintiffs' counsel altered the pleadings "with
just enough differences to confuse the district judge," according
to the appeals court.  The California court also allowed discovery
to proceed against Sears.  Because this ruling was unappealable,
the Seventh Circuit ruled that the All Writs Act was the company's
"only means, other than submitting to lawyer Boling's demands, of
avoiding being drowned in the discovery bog."  The court
emphasized, "There is nothing new in [the California] complaint
that would allow an escape from the bar of collateral estoppel.
The critical issue was and is what consumers would understand by
representations that the Kenmore dryer has a stainless steel drum.
. . .  These questions can't be answered on a class-wide basis,
and so there would be no economies from allowing the suit to
proceed as a class action."

The court remanded the case for the district court to fashion an
appropriate injunctive order, but indicated that it could not
preclude individual lawsuits, could not involve lawsuits filed
against other defendants and could not "forbid class action suits
challenging representations materially different from those in
Thorogood's and Murray's cases, or representation concerning a
dryer that contains a different amount of stainless steel."  The
court also indicated that the order could preclude copycat
litigation brought in state courts, but must be subject to
whatever the U.S. Supreme Court decides in pending appeals asking
whether "a district court that previously denied class
certification nonetheless has personal jurisdiction over the
absent putative class members such that it may enjoin them from
seeking class certification in state court."

Shook, Hardy & Bacon attorneys offer representation to clients
targeted by class action and complex litigation.

For additional information on SHB's Global Product Liability
capabilities, please contact:

          Gary Long, Esq.
          Telephone: 816-474-6550
          E-mail: glong@shb.com

               - and -

          Greg Fowler, Esq.
          Telephone: 816-474-6550
          E-mail: gfowler@shb.com

               - and -

          Simon Castley, Esq.
          Telephone: 207-332-4500
          E-mail: scastley@shb.com


SEI INVESTMENTS: Unit Faces Lawsuits Over Leveraged Funds
---------------------------------------------------------
One of SEI Investments Company's principal subsidiaries, SEI
Investments Distribution Co., has been named as a defendant in
certain putative class action complaints related to leveraged
exchange traded funds advised by ProShares Advisors, LLC,
according to SEI's November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

As of November 4, 2010, the Complaints have been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland although the three complaints filed in the District of
Maryland have been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.  Two
of them were subsequently re-filed in the Southern District of New
York.  Two of the complaints filed in the Southern District of New
York have been voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs.

The first complaint was filed on August 5, 2009.

The Complaints are purportedly made on behalf of all persons that
purchased or otherwise acquired shares in various ProShares
leveraged ETFs pursuant or traceable to allegedly false and
misleading registration statements, prospectuses and statements of
additional information.

The Complaints name as defendants ProShares Advisors, LLC;
ProShares Trust; ProShares Trust II, SIDCO, and various officers
and trustees to ProShares Advisors, LLC; ProShares Trust and
ProShares Trust II.

The Complaints allege that SIDCO was the distributor and principal
underwriter for the various ProShares leveraged ETFs that were
distributed to authorized participants and ultimately
shareholders.  The complaints allege that the registration
statements for the ProShares ETFs were materially false and
misleading because they failed adequately to describe the nature
and risks of the investments.  The Complaints allege that SIDCO is
liable for these purportedly material misstatements and omissions
under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The Complaints
seek unspecified compensatory and other damages, reasonable costs
and other relief.

The cases are in the early stage, and the court has not yet
appointed lead plaintiffs.  Defendants have moved to consolidate
the complaints, which motion has been granted.

While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain given its early
phase, SEI believes that it has valid defenses to plaintiffs'
claims and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Securities Lawsuit Ongoing in East Baton Rouge
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against SEI Investments Company in
Louisiana 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.

SEI has been named in a lawsuit that was filed in August 2009 in
the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton
Rouge, State of Louisiana.  The action purports to set forth
claims on behalf of a class and also names SEI Private Trust
Company (SPTC) as a defendant.  The action names various
defendants besides SEI, and the plaintiffs purport to bring a
cause of action against SEI under the Louisiana Securities Act.

The putative class action also includes a claim against SEI for an
alleged violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act.

SEI and SPTC filed exceptions in the putative class action that
remains pending in East Baton Rouge, which the Court granted in
part and dismissed the claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade
Practices Act and denied, in part, as to the other exceptions.

There is a motion for class certification that is pending in the
case.


SMART BALANCE: Has Yet to Answer Complaint Involving Nucoa
----------------------------------------------------------
Smart Balance, Inc., has yet to answer a complaint involving its
Nucoa(R) stick margarine product, 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 Feb. 8, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against the company in the
Federal District Court for the Central District in California in
Santa Ana, California.

The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of
California's unfair competition law, false advertising, and
consumer remedies act and seeks to identify all similarly
situated plaintiffs and certify them in a class action.

The company has not yet answered the complaint.


SMART TECHNOLOGIES: May Face Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky has commenced an investigation against
Smart Technologies Inc. for possible violations of federal
securities laws related to the Company's July 15, Initial Public
Offering.

SMT designs, develops, and sells interactive technology products
and solutions worldwide, including interactive whiteboards and
interactive touch-enabled display components.

On November 9, after the market closed, SMT announced weaker-than-
expected revenue for the 2010 second quarter.  In a reaction to
this news and a subsequent analyst downgrade, shares of SMT fell
31 percent on unusually high trading volume.  "We are
investigating whether the Company properly disclosed in their
prior statements and prospectus on-going business risks and
weakening financial results."

Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky has extensive experience in securities
class action cases, and the firm has been ranked among the leading
class action law firms in terms of recoveries achieved by a survey
of class action law firms conducted by Institutional Shareholder
Services.


SOMFY SYSTEMS: Recalls 4,600 Motorized Awnings
----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Somfy Systems Inc., of Dayton, N.J., announced a voluntary recall
of about 4,600 Motorized Awnings.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The awning motor's power cable can be severed while the awning is
opened or closed manually, posing a risk of electrical shock to
the user.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves recall involves the Sunea CMO RTS motor used
to operate retractable awnings.  The awning motor heads are silver
and black-colored.  "Somfy" is printed on the motor head. Motor
heads that are entirely black in color are not included in this
recall.  The Sunea CMO RTS model numbers included in this recall
are 525A2, 535A2 and 550R2.  The model number is printed on a
label on the motor tube.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11043.html

The recalled products were manufactured in France and sold through
Awning dealers and retailers nationwide from December 2009 through
September 2010.

Consumers should immediately stop using recalled awning motors and
the awning's manual crank and unplug and/or pull the circuit
breaker to protect against anyone using the awning.  Contact Somfy
Systems to receive free installation of a replacement awning
motor.  For additional information, contact Somfy Systems at (800)
637-6639 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.somfysystems.com/


STRYKER CORP: Securities Class Action Lawsuit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
In January 2010, a purported class action lawsuit against Stryker
Corporation was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased the
Company's common stock between January 25, 2007, and November 13,
2008, inclusive.  The lawsuit seeks remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

In May 2010, the lawsuit was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Michigan Southern
Division.

The Company is evaluating the scope of the claim and intends to
defend itself vigorously.

No further updates were provided 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.


TIME WARNER: Files Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss lawsuits
alleging violations of antitrust laws, according to the Company's
November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

TWC is the defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable Television Box
Antitrust Litigation, ten purported class actions filed in federal
district courts throughout the United States.

The actions are subject to a Multidistrict Litigation Order
transferring the cases for pre-trial purposes to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated class action complaint, alleging that TWC violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust
laws and state unfair/deceptive trade practices statutes by tying
the sales of premium cable television services to the leasing of
set-top converters boxes.  The plaintiffs are seeking, among other
things, unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to
cease such alleged practices.


TIME WARNER: Class Certification Hearing Set for February 14
------------------------------------------------------------
A class certification hearing is scheduled for February 14 in a
lawsuit against Time Warner Cable, Inc., for alleged violations of
California consumer laws, according to the Company's November 4,
2010 Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On November 14, 2008, the plaintiffs in Mark Swinegar, et al. v.
Time Warner Cable Inc., filed a second amended complaint in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court, as a purported class action,
alleging that TWC provided to and charged plaintiffs for equipment
that they had not affirmatively requested in violation of the
proscription in the Cable Consumer Protection and Competition Act
of 1992 against "negative option billing" and that the violation
was an unlawful act or practice under California's Unfair
Competition Law.

Plaintiffs are seeking restitution under the UCL and attorneys'
fees.

On February 23, 2009, the court denied TWC's motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint, and on July 29, 2010, the court denied
the Company's motion for summary judgment.

A class certification hearing is scheduled for February 14, 2011.

On October 7, 2010, the Company filed a petition for a declaratory
ruling with the Federal Communications Commission requesting that
the FCC determine whether the Company's general ordering process
complies with the Cable Act's "negative option billing"
restriction.

On October 20, 2010, the FCC requested public comment on the
matter.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Gives Tentative Ruling on Acceleration Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Callahan and Margaret Cronin Fisk, writing for Bloomberg
News, report a federal judge tentatively ruled that he will reject
most of Toyota Motor Corp.'s first major legal challenge to class-
action lawsuits filed against the automaker by car owners over
sudden acceleration.

The car owners' lawyers provided sufficient evidence to allow
their cases to go forward, U.S. District Judge James V. Selna in
Santa Ana, California, said in a tentative ruling posted on his
court's Web site.  Judge Selna heard arguments Friday over
Toyota's motion to dismiss class-action, or group, lawsuits
claiming economic loss linked to sudden acceleration.

"It is true that plaintiffs do not generally allege the precise
dollar value of their losses, but that level of specificity is not
required at this pleading stage," Judge Selna wrote in his 63-page
ruling.  "It is enough that they allege a tangible loss that can
be proved or disproved upon discovery."

Judge Selna said he would issue a final ruling by the U.S.
Thanksgiving holiday on Nov. 25.

The economic-loss lawsuits, combined for pretrial filings and
rulings before Judge Selna, claim Toyota drove down the value of
vehicles by failing to fix or disclose defects that triggered
unintended acceleration.  Federal suits claiming death or injury
caused by such episodes are also combined in the Santa Ana court.

Millions Recalled

The company, based in Toyota City, Japan, has recalled more than 8
million vehicles for repairs related to sudden, unintended
acceleration.  In September 2009, the automaker announced a recall
of 3.8 million Toyota and Lexus vehicles because of a defect that
may cause floor mats to jam accelerator pedals.  The company later
recalled vehicles over defects involving the pedals themselves.

Toyota asked Judge Selna to dismiss the car owners' claim that the
company knew of a defect in the vehicles' electronic throttle
control system and concealed it from consumers.  The plaintiffs
failed to identify an "actual defect," the company said in court
papers.

Judge Selna said would let this claim go forward.  "Plaintiffs'
fraudulent concealment claim pleads particular facts in support of
the defect allegations, and that is all that is required at this
stage," he wrote in the tentative ruling.

"These rulings are only tentative and come at a stage of the legal
proceedings in which the judge has to accept that what the
plaintiffs allege are true," said Toyota attorney Lisa Gilford in
an interview after the hearing.  "We are confident that as the
facts develop in this case they will show that there are no
defects in these Toyota vehicles."

'No Such Proof'

The burden "is now squarely on plaintiffs' counsel to prove their
allegations, and Toyota is confident that no such proof exists,"
Celeste Migliore, a company spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed
statement.  The claim that Toyota's electronic throttle control
system is defective is "wholly unsubstantiated," she said.

"If the judge finalizes these tentative rulings they will be a
substantial victory for the plaintiffs," consumer lawyer Steve W.
Berman said after the hearing.

Toyota had also said the consumers couldn't sue for losses on
vehicles that hadn't experienced a sudden unintended acceleration
defect, according to Judge Selna.  "The court agrees with
plaintiffs that experiencing an SUA defect is not required for
standing," Judge Selna said in the ruling.

"Consumers who bought Toyotas expected these cars to be safe," Mr.
Berman said.  "After thousands of crashes and the deaths of many
people it is ludicrous for Toyota to argue that you could have a
car that has a significant chance of running away from you but not
have any legal rights until it actually runs away from you."

'Produced as Promised'

Toyota disputed the claims of economic loss at Friday's hearing.
The vehicles have "produced as promised," Cari Dawson, a Toyota
lawyer, told Judge Selna.

"These cars have not malfunctioned, their owners have not had to
pay any money for repairs or retrofit, and they have not suffered
any loss," she said.

Ms. Dawson argued that economic loss can't be "speculative" based
on losses that the owners may never suffer if they don't sell
their cars or if market conditions change and the values of
Toyotas don't drop.

The cases are combined as In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended
Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability
Litigation, 8:10-ml-02151, U.S. District Court, Central District
of California (Santa Ana).


UNITED STATES: Senate Approves Cobell Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Clare Jalonick, writing for The Associated Press, reports the
Senate has approved almost $4.6 billion to settle long-standing
claims brought by American Indians and black farmers against the
government.

The money has been held up for months in the Senate as Democrats
and Republicans squabbled over how to pay for it.  The two class
action lawsuits were filed over a decade ago.

The settlements include almost $1.2 billion for black farmers who
say they suffered discrimination at the hands of the Agriculture
Department.  Also, $3.4 billion would go to Indian landowners who
claim they were swindled out of royalties by the Interior
Department.  The legislation was approved in the Senate by voice
vote Friday and sent to the House.

President Obama in a statement praised the Senate for passing the
bill and urged the House to move forward on it.  He said his
administration is also working to resolve separate lawsuits filed
against USDA by Hispanic and women farmers.

"While these legislative achievements reflect important progress,
they also serve to remind us that much work remains to be done,"
he said.

Elouise Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet Tribe from Browning,
Mont. and the lead plaintiff in the Indian case, said Friday that
it took her breath away when she found out the Senate had passed
the bill.  She said was feeling despondent after the chamber had
tried and failed to pass the legislation many times.  Two people
who would have been beneficiaries had died on her reservation this
week.

"It's 17 below and the Blackfeet nation is feeling warm," she
said.  "I don't know if people understand or believe the agony you
go through when one of the beneficiaries passes away without
justice."

John Boyd, head of the National Black Farmers Association, said
the passage of the black farmers' money is also long overdue.
"Twenty-six years justice is in sight for our nation's black
farmers," he said.

Lawmakers from both parties have said they support resolving the
long-standing claims of discrimination and mistreatment by federal
agencies.  But the funding has been caught up in a fight over
spending and deficits.  Republicans repeatedly objected to the
settlements when they were added on to larger pieces of
legislation.  But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.,
satisfied conservative complaints by finding spending offsets to
cover the cost.

The legislation also includes a one-year extension of the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which gives
grants to states to provide cash assistance and other services to
the poor, and several American Indian water rights settlements in
Arizona, Montana and New Mexico sought by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.

In the Indian case, at least 300,000 Native Americans claim they
were swindled out of royalties overseen by the Interior Department
since 1887 for things like oil, gas, grazing and timber.  The
plaintiffs would share the settlement.

The Cobell lawsuit has dragged on for almost 15 years, with one
judge in 2008 comparing it to the Charles Dickens' "Bleak House,"
which chronicles a never-ending legal suit.  Using passages from
that novel, U.S. District Judge James Robertson noted that the
"suit has, in course of time, become so complicated" that "no two
lawyers can talk about it for five minutes without coming to a
total disagreement as to all the premises."

The Indian plaintiffs originally said they were owed $100 billion,
but signaled they were willing to settle for less as the trial
wore on.  After more than 3,600 court filings and 80 court
decisions, the two sides finally reached a settlement in December.

"Personally I still think we're owed a hundred billion dollars,
but how long do you drag this thing out?" Ms. Cobell said Friday.
"Do you drag it out until every beneficiary is dead? You just
can't do that."

Ms. Cobell said she feels confident about passage in the House,
where the two settlements already have passed twice as part of
larger pieces of legislation.

For the black farmers, it is the second round of funding from a
class-action lawsuit originally settled in 1999 over allegations
of widespread discrimination by local Agriculture Department
offices in awarding loans and other aid.  It is known as the
Pigford case, named after Timothy Pigford, a black farmer from
North Carolina who was an original plaintiff.

The government already has paid out more than $1 billion to about
16,000 farmers, with most getting payments of about $50,000.  The
new money is intended for people -- some estimates say 70,000 or
80,000 -- who were denied earlier payments because they missed
deadlines for filing.  The amount of money each would get depends
on how many claims are successfully filed.

The bill passed Friday would be partially paid for by diverting
dollars from a surplus in nutrition programs for women and
children and by extending customs user fees.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said with the passage of the Cobell
settlement: "This is a day that will be etched in our memories and
our history books."

The Obama administration has aggressively moved to resolve the
discrimination cases after most of them have lingered a decade or
more in the courts.  Last month, the Agriculture Department
offered American Indian farmers who say they were denied farm
loans a $680 million settlement.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said passage "marks a major
milestone in USDA's efforts to turn the page on a sad chapter in
our history."

Department of Interior Press Release also reports Mr. Salazar on
Friday lauded Senate approval of legislation to authorize
implementation of the Cobell Settlement, a $3.4 billion agreement
that will resolve the long-running and highly contentious class
action lawsuit regarding the U.S. government's trust management
and accounting of individual American Indian trust accounts.

Mr. Salazar also commended the Senate for approving four major
water rights settlements -- totaling more than $1 billion -- for
American Indian tribes that will help deliver clean drinking water
to Indian communities and provide certainty to water users across
the West.  The settlements were included in an omnibus package
that cleared the Senate Friday.

"With the Senate's approval of the Cobell settlement and the four
Indian water rights settlements, this is a day that will be etched
in our memories and our history books," said Secretary Salazar.
"The Cobell settlement honorably and responsibly addresses long-
standing injustices and is a major step forward in President
Obama's agenda of reconciliation and empowerment for Indian
nations.  I am also deeply proud of the passage of the four water
rights settlements that will deliver clean drinking water to
Indian communities, end decades of controversy and contention
among neighboring communities, and provide certainty to water
users across the West.  The progress we have made over the last
two years in reaching critical Indian country settlements is
unprecedented and I am hopeful that the House will soon act to
pass these settlements as well."

"The water settlements that passed [Fri]day are nothing short of
historic for Indian nations," said Assistant Secretary for Indian
Affairs Larry Echo Hawk.  "The parties to these settlements are to
be commended for their willingness to work together rather than
stay locked in an endless cycle of litigation.  These settlements
will meet the needs of tribes as well as neighboring communities
through provisions for sharing shortages and investing in critical
infrastructure needs."

               Background on the Cobell Settlement

Over the past 14 years, the class action litigation, filed by Ms.
Cobell in 1996, included hundreds of motions, seven full trials,
22 motions and dozens of rulings and appeals.  Under the
negotiated agreement announced on Dec. 8, 2009, litigation would
end regarding the federal government's performance of an
historical accounting for trust accounts maintained by the United
States on behalf of more than 300,000 individual Indians.  A fund
of $1.4 billion would be distributed to class members to
compensate them for their historical accounting claims, and to
resolve potential claims that prior U.S. officials mismanaged the
administration of trust assets.

In addition, to address the continued proliferation of thousands
of new trust accounts caused by the "fractionation" of land
interests through succeeding generations, the settlement
establishes a $2 billion fund for the voluntary buy-back and
consolidation of fractionated land interests.  The land
consolidation program will provide individual American Indians
with an opportunity to obtain cash payments for divided land
interests and free up the land for the benefit of tribal
communities.

Additional Information is available at
http://www.cobellsettlement.com/

The Department of the Interior Web site: http://www.doi.gov/

The Office of the Special Trustee Web site: http://www.doi.gov/ost

      Background on the Four Indian Water Rights Settlements

Federal law provides that Tribes have a right to water to meet the
needs of their reservations.  These rights can be quantified
through either litigation or settlement.  The Obama Administration
has re-energized the federal government's commitment to addressing
the water needs of Native American communities through Indian
water rights settlements.  Following negotiations involving
States, Tribes, and other stakeholders, all four of the
settlements approved Friday were supported in letters sent by the
Administration.  This level of Administration support for Indian
water rights settlements in a single Congress is unprecedented.

The four settlements contained in the legislation approved by
Congress Friday include:

White Mountain Apache Tribe in Arizona: The centerpiece of the
settlement is the construction of the White Mountain Apache Tribe
rural water system, which will greatly expand the current water
delivery system to meet the very critical needs of the
reservation.

Crow Tribe in Montana: This settlement will ensure safe drinking
water for the reservation as well as provide for the
rehabilitation of the Crow Irrigation Project, which is in a dire
state of disrepair.  The existing drinking water system on the
Crow reservation has significant deficiencies in capacity and
water quality that have resulted in health problems.

Aamodt in New Mexico:  The Aamodt settlement ends one of the
longest running water rights cases in the federal court system,
with nearly 43 years of litigation yielding little in the way of
results.  The settlement provides for the construction of a
regional water system to serve the Pueblos of Tesuque, Nambe,
Pojoaque, and San Ildefonso as well as surrounding communities in
northern New Mexico, with a non-federal cost share of 40 percent.

Pueblo of Taos in New Mexico: The Taos settlement solidifies and
makes permanent water-sharing arrangements between the Pueblo of
Taos and neighboring communities.  The settlement also protects
and restores the Pueblo of Taos's Buffalo Pasture, a culturally
sensitive and sacred wetland.

Following action in the Senate, the House is expected to take up
the omnibus package after the Thanksgiving recess.  The Department
of the Interior would begin implementation of settlements once
they are signed into law by the President.


WELLCARE HEALTH: Settles Suit; Estimates $200 Million Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wellcare Health Plans, Inc., entered into an agreement to settle
an amended consolidated complaint against the company, according
to its November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Putative class action complaints were filed in October 2007 and in
November 2007.  These putative class actions, entitled Eastwood
Enterprises, L.L.C., v. Farha, et al.; and Hutton v. WellCare
Health Plans, Inc., et al., respectively, were filed in Federal
Court against the Company, Todd Farha, former chairman and chief
executive officer, and Paul Behrens, former senior vice president
and chief financial officer.  Messrs. Farha and Behrens were also
officers of various subsidiaries of the Company.

The Eastwood Enterprises complaint alleges that the defendants
materially misstated the Company's reported financial condition
by, among other things, purportedly overstating revenue and
understating expenses in amounts unspecified in the pleading in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The
Hutton complaint alleges that various public statements supposedly
issued by the defendants were materially misleading because they
failed to disclose that the Company was purportedly operating its
business in a potentially illegal and improper manner in violation
of applicable federal guidelines and regulations.  The complaint
asserts claims under the Exchange Act. Both complaints seek, among
other things, certification as a class action and damages.  The
two actions were consolidated, and various parties and law firms
filed motions seeking to be designated as Lead Plaintiff and Lead
Counsel.

In an Order issued in March 2008, the Federal Court appointed a
group of five public pension funds from New Mexico, Louisiana and
Chicago as Lead Plaintiffs.  In October 2008, an amended
consolidated complaint was filed in this class action asserting
claims against the Company, Messrs. Farha and Behrens, and adding
Thaddeus Bereday, former senior vice president and general
counsel, as a defendant.  In January 2009, the Company and certain
other defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint, arguing, among other things, that the
complaint failed to allege a material misstatement by defendants
with respect to the Company's compliance with marketing and other
health care regulations and failed to plead facts raising a strong
inference of scienter with respect to all aspects of the purported
fraud claim.  The Federal Court denied the motion in September
2009 and the Company and the other defendants filed answer to the
amended consolidated complaint in November 2009.

In April 2010, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification.  On June 18, 2010, the USAO filed motions seeking
to intervene and for a temporary stay of discovery of this matter.
In July 2010, the Federal Court granted the United States' motions
and ordered that discovery be stayed through December 2010.

On August 6, 2010, the Company reached agreement with the Lead
Plaintiffs on the material terms of a settlement to resolve this
matter.  The terms of the settlement are being documented in a
formal settlement agreement that will be subject to approval by
the Federal Court following notice to all class members.  The
settlement provides that the Company will make cash payments to
the class of $52,500,000 within thirty business days following the
Federal Court's preliminary approval of the settlement and
$35,000,000 by July 31, 2011.  The settlement also provides that
the Company will issue to the class tradable unsecured bonds
having an aggregate face value of $112,500,000, with a fixed
coupon of 6% and a maturity date of December 31, 2016.  The bonds
shall also provide that, if the Company incur debt obligations in
excess of $425,000,000 that are senior to the bonds, the bonds
shall accelerate as to payment and be redeemed.  The settlement
has two further contingencies.  First, it provides that if, within
three years following the date of the settlement agreement, the
Company is acquired or otherwise experiences a change in control
at a share price of $30.00 or more, the Company will pay to the
class an additional $25,000,000.  Second, the settlement provides
that the Company will pay to the class 25% of any sums it recovers
from Messrs. Farha, Behrens and Bereday as a result of claims
arising from the same facts and circumstances that gave rise to
this matter.  The Company may terminate the settlement if a
certain number or percentage of the class opt out of the
settlement class.  The settlement agreement will also provide that
the settlement does not constitute an admission of liability by
any party and such other terms as are customarily contained in
settlement agreements of similar matters.

As a result of this settlement having been reached, the company's
current estimate for the resolution of this matter is
$200,000,000.  The company has discounted the $200,000,000
liability for the resolution of this matter and accrued this
amount at its estimated fair value, which amounted to
approximately $194,905,000 at September 30, 2010.  Approximately
$85,520,000 and $109,385,000 have been included in the current and
long-term portions, respectively, of Amounts accrued related to
investigation resolution in the company's Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2010.  There can be no assurance
that the settlement will be finalized and approved and the actual
outcome of this matter may differ materially from the terms of the
settlement.


* EBG Sees Significant Rise in Discrimination Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carmine A. Iannaccone, Esq., Barry Asen, Esq., and Michael S. Kun,
Esq., at Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., report that two
developments in employment law are merging in a way that prudent
general counsel, labor counsel and human resources professionals
should not miss.  These two developments suggest that while
employers will continue to be faced with wage-hour class actions
and collective actions, they will also see a significant increase
in the filing of discrimination class actions.

First, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has announced
its intention to focus on "systemic" claims of discrimination,
rather than individual claims.  With this in mind, the EEOC has
launched 111 "systemic" class action lawsuits against American
companies, dramatically increasing its prior class action efforts.
It promises that many more will come.

Second, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' approval of class
certification in the much-publicized Dukes v. Wal-Mart sex
discrimination class action promises to have a significant
impact upon the filing of private discrimination class actions.
Approving the certification of a class with as many as
1.5 putative class members, the Ninth Circuit held that proceeding
with such a large class would be manageable, a decision that
plaintiffs' counsels are certain to cite when seeking to certify
smaller classes.  While the future of the Dukes decision may be
uncertain given Wal-Mart's request for Supreme Court review,
plaintiff-side class action attorneys everywhere rejoiced when a
New York jury recently awarded $250 million in punitive damages to
a class of female sales representatives in Velez v. Novartis
Pharmaceuticals.

One conclusion is inescapable: in these difficult economic times,
juries -- which often consist of employees who are fearful of
losing their jobs, as well as former employees whose fears have
been realized -- often do not hesitate to freely spend employers'
money.

Under these circumstances, there is only one rational option for
employers.  Take steps now to minimize the risk of being the
target of a discrimination class action lawsuit and to mitigate
the potential exposure if one occurs.  As we will discuss, prudent
employers should promptly conduct internal audits of such areas as
pay equity and promotions, doing so in a manner that should be
privileged, and consider careful corrective action to remedy
existing or potential problems.

A. The EEOC Has Shifted Its Focus from Individual Discrimination
Cases to Systemic Class Action Cases.

The EEOC defines "systemic" cases as pattern or practice and/or
class cases in which the alleged discrimination has a broad impact
on an industry, profession, company, or geographic location.  In
its Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Justification to Congress, the EEOC
announced that it intends to increase its efforts in pursuing this
type of class action litigation:

While past EEOC focus has primarily been on individual cases of
discrimination, the agency has stated its bipartisan desire to
shift emphasis to combating systemic discrimination.  A strong
systemic program is crucial to battling unlawful patterns or
practices of discrimination which have a broad impact on an
industry, profession, company, or geographic location.

. . . Systemic lawsuits have been filed across the country under
every statute enforced by the agency, involving a broad set of
bases and issues and a wide variety of industries.

The EEOC's focus on allegations of systemic discrimination has
already produced impressive results.  Not only have monetary
settlements been substantial, but employers have agreed to EEOC
oversight of the settlement for years to come.  Some examples are
particularly noteworthy:

    * The agency settled a gender discrimination class action
against Outback Steakhouse for $19 million.  The settlement
proceeds will be paid to a class of female employees who were
allegedly discriminated against, especially with regard to
promotions.  Outback further agreed to hire an outside consultant
for at least two years to ensure compliance with a revised
promotion system and to file written reports with the EEOC every
six months on its efforts.

    * The EEOC obtained an $8.9 million settlement from
Albertsons, a national grocery chain, in connection with claims of
systemic race and national origin discrimination and harassment
against black and Hispanic employees.  Among other things, the
EEOC claimed that Albertsons allowed graffiti to remain in
employee restrooms, including racial and ethnic slurs, depictions
of lynchings, and anti-immigrant statements.  The settlement will
be distributed among 168 current and former employees.
Albertsons' equal employment opportunity actions will be subject
to judicial monitoring for four years, and the company must
initiate an extensive training program for management to ensure
compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws.

    * Sears Roebuck resolved a disability discrimination class
action brought by the EEOC by paying $6.2 million to former
employees.  Sears terminated these persons while they were on
workers' compensation leave, rather than accommodating them with
brief leave extensions that would have allowed them to remain as
employees.  As part of the settlement, Sears agreed to train
employees regarding their rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, provide written reports to the EEOC regarding
future compliance, and post notices concerning the settlement at
all Sears locations.

    * Allstate Insurance agreed to pay $4.5 million to 90 of its
former sales agents to settle an age discrimination class action
instituted by the EEOC.  In addition, Allstate agreed that, for
three years, it would provide discrimination training to its
managers and submit reports to the EEOC concerning its anti-
discrimination efforts.

The EEOC has obtained these results by flexing its broad authority
under the federal anti-discrimination statutes as never before.
When an individual employee or former employee files a
discrimination charge with the EEOC, the agency now often expands
its investigation into the employer's related employment
practices.  The scope of the employee's initial charge with the
EEOC has not limited the scope of the EEOC's subsequent class
action suit against the employer.  Any alleged statutory
violations that the EEOC uncovers during the course of a
reasonable investigation of an employee's initial charge can
become the basis of a systemic class action suit.

The courts have not been reluctant to support the EEOC in these
efforts.  In EEOC v. Yellow Transportation, the agency expanded an
initial charge into a systemic class action and demanded that the
employer provide it with the names, addresses and telephone
numbers of all African-American employees who worked for the
trucking company from 2004 to 2009.  The federal court ordered the
production of the requested information. Similarly, based on one
employee's race discrimination charge in EEOC v. Patterson UTI
Drilling, the EEOC served a subpoena on an employer demanding the
names, races, positions and addresses of all of its employees who
work on oil and natural gas rigs in 16 states and Canada.  When
the employer refused to comply, the EEOC sought enforcement of the
subpoena in federal court.  After the judge enforced the subpoena
in its entirety, the EEOC cautioned other employers: "The EEOC
takes its authority to issue subpoenas seriously . . . .
Employers will not be permitted to refuse to comply with EEOC
investigators' lawful and relevant requests for information."

The conclusion compelled by these cases and the EEOC's increased
emphasis on systemic claims of discrimination is plain: the EEOC
can expand any charge filed by an employee or former employee into
a systemic class action against the employer.  The time, expense
and monetary exposure involved in defending a class action brought
by the EEOC can be enormous.  Negative publicity can be damaging,
too.

B. The Stakes Have Grown in Privately-Initiated Class Actions.

Dukes v. Wal-Mart is the largest and most publicized employment
discrimination class action in history.  Never before has a such a
large discrimination class been certified; again, the class may
approach 1.5 million members -- more than the active-duty members
of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard combined.
By some estimates, the potential exposure in the case exceeds $4
billion.

The Dukes action began in 2001 with six female employees alleging
that they were paid less and received fewer promotions than their
male counterparts.  It mushroomed into a class action that was
ultimately certified by a federal court in San Francisco.  Among
other things, the federal court concluded that a class with as
many as 1.5 million members was not "unmanageable."  The Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the bulk of the decision.
Unless and until the Supreme Court reverses that decision -- and,
historically, it reverses more than 80% of the Ninth Circuit
opinions it elects to hear -- plaintiffs' lawyers nationwide can
be expected to cite Dukes in arguing that the smaller classes they
seek to certify are also manageable.

While nothing can match Dukes in sheer size, the one-quarter of a
billion dollars ($250,000,000) in punitive damages that a New York
jury recently awarded against Novartis Pharmaceuticals to a class
of female sales reps for pay and promotion sex discrimination is
breathtaking as well.  Thus, not only may employers be faced with
more and larger discrimination class actions, but they may also be
faced with the long-feared runaway juries.

The fear of runaway juries in this economic downturn, along with
concerns about long-simmering pay and promotion statistical
disparities, may well have led several major employers to enter
into extremely large settlements in discrimination class actions.
For instance:

    * Eastman Kodak agreed to pay a $21.4 million settlement to a
class of current and former African-American employees who accused
the company of maintaining a pattern and practice of race
discrimination in compensation and promotion.

    * The U.S. subsidiary of a French drug company, Sanofi-
Aventis, agreed to a $15.4 million settlement in a class action
suit that alleged that the company engaged in systemic sex bias in
hiring, compensation and promotion.

    * Dell, the well-known computer company, entered into a $9.1
million settlement with a class of female employees rather than
leave the determination to a jury.  Dell was accused of sex
discrimination in compensation and promotion.

These decisions and settlements have been noticed by the
plaintiff-side employment law bar and are spurring more class
action activity.  In the last few months alone, six women have
filed a class action against Citigroup, alleging that the bank
runs a proverbial "boys club" where women are harassed and
systematically discriminated against in terms of pay and
promotion, and because of pregnancy, maternity leaves and child
care obligations.  A group of female employees at Goldman Sachs
have also commenced a sex discrimination class action, claiming
that the firm systematically undervalues the achievements of
women, resulting in pay and promotion disparities.  Statistics
cited by the plaintiffs allegedly show that 71% of the firm's vice
presidents are men, 83% of the firm's managing directors are men,
and 86% of its partners are men.  Even the U.S. government was
recently sued in a class action against the Secretary of Commerce,
which claims that more than 100,000 minority applicants were not
hired for Census Bureau positions because of decades-old arrest
and minor conviction records.

There is every reason to believe that these actions signal the
reemergence of privately-initiated discrimination class actions.

C. What Can a Rational Employer Do?

One basic truth about the American system of justice is that
anyone can sue.  The employee legitimately wronged and the
employee treated lawfully may both proceed to court.  The
obstacles to an individual lawsuit are few.  The same is true for
a class action lawsuit.  The Hon. Andrew Kleinfeld, one of the
judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who criticized the
certification of the Dukes class, observed that the only real
evidence of sex discrimination in the case was that about two-
thirds of the Wal-Mart managers were male and about one-third
female.  But as he wryly added: "Not everybody wants to be a Wal-
Mart manager."

Knowing that virtually any current or former employee can file a
discrimination class action, regardless of merit, what can a
rational employer do to save itself from becoming a defendant in
such an action? And what can it do to put itself in the best
position possible to defend such an action should one be filed?
Sound human resources policies are a start. Training programs
designed to educate managers about equal employment opportunity
compliance ("EEO") are helpful.  Ensuring that employees have an
effective means to voice their complaints internally may resolve
many disputes and reduce the likelihood of a disgruntled employee
filing a massive class action.  Employing trained professionals,
who know how to respond appropriately, is advantageous.

Many rational employers already have these tools in place.  They
still may not be enough.

The savvy employer's best defense is to conduct an internal audit
designed to assess potential exposure to discrimination class
actions and their attendant liability, and to take the necessary
steps to ameliorate problematic policies and practices well in
advance of any class action.  Both steps need to be taken
carefully, however.  An internal audit that is not protected by
the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product
doctrine might have to be turned over in discovery in subsequent
litigation and could become the proverbial "Exhibit A" against the
employer.  And corrective action, if not taken carefully, can
raise red flags that could lead to the filing of the very class
action the employer is seeking to avoid.

In the past, many employers argued that their audits fell within
the "self-critical analysis" privilege.  While that assertion met
with some initial success, more courts recently have been
rejecting it.  The better route is to assert "attorney-client
privilege" and/or "work product privilege."

Although laws regarding these privileges vary from state to state,
several conditions generally must be satisfied to claim these
privileges, including: (1) the audit was conducted through outside
counsel or an attorney in the company's legal department, and not
through the human resources department; (2) the company's general
counsel ordered the audit in writing, stating that the audit's
goal was to receive legal advice regarding the company's
compliance with EEO laws; (3) the general counsel authorized the
involved attorneys to ask other company employees to assist in the
audit, e.g., human resources professionals; (4) all audit reports
were prepared by attorneys who discussed the audit's findings in
relation to EEO principles and case law; (5) all communications
concerning the audit were marked at the top either "Privileged and
Confidential: Attorney-Client Privileged" or "Privileged and
Confidential: Attorney Work Product;" and (6) all communications
concerning the audit were shown to persons on a "need-to-know"
basis and otherwise maintained as strictly confidential.

As the above-discussed class action decisions, settlements and
recent filings underscore, the first two areas that should be
audited are compensation and promotion practices:

    * Compensation -- Analyze the compensation being paid to
similarly-situated employees, including all management employees,
comparing men to women, comparing members of different races and
ethnic groups (Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians), and comparing
older and younger workers.  If there are similarly-situated
employees in protected statuses (gender, race, national origin,
age) earning significantly different compensation that cannot be
justified by written performance appraisals, prior experience or
other legitimate factors, there is a potential class action
problem that should be addressed.  The passage of the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which virtually eliminates the statute of
limitations for pay discrimination and substantially increases
potential back pay liability awards, makes the necessity of an
audit all the more pressing.

    * Promotion -- Analyze the number and frequency of promotions
among similarly-situated employees, comparing men to women,
comparing members of different races and ethnic groups, and
comparing older and younger workers.  If there are statistically
significant disparities, review the promotion process itself to
determine if there are internal practices that contribute to the
disparity.  All levels of management employees, including the
senior executive level, should be included in this analysis in
order to identify statistical disparities along gender, race,
national origin, and age lines.

Finally, when announcing its emphasis on "systemic"
discrimination, the EEOC warned employers that they should take "a
careful look at the practices they use to recruit, hire, promote,
train and retain employees."  This admonition should be taken
seriously, and, thus, any audit should also examine recruitment,
hiring, training opportunities, and terminations.  Once the audit
is completed, the key is to take careful corrective measures
designed to eliminate problems and reduce the possibility of being
embroiled in an employment discrimination class action.

Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. provides clients with tailored
solutions to their legal and business issues.  Its areas of
practice include: Health Care and Life Sciences, Labor and
Employment, Litigation, Real Estate, Business Law, Employee
Benefits and Immigration.  The Firm is also provides service to
clients in the health, hospitality, financial services and energy
industries, among others, representing entities from Fortune 100
companies to startups.  The Firm has approximately 325 lawyers
practicing in 11 offices throughout the U.S. -- Atlanta, Boston,
Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Newark, San
Francisco, Stamford, and Washington, DC -- and is a founding
member of the International Lawyers Network (ILN), an association
of over 90 select law firms with more than 5,000 lawyers
worldwide.

For more information about this article, please contact:

          Carmine Iannaccone, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
          One Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102-5311
          Telephone: 973/639-8271
          E-mail: ciannaccone@ebglaw.com

               - and -

          Barry Asen, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
          250 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10177-1211
          Telephone: 212/351-4847
          E-mail: basen@ebglaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Kun, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506
          Telephone: 310/557-9501
          E-mail: mkun@ebglaw.com


* Rule 23(b)(2) Class Suits Easier to Certify, Greenberg Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Herrington, Esq., at Greenberg Traurig LLP reports that
the Ninth Circuit has made it substantially easier to certify a
class action that seeks injunctive and monetary relief under Rule
23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and courts are
applying this new standard to certify class actions in consumer
cases.  Find out what you can do to protect against class actions
brought under this new standard.

                             The Rule

By its terms, Rule 23(b)(2) permits a court to certify claims "for
injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief."  The rule
traditionally has been used in civil rights and discrimination
cases where the primary goal of the litigation is to end or modify
a broadly applied policy or institutional practice.

To certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2), the plaintiff does not
have show "predominance" or "superiority" -- the elements
defendants typically focus on to defeat class certification.  A
Rule 23(b)(2) class also does not require notice to class members.

Although the text of the rule is limited to cases seeking
injunctive or declaratory relief, some courts have relied on an
Advisory Committee Note to hold that courts may rely on Rule
23(b)(2) to certify some classes seeking money.  Until recently,
courts generally limited this exception to cases seeking
"incidental" damages, defined as monetary relief that flows
directly from liability, to the class as a whole, on the claims
forming the basis for injunctive or declaratory relief.  See,
e.g., Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 415 (5th
Cir. 1998).  The most frequent use of this exception has been in
labor cases seeking back pay and other monetary relief flowing
directly from the alleged violation.

                         The Recent Cases

In two recent decisions, the Ninth Circuit has developed a new,
broader standard that applies not only to labor and employment
cases, but also consumer class actions and products cases.

In Dukes v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010),
the Ninth Circuit held that monetary claims can be certified under
Rule 23(b)(2), provided the case does not seek monetary damages
that are "superior in strength, influence or authority to
injunctive and declaratory relief" being sought. Id. at 615.  In
other words, if the injunctive relief predominates or is at least
of equal importance, the class may be certified under Rule
23(b)(2).  To determine whether monetary damages predominate,
Dukes instructs district courts to consider factors such as
"whether the monetary relief sought determines the key procedures
that will be used," whether it "introduces new and significant
legal and factual issues" or whether its size and nature raise
"due process and manageability concerns." Id. at 615-16.

In Wang v. Chinese Daily News, -- F.3d --, 2010 WL 3733568 (9th
Cir. Sept. 27, 2010), the Ninth Circuit underscored the point made
in Dukes.  The court reiterated that Rule 23(b)(2) only requires
that "claims for monetary relief not predominate over claims for
injunctive relief." Id. at *6.  Because the plaintiffs were
seeking to enjoin a set of longstanding employment practices and
sought monetary relief for employees injured by those practices,
the court held that the monetary claims did not predominate and
certification under Rule 23(b)(2) was proper. Id. at **6-7.

       Using Rule 23(b)(2) to Certify Consumer Class Action

A recent decision highlights the risk created by the new class
certification standard set forth in Dukes and Wang.  The case of
In re Conseco Life Insurance Company Lifetrend Insurance Sales and
Marketing Litigation, 2010 WL 3931096 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2010), is
a classic consumer class action.  Plaintiffs are challenging the
defendant's administration of insurance policies, claiming that
attempts to collect premiums under the terms of the policy
constitute breach of contract and fraud.

The court recently certified a nationwide class of policyholders,
relying on the rule set forth in Dukes and Wang that a Rule
23(b)(2) class may be certified unless the monetary relief
predominates over injunctive relief or declaratory relief.  In a
notably brief discussion, the court concluded that the request for
damages was "minor" in comparison to the injunctive and
declaratory relief sought, making certification under Rule
23(b)(2) proper.  The court thus declined to address superiority
and predominance arguments, as these requirements did not apply to
a Rule 23(b)(2) certification.

                     What You Can Do About It

You can do at least two things to protect against class actions
brought under this new standard.

First, if faced with a request for certification under Rule
23(b)(2), seek a stay of the case or ask the court to defer the
class certification motion.  The Supreme Court is considering
whether to grant certiorari in Dukes and may soon decide whether
this new certification standard will stand.

Second, although not always possible, consider whether you can
reduce the value of the injunctive relief sought by making
prospective changes to meet the demands of the lawsuit.  This
strategy may allow you to argue that the injunctive relief is moot
and of no value.

Greenberg Traurig LLP and Greenberg Traurig PA is an international
law firm with approximately 1,800 attorneys and governmental
professionals in 32 locations in the United States, Europe and
Asia.  Its founding office is in Miami, Florida with its largest
office in New York City.

                             *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *