CAR_Public/101130.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 30, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 236

                             Headlines

ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Continues to Face Amended Consolidated Suit
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Remains a Defendant in Hurricane Katrina Suit
AMERICAN CAPITAL: Remains a Defendant in "Klugmann" Suit
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Discovery in "Rand" Suit Ongoing in California
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Medical Capital Suit

AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: "Provident Shale" Actions Still Pending
ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Final Approval of "McAnaney" Pact Pending
BEAZER HOMES: Court Hears Settlement in "ERISA" Lawsuit
BEAZER HOMES: Awaits Court Okay of North Carolina Suit Settlement
BEAZER HOMES: Continues to Defend "RESPA" Lawsuit in California

BEAZER HOMES: Continues to Defend "Drywall" Suit in Florida
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Appeal on Consolidated Suit Dismissal Pending
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 1st Circuit Dismisses Appeal in 1st ERISA Suit
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Court Okays Settlement in Guidant Pension Suit

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Continues to Defend Two Securities Suits
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Court Strikes Out US-Style "Opt-Out" Class Suit
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Court Approves Settlement in Delaware Suit
CAISSE DE DEPOT: Faces Class Action for Investor Fraud
CALIFORNIA: 9th Cir. Revives Antitrust Class Action v. CTTC

CEDAR FAIR: Continues to Defend Class Action in Delaware
CEDAR FAIR: Class Action in Ohio Remains Pending
CHUBB CORP: Motion to Dismiss Reinstated Claims Pending
CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Defend "Student Loan" Suits
CONGREGATION DU TRES-SAINT-REDEMPTEUR: Faces Class Action

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Accused of Defrauding Students
CYNOSURE INC: Certification Motion Still Pending in TCPA Suit
DAVITA INC: Awaits Court Approval of California Suits Settlement
DAVITA INC: Remains a Defendant in "Blue Cross" Lawsuit
DAVITA INC: Unit Continues to Defend Employee Suit in California

DIEBOLD INC: Final Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement Still Pending
DIEBOLD INC: Securities Class Action Pending in Ohio
DIEBOLD INC: Mediation is Scheduled for Wage & Hour Suit in Calif.
FACEBOOK INC: Sued in Calif. for Over "Friend Finder" Service
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Flonase Antitrust Class Suit Wins Certification

HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal on Denial of Fees Still Pending
HSBC FINANCE: Discovery in Consolidated Antitrust Suit Ongoing
HSBC USA: Credit Card Litigation in New York Still Pending
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Continues to Defend Investor Class Suit
MATRIX SERVICE: Awaits Court Approval of Class Suits Settlement

MCAFEE INC: Briefing on Dismissal Motion to Conclude Dec. 23
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Claims Process Completed in "Williams" Suit
NOVELL INC: Being Sold to Attachmate for Too Little, Suit Says
PENN NATIONAL: Court Hears Appeal in Shareholders Suit Dismissal
POTASH CORP: To Defend BHP-Related Securities Suits in Illinois

RINO INT'L: Jan. 14 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Continues to Defend Four Hawaii Lawsuits
SOUTHLAND TUBE: Sued for Discriminating Against Black Employees
STANDARD PACIFIC: Continues Defense in "Chinese Drywall" Suits
STERLING FINANCIAL: Securities Suit Dismissal Hearing Set for 2011

STERLING FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend ERISA Suit in Washington
STERLING FINANCIAL: Derivative Suit Dismissal Hearing Set for 2011
STUDENT LOAN: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Lawsuit in Delaware
STUDENT LOAN: Faces "Zengel" Stockholder Suit in Connecticut
STUDENT LOAN: Court Closes "Stockholders" Suit in Delaware

TOYOTA MOTOR: Final Hearing on Calif. Suit Settlement on Dec. 23
TOYOTA MOTOR: Continues to Defend Recall-Related Class Actions
TOYOTA MOTOR: Bondholder Suit in California Remains Pending
TRUSTMARK CORP: Motion to Dismiss Fraudulent Transfer Suit Pending
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Settlement in Employees Lawsuit Pending Approval

VALEANT PHARMA: Settles Delaware Suits Over Biovail Merger
VALEANT PHARMA: Calif. Court Dismisses Suits on Biovail Merger
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Unit Continues to Defend Medical West Suit
WILMINGTON TRUST: Investors Sue Over Q3 Losses, M&T Bank Deal

XL GROUP: Seeks to Dismiss MDL Action in New Jersey
* MALTA: Parliament to Tackle Class Action Legislation by 2011



                             *********

ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Continues to Face Amended Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. and Matson Navigation Company, Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of the company, continue to defend an
amended complaint in the consolidated civil lawsuit pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The company and Matson Navigation Company, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of the company, were named as defendants in a
consolidated civil lawsuit purporting to be a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
in Seattle.

The lawsuit alleged violations of the antitrust laws and also
named as a defendant Horizon Lines, Inc., another domestic
carrier operating in the Hawaii and Guam trades.

On Aug. 18, 2009, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint.

The court granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint within
thirty days to allege claims consistent with the court's order.

The court subsequently extended plaintiffs' time to file an
amended complaint to May 10, 2010.

On May 28, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

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.


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Remains a Defendant in Hurricane Katrina Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy, Inc., remains a defendant in a class action
lawsuit in Mississippi filed by certain residents who were harmed
by Hurricane Katrina, according to the Company's Nov. 5, 2010 Form
10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On April 9, 2006, AE, along with numerous other companies with
coal-fired generation facilities and companies in other
industries, was named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi.  On behalf of a purported class of residents and
property owners in Mississippi who were harmed by Hurricane
Katrina, the named plaintiffs allege that the emission of
greenhouse gases by the defendants contributed to global warming,
thereby causing Hurricane Katrina and plaintiffs' damages. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.

On December 6, 2006, AE filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
complaint on jurisdictional grounds and then joined a motion filed
by other defendants to dismiss the complaint for failure to state
a claim. At a hearing on August 30, 2007, the Court granted the
motion to dismiss that AE had joined and dismissed all of the
plaintiffs' claims against all defendants.

Plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

On October 6, 2009, the assigned panel of the appellate court
issued a written opinion that reversed the judgment entered by the
District Court in favor of the defendants with respect to certain
of the plaintiffs' claims and remanded the case to the District
Court for further proceedings.

On November 25, 2009, AE and others filed a petition to have all
of the judges of the Fifth Circuit rehear the issues addressed in
the panel's October 6, 2009 opinion.  That petition was granted
and oral argument was set for May 24, 2010.  However, the parties
were notified on April 30, 2010 that the Court was unable to
empanel the necessary nine judges to hear the merits of the appeal
due to recusals.

The Court then entered an order on May 28, 2010, reinstating the
ruling of the lower court that entered judgment in favor of the
defendants and dismissing plaintiffs' appeal.

Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Mandamus with the United States
Supreme Court on August 26, 2010. Defendants' deadline to file
their response to the petition was October 29, 2010.


AMERICAN CAPITAL: Remains a Defendant in "Klugmann" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
American Capital, Ltd. continues to defend a purported class
action lawsuit in Maryland styled as Klugmann v. American Capital,
Ltd., et al., according to the company's November 5, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The company and certain of its executive officers are defendants
in the class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the
purchasers of the company's common stock between October 31, 2007
and November 7, 2008, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and in the case of the individual defendants,
the control person provisions of the Exchange Act.

The factual assertions in the complaint consist primarily of the
allegation that the defendants made incorrect statements related
to the company's dividend policy and revision of that policy to
suspend dividends for the fourth quarter of 2008.  The complaint
seeks unspecified damages, costs and expenses.

On June 14, 2010, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the matter, without prejudice.

The company intends to contest the matter vigorously.


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Discovery in "Rand" Suit Ongoing in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the case styled Rand v. American National Insurance
Company is ongoing, according to the company's November 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

American National is named as defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit wherein the Plaintiff proposes to certify a class of
persons who purchased certain American National proprietary
deferred annuity products in the State of California (Rand v.
American National Insurance Company, U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, filed February 12, 2009).

Plaintiff alleges that American National violated the California
Insurance, Business & Professions, Welfare & Institutions, and
Civil Codes through its fixed and equity indexed deferred annuity
sales and marketing practices by not sufficiently providing proper
disclosure notices on the nature of surrender fees, commissions
and bonus features and not considering the suitability of the
product.

Certain claims raised by Plaintiff relate to sales of annuities to
the elderly.  Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties, restitution,
interest, penalties, attorneys' fees, punitive damages and
rescissionary and injunctive relief in an unspecified amount.

Discovery in this case is ongoing.  If necessary, class
certification issues may be briefed and argument heard by the
Court in early to mid-2011.

In September 2010, the Court granted partial summary judgment for
American National due to the nonexistence of certain California
Insurance Code violations, and granted partial summary judgment
against American National as to whether the Plaintiff received a
disclosure notice required by the California Insurance Code.

Plaintiff contends that the alleged disclosure violation will
support a California Unfair Competition Law claim.  American
National believes that it has meritorious defenses; however, no
prediction can be made as to the probability or remoteness of any
recovery against American National.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Medical Capital Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ameriprise Financial, Inc., remains a defendant in an amended
class action lawsuit arising from a negligence claim against its
subsidiary, according to the company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In July 2009, two issuers of private placement interests --
Medical Capital Holdings, Inc., or Medical Capital Corporation and
affiliated corporations and Provident Shale Royalties, LLC and
affiliated corporations -- sold by the company's subsidiary
Securities America, Inc., were the subject of SEC actions against
those entities and individuals associated with them, which has
resulted in the filing of several putative class action lawsuits
naming both SAI and Ameriprise Financial, and numerous FINRA
arbitrations and state court actions naming SAI primarily but
occasionally also naming Ameriprise Financial, as well as related
regulatory inquiries.

The putative class actions and arbitrations generally allege
violations of state and federal securities laws in connection with
SAI's sales of these private placement interests.  These actions
were commenced in September 2009 and thereafter. Currently, three
arbitrations are scheduled for hearings later this year, in
November and December 2010, with the other scheduled arbitration
hearings set to begin in 2011 and 2012.  Motions to dismiss have
been filed or will be filed in all of the putative class actions.
On January 26, 2010, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed an
Administrative Complaint against SAI, and on February 16, 2010,
SAI filed an Answer. At this time, an Administrative Hearing in
this matter has commenced and is expected to conclude later this
year.

The Medical Capital-related class actions were centralized and
moved to the Central District of California by order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation under the
caption "In re: Medical Capital Securities Litigation."  In August
2010, the court in the Medical Capital class actions granted
motions to dismiss all but one negligence claim against SAI, with
leave to replead.  On September 10, 2010, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint and on October 4, 2010, the company
answered and filed a motion to dismiss.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: "Provident Shale" Actions Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ameriprise Financial, Inc., continues to defend class action
lawsuits arising from the sale of private placement interests
issued by Provident Shale Royalties by Ameriprise's subsidiary,
according to Ameriprise's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

In July 2009, two issuers of private placement interests --
Medical Capital Holdings, Inc., or Medical Capital Corporation and
affiliated corporations and Provident Shale Royalties, LLC and
affiliated corporations -- sold by the company's subsidiary
Securities America, Inc., were the subject of SEC actions against
those entities and individuals associated with them, which has
resulted in the filing of several putative class action lawsuits
naming both SAI and Ameriprise Financial, and numerous FINRA
arbitrations and state court actions naming SAI primarily but
occasionally also naming Ameriprise Financial, as well as related
regulatory inquiries.

The putative class actions and arbitrations generally allege
violations of state and federal securities laws in connection with
SAI's sales of these private placement interests.  These actions
were commenced in September 2009 and thereafter. Currently, three
arbitrations are scheduled for hearings later this year, in
November and December 2010, with the other scheduled arbitration
hearings set to begin in 2011 and 2012.  Motions to dismiss have
been filed or will be filed in all of the putative class actions.
On January 26, 2010, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed an
Administrative Complaint against SAI, and on February 16, 2010,
SAI filed an Answer.  At this time, an Administrative Hearing in
this matter has commenced and is expected to conclude later this
year.

The Provident Shale-related class actions remain pending in Texas
federal court.  On July 26, 2010, the court in the Texas Provident
Shale class action granted the motion to dismiss as to the
securities law claim against SAI, held that the securities law
claim against Ameriprise Financial could not proceed without an
underlying claim against SAI, and denied the motion as to the
common law claim for breach of fiduciary duty in the absence of
sufficient facts for determination of the issue.

On September 10, 2010, plaintiffs in the Provident class actions
filed a consolidated amended complaint.  On October 4, 2010, the
company answered and filed a motion to dismiss.

On June 22, 2010, the Liquidating Trustee of the Provident
Liquidating Trust filed an adversary action in the Provident
bankruptcy proceeding naming SAI on behalf of both the Provident
Liquidating Trust and a number of individual Provident investors
who are alleged to have assigned their claims.  The action by the
Liquidating Trustee generally alleges the same types of claims as
are alleged in the class actions as well as a claim under the
Bankruptcy Code.


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Final Approval of "McAnaney" Pact Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval of a $7.9 million settlement in the McAnaney
Litigation remains pending, according to Astoria Financial
Corporation's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

In 2004, an action entitled David McAnaney and Carolyn McAnaney,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs.
Astoria Financial Corporation, et al. was commenced in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, or the
District Court.  The action, commenced as a class action, alleges
that in connection with the satisfaction of certain mortgage loans
made by Astoria Federal, The Long Island Savings Bank, FSB, which
was acquired by Astoria Federal in 1998, and their related
entities, customers were charged attorney document preparation
fees, recording fees and facsimile fees allegedly in violation of
the federal Truth in Lending Act, the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, or RESPA, the Fair Debt Collection Act, or FDCA,
and the New York State Deceptive Practices Act, and alleges
actions based upon breach of contract, unjust enrichment and
common law fraud.

During the fourth quarter of 2008, both parties cross-moved for
summary judgment.  On September 29, 2009, the District Court
issued a decision regarding the parties' cross motions for summary
judgment.  Plaintiff's motion was denied in its entirety.  The
Company's motion was granted in part and denied in part.  All
claims asserted against Astoria Financial Corporation and Long
Island Bancorp, Inc. were dismissed.  All remaining claims against
Astoria Federal were dismissed, except those based upon alleged
violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act, the New York State
Deceptive Practices Act and breach of contract.  The District
Court held, with respect to these claims, that there exist triable
issues of fact.

On June 29, 2010, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the remaining claims in such action in the amount of $7.9
million.  A stipulation, or the Agreement, detailing the terms of
that settlement was entered into on July 30, 2010.  In entering
into the Agreement, the Company did not acknowledge any liability
in the matter and further indicated that the Agreement is intended
to resolve all claims arising from or related to the case.  The
Agreement, which received preliminary approval from the District
Court on September 13, 2010, is subject to final approval by the
District Court.  The settlement was recognized in other non-
interest expense in the Company's consolidated statements of
income during the 2010 second quarter.


BEAZER HOMES: Court Hears Settlement in "ERISA" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
A hearing was held on November 15, 2010, to consider final
approval of a settlement of a lawsuit alleging ERISA violations,
according Beazer Homes USA, Inc.'s November 5, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended September 30, 2010.

On April 30, 2007, a putative class action complaint was filed on
behalf of a purported class consisting of present and former
participants and beneficiaries of the Beazer Homes USA, Inc.
401(k) Plan against the Company and certain employees and
directors of the Company.  The complaint alleges breach of
fiduciary duties, including those set forth in the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), as a result of the
investment of retirement monies held by the 401(k) Plan in common
stock of Beazer Homes at a time when participants were allegedly
not provided timely, accurate and complete information concerning
Beazer Homes.

Four additional lawsuits were filed subsequently making similar
allegations and the court consolidated these five lawsuits.

The parties have reached a settlement which will be largely funded
by insurance proceeds and is subject to court approval.  Under the
terms of the settlement, the lawsuit will be dismissed with
prejudice and there will be a release of all claims.  The court
has preliminarily approved the settlement and a hearing was
scheduled for November 15, 2010, to consider final approval of the
settlement.

The Company said it has accrued a liability for such matter which
is not material to its financial position or results of
operations.


BEAZER HOMES: Awaits Court Okay of North Carolina Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., is awaiting court approval of a settlement
resolving a lawsuit filed by certain residents of North Carolina
alleging, among other things, violation of Real Estate Settlement
Practices Act, according to the company's November 5, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended September 30, 2010.

A putative class action was filed on April 8, 2008 in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina,
Salisbury Division, against Beazer Homes, U.S.A., Inc., Beazer
Homes Corp. and Beazer Mortgage Corporation.  The Complaint
alleges that Beazer violated the Real Estate Settlement Practices
Act (RESPA) and North Carolina Gen. Stat. Section 75-1.1 by (1)
improperly requiring homebuyers to use Beazer-owned mortgage and
settlement services as part of a down payment assistance program,
and (2) illegally increasing the cost of homes and settlement
services sold by Beazer Homes Corp.

The purported class consists of all residents of North Carolina
who purchased a home from Beazer, using mortgage financing
provided by and through Beazer that included seller-funded down
payment assistance, between January 1, 2000 and October 11, 2007.

The parties have reached an agreement to settle the lawsuit, which
will be partially funded by insurance proceeds and is subject to
court approval.  Under the terms of the settlement, the action
will be dismissed with prejudice, and the Company and all other
defendants will not admit any liability.

The Company said it has accrued a liability for such matter which
is not material to the Company's financial position or results of
operations and is included in the total litigation accrual.


BEAZER HOMES: Continues to Defend "RESPA" Lawsuit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., remains a defendant in a lawsuit filed by
homeowners alleging Real Estate Settlement Practices Act
violations, according to the company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended September 30, 2010.

Beazer Homes and several subsidiaries were named as defendants in
a putative class action lawsuit originally filed on March 12,
2008, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Placer.  The purported class is defined as all persons who
purchased a home from the defendants or their affiliates, with the
assistance of a federally related mortgage loan, from March 25,
1999, to the present where Security Title Insurance Company
received any money as a reinsurer of the transaction.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated RESPA and
asserts claims under a number of state statutes alleging that
defendants engaged in a uniform and systematic practice of giving
and/or accepting fees and kickbacks to affiliated businesses
including affiliated and/or recommended title insurance companies.
The complaint also alleges a number of common law claims.
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages under RESPA,
unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive damages and
injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.

Defendants removed the action to federal court and plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Complaint which substituted new named-
plaintiffs.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint, which the federal court granted in part.  The
federal court dismissed the sole federal claim, declined to rule
on the state law claims, and remanded the case to the Superior
Court of Placer County.

The Company filed a supplemental motion to dismiss/demurrer
regarding the remaining state law claims in the Second Amended
Complaint and the state court sustained defendants' demurrer but
granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their claims.

Plaintiffs thereafter filed a Third Amended Complaint which
defendants removed to federal court based on the presence of a
federal question and pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act and
thereafter moved to dismiss.  Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand
the case.  The federal court granted the plaintiffs' motion and
remanded the case to the Superior Court of Placer County.

The defendants filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the remand order and a
demurrer in state court as to all counts of the Third Amended
Complaint.  The state court granted the defendants' demurrer as to
the plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, but the unfair
competition claim remains.  The Company filed its answer to the
Third Amended Complaint on June 11, 2010.  The Company is in the
process of conducting discovery and is vigorously defending
against the action.


BEAZER HOMES: Continues to Defend "Drywall" Suit in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., continues to defend lawsuits alleging
defective drywall pending in Florida, according to the company's
November 5, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended September 30, 2010.

On June 3, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed by
the owners of one of the Company's homes in its Magnolia Lakes'
community in Ft. Myers, Florida.  The complaint names the Company
and certain distributors and suppliers of drywall and was filed in
the Circuit Court for Lee County, Florida on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and other similarly situated owners of homes in
Magnolia Lakes or alternatively in the State of Florida.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company built their homes with
defective drywall, manufactured in China, that contains sulfur
compounds that allegedly corrode certain metals and that are
allegedly capable of harming the health of individuals.
Plaintiffs allege physical and economic damages and seek legal and
equitable relief, medical monitoring and attorney's fees.

This case has been transferred to the Eastern District of
Louisiana pursuant to an order from the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

In addition, the Company has been named in other complaints filed
in the multidistrict litigation and continues to pursue recovery
against responsible subcontractors and drywall suppliers.  The
Company believes that the claims asserted in these actions are
governed by its home warranty or are without merit.

Accordingly, the Company intends to vigorously defend against this
litigation.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two product liability class action lawsuits and more than 54
individual lawsuits involving approximately 54 individual
plaintiffs remain pending in various state and federal
jurisdictions against Boston Scientific Corporation's subsidiary
Guidant Corp. alleging personal injuries associated with
defibrillators or pacemakers involved in certain 2005 and 2006
product communications. The majority of the cases in the United
States are pending in federal court but approximately five cases
are currently pending in state courts.

On November 7, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation established MDL-1708 (MDL) in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota and appointed a single judge to
preside over all the cases in the MDL. In April 2006, the personal
injury plaintiffs and certain third-party payors served a Master
Complaint in the MDL asserting claims for class action
certification, alleging claims of strict liability, negligence,
fraud, breach of warranty and other common law and statutory
claims and seeking punitive damages. The majority of claimants
allege no physical injury, but sue for medical monitoring and
anxiety.

On July 12, 2007, the company reached an agreement to settle
certain claims, including those associated with the 2005 and 2006
product communications, which was amended on November 19, 2007.
Under the terms of the amended agreement, subject to certain
conditions, the company would pay a total of up to $240 million
covering up to 8,550 patient claims, including almost all of the
claims that have been consolidated in the MDL as well as other
filed and unfiled claims throughout the United States. On June 13,
2006, the Minnesota Supreme Court appointed a single judge to
preside over all Minnesota state court lawsuits involving cases
arising from the product communications. Through the end of the
third quarter of 2010, 8,193 claims had been approved for
participation in the MDL settlement. As a result, the company has
made all required payments of approximately $234 million related
to the MDL settlement and no other payments are due under the
settlement agreement.

On April 6, 2009, September 24, 2009, April 16, 2010 and August
30, 2010, the MDL Court dismissed with prejudice most of the
plaintiffs' claims which have been resolved through the settlement
agreement. On April 26, 2010, the MDL Court certified an order
remanding the remaining cases to the trial courts.

                      International Suits

Boston Scientific Corporation is aware of more than 33 Guidant
product liability lawsuits pending internationally associated with
defibrillators or pacemakers, including devices involved in the
2005 and 2006 product communications. Six of those suits pending
in Canada are putative class actions, four of which are stayed
pending the outcome of two lead class actions. On April 10, 2008,
the Justice of Ontario Court certified a class of persons in whom
defibrillators were implanted in Canada and a class of family
members with derivative claims. On May 8, 2009, the Court
certified a class of persons in whom pacemakers were implanted in
Canada and a class of family members with derivative claims.

No further updates were reported in Boston Scientific
Corporation's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Appeal on Consolidated Suit Dismissal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal of the judgment dismissing a consolidated amended
complaint against Boston Scientific Corp. alleging violations of
securities laws remain pending, according to the company's
November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On Sept. 23, 2005, Srinivasan Shankar, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, filed a purported securities class
action suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired the company's securities during the period March 31, 2003
through Aug. 23, 2005, alleging that the company and certain of
its officers violated certain sections of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Four other plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, each filed additional purported securities
class action suits in the same Court on behalf of the same
purported class.

On Feb. 15, 2006, the Court ordered that the five class actions be
consolidated and appointed the Mississippi Public Employee
Retirement System Group as lead plaintiff.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2006.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the company made
material misstatements and omissions by failing to disclose the
supposed merit of the Medinol litigation and DOJ investigation
relating to the 1998 NIR ON(R) Ranger with Sox stent recall,
problems with the TAXUS(R) drug-eluting coronary stent systems
that led to product recalls, and the company's ability to satisfy
FDA regulations concerning medical device quality.  The
consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on June 8, 2006, which was granted by the Court on
March 30, 2007.

On April 16, 2008, the First Circuit reversed the dismissal of
only plaintiff's TAXUS(R) stent recall related claims and remanded
the matter for further proceedings.

On Feb. 25, 2009, the Court certified a class of investors who
acquired the company's securities during the period Nov. 30, 2003
through July 15, 2004.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and a hearing
on the motion was held on April 21, 2010.

On April 27, 2010, the Court issued an opinion granting
defendants' motion and on April 28, 2010, the Court entered
judgment in defendants' favor and dismissed the case.

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on May 27, 2010.

No further updates were reported in Boston Scientific
Corporation's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 1st Circuit Dismisses Appeal in 1st ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal in the
consolidated complaint alleging violations under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against Boston Scientific
Corp., according to the company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On Jan. 19, 2006, George Larson filed a purported class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of
Boston Scientific Corp.'s 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan and GESOP
alleging that the company and certain of its officers and
employees violated certain provisions under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, and Department
of Labor Regulations.  Other similar actions were filed in early
2006.  On April 3, 2006, the Court issued an order consolidating
the actions.  On Aug. 23, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
purported class action complaint on behalf of all participants
and beneficiaries of the company's 401(k) Plan during the period
May 7, 2004 through Jan. 26, 2006 alleging that the company, its
401(k) Administrative and Investment Committee, members of the
Committee, and certain directors violated certain provisions of
ERISA.  The Consolidated ERISA Complaint alleges, among other
things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
401(k) Plan's participants because they knew or should have known
that the value of the company's stock was artificially inflated
and was not a prudent investment for the 401(k) Plan -- First
ERISA Action.  The Consolidated ERISA Complaint seeks equitable
and monetary relief.  On June 30, 2008, Robert Hochstadt (who
previously had withdrawn as an interim lead plaintiff) filed a
motion to intervene to serve as a proposed class representative.
On Nov. 3, 2008, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify a
class, denied Hochstadt's motion to intervene, and dismissed the
action.  On Dec. 2, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

On Dec. 24, 2008, Robert Hochstadt and Edward Hazelrig, Jr. filed
a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all participants and
beneficiaries of the company's 401(k) Plan during the period
May 7, 2004 through Jan. 26, 2006 -- the Second ERISA Action.  The
complaint repeats the allegations of the August 23, 2006,
Consolidated ERISA Complaint.

On Sept. 30, 2009, the company and certain of the proposed class
representatives in the First and Second ERISA Actions entered into
a memorandum of understanding reflecting an agreement-in-principle
to settle the First and Second ERISA Actions in their entirety.
The proposed settlement has received preliminary approval from the
District Court.  On Aug. 5, 2010, the District Court held a
fairness hearing.  On Aug. 11, 2010, the District Court entered an
Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement of the Second
ERISA Action and dismissing that action.

On Oct. 12, 2010, the First Circuit Court of Appeals entered
judgment dismissing the appeal in the First ERISA Action.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Court Okays Settlement in Guidant Pension Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
approved an agreement to settle a purported class action complaint
against Guidant Corp., according to Boston Scientific Corp.'s
November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Guidant is a part of Boston Scientific, and designs and
manufactures artificial pacemakers, implantable defibrillators,
stents, and other cardiovascular medical products.

In July 2005, a purported class action complaint was filed on
behalf of participants in Guidant's employee pension benefit
plans.  This action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana against Guidant and its directors.
The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty under Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that Guidant fiduciaries concealed adverse
information about Guidant's defibrillators and imprudently made
contributions to Guidant's 401(k) plan and employee stock
ownership plan in the form of Guidant stock.  The complaint seeks
class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary
damages, the imposition of a constructive trust, and costs and
attorneys' fees.

In September 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim.

In June 2008, the District Court dismissed the complaint in part,
but ruled that certain of the plaintiffs' claims may go forward to
discovery.

On Oct. 29, 2008, the Magistrate Judge ruled that discovery should
be limited, in the first instance, to alleged damages-related
issues.  On Oct. 8, 2009, the company reached a resolution with
the plaintiffs in this matter.

On May 19, 2010, the District Court granted preliminary approval
of the proposed settlement.

On Sept. 9, 2010, the District Court held a settlement fairness
hearing and on Sept. 10, 2010, the District Court entered the
Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Continues to Defend Two Securities Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corp. continues to defend itself against two
similar purported class action lawsuits filed by the City of
Roseville Employees' Retirement System, and the Iron Workers
District Council Southern Ohio and Vicinity Pension Trust,
according to the company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On April 9, 2010, the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement
System individually and on behalf of purchasers of the company's
securities during the period from April 20, 2009 to March 12,
2010, filed a purported class action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The suit alleges that
the company and certain of its current and former officers
violated certain sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The suit claims that the company's stock price was artificially
inflated because it failed to disclose certain matters with
respect to its CRM business.  An order was issued on July 12,
2010, appointing KBC Asset Management NV and Steelworkers Pension
Trust as co-lead plaintiffs and the selection of lead class
counsel.  The plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint
on September 14, 2010.  In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs
narrowed the alleged class period from Oct. 20, 2009 to Feb. 10,
2010.

On Aug. 19, 2010, the Iron Workers District Council Southern Ohio
and Vicinity Pension Trust filed a putative shareholder derivative
class action lawsuit against the company and its Board of
Directors in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware.  The allegations in the complaint are largely the same
as those in the original complaint filed by the City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System on April 9, 2010.


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Court Strikes Out US-Style "Opt-Out" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Reynolds, Esq., and Charles Balmain, Esq., at White & Case
LLP report that the Court of Appeal dealt a blow to class actions
on November 19, 2010.  It rejected an appeal against the High
Court's decision in April 2009 which had struck out an audacious
attempt by claimants to bring a US-style "opt-out" class action on
behalf of an undefined class of potential claimants, seeking
damages against British Airways for its participation in an
alleged cartel in the market for the provision of air freight
services (Emerald Supplies Limited, Southern Glass House Produce
Limited v British Airways Plc, [2010] EWCA Civ 1284).

The Court of Appeal's judgment is timely, following a decision by
the European Commission to fine 11 airlines a combined total of
EUR799 million for fixing prices in the market for the provision
of air freight services.  It also comes at a time when the
European Commission, the UK's Office of Fair Trading and the Civil
Justice Council are all closely considering the availability of
remedies for groups of claimants (referred to as "collective
redress"), particularly for breaches of the competition rules.

The November 23, 2010 edition of the Class Action Reporter ran a
story on the ruling.

                            Background

The damages claims in the English Court were brought by Emerald
Supplies Ltd and Southern Glass House Produce Ltd in September
2008.  The Claimants alleged that they had suffered losses as a
result of the inflated prices charged by BA as a consequence of
its participation in the cartel.

The Claimants had attempted to use Rule 19.6 of the Civil
Procedure Rules to bring an action not only on their own behalf
but also on behalf of all other direct and indirect purchasers of
air freight services from BA and any other member of the alleged
cartel.  This would be akin to an 'opt-out' class action (which
can be brought in the US) where individual claims can be
aggregated and brought by one or more persons on behalf of the
class of claimants, even without the prior knowledge and consent
of all members of the class.

Rule 19.6 does permit 'representative actions' to be brought by
one or more person on behalf of themselves and others.  However,
this is only in closely defined circumstances.  Specifically, a
person may only bring a representative action where each person
represented has precisely the "same interest" in the claim.  It
would be a significant departure from previous practice to allow
the Rule to be used in the way proposed by the Claimants in this
case.

                 The Court of Appeal's Judgment

The Claimants' representative action was struck out at first
instance by the High Court in April 2009 (see our previous Insight
Article, "British Airways -- High Court Dismisses novel class
action").  The High Court refused to accept that the class of
claimants on whose behalf the representative action was
purportedly brought, possessed a sufficient identity of interests
at the time the claim was brought.  The Claimants were, however,
granted permission to appeal.

In its judgment on that appeal, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
that the claim fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 19.6.
Lord Justice Mummery (with whose judgment the other two Lord
Justices agreed) described the appeal as a "bold attempt at
keeping a procedural novelty alive," and, unsurprisingly,
concluded that the Claimants' case for a representative action was
"fatally flawed."

The fatal flaw was that the class of claimants, purportedly
represented by Emerald and Southern Glass, did not possess the
"same interest" required by Rule 19.6.  Since the class of
claimants, as defined, could include entities at different levels
of the supply chain, the proceedings would not be equally
beneficial to all those to be represented in the action.

Further, Mummery LJ anticipated that BA would wish to raise the
"passing-on" defense with respect to direct purchasers, i.e. to
argue that those parties had not absorbed any anti-competitive
overcharge, but passed it on to their own customers.  There is,
therefore, an inherent conflict between how direct and indirect
purchasers would respond to that defense.  Direct purchasers would
seek to argue they had not passed on the overcharge (so as to
maximize their claim for damages).  This, however, would lead to a
reduction in the damage which indirect purchasers could claim they
had suffered.

The Court of Appeal also noted that, for the purposes of Rule
19.6, it must be possible to determine whether or not a person is
a member of the represented class at the time the claim is
brought: "it cannot be right in principle that the case on
liability has to be tried and decided before it can be known who
is bound by the judgment" (paragraph 65).  The lack of certainty
as to the identity of the members of the proposed class, together
with the Claimants' failure to demonstrate sufficient identity of
interests between the class members, led to the dismissal of the
appeal.

            Permission to Challenge the Ruling Refused

The Court of Appeal refused the Claimants permission to appeal to
the Supreme Court.  The only avenue remaining, therefore, is for
the Claimants to seek permission to appeal direct from the Supreme
Court.  Whether or not the Claimants choose to do so remains to be
seen.  However, given the unanimous Court of Appeal decision, and
the terms in which it was expressed, it seems unlikely that leave
to appeal would be granted.

Does the Court of Appeal's judgment close the door to class
actions in England?

The Court of Appeal's judgment confirms that the English courts
will not bend the Civil Procedure Rules in order to facilitate the
bringing of class action-type claims in England and Wales.

However, this is unlikely to be the last word on this issue.
There is a real possibility that there will be legislative reform
in the field of collective redress in the near future.  In October
2010, the Vice President of the European Commission with
responsibility for competition policy, Joaquin Almunia, announced
the imminent launch of a public consultation on collective redress
across all policy areas, including in relation to the private
enforcement of competition rules.  Following the consultation, it
is envisaged that a specific proposal on antitrust damages actions
will be presented to the Commission in the second half of 2011.
That proposal is likely to include minimum requirements for
national systems as far as antitrust damages actions are concerned
including, it is to be expected, as to the collective redress
mechanisms to be made available to potential claimants.

As a result, and although the Court of Appeal has confirmed that
it will not facilitate US-style class action claims in the absence
of a prescribed procedure for bringing such claims, it may not be
long before developments at EU level in the area of collective
redress lead to the introduction of such procedures into national
laws across the EU, including in England and Wales.

Founded in New York in 1901, White & Case has lawyers in the
United States, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and
Asia.


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Court Approves Settlement in Delaware Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court approved a settlement between
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation and certain of its
stockholders, according to Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC's
November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation is named as defendant in
putative class action lawsuits brought by alleged Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Corporation stockholders challenging the merger
of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation with and into a
subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (which subsidiary is now
named Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC).

The settlement approval hearing on the litigation and class action
was held October 28, 2010, in the Delaware Chancery Court.  The
settlement of the litigation was approved and judgment was entered
releasing all claims against Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Corporation and its former directors.  The Delaware Chancery Court
awarded fees in the amount of $450,000 which the court made clear
was sufficient for all plaintiffs' lawyers in both Delaware and
Texas.

However, notwithstanding language to that effect in the Delaware
Chancery Court's order, the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the
Texas litigation on this matter have moved for an award of fees in
the Federal District Court in Tarrant County, Texas in excess of
$1.2 million.  The Texas District Court has yet to take action on
this fee petition.


CAISSE DE DEPOT: Faces Class Action for Investor Fraud
------------------------------------------------------
Claude Couillard, writing for Advisor.ca, reports Real Ouimet, the
former chief of the Bromont Police Department who lost C$310,000
in Norbourg, officially launched his effort Thursday morning to
bring a class action against the Caisse de depot et placement du
Quebec, on behalf of the approximately 9,200 victims of Vincent
Lacroix.

The Superior Court heard his request to authorize a class action
against the Caisse Thursday morning.  The holders of the Fund to
fund developments require C$78.5 million to the latter.

Here is an excerpt from a document obtained by Advisor.ca's
Montreal affiliate, Conseiller.ca:

    (Start of document)

    We pursue this class action against the Caisse because:

    * We had confidently entrusted our savings to the Caisse.

    * Les Fonds Evolution was, for us, the Caisse / CDPQ.

    * The Caisse must act at all times in good faith.

    * The Caisse did not act diligently in transferring our
      savings to the buyer, Norbourg Asset Management.

    * The Caisse has failed in its obligation to protect
      Quebecers, who had full confidence in the Caisse.

    * The Caisse must secure the transfer of its loyal customers
      since 1995, who were invested in Fonds Evolution.

    * The Caisse, through its negligence, is totally responsible
      for financial losses we have suffered.

    * We want to show the class that the Caisse has deceived us
      and Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec must be found
      liable for financial losses and damage to thousands of
      investors who trusted it.

    * The Caisse received four bidders for the sale of its
      business (Fonds Evolution and Cartier Partners):

        * Desjardins
        * Industrial Alliance
        * Standard Life
        * Dundee

    Why were the assets sold to Lacroix?

    "We are a Canadian company, partnered with CPDQ Financial
Services, a subsidiary of the Caisse de depot et placement du
Quebec.  Our offices are located in Montreal and Quebec, we are
closer to your needs and can better advise you. " -- Excerpt from
the Fonds d'investissement Evolution marketing brochure.

    (End)

The Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec held 80% of the shares
of Teraxis Capital, which managed funds Fonds Evolution.  In
December 2003, the organization has sold Norbourg Asset Management
for C$6 million.

On June 28, three judges of the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled
in favor of Real Ouimet and allowed him to bring a class action
against the Caisse, on behalf of defrauded investors in this case.

Real Ouimet, who for 28 years led the Bromont police service in
the Eastern Townships, learned in August 2005, barely two years
after he retired, he had lost all the money he had invested in
these funds.  Of C$310,000 he lost, Mr. Ouimet has been able to
recover C$20,000.


CALIFORNIA: 9th Cir. Revives Antitrust Class Action v. CTTC
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Wednesday revived an
antitrust class action against the California Travel and Tourism
Commission for allegedly fixing prices to boost its coffers.

The 9th Circuit in San Diego reversed a district court's finding
that the commission was immune from antitrust liability. The
three-judge panel ruled that the state-action immunity only
applies where a state acts with regulation or monopoly to displace
competition.

The California Travel and Tourism Commission did not qualify for
state-action immunity because there was no "clear and affirmative
state policy to displace pure competition with regulation or
monopoly," according to the ruling.

Lead plaintiffs, Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow, sued the
commission after the rental car industry sponsored a 2006 law to
join the CTTC in exchange for an assessment fee that "greatly
increased the CTTC's budget," according to the ruling.

The class claims that the commission violated the Sherman Act when
it allowed the industry to fix prices and pass fees to customers
instead of including them in the base rental rate.

The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that the
commission was immune from Sherman Act charges because its actions
"were a foreseeable result of a broader statutory authorization."

But the appellate panel reversed, ruling that such immunity only
exists in the presence of a clear state policy.

"In this case, there is no indication California authorized
interference by the CTTC with normal industry competition," Senior
Circuit Judge Michael Hawkins wrote for the court.  "There is no
authorization by the California legislature of anticompetitive
regulation or monopoly in the rental car field. . . . The
legislature merely imposed an assessment on the rental car
companies and gave the CTTC the authority to spend these funds to
promote California tourism."

Judge Hawkins added that while the result of the legislation was
foreseeable, "the alleged anticompetitive conduct -- that the CTTC
facilitated a collusive agreement among rental car companies to
uniformly pass through these charges to consumers and ensured
rogue companies adhered to the agreement -- is not a 'natural and
foreseeable' result of the limited power granted to the CTTC."

The appellate court also revived the plaintiffs' state Open
Meeting Act claims against the commission, remanding the matter to
the district court.

A copy of the Order and Opinion in Shames, et al. v. California
Travel and Tourism Commission, No. 08-56750 (9th Cir.), is
available at http://is.gd/hJqiK

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Robert C. Fellmeth, Esq.
          CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LAW
          UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO SCHOOL OF LAW
          5998 Alcala Park
          San Diego, CA 92110-2492
          Telephone: (619) 260-4806

               - and -

          Donald G. Rez, Esq.
          SULLIVAN, HILL, LEWIN, REZ & ENGEL
          550 West C Street, 15th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4100

California Travel and Tourism Commission is represented by:

          W. Scott Cameron, Esq.
          Charles L. Post, Esq.
          WEINTRAUB GENSHLEA CHEDIAK
          400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 558-6000

               - and -

          Diane Shaw, Esq.
          STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          300 S. Spring Street, Suite 1702
          Los Angeles, CA 90013-1233
          Telephone: (213) 897-2000


CEDAR FAIR: Continues to Defend Class Action in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------
On January 20, 2010, an additional putative class action was
commenced in the Delaware Court of Chancery by Ruth Walton, a
purported unitholder, on behalf of herself and all other
unitholders of Cedar Fair, L.P., against the Partnership, the
Board of Directors and the General Partner of the Partnership, and
Apollo Global Management and certain Apollo affiliates, seeking to
enjoin the merger on fiduciary duty grounds.

On January 29, 2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the
Cedar Fair Defendant's and Apollo Global Management's request for
a stay of the Delaware case.

On April 6, 2010, the Partnership and the affiliates of Apollo
Global Management mutually terminated the merger agreement
originally entered into on December 16, 2009. Consistent with the
terms of the agreement, the Partnership paid Apollo $6.5 million
to reimburse Apollo for certain expenses incurred in connection
with the transaction. In addition, both parties released each
other from all obligations with respect to the proposed merger
transaction, as well as from any claims arising out of or relating
to the merger agreement.  The Partnership has incurred
approximately $10.5 million in costs associated with the
terminated merger through the first nine months of 2010, and a
total of $16.2 million of costs since the merger was initially
announced.

Cedar Fair, L.P. reports that there have no been no further
developments in a class action in Delaware and the case remains
dormant, according to the company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 26, 2010.


CEDAR FAIR: Class Action in Ohio Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------
On February 5, 2010, a putative class action was commenced in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio by
Leo Mortiz, a purported unitholder, on behalf of himself and all
other unitholders of Cedar Fair, L.P., against the Partnership,
the Board of Directors and the General Partner of the Partnership,
seeking to enjoin the merger with affiliates of Apollo Global
Management and alleging that the preliminary proxy is materially
misleading in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. An
amended complaint was filed on February 19, 2010, which is
identical to the originally filed complaint except that its claims
relate to the definitive proxy filed on February 10, 2010. The
Cedar Fair Defendants have not been served with either complaint.

Cedar Fair, L.P., disclosed that there have been no further
developments relating to the case, according to the company's
November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 26, 2010.
The company does not expect the pending lawsuit to materially
affect its financial results in future periods.


CHUBB CORP: Motion to Dismiss Reinstated Claims Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The Chubb Corporation continues to defend itself against claims
asserted pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, according to its November 5, 2010 Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.

On August 1, 2005, The Chubb Corporation and certain of its
subsidiaries were named in a putative class action entitled In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (N.J. District Court).  The
action, brought against several brokers and insurers on behalf
of a class of persons who purchased insurance through the broker
defendants, asserts claims under the Sherman Act, state law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
arising from the alleged unlawful use of contingent commission
agreements.

On September 28, 2007, the N.J. District Court dismissed the
second amended complaint filed by the plaintiffs in its entirety.
In so doing, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' Sherman Act and
RICO claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and it
dismissed the plaintiffs' state law claims without prejudice
because it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
them.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their second amended
complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

On August 13, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed in part and vacated
in part the N.J. District Court decision and remanded the case
back to the N.J. District Court for further proceedings.

As a result of the Third Circuit's decision, the plaintiffs' state
law claims and certain of the plaintiffs' Sherman Act and RICO
claims were reinstated against the Corporation.

The Corporation and the other defendants have filed motions to
dismiss the reinstated claims and those motions are in the process
of being briefed.


CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Defend "Student Loan" Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
CitiGroup, Inc., remains a defendant in putative class actions
filed by certain shareholders of Student Loan Corp., according to
Citigroup's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

Beginning in September, three shareholders of SLC filed putative
class actions in Delaware and Connecticut against SLC and its
Board of Directors, CBNA, Citigroup., and Discover Financial
Services seeking to enjoin the "SLM Transaction," the "DFS Merger"
and the "CBNA Transaction."  Among other things, plaintiffs allege
that the individual defendants and CBNA breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to maximize the value to be received by SLC's
stockholders, and that Citigroup aided and abetted the other
defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties.  Plaintiffs in these
actions are seeking, among other things, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief against the consummation of the Transactions by
the defendants, compensatory damages, and costs and disbursements.

Although it is the opinion of Citigroup's management, based on
current knowledge, that the eventual outcome of these matters
would not be likely to have a material adverse effect on the
consolidated financial condition of Citi, in the event an order
preliminarily or permanently enjoining the transactions were
entered, the benefits to Citigroup of the SLM Transaction, the DFS
Merger and the CBNA Transaction would be delayed or not achieved.


CONGREGATION DU TRES-SAINT-REDEMPTEUR: Faces Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Sue Montgomery, writing for The Montreal Gazette, reports a
Superior Court Justice has given the go-ahead for former students
of a Roman Catholic secondary school near Quebec City to sue the
priests who allegedly sexually abused them.

Lawyer Pierre Boivin said it's the first time in Quebec a class-
action suit has been filed against a religious order --
Congregation du Tres-Saint-Redempteur -- and the amount could
reach into the millions of dollars.

So far, dozens of alleged victims of the former boarding school,
Seminaire St. Alphonse, have come forward, but Mr. Boivin said he
believes once word spreads, it could reach into the hundreds.  "We
think it's just the tip of the iceberg," he said.

The lead plaintiff in the suit is seeking $750,000 in damages for
the sexual, emotional, physical and psychological abuse he says he
suffered several times a week at the hands of a priest in charge
of the students' dormitory.

Rev. Raymond-Marie Lavoie, 70, was arrested last December by the
Surete du Quebec and charged with 18 sexual crimes involving 11
minors.  His preliminary hearing is set for Jan. 31 in Quebec
City.

The suit covers all students of Seminaire Saint-Alphonse, in Ste.
Anne de Beaupre, who were sexually abused by priests of the
Congregation du Tres-Saint-Redempteur between 1960 and 1987.  The
priests had nothing to do with the school after 1987, and it is
now a private school called College St. Alphonse.

The lead plaintiff, who attended the college between 1981 and
1985, alleges the abuse took place in the school's dormitory and
in a vacation home used by the priests in St. Title des Caps.

The suit, which is asking for at least $100,000 in damages for
each victim, alleges the priests conspired among themselves,
discussing which students they would abuse.

At least five priests were involved in pedophilia at the school,
which had between 200 and 250 students, the suit claims.  One of
the accused priests was Rev. Francois Plourde, the school's former
director, who has since died.

Former students of College Notre Dame and College St. Cesaire,
which was run by Brothers of Holy Cross, are awaiting
authorization from Quebec Superior Court to sue their alleged
abusers.  Dozens of men have come forward, saying they were
sexually abused by brothers teaching at the college, which was
also a boarding school for boys.

Mr. Boivin said he's confident the Quebec City case will go to
trial in the next couple of years.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Accused of Defrauding Students
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims
Corinthian Colleges dba Everest College dba Olympia College
charged students for medical assistant programs that have "little
to no value," in Cook County Court.


CYNOSURE INC: Certification Motion Still Pending in TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Ari Weitzner's motion for class certification in the lawsuit
against Cynosure, Inc., alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, remains pending, according to the
company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

In 2005, Dr. Ari Weitzner, individually and as putative
representative of a purported class, filed a complaint against the
company under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act in
Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County seeking monetary
damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys fees.

The complaint alleges that the company violated the TCPA by
sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the plaintiff
and other recipients without the prior express invitation or
permission of the recipients.  Under the TCPA, recipients of
unsolicited facsimile advertisements are entitled to damages of up
to $500 per facsimile for inadvertent violations and up to $1,500
per facsimile for knowing or willful violations.

Based on discovery in this matter, the plaintiff alleges that
approximately three million facsimiles were sent on the company's
behalf by a third party to approximately 100,000 individuals.

On Feb. 6, 2008, several months after the close of discovery, the
plaintiff served a motion for class certification, which the
company opposed on numerous factual and legal grounds, including
that:

     -- a nationwide class action may not be maintained in a
        Massachusetts state court by Dr. Weitzner, a New York
        resident;

     -- individual issues predominate over common issues;

     -- a class action is not superior to other methods of
        resolving TCPA claims; and

     -- Dr. Weitzner is an inadequate class representative.

The company also believes it has have many merits defenses,
including that the faxes in question do not constitute
"advertising" within the meaning of the TCPA and many recipients
had an established business relationship with the company and are
thereby deemed to have consented to the receipt of facsimile
communications.

The Court held a hearing on the plaintiff's class certification
motion on June 17, 2008, but no decision on the motion has been
rendered.

On July 14, 2010, the Court issued an order dismissing this matter
without prejudice for Dr. Weitzner's failure to prosecute the
case.  On Aug. 12, 2010, Dr. Weitzner filed a motion for relief
from the dismissal order, which the Court allowed on Aug. 17,
2010.

The Court has not ruled upon the class certification motion.  The
Court had scheduled a status conference for November 9, 2010.


DAVITA INC: Awaits Court Approval of California Suits Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Davita, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its settlement with
its former employees, which will result in the dismissal of a
number of class action lawsuits, according to the company's
November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Several wage and hour claims have been filed against the Company
in the Superior Court of California, each of which has been styled
as a class action.  In February 2007, June 2008, October 2008 and
December 2008, the Company was served with five separate
complaints in California, including two in October 2008, by
various former employees, each of which alleges, among other
things, that the Company failed to provide rest and meal periods,
failed to pay compensation in lieu of providing such rest or meal
periods, failed to pay the correct amount of overtime, failed to
pay the rate on the "wage statement," and failed to comply with
certain other California Labor Code requirements.

The Company has reached a settlement and release of all claims
against it in connection with the complaints served in February
2007 and December 2008 and one of the complaints served in October
2008.  The Company has funded the settlement during the first
quarter of 2010, which pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement will result in a dismissal of the underlying court
proceedings against it.  The overall settlement amount was not
material.  The Company has reached an agreement with plaintiffs to
settle the claims in the second complaint filed in October 2008.
That settlement must be approved by the Court.  If it is approved,
the amount of the overall settlement will not be material.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the remaining
claims and to vigorously oppose the certification of the remaining
matters as class actions.  Any potential settlements of these
remaining claims are not anticipated to be material, the Company
said.


DAVITA INC: Remains a Defendant in "Blue Cross" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Davita, Inc., continues to defend a lawsuit filed by Blue
Cross/Blue Shield in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana, according to the company's Nov. 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In August 2005, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana against Gambro AB, DVA Renal Healthcare
(formerly known as Gambro Healthcare) and related entities.  The
plaintiff sought to bring its claims as a class action on behalf
of itself and all entities that paid any of the defendants for
health care goods and services from on or about January 1991
through at least December 2004.

The complaint alleged, among other things, damages resulting from
facts and circumstances underlying Gambro Healthcare's 2004
settlement agreement with the Department of Justice and certain
agencies of the U.S. government.

In March 2006, the case was dismissed and the plaintiff was
compelled to seek arbitration to resolve the matter.  In November
2006, the plaintiff filed a demand for class arbitration against
the Company and DVA Renal Healthcare, a subsidiary of the Company.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.
The Company also intends to vigorously oppose the certification of
this matter as a class action.  At this time, the Company said it
cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter or the
potential range of damages, if any.


DAVITA INC: Unit Continues to Defend Employee Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Davita, Inc., remains a defendant in a lawsuit filed by its former
employees in California, according to the company's November 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In June 2004, Gambro Healthcare (now known as DVA Renal Healthcare
and a subsidiary of the Company) was served with a complaint filed
in the Superior Court of California by one of its former employees
who worked for its California acute services program.  The
complaint, which is styled as a class action, alleges, among other
things, that DVA Renal Healthcare failed to provide overtime
wages, defined rest periods and meal periods, or compensation in
lieu of such provisions and failed to comply with certain other
California Labor Code requirements.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.
The Company also intends to vigorously oppose the certification of
this matter as a class action.  At this time, the Company said it
cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter or the
potential range of damages, if any.


DIEBOLD INC: Final Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a consolidated class-action lawsuit against
Diebold, Inc., alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, is pending final approval, according
to the company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

The McDermott, Barnett, Farrell, Forbes and Gromek cases, which
allege breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 with respect to the 401(k) plan, have
been consolidated into a single proceeding:

   * McDermott v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV170 (N.D. Ohio,
     filed January 24, 2006).

   * Barnett v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV361 (N.D. Ohio,
     filed February 15, 2006).

   * Farrell v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV307 (N.D. Ohio,
     filed February 8, 2006).

   * Forbes v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV324 (N.D. Ohio,
     filed February 10, 2006).

   * Gromek v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV579 (N.D. Ohio,
     filed March 14, 2006).

In May 2009, the Company agreed to settle the 401(k) class action
litigation for $4,500, to be paid out of the Company's insurance
policies. The settlement is subject to approval of the court.


DIEBOLD INC: Securities Class Action Pending in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------
Diebold, Inc., is facing a class action lawsuit in Ohio alleging
violations of securities laws, according to the company's Nov. 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On June 30, 2010, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio alleging violations of the federal securities
laws against the Company, certain current and former officers, and
the Company's independent auditors (Louisiana Police Employees
Retirement System v. KPMG et al., No. 10-CV-1461). The complaint
seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased the Company's stock between June 30, 2005
and January 15, 2008 and fees and expenses related to the lawsuit.
The complaint generally relates to the matters set forth in the
court documents filed by the SEC in June 2010 finalizing the
settlement of civil charges stemming from the investigation of the
Company conducted by the Division of Enforcement of the SEC (SEC
Settlement).


DIEBOLD INC: Mediation is Scheduled for Wage & Hour Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation is now scheduled in a class action lawsuit alleging wage
laws violations against Diebold, Inc., in California, according to
the company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On August 28, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California alleging that a class of all California technicians
employed by the Company who were scheduled to be on standby were:
(a) not paid for all hours that they worked; (b) not paid overtime
compensation at the correct rate of pay; (c) not properly paid for
missed meal and rest breaks and (d) not given correct paycheck
stubs (Francisco v. Diebold, Incorporated, Case No. CV 1889 WQH
WMC). The complaint seeks additional overtime and other
compensation under the California Labor Code, various civil
penalties and attorneys' fees and expenses, and a request for an
injunction for future compliance with the California Labor Code
provisions that were alleged to have been violated. The mediation
is now scheduled.


FACEBOOK INC: Sued in Calif. for Over "Friend Finder" Service
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Facebook uses names and photographs of its users to advertise its
"Friend Finder" service, without the people's knowledge or
consent.

A copy of the Complaint in Cohen, et al. v. Facebook, Inc.,
Case No. 10-cv-05282 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/24/Facebook.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay M. Spillane, Esq.
          Alex M. Weingarten, Esq.
          SPILLANE WEINGARTEN LLP
          Eric B. Carlson, Esq.
          1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 229-9300
          E-mail: jspillane@spillaneweingarten.com
                  ecarlson@spillaneweingarten.com

               - and -

          Marc Primo, Esq.
          Darrel Menthe, Esq.
          Gene Williams, Esq.
          Mark Pifko, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5637
          E-mail: mprimo@initiativelegal.com
                  dmenthe@initiativelegal.com
                  gwilliams@initiativelegal.com
                  mpifko@initiativelegal.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Flonase Antitrust Class Suit Wins Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon P. Duffy, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that a federal judge has certified a class action antitrust suit
against pharmaceuticals giant GlaxoSmithKline that accuses the
company of using a series of illegal tactics to delay the approval
of generic versions of Flonase, a popular allergy drug.

According to the suit, sales of Flonase peaked at $1.3 billion in
2005 -- the last year of GSK's market exclusivity.

But the plaintiffs allege in the suit that cheaper generic
versions of the drug would have come on the market two years
earlier but for GSK's delay tactics.

The suit, American Sales Co. Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, was filed on
behalf of a class of direct purchasers by:

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
          BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA  19087
          Telephone: (610) 822-2210
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: jmeltzer@btkmc.com
                  tziegler@btkmc.com

along with:

          Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
          Edward Notargiacomo, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL & SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 475-1950
          E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
                  ed@hbsslaw.com

It alleges that GSK improperly influenced the Food & Drug
Administration's process for certifying that the generic versions
satisfied its "bioequivalence" requirements, and that GSK
petitioned the FDA to set extremely rigorous bioequivalence
requirements using strict new tests that generic manufacturers
would struggle to satisfy.

GSK also allegedly filed several citizen petitions with the FDA to
oppose generic approvals, forcing the generic manufacturers to
respond.  The suit alleges that the petitions were frivolous and
served only to delay generic approval, rather than to raise
genuine concerns with the applications.

The suit also says GSK filed a monograph with the United States
Pharmacopeia -- an independent compendium of drug standards whose
authority is recognized by reference in federal law -- that was
designed to raise the bar for generic competitors and make it more
difficult, and thereby more costly, to enter the market.

Finally, the suit alleges that GSK supplemented its original
application for approval of Flonase so that the FDA would be
forced to delay approval of generic versions.  Under FDA rules,
the agency must first consider whether to modify the approval of a
brand name drug before it considers whether a generic version is
equivalent.

The suit alleges that GSK hoped that the supplements to its own
application would make generic entry into the market even more
difficult because the supplements contained additional
requirements that the generic manufacturers had not yet
incorporated.

GSK used each of those four tactics, the suit alleges, to
illegally maintain monopoly power in violation of Section 2 of the
Sherman Act.

In its formal answer to the suit, GSK denied all of the
allegations.

Now U.S. District Judge Anita B. Brody has certified a class of
direct purchasers who bought quantities of Flonase during a period
starting in May 2004 and ending when the alleged anti-competitive
effects of GSK's conduct ceased.

Judge Brody found that since the proposed class consists of 33
members in 14 different states, the case easily satisfied the
numerosity requirement of Rule 23.

Typicality was also satisfied, Judge Brody found, because all of
the direct purchasers' claims and GSK's defenses "revolve around
an identical course of conduct," namely GSK's allegedly
monopolistic strategy.

"This strategy was implemented by GSK without reference to
individual purchasers, and resulted in overcharges to all members
of the proposed class," Brody wrote.

"I find that members of the proposed class would complain of
identical misconduct based on the same legal theories, and that
their claims are not subject to any unique defenses," Judge Brody
wrote.

Judge Brody also found that the predominance prong of Rule 23 was
satisfied because the case could be proven with classwide
evidence.

The Section 2 claim, Brody noted, requires proof of GSK's actions
and intent.

"Such proof will necessarily be classwide," Judge Brody found,
because "GSK's actions did not vary with respect to individual
direct purchasers, aside from the price charged."

The alleged delay tactics, Brody said, involved GSK's responses to
pending generic petitions with the FDA and had nothing to do with
GSK's relationships with individual direct purchasers.

"The evidence thus should be identical for all 33 members of the
proposed class," Judge Brody wrote.

Turning to the issue of antitrust impact, Judge Brody found that
the plaintiffs had presented sufficient expert evidence to show
they can prove that the direct purchasers were injured through
overcharges as a result of delayed generic entry into the market.

"Direct purchasers offer evidence showing that immediately after
an approved generic product hits the market, direct wholesale
purchasers change their purchasing behavior and substitute away
from the branded product and towards the cheaper generic product,"
Judge Brody wrote.

"Delayed generic entry into the market necessarily injures those
direct purchasers, because those purchasers are forced to pay for
the more expensive branded drugs," Judge Brody wrote.

A GSK corporate spokesperson did not return calls seeking comment
on the ruling.

The company is represented by:

          Arthur Makadon, Esq.
          Leslie E. John, Esq.
          Stephen J. Kastenberg, Esq.
          Job M. Itzkowitz, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR
          1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
          Telephone: 215-864-8200
          Facsimile: 215-864-9760
          E-mail: makadon@ballardspahr.com
                  john@ballardspahr.com
                  kastenberg@ballardspahr.com
                  itzkowitzj@ballardspahr.com


HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal on Denial of Fees Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of plaintiffs on the denial of their request for
attorneys' fees in a class action lawsuit against Harrah's
Entertainment, Inc., remains pending in the U.S. Courts of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.

On January 9, 2009, S. Blake Murchison and Willis Shaw filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 09-00020-SLR, against
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., and its board of directors, and
Harrah's Operating Company, Inc.

The lawsuit was amended on March 4, 2009, alleging that the bond
exchange offer which closed on Dec. 24, 2008 wrongfully impaired
the rights of bondholders.

The amended complaint alleges, among others, breach of the bond
indentures, violation of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939,
equitable rescission, and liability claims against the members of
the board.  The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class
certification of the lawsuit, declaratory relief that the alleged
violations occurred, unspecified damages to the class, and
attorneys' fees.

On April 30, 2009 the defendants stipulated to the plaintiffs'
request to dismiss the lawsuit, without prejudice, which the court
entered on June 18, 2009.

Plaintiffs requested the court to award it attorneys' fees.  On
March 31, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' request for fees and
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Third Circuit U.S.
Courts of Appeals.

No further updates were reported in the company's November 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


HSBC FINANCE: Discovery in Consolidated Antitrust Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated class action, In re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y., according to HSBC Finance Corp.'s
November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Since June 2005, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC North America, and
HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. and Master Card
Incorporated, were named as defendants in four class actions filed
in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New York, specifically:

   1. Photos Etc. Corp. et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al. (D.
      Conn. No. 3:05-CV-01007 (WWE));

   2. National Association of Convenience Stores, et al. v. Visa
      U.S.A., Inc., et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV 4520 (JG));

   3. Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al.
      (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521 (JG)); and

   4. American Booksellers Ass'n v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al.
      (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-5391 (JG)).

Numerous other complaints containing similar allegations (in which
no HSBC entity is named) were filed across the country against
Visa Inc., MasterCard Incorporated and other banks.

These actions principally allege that the imposition of a no-
surcharge rule by the associations and/or the establishment of the
interchange fee charged for credit card transactions causes the
merchant discount fee paid by retailers to be set at
supracompetitive levels in violation of the Federal antitrust
laws.

These suits have been consolidated and transferred to the Eastern
District of New York.  The consolidated case is: In re Payment
Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation,
MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y.

A consolidated, amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on
April 24, 2006, and a second consolidated amended complaint was
filed on Jan. 29, 2009.

The parties are engaged in discovery and motion practice.


HSBC USA: Credit Card Litigation in New York Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA, Inc., continues to defend certain class actions
challenging imposition of a no-surcharge rule by banks for credit
card transactions, according to the company's November 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Since June 2005, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC
North America and HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. and
MasterCard Incorporated, were named as defendants in four class
actions filed in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New York:
Photos Etc. Corp. et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al. (D. Conn.
No. 3:05-CV-01007 (WWE)); National Association of Convenience
Stores, et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV
4520 (JG)); Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et
al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521 (JG)); and American Booksellers Asps'
v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-5391 (JG)).

Numerous other complaints containing similar allegations (in which
no HSBC entity is named) were filed across the country against
Visa Inc., MasterCard Incorporated and other banks. These actions
principally allege that the imposition of a no-surcharge rule by
the associations and/or the establishment of the interchange fee
charged for credit card transactions causes the merchant discount
fee paid by retailers to be set at supracompetitive levels in
violation of the Federal antitrust laws.

These suits have been consolidated and transferred to the Eastern
District of New York. The consolidated case is: In re Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL
1720, E.D.N.Y. A consolidated, amended complaint was filed by the
plaintiffs on April 24, 2006 and a second consolidated amended
complaint was filed on January 29, 2009. The parties are engaged
in discovery, motion practice and mediation.

The company is unable at this time to quantify the potential
impact from this action, if any.


INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Continues to Defend Investor Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Rectifier Corp. continues to defend itself against a
purported class action lawsuit captioned Hui Zhao v. International
Rectifier Corporation, according to its Nov. 5, 2010 Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.

The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles naming as defendants the
Company and all of its directors purporting to allege claims for
breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of a putative class of
investors based on the theory that the Board breached its
fiduciary duty by rejecting an August 2008 unsolicited, non-
binding proposal by Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., to acquire all
outstanding shares of the Company.

In April 2009, the Court sustained the Company's demurrer to the
amended complaint and ordered the action to be dismissed with
prejudice.

In June 2009, plaintiffs in Zhao filed a notice of appeal from the
final judgment of dismissal.

In March 2010, plaintiffs-appellants filed their opening brief.
Defendants-respondents' brief was filed on June 7, 2010.

On August 12, the Court granted plaintiff-appellants' request for
a 30-day extension of the deadline to file their reply brief to
September 27, 2010, and plaintiff-appellants filed their reply
brief within the extended time set by the Court.


MATRIX SERVICE: Awaits Court Approval of Class Suits Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matrix Service Company, together with its subsidiary, Matrix
Service, Inc., recorded a cumulative charge of $6.1 million to
settle two lawsuits pending in the Superior Court of California,
Los Angeles County, according to the company's November 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

It is awaiting court approval of the settlement.

On Dec. 8, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County alleging that the
company's subsidiary, Matrix Service Inc., and any subsidiary or
affiliated company within the State of California had a consistent
policy of failing to pay overtime wages in violation of California
state wage and hour laws.  Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that
the company was requiring employees to work more than 8 hours per
day and failing to compensate at a rate of time and one-half,
failing to pay double time for all hours worked in excess of
twelve in one day, and not paying all wages due at termination.
The class seeks all unpaid overtime compensation, waiting time
penalties, injunctive and equitable relief and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.  The class included approximately 1,500
current and former employees.

On Sept. 1, 2009, a second class action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of California, Alameda County also alleging that
MSI, and Matrix Service Company failed to comply with California
state wage and hour laws.  The September 2009 Action included
similar allegations to the December 2008 Action but also alleged
that the company did not provide second meal periods for employees
who worked more than 10 hours in a day, third rest periods for
those who worked more than 10 hours in a day, complete and
accurate itemized wage statements, compensation for all
compensable travel time, and did not take bonus payments into
account when calculating the regular rate, leading to incorrect
overtime rates.  The class is seeking all allowable compensation,
penalties for rest and meal periods not provided, restitution and
restoration of sums owed, statutory penalties, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.  The plaintiffs
then amended the September 2009 Action to assert damages under the
Private Attorney General's Act.  The September 2009 Action
increased the class to approximately 2,300 current and former
employees.

The cases have been coordinated in Alameda County.

At the plaintiffs' request, mediation was held on Sept. 7, 2010.
In mediation, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding
awarding the plaintiffs $4.0 million.  The award is in addition to
amounts previously paid to the class members of $1.9 million.

The September Settlement is subject to court approval and resolves
all class member claims included in the December 2008 Action and
the September 2009 Action.  The award will be used to pay the
class member claims, the enhancement award, the cost of
administration, and the class members' attorneys' fees and costs.

As a result of these actions and the related settlement, the
company recorded a cumulative charge of $6.1 million, of which
$5.1 million was recorded in fiscal 2010 and the remaining $1.0
million was recorded in fiscal 2009.  The fiscal 2010 charge
includes an estimate of the cost that will be incurred by the
company for payroll taxes that will be paid in conjunction with
the September Settlement.


MCAFEE INC: Briefing on Dismissal Motion to Conclude Dec. 23
------------------------------------------------------------
Several class action lawsuits were filed against McAfee, Inc., in
California and Delaware courts in connection with the proposed
acquisition of the company by Intel Corporation, according to the
company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

Beginning on Aug. 19, 2010, four putative class action lawsuits
were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara and two putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against,
among others, McAfee, its directors and certain officers.
On Sept. 8, 2010, the Santa Clara Superior Court issued an order
consolidating the lawsuits filed in Santa Clara Superior Court
under the Master File No. 1-10-CV-180413 and deferring
consideration of the issue of appointment of lead counsel.  On
Sept. 20, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Santa Clara Action filed a
purported consolidated class action complaint in Santa Clara
Superior Court under the caption In re McAfee Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Case No. 1-10-CV-180413.

On Sept. 15, 2010, the Delaware Chancery Court issued an order (i)
consolidating the lawsuits filed in Delaware Chancery Court under
the caption In re McAfee, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No.
5752; (ii) appointing co-lead counsel; and (iii) appointing a
Delaware Liaison Counsel for plaintiffs.  The two Delaware actions
are captioned Natalie Gordon v. McAfee, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
5752 (Del. Ch.) (filed Aug. 20, 2010) and Irene Dixon v. McAfee,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5789 (Del. Ch.) filed Sept. 2, 2010.  The
lawsuits purport to have been filed on behalf of all holders of
the company's common stock.  McAfee and its current directors are
defendants in each of these lawsuits.

The Santa Clara Consolidated Complaint and the Delaware Complaints
generally allege that the directors breached their fiduciary
duties by, among other things, engaging in an unfair process to
consummate the proposed acquisition of McAfee by Intel and failing
to maximize stockholder value in negotiating and approving the
definitive agreement related to the Merger.  The complaints also
generally allege that McAfee and Intel -- and in the case of the
Delaware Complaints, Merger Sub -- aided and abetted the
Individual Defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The
complaints seek, among other things, declaratory and injunctive
relief, including the injunction of the merger.  The Delaware
Complaints also seek compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount.

On Sept. 20, 2010, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Delaware
Action informed the Delaware Chancery Court that the Delaware
plaintiffs had reached an agreement with the California plaintiffs
to coordinate the respective litigations and, among other things,
to conduct any expedited proceedings in Santa Clara Superior
Court.  There has been no activity in the Delaware Action since
that date, and the Delaware plaintiffs have informed the company
that they consider the Delaware Action to be temporarily stayed.

In the Santa Clara Action, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
expedited discovery, claiming to need such discovery in order to
file a motion to preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote
regarding the Merger.  The company opposed plaintiffs' motion.
On Oct. 5, 2010, the Santa Clara County Court denied plaintiffs'
motion for expedited discovery.  Beginning on Oct. 18, 2010,
pursuant to an agreement among the parties to the Santa Clara
Action, the company provided the plaintiffs with certain discovery
relating to the Merger.

On Oct. 20, 2010, McAfee and the Individual Defendants filed a
motion, which Intel joined, requesting that the Santa Clara
Consolidated Complaint be dismissed.  Briefing on that motion,
which remains pending, is currently scheduled to conclude on
Dec. 23, 2010.

On Oct. 26, 2010, plaintiffs' counsel in the Santa Clara Action
informed the company that plaintiffs would not seek injunctive
relief prior to the Nov. 2, 2010, stockholder meeting regarding
the Merger, and instead would file an amended complaint seeking to
recover the plaintiff class's alleged damages.

To date, plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint.  The
company intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Claims Process Completed in "Williams" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc., relates that in the third quarter of
2010, claims process was completed in the class action captioned
Shirley Williams et al. v. Mohawk Industries, Inc., according to
the company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

In Shirley Williams et al. v. Mohawk Industries, Inc., four
plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit in January 2004
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia (Rome Division), alleging that they are former and current
employees of the company and that the actions and conduct of the
company, including the employment of persons who are not
authorized to work in the United States, have damaged them and the
other members of the putative class by suppressing the wages of
the company's hourly employees in Georgia.

The plaintiffs sought a variety of relief, including (a) treble
damages; (b) return of any allegedly unlawful profits; and (c)
attorney's fees and costs of litigation.  In April 2010, the
plaintiffs, the company and its insurance carrier agreed to settle
the litigation.  In July 2010, the District Court approved the
settlement.  The company accrued for its portion of the settlement
in a prior year.  The claims process was completed in the third
quarter of 2010.

The Company believes that adequate provisions for resolution of
all contingencies, claims and pending litigation have been made
for probable losses and that the ultimate outcome of these actions
will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition
but could have a material adverse effect on its results of
operations in a given quarter or year.


NOVELL INC: Being Sold to Attachmate for Too Little, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Novell is selling itself too
cheaply through an unfair process to Attachmate, for $2.2 billion
or $6.10 a share, shareholders say in a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Jacobs v. Novell, Inc., et al., Case
No. 10-cv-12035 (D. Mass.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/24/Novell.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter Charles Horstmann, Esq.
          PARTRIDGE, ANKNER & HORSTMANN, LLP
          The Berkeley Building
          200 Berkeley Street, 16th Floor
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 859-9999

               - and -

          Marc M. Umeda, Esq.
          Stephen R. Oddo, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Arshan Amiri, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990

               - and -

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP
          3232 McKinney, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000


PENN NATIONAL: Court Hears Appeal in Shareholders Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals heard on October 26, 2010, the
appeal of shareholders regarding an order dismissing their
complaints against Penn National Gaming, Inc., according to the
company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On July 16, 2008, the Company was served with a purported class
action lawsuit brought by plaintiffs seeking to represent a class
of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's Common Stock
between March 20, 2008 and July 2, 2008.  The lawsuit alleges that
the Company's disclosure practices relative to the proposed
transaction with Fortress Investment Group LLC and Centerbridge
Partners, L.P. and the eventual termination of that transaction
were misleading and deficient in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint, which seeks class
certification and unspecified damages, was filed in federal court
in Maryland.

The complaint was amended, among other things, to add three new
named plaintiffs and to name Peter M. Carlino, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, and William J. Clifford, Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer, as additional defendants.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in November
2008, and the court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint
with prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was
denied on October 21, 2009.  The plaintiffs subsequently appealed
the decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and an oral
argument was heard on October 26, 2010.


POTASH CORP: To Defend BHP-Related Securities Suits in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 6 and 13, 2010, named plaintiffs filed purported class
action complaints in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of themselves and all
other shareholders of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, Inc.,
against the company and each of its directors.

The complaints are substantially similar to the complaint filed on
Sept. 22, 2010, by Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, Inc.,
against BHP Billiton Limited, BHP Billiton Plc, and BHP Billiton
Development 2 (Canada) Limited in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois asserting that BHP has
violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and
misleading information and omitting material information from its
Schedule TO and other BHP Offer documents.  On Oct. 28, 2010,
PotashCorp filed a first amended complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to provide
further factual detail for the claims set forth in the original
complaint.

BHP Billiton Development 2 (Canada) Limited, a wholly owned
indirect subsidiary of BHP Billiton Plc, had commenced an
unsolicited offer to purchase all of PotashCorp's outstanding
common shares.

The class action complaints allege that the company defendants
violated Sections 14(d)(4) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  Among other things, the complaints allege that the
company's Solicitation and Recommendation Statement on Schedule
14D-9 omits or misrepresents material information about the
company's Shareholder Rights Plan, the analysis of the BHP Offer,
strategic alternatives and the analysis of the company's financial
advisors.  The complaints also allege that the company defendants
violated Section 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act in
connection with their consideration of the BHP Offer and the
adoption of the Shareholder Rights Plan.  The complaints seek
declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order declaring
the Shareholder Rights Plan invalid and of no force and effect.

The company believes the plaintiffs' allegations lack merit and
intends to contest them vigorously, according to Potash
Corporation of Saskatchewan, Inc.'s November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.


RINO INT'L: Jan. 14 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Wednesday disclosed that all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
RINO International Corporation between November 13, 2009, and
November 12, 2010, inclusive, have until January 14, 2011, to move
the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the securities fraud class
action lawsuit.  The case filed by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP,
Baig v. RINO International Corporation, et al., No. 10-1754-CJC,
has been assigned to the Honorable Cormac J. Carney, United States
District Judge for the Central District of California.

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 to
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.  RINO,
through its subsidiaries, operates as an environmental protection
and remediation company in the People's Republic of China.  The
Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1)
that certain customers did not purchase flue gas desulfurization
systems as the Company had previously claimed; (2) that the
Company's financial results reported to China's State
Administration of Industry and Commerce were substantially less
than the financial results the Company reported to the public and
contained in the financial statements RINO filed with the SEC; (3)
that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls;
and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial results were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On November 19, 2010, the Company filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission a Current Report on Form 8-K stating that
on November 18, 2010 the Board of Directors of RINO concluded that
the Company's previously issued audited financial statements for
its fiscal years ended December 31, 2008 and 2009, which were
included in the Company's Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the
fiscal years ended December 31, 2008 and 2009, and its previously
issued interim unaudited financial statements which were included
in RINO's Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the periods ended
March 31, 2008 to September 30, 2009 should no longer be relied
on.  The Board also concluded that previously issued interim
unaudited financial statements for the periods March 31, 2010,
June 30, 2010 and September 30, 2010 should no longer be relied on
inasmuch as such financial statements incorporate results from
2008 and 2009.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 requires the
Court to appoint a "Lead Plaintiff" in this case.  Any person or
group who suffered a loss as a result of purchasing RINO
securities during the Class Period may ask the Court to be
appointed as Lead Plaintiff, but must file a motion no later than
the January 14, 2011 deadline.

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP is a law firm with significant
experience in prosecuting class actions, substantial expertise in
actions involving corporate fraud, and is representing RINO
shareholders in this litigation.

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, Toll
Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or
visit our Web site at http://www.glancylaw.com/


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Continues to Defend Four Hawaii Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., remains a defendant in four
lawsuits pending in Hawaii, according to the company's November 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Four lawsuits have been filed against the Company in the Hawaii
First Circuit Court:

   Hawaii Case 1 -- Alvarez v. Haseko Homes, Inc. and Simpson
                    Manufacturing, Inc., Civil No. 09-1-2697-11;

   Hawaii Case 2 -- Ke Noho Kai Development, LLC v. Simpson
                    Strong-Tie Company, Inc., and Honolulu Wood
                    Treating Co., LTD., Hawaii Case
                    No. 09-1-1491-06 SSM;

   Hawaii Case 3 -- North American Specialty Ins. Co. v. Simpson
                    Strong-Tie Company, Inc. and K.C. Metal
                    Products, Inc., Case No. 09-1-1490-06 VSM; and

   Hawaii Case 4 -- Charles et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc. et al.
                    and Third Party Plaintiffs Haseko Homes, Inc.
                    et al. v Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et
                    al., Civil No. 09-1-1932-08.

Hawaii Case 1 was filed on November 18, 2009.  Hawaii Cases 2 and
3 were originally filed on June 30, 2009.  Hawaii Case 4 was filed
on August 19, 2009.

The Hawaii Cases all relate to alleged premature corrosion of the
Company's strap tie holdown products installed in buildings in a
housing development known as Ocean Pointe in Honolulu, Hawaii,
allegedly causing property damage.  Hawaii Case 1 is a putative
class action brought by the owners of allegedly affected Ocean
Pointe houses.  Hawaii Case 1 was originally filed as Kai et al.
v. Haseko Homes, Inc., Haseko Construction, Inc. and Simpson
Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. 09-1-1476, but was voluntarily
dismissed and then re-filed with a new representative plaintiff.

Hawaii Case 2 is an action by the builders and developers of Ocean
Pointe against the Company, claiming that either the Company's
strap tie holdowns are defective in design or manufacture or the
Company failed to provide adequate warnings regarding the
products' susceptibility to corrosion in certain environments.

Hawaii Case 3 is a subrogation action brought by the insurance
company for the builders and developers against the Company
claiming the insurance company expended funds to correct problems
allegedly caused by the Company's products.

Hawaii Case 4, like Hawaii Case 1, is a putative class action
brought by owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe homes.  In
Hawaii Case 4, Haseko Homes, Inc., the developer of the Ocean
Pointe development, has brought a third party complaint against
the Company alleging that any damages for which Haseko may be
liable are actually the fault of the Company.

None of the Hawaii Cases alleges a specific amount of damages
sought, although each of the Hawaii Cases seeks compensatory
damages, and Hawaii Case 1 seeks punitive damages.  The Company is
currently investigating the facts underlying the claims asserted
in the Hawaii Cases, including, among other things, the cause of
the alleged corrosion; the severity of any problems shown to
exist; the buildings affected; the responsibility of the general
contractor, various subcontractors and other construction
professionals for the alleged damages; the amount, if any, of
damages suffered; and the costs of repair, if needed.

At this time, the Company said the likelihood that it will be
found liable for any property damage allegedly suffered and the
extent of such liability, if any, are unknown.  Based on facts
currently known to the Company, the Company believes that all or
part of the claims alleged in the Hawaii Cases may be covered by
its insurance policies.  The Company intends to defend itself
vigorously in connection with the Hawaii Cases.


SOUTHLAND TUBE: Sued for Discriminating Against Black Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Southland Tube discriminates against black employees.

A copy of the Complaint in Bryant, et al. v. Southland Tube, Inc.,
Case No. 10-cv-03215 (N.D. Ala.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/24/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roderick T. Cooks, Esq.
          Lee Winston, Esq.
          WINSTON COOKS, LLC
          Two-20th Street North, Suite 1330
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 502-0970
          E-mail: rcooks@winstoncooks.com

               - and -

          Mintrel Martin, Esq.
          THE MARTIN LAW FIRM, LLC
          Wells Fargo Bldg.
          420 20th Street North, Suite 2560
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 801-6051


STANDARD PACIFIC: Continues Defense in "Chinese Drywall" Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Pacific Corporation continues to defend itself against
certain homeowners that have filed lawsuits seeking property and
bodily injury damages in connection with certain drywall
manufactured in China that was installed in their homes by the
company's subcontractors, according to the company's November 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Like many other homebuilders, the company has learned that some of
its subcontractors installed drywall manufactured in China in
company constructed homes.  Reports have indicated that certain
Chinese drywall, thought to be delivered to the United States
primarily during 2005 and 2006, may emit various sulfur-based
gases that, among other things, have the potential to corrode non-
ferrous metals (copper, silver, etc.).

The company has conducted an internal review in an attempt to
determine how many of the homes that it constructed may be
impacted.  To date, it appears that a subset of homes with drywall
dates from February 2006 through February 2007 in five of the
company's Florida communities contain some high-sulfur Chinese
drywall.  The company has inspected all but about 12 of the homes
that it believes are likely to be impacted in these communities
based on their location and drywall installation dates.

Approximately 166 have been confirmed, including 14 company owned
homes, and the company is still seeking access to the 12 remaining
homes to complete its investigation.  The company has also
received complaints from two other homeowners outside of these
five communities, who have thus far refused to let the company
inspect their homes.

If the company were to locate high sulfur drywall outside of these
communities or drywall installation dates, it would broaden the
scope of its investigation.  The company has notified homeowners
of the results of its inspections, and has offered to make
comprehensive repairs, including removing and replacing all
drywall and wiring.

The company has entered into approximately 100 settlement
agreements to repair homes that it sold, and has commenced the
repair process on at least 100 homes, including those owned by the
company.  The company intends to continue to negotiate additional
settlements as it makes repairs and will work through the group as
quickly and efficiently as possible.

Although the company is encouraging homeowners to allow it to make
repairs rather than engaging in litigation, approximately 70
homeowners have joined a federal class action lawsuit or filed
suit in state court, seeking property and, in some cases, bodily
injury damages.  Over 20 of these already have agreed to allow the
company to make repairs.  The company plans to vigorously defend
litigation involving Chinese drywall, while seeking to make
repairs wherever possible.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Securities Suit Dismissal Hearing Set for 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on a motion filed by Sterling Financial Corporation to
dismiss a consolidated class action complaint is currently
scheduled for January 26, 2011, according to the company's
November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On December 11, 2009, a putative securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington against Sterling and certain of its current and former
officers.  The Court appointed a lead plaintiff on March 8, 2010.
On June 18, 2010, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-
5 by making false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's business and financial results.  The complaint alleges
that defendants failed to disclose the extent of Sterling's
delinquent construction loans, properly record losses for impaired
loans, and properly reserve for loan losses.  The complaint seeks,
on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
during the period from July 23, 2008, to October 15, 2009, damages
of an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the complaint.  A
hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled for
January 26, 2011.  The Company related that failure to obtain a
favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the complaint
could have a material adverse effect on its business, results of
operations and financial condition.  Currently, the amount of such
material adverse effect cannot be reasonably estimated, the
Company said.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend ERISA Suit in Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Financial Corporation remains a defendant in a lawsuit
alleging ERISA violations, according to the company's November 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On January 20 and 22, 2010, two putative class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington against Sterling Financial Corporation and
Sterling Savings Bank, as well as certain of Sterling's current
and former officers and directors.  The two complaints were merged
in a Consolidated Amended Complaint filed on July 16, 2010, in the
same court.  The Complaint does not name all of individuals named
in the prior complaints, but it is expected that additional
defendants will be added.  The Complaint alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties under sections 404 and
405 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended, with respect to the Sterling Savings Bank Employee
Savings and Investment Plan and the FirstBank Northwest Employee
Stock Ownership Plan.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that
the defendants breached their duties by investing assets of the
Plans in Sterling's securities when it was imprudent to do so, and
by investing such assets in Sterling securities when defendants
knew or should have known that the price of those securities was
inflated due to misrepresentations and omissions about Sterling's
business practices.  The business practices at issue include
alleged over-reliance on risky construction loans; alleged
inadequate loan reserves; alleged spiking increases in
nonperforming assets, nonperforming loans, classified assets, and
90+-day delinquent loans; alleged inadequate accounting for rising
loan payment shortfalls; alleged unsafe and unsound banking
practices; and a capital base that was allegedly inadequate to
withstand the significant deterioration in the real estate
markets.

The putative class periods are October 22, 2007 to the present for
the 401(k) Plan class, and October 22, 2007 to November 14, 2008
for the ESOP class.  The Complaint seeks damages of an unspecified
amount and attorneys' fees and costs.  Failure by Sterling to
obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the
Complaint could have a material adverse effect on Sterling's
business, results of operations, and financial condition.
Currently, the amount of such material adverse effect cannot be
reasonably estimated, the Company said.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Derivative Suit Dismissal Hearing Set for 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the motion filed by Sterling Financial Corporation
seeking dismissal of a derivative class action litigation pending
in Washington is currently scheduled for January 14, 2011,
according to the company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On February 10, 2010, a shareholder derivative action was filed in
the Superior Court for Spokane County, Washington, allegedly on
behalf of and for the benefit of Sterling, against certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors.  On August 2,
2010, an amended complaint was filed alleging, among other claims,
breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust
enrichment.  The amended complaint names Sterling as a nominal
defendant.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages, restitution,
disgorgement of profits, equitable and injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.  The complaint alleges that
the individual defendants failed to prevent Sterling from issuing
improper financial statements, maintain a sufficient allowance for
loan and lease losses, and establish effective credit risk
management and oversight mechanisms regarding Sterling's
construction loans, losses and reserves recorded for impaired
loans, and accounting for goodwill and deferred tax assets.

On September 13, 2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the complaint.  A
hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled for
January 14, 2011.  Because the complaint is derivative in nature,
it does not seek monetary damages from Sterling.  However,
Sterling may be required throughout the pendency of the action to
advance the legal fees and costs incurred by the individual
defendants and to incur other financial obligations, which could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations and financial condition.  Currently, the amount of
such material adverse effect cannot be reasonably estimated, the
Company said.


STUDENT LOAN: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Lawsuit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Student Loan Corporation is named as defendant in a consolidated
putative class action lawsuit filed in Delaware by certain of its
shareholders, according to the company's November 5, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On September 20, 2010, the Company, its directors, CBNA and
Citigroup were named as defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, purportedly
brought on behalf of the public common stockholders of the Company
to enjoin the Sallie Mae transaction, the Discover merger and the
CBNA transaction.  This action is entitled Kahn v. The Student
Loan Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 5832-VCL (Del. Ch.).

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual
defendants and CBNA breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
maximize the value to be received by the company's stockholders
and that Citigroup aided and abetted the other defendants'
breaches of fiduciary duties.  The complaint seeks, among other
things, declaration of the action as a properly maintainable class
action, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the
consummation of the expected transactions by the defendants,
compensatory damages and costs and disbursements.

On September 24, 2010, the Company, its directors, CBNA and
Citigroup were named as defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, purportedly
brought on behalf of the public common stockholders of the Company
to enjoin the Sallie Mae transaction, the Discover merger and the
CBNA transaction.  This action is entitled Electrical Workers
Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. Atal, et al., C.A. No. 5849-
VCL.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual
defendants, CBNA and Citigroup breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to maximize the value to be received by the Company's
stockholders and by failing to make sufficient disclosures to the
public regarding the transactions.  The complaint seeks, among
other things, declaration of the action as a properly maintainable
class action, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against
the consummation of the expected transactions by the defendants,
compensatory damages and costs and disbursements.

On October 18, 2010, the plaintiffs in the two pending Delaware
actions filed a verified consolidated amended class action and
derivative complaint against the Company's directors, Citigroup
and CBNA.  The complaint alleges that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize the value
to be received by the Company's stockholders and by failing to
make sufficient disclosures to the public regarding the expected
transactions announced in the preliminary proxy statement and that
Citigroup and CBNA breached their fiduciary duties as purported
controlling shareholders of the Company.  This action is now
entitled In re The Student Loan Corporation Litigation, Consol.
C.A. No. 5832-VCL (Del. Ch.).  The plaintiffs in the consolidated
Delaware action seek the same relief as requested in the earlier
filed Delaware complaints.

On November 1, 2010, the Company, the Company's directors,
Citigroup and CBNA filed an answer to the verified consolidated
amended class action and derivative complaint.


STUDENT LOAN: Faces "Zengel" Stockholder Suit in Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------------
Student Loan Corporation is facing a stockholder lawsuit in
Connecticut entitled Zengel v. The Student Loan Corporation, et
al., according to the company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.

On September 23, 2010, the Company, its directors, Discover
Financial Services and Citigroup were named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the
State of Connecticut, purportedly brought on behalf of the public
common stockholders of the Company to enjoin the Sallie Mae
transaction, the Discover merger and the CBNA transaction.  This
action is entitled Zengel v. The Student Loan Corporation, et al.,
Docket No.: FST-CV10-6006764-S (Conn. Sup. Ct.).

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual
defendants and the Company breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to maximize the value to be received by the Company's
stockholders and that Discover Financial Services and Citigroup
aided and abetted the other defendants' breaches of fiduciary
duties.  The complaint seeks, among other things, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief against the consummation of the
expected transactions and an order holding the defendants jointly
and severally accountable for damages and costs and disbursements.

On October 15, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Connecticut action
filed a first amended class action complaint in the Superior Court
of the State of Connecticut against the same defendants named in
their original complaint alleging, among other things, that the
individual defendants and the Company breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to maximize the value to be received by the
Company's stockholders and by failing to make sufficient
disclosures to the public regarding the expected transactions
announced in its preliminary proxy statement.  The first amended
class action complaint further alleges, among other things, that
Discover Financial Services and Citigroup aided and abetted the
other defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties.  The plaintiffs in
this action seek the same relief as requested in their original
complaint.


STUDENT LOAN: Court Closes "Stockholders" Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery closed a lawsuit filed by certain
Student Loan Corporation shareholders, according to the company's
November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On October 6, 2010, the Company, its directors, CBNA, Citigroup,
Discover Financial Services, Discover Bank and Academy Acquisition
Corp. were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, purportedly brought on
behalf of the public common stockholders of the Company to enjoin
the Sallie Mae transaction, the Discover merger and the CBNA
transaction.  This action is entitled Electrical Workers Pension
Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. The Student Loan Corporation, et al.,
C.A. 5875- (Del. Ch.).

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the individual
defendants, CBNA and Citigroup breached their fiduciary duties of
good faith, loyalty and due care by seeking to effectuate a self-
dealing transaction in which the Company's stockholders will be
cashed out and will not receive fair consideration for their
shares.  The complaint further alleged that Discover Financial
Services, Discover Bank and Academy Acquisition Corp. aided and
abetted the individual defendants, CBNA and Citigroup in breaching
their fiduciary duties by entering into the Discover Merger
Agreement.

The complaint seeks, among other things, declaration of the action
as a properly maintainable class action, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief against the consummation of the expected
transactions by the defendants, and reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees and costs.

On October 7, 2010, the plaintiff in this case filed a Notice and
Proposed Order of Dismissal.  This case is closed.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Final Hearing on Calif. Suit Settlement on Dec. 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California court will consider on December 23, 2010, final
approval of a settlement in class actions alleging that Toyota
Motor Credit Corporation's post-repossession notice failed to
comply with California law, according to the company's November 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

A cross-complaint alleging a class action in the Superior Court of
California Stanislaus County, Garcia v. Toyota Motor Credit
Corporation, filed in August 2007, claims that the company's post-
repossession notice failed to comply with the Rees-Levering
Automobile Sales Finance Act of California.  Three additional
putative class action complaints or cross-complaints were filed
making similar allegations.

The cases were coordinated in the California Superior Court,
Stanislaus County and a Second Amended Consolidated Cross-
Complaint and Complaint was subsequently filed in March 2009.  The
Second Amended Consolidated Cross-Complaint and Complaint seeks
injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement and other equitable
relief under California's Unfair Competition Law.

As a result of mediation in January 2010, the parties agreed to
settle all of the cases.  A fourth case was recently filed which
has been included in the settlement.  The proposed settlement, for
which the company has adequately accrued, is subject to final
court approval.  Preliminary approval was granted by the Court by
order dated September 2, 2010.

The hearing on final approval is currently set for December 23,
2010.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Continues to Defend Recall-Related Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation remains a defendant in class
action lawsuits seeking damages as a result of alleged sudden
unintended acceleration in certain Toyota and Lexus vehicles,
according to the company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

The company and certain affiliates were named as defendants in the
consolidated multidistrict litigation, In Re: Toyota Motor Corp.
Unintended Acceleration, Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation (United States District Court, Central
District of California) seeking damages and injunctive relief as a
result of alleged sudden unintended acceleration in certain Toyota
and Lexus vehicles.

A parallel action was filed against the company and certain
affiliates on March 12, 2010 by the Orange County District
Attorney.  On August 2, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint in the multidistrict litigation that does not name the
company.  In addition, the court has permitted alleged classes of
foreign plaintiffs to file complaints naming the company and
related entities as defendants.  The company also remains a
defendant in the state court action filed by the Orange County
District Attorney.

The company believes it has meritorious defenses to all of the
above claims and intend to defend against them vigorously.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Bondholder Suit in California Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation continues to defend a putative
class action filed by a bondholder due to the company's alleged
violations of California securities laws, according to the
company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

The company and certain affiliates had been named as defendants in
a putative bondholder class action, Harel Pia Mutual Fund v.
Toyota Motor Corp., et al., filed in the Central District of
California on April 8, 2010, alleging violations of federal
securities laws.  The plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of the
lawsuit on July 20, 2010.

On July 22, 2010, the same plaintiff in the federal bondholder
action refiled the case in California state court on behalf of
purchasers of the company's bonds traded on foreign exchanges
(Harel Pia Mutual Fund v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al., Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles).  The complaint
alleges violations of California securities laws, fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty and other state law claims.

On September 15, 2010, the defendants removed the state court
action to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California pursuant to the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act and the Class Action Fairness Act.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 15, 2010.

The company believes it has meritorious defenses to all of the
above claims and intend to defend against them vigorously.


TRUSTMARK CORP: Motion to Dismiss Fraudulent Transfer Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation's wholly-owned subsidiary, Trustmark
National Bank (TNB), has been named as a defendant in a purported
class action complaint.

The lawsuit was filed on August 23, 2009 in the District Court of
Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott,
Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein
and Juan C. Olano, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, naming TNB and four other financial
institutions unaffiliated with the Company as defendants.

The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent transfers
from each of the defendants in the amount of fees received by each
defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen Stanford and (ii)
damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or
more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit
fraud and/or aid and abet fraud arising from the facts set forth
in pending federal criminal indictments and civil complaints
against Mr. Stanford, other individuals and the Stanford Financial
Group. Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.

In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.

In May 2010, all defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's Nov. 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Settlement in Employees Lawsuit Pending Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2008, Universal Health Services, Inc., and one of its
acute care facilities, Lancaster Community Hospital, were named as
defendants in a wage and hour lawsuit in Los Angeles County
Superior Court.

The lawsuit is a purported class action lawsuit alleging that the
hospital failed to provide sufficient meal and break periods to
certain employees.

In June 2010, a settlement was reached with the attorneys for the
class representative for an amount that will not materially affect
the company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations.

The settlement is subject to court approval which has not yet
occurred, according to the Company's Nov. 5, 2010 Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.


VALEANT PHARMA: Settles Delaware Suits Over Biovail Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International settled three purported
class action complaints in Delaware in connection with its planned
merger with Biovail Corp., according to the company's November 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On June 20, 2010, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Biovail, Biovail Americas Corp. and Beach Merger
Corp. (Merger Sub).  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub
will merge with and into Valeant with Valeant continuing as the
surviving corporation. On the date of the closing of the merger,
Biovail will change its name to Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc.

On July 16, 2010, a stockholder of the company filed a purported
class action complaint in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware captioned Porto v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
et al., Case No. 5644, on behalf of himself and all other
stockholders of the company against the company, the company's
directors, Biovail, BAC and Merger Sub.

On July 21, 2010, a stockholder of the company filed a purported
class action complaint in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware captioned Marion v. Pearson, et al., Case No. 5658, on
behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the company
against the company and its directors.

On July 22, 2010, a stockholder of the company filed a purported
class action complaint in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware captioned Soukup v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, et al., Case No. 5664, on behalf of himself and all
other stockholders of the company against the company, the
company's directors, Biovail, BAC and Merger Sub.

The complaints variously allege that the individual defendants,
aided and abetted by the Company, Biovail, BAC and Merger Sub,
breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, candor, good
faith and independence to stockholders in connection with the
proposed merger of the company with Biovail.

On July 28, 2010, the plaintiff in the Porto Action filed a motion
for a preliminary injunction and a motion for expedited
proceedings.

On Aug. 2, 2010, the Court of Chancery granted an order
consolidating the Porto, Soukup and Marion Actions into a single
action.  On Aug. 3, 2010, the Court of Chancery conditionally
certified the Delaware Action as a class action.  On Aug. 4, 2010,
the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action filed a Verified
Consolidated Class Action Complaint on behalf of the holders of
the common stock of the Company against the Company, its
directors, BAC and Merger Sub.

The Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Company's directors,
aided and abetted by BAC and Merger Sub, breached their fiduciary
duties of care, loyalty, candor and good faith to the Company
stockholders in connection with the proposed Merger of Valeant
with Biovail.

On Sept. 16, 2010, the parties to the Delaware Action executed a
Memorandum of Understanding containing the terms for the parties'
agreement in principle to resolve the Delaware Action.  In
exchange for Valeant and Biovail's supplemental disclosures in the
definitive proxy statement disseminated to all holders of record
of the Company's stock as of the close of business on Aug. 18,
2010 and additional disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on Sept. 20, 2010, and subject to court
approval, plaintiffs' counsel agreed, on behalf of the class, to,
among other things, the dismissal of all claims asserted in the
Delaware Action and a release of claims related to the Merger on
behalf of the putative class of the Company's stockholders.

The MOU further provides that the plaintiffs' counsel will
petition the Court for an award of fees and expenses in the amount
of $420,000.  The defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing.
A settlement agreement will be executed and a settlement approval
hearing will take place on a date to be assigned by the Court.


VALEANT PHARMA: Calif. Court Dismisses Suits on Biovail Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California court dismissed a consolidated class action filed
against Valeant Pharmaceuticals International in connection with
its planned merger with Biovail Corp., according to the company's
November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On June 20, 2010, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Biovail, Biovail Americas Corp. and Beach Merger
Corp. (Merger Sub).  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub
will merge with and into Valeant with Valeant continuing as the
surviving corporation. On the date of the closing of the merger,
Biovail will change its name to Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc.

On June 22, 2010, a stockholder of the company filed a purported
class action complaint in Superior Court for Orange County,
California captioned Deckter v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, et al., Case No. 30-2010-383335-CU-BT-CXC, on
behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the company
against the company and eight of its directors.

On July 1, 2010, a stockholder of the Company filed a purported
class action complaint in Superior Court for Orange County,
California captioned Pronko v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, et al., Case No. 30-2010-386784-CU-SL-CXC, on
behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the company
against the company and its directors.

On July 13, 2010, a stockholder of the company filed a purported
class action complaint in Superior Court for Orange County,
California captioned Martino v. Pearson, et al., Case No. 30-2010-
389330-CU-SL-CXC, on behalf of herself and all other stockholders
of the company against the company and its directors.

On July 14, 2010, a stockholder of the Company filed a purported
class action complaint in Superior Court for Orange County,
California captioned Haro v. Pearson, et al., Case No. 30-2010-
389773-CU-BT-CXC, on behalf of himself and all other stockholders
of the company against the company, certain officers and directors
of the company, Biovail, Biovail Americas Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Biovail, and Beach Merger Corp., a newly formed
wholly owned subsidiary of BAC.

The complaints variously allege that the individual defendants,
aided and abetted by the company, Biovail, BAC and Merger Sub,
breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, candor, good
faith and independence to stockholders in connection with the
proposed merger of the company with Biovail.

Among other things, the complaints allege that the merger
agreement fixes a price per share that is inadequate and unfair,
and effectively caps the value of the company's stock and
precludes competitive bidding through measures such as a
termination fee, a requirement that any prior or ongoing
discussions with other potential suitors be discontinued, non-
solicitation and notification covenants, and granting Biovail the
right to match any unsolicited proposal.

The complaints also allege that the individual defendants are
using the proposed merger to aggrandize their own financial
position at the expense of the company's stockholders and have
ignored purported conflicts of interests.  The complaints seek
various forms of relief, including rescissory damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief, including enjoining or
rescinding the merger to the extent already implemented and
requiring the defendants to effect a transaction which is in the
best interests of the company's stockholders.

The California Court consolidated the Deckter Action, the Pronko
Action, the Martino Action and the Haro Action in a single action.

On Oct. 12, 2010, the California Action was dismissed without
prejudice.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and certain of its subsidiaries, is
awaiting final approval of its settlement agreement in a
consolidated lawsuit alleging improper or fraudulent reporting
practices related to the reporting of average wholesale prices of
certain products, according to the company's November 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Beginning in July 2002, the company and certain of its
subsidiaries, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies,
were named defendants in various state and federal court actions
alleging improper or fraudulent reporting practices related to the
reporting of average wholesale prices and wholesale acquisition
costs of certain products, and that the defendants committed other
improper acts in order to increase prices and market shares.

Some of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, under the caption, "In
re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation,
MDL Docket No. 1456."

The consolidated amended class-action complaint in this case
alleges that the defendants' acts improperly inflated the
reimbursement amounts paid by various public and private plans and
programs.

The amended complaint alleges claims on behalf of a purported
class of plaintiffs that paid any portion of the price of certain
drugs, which price was calculated based on its average wholesale
price, or contracted with a pharmacy benefit manager to provide
others with such drugs.

The company filed an answer to the amended consolidated class
action complaint on April 9, 2004.  The defendants in the
consolidated suit have been divided into two groups.

The company and its named subsidiaries are contained in a large
group of defendants that is currently awaiting a ruling on the
plaintiffs' request for certification of classes of plaintiffs to
maintain a class-action against the drug company defendants.

Certain other defendants, referred to as the "Track One"
defendants, have proceeded on a more expedited basis.  Classes
were certified against these defendants, a trial has been
completed with respect to some of the claims against this group of
defendants, the presiding judge has issued a ruling granting
judgment to the plaintiffs, that judgment is being appealed, and
many of the claims have been settled.

The Track Two Defendants, including the company, have entered into
a settlement agreement resolving all claims of the Track Two
Defendants in the Consolidated Class Action.  The total amount of
the settlement for all of the Track Two Defendants is $125
million.

On July 2, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts preliminarily approved the Track Two settlement.
The amount to be paid by each Track Two Defendant is confidential.

On April 27, 2009, the Court held a hearing to further consider
the fairness of the proposed Track Two settlement.  The Court
adjourned the hearing without ruling on the fairness of the
proposed settlement until additional notices are provided to
certain of the class members in the action.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Unit Continues to Defend Medical West Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and its subsidiary, Anda Inc.,
continue to defend against a class action pending in Missouri
filed by Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, Ltd., according to the
company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

In January 2008, Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, filed a
purported class action complaint against the Company alleging
conversion and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.  The case is entitled Medical West Ballas Pharmacy,
LTD, et al. v. Anda, Inc., (Circuit Court of the County of St.
Louis, State of Missouri, Case No. 08SL-CC00257).

In April 2008, plaintiff filed an amended complaint substituting
Anda, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, as the defendant.  The
amended complaint alleges that by sending unsolicited facsimile
advertisements, Anda misappropriated the class members' paper,
toner, ink and employee time when they received the alleged
unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged unsolicited facsimile
advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in violation of the TCPA
and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The complaint seeks to assert class action claims on behalf of the
plaintiff and other similarly situated third parties.  In April
2008, Anda filed an answer to the amended complaint, denying the
allegations.

In November 2009, the court granted plaintiff's motion to expand
the class of plaintiffs from individuals for which Anda lacked
evidence of express permission or an established business
relationship to "All persons who on or after four years prior to
the filing of this action, were sent telephone facsimile messages
advertising pharmaceutical drugs and products by or on behalf of
Defendant."

In October 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint to further expand the definition and
scope of the proposed class of plaintiffs.

No trial date has been set.  Anda intends to defend the action
vigorously.


WILMINGTON TRUST: Investors Sue Over Q3 Losses, M&T Bank Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP disclosed that a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of  Delaware on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Wilmington Trust Corporation (NYSE: WL), who
purchased or otherwise acquired Wilmington Trust securities
between April 18, 2008 and October 29, 2010, inclusive, including
purchasers of the securities issued pursuant or traceable to the
Company's public offering on or about February 23, 2010.

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 Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) toll
free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at
info@btkmc.com

The Complaint charges Wilmington Trust and certain of its
officers, directors, executives and underwriters with violations
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Wilmington Trust is a financial services holding company that
provides regional banking services throughout the mid-Atlantic
region, wealth advisory services to high-net-worth clients in 36
countries, and corporate client services to institutional clients
in 89 countries.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them: (1) that Wilmington Trust was failing to take timely,
adequate and required impairments and accounting write-downs,
particularly in its construction-loan portfolio; (2) that as a
result, Wilmington Trust's financial statements materially
overstated the Company's assets; (3) that the Company's financial
statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles; (4) that the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial statements and public
statements regarding the Company's financial results were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 1, 2010, Wilmington Trust stunned investors when it
issued two related press releases.  First, Wilmington Trust
announced dismal results for the third quarter of 2010, reporting
a loss of $365.3 million.  The Company stated that a primary cause
for the loss was continued deterioration in the Company's loan
portfolio, reflecting the extent of the Company's exposure to real
estate construction lending concentrated in Delaware.  Wilmington
Trust further stated that it had "little assurance" that its loan
portfolio would strengthen significantly in the near term, or that
the Company's capital position would not erode further.  Second,
Wilmington Trust announced that it would merge with M&T Bank
Corporation, with the two companies having signed a definitive
merger agreement.  Under the terms of the merger agreement,
Wilmington Trust common shareholders would receive 0.051372 shares
of M&T common stock in exchange for each share of Wilmington Trust
common stock.  Most shockingly, the transaction was valued at
$3.84 per Wilmington Trust share, representing 1.0x tangible book
value as of September 30, 2010.  The prior trading day, October
29, 2010, Wilmington Trust stock had closed at $7.11 per share, an
amount Wilmington Trust shareholders were led to believe
represented the true value of the Company.

Upon the release of this news, shares of the Company's stock fell
$2.90 per share, or 40.79 percent, to close on November 1, 2010 at
$4.21 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal
courts throughout the country.  Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and
has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.

For more information about Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check,
or for additional information about participating in this action,
please visit http://www.btkmc.com/

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not
later than January 18, 2011, move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the class, if you so choose.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to
share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the
purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

CONTACT: Darren J. Check, Esq.
         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
         E-mail: info@btkmc.com


XL GROUP: Seeks to Dismiss MDL Action in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------
XL Group Ltd. and two of its subsidiaries' motions to dismiss
remanded federal claims and state-law claims in a consolidated
multidistrict litigation in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey remain pending, according to XL Group
plc's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In August 2005, plaintiffs in a proposed class action that was
consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned In re
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663, Civil Action No. 04-
5184, filed a consolidated amended complaint, which named as new
defendants approximately 30 entities, including Greenwich
Insurance Company, Indian Harbor Insurance Company and XL Group
Ltd.

In the MDL, the Class Action plaintiffs asserted various claims
purportedly on behalf of a class of commercial insureds against
approximately 113 insurance companies and insurance brokers
through which the named plaintiffs allegedly purchased insurance.

The Amended Complaint alleged that the defendant insurance
companies and insurance brokers conspired to manipulate bidding
practices for insurance policies in certain insurance lines and
failed to disclose certain commission arrangements and asserted
statutory claims under the Sherman Act, various state antitrust
laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
as well as common law claims alleging breach of fiduciary duty,
aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment.

By Opinion and Order dated Aug. 31, 2007, the Court dismissed the
Sherman Act claims with prejudice and, by Opinion and Order dated
Sept. 28, 2007, the Court dismissed the RICO claims with
prejudice.

The plaintiffs then appealed both Orders to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

On Aug. 16, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed in large part the
District Court's dismissal.  The Third Circuit reversed the
dismissal of certain Sherman Act and RICO claims alleged against
several defendants including XL-Cayman and two of its subsidiaries
but remanded those claims to the District Court for further
consideration of their adequacy.

In light of its reversal and remand of certain of the federal
claims, the Third Circuit also reversed the District Court's
dismissal (based on the District Court's declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction) of the state-law claims against all
defendants.

On Oct. 1, 2010, the remaining defendants, including XL-Cayman and
two of its subsidiaries, filed motions to dismiss the remanded
federal claims and the state-law claims.  It is expected that
briefing on the motions will be completed in November 2010.


* MALTA: Parliament to Tackle Class Action Legislation by 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nestor Laiviera, writing for MaltaToday, reports draft legislation
allowing initiation of class action law suits is in the pipeline
and expected to be discussed in Parliament by 2011.

The draft legislation was originally mentioned in passing by
Parliamentary Secretary Chris Said during a press conferencing on
November 22, launching a bill for the establishment of a long-
awaited Malta Competition and Consumer Authority.

A spokesperson for the Parliamentary Secretariat for Consumers,
Fair Competition, Local Councils and Public Dialogue confirmed
that work on the class action draft "has been initiated."

"Once the first draft of the law is ready, it will be sent for
consultation with all stakeholders including constituted bodies,
social partners, the Consumers' Association etc," the spokesperson
said.

"Normal procedure requests that the draft is presented at MCESD
level and then there will be a number of one-to-one meetings."

The spokesperson added the first draft "will then be amended
accordingly to better reflect the proposals put forward by all
those consulted."

He said "the legislation shall be put forth for discussion in
Parliament during 2011."  The spokesperson however declined to
commit himself on when exactly the proposed legislation would be
presented debated in parliament, or forecasts on when it would
come into force.  He also declined to say what approach is being
adopted in the finalization of the legislation.

The concept of class actions is intimately tied to a controversial
issue upon which tensions run high.  Following a European
Commission ruling in February 2009 that car owners who bought new
or second-hand cars since Malta's EU accession, and paid VAT over
and above the normal registration tax, may claim a refund as the
tax was charged against EU laws.

The caveat was that affected taxpayers would first have to file a
court case and prove they had in fact paid the "illegal" tax and,
in order to demand the refund, the court has first to rule in
their favor.

The issue became a veritable 'crusade' in its own right, as well
as a political hot potato, when the Labour Party took up the
issue, later instituting a joint lawsuit in the name of the 18,000
individuals who answered its call and signed up.

Class actions, also know as representative actions, are lawsuits
in which large groups of individuals can collectively bring a
claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being
sued.

The lawsuit originated in the United States and is still
predominantly a U.S. phenomenon despite having been adopted in
several European countries.  Changes have been made in recent
years to allow consumer organizations to bring claims on behalf of
large groups of consumers.

                             *********

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  * * *