---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, December 1, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 237

                             Headlines

3M CO: Class Certification Issue Pending in "Whitaker" Suit
3M CO: "Garcia" Lawsuit Still Pending in Minnesota
ABMD LIMITED: Court Certifies WARN Act Suit as Class Action
ACCURAY INC: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in California
ADVANCE AMERICA: Keri Stone Case to Proceed to Trial in 2011

ADVANCE AMERICA: Betts and Reuter Class Action Suit Still Pending
ADVANCE AMERICA: Obtains Court Approval of Hooper and Vaughn Pact
ADVANCE AMERICA: Settles Kucan Suit for $18.75 Million
ADVANCE AMERICA: Appeal of Johnson Arbitration Order Still Pending
ADVANCE AMERICA: Appeal of King-Coates Arbitration Order Pending

ADVANCE AMERICA: Class Suits Against Pennsylvania Units Ongoing
ADVANCE AMERICA: Suits Against South Carolina Unit Have Concluded
AIG: Court Denies Dismissal Plea in 2008 Securities Suit
AIG: Pleas to Dismiss SDNY ERISA Actions Remain Pending
AIG: Canadian Securities Suits Remain Pending

ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Scient'x Deal
AMERICAN EDUCATION: Plea for Securities Suit Lead Plaintiff Filed
ANIXTER INC: Motion to Dismiss Ill. Securities Suit Remain Pending
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Two Zoladex Class Actions
BALTIMORE GAS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Maryland

BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Another Suit Over HAMP Rules Violation
BIDZ.COM INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Calif. Suit
BUCKEYE GP: Reaches MOU to Settle Merger-Related Securities Suit
CABLEVISION CORP: Chappaqua Lawyer Pursues Class Action
CNO FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of New York Securities Suit

CNO FINANCIAL: Court Junks Causes of Action in Valulife Suit
CNO FINANCIAL: Appeal in Florida Suit Remains Pending
CNO FINANCIAL: Court OKs Nationwide Certification of Brady Class
CNO FINANCIAL: McFarland Class Gets Nationwide Certification
COGENT INC: Faces 10 Class Action Lawsuits Over 3M Transaction

CNO FINANCIAL: "Rowe" Plaintiffs Re-allege RICO Claims
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Montreal Lawyer to File Class Action
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Alberta Class Actions Still Pending
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Manitoba Class Action Still Pending
FBR CAPITAL: Unit Continues to Defend Thornburg-Related Suit

FORCE PROTECTION: Jan. 25 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
FREDERICK COUNTY: In Talks to Resolve Lawsuit Filed Against Unit
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Fairness Hearing in "PSI" Suits Set for Dec. 10
INTERNATIONAL COAL: Virginia Securities Litigation Still Pending
JYSKE BANK: Hedge Fund Investors File Class Action Over Losses

KINDER MORGAN: Inks $200 Mil. Settlement of "Going Private" Suit
KOHLBERG CAPITAL: Continues Defense v. 3 Class Actions in New York
LIONBRIDGE TECH: Appeals on Settlement of NY Suits Still Pending
MCDONALD'S CORP: Court Junks Certification Motion in Obesity Suit
NSTAR: Faces Merger-Related Class Action Lawsuits in Massachusetts

PIONEER FOODS: Wins Ruling in Class Suit Over Bread Prices
QC HOLDINGS: Discovery in Missouri Class Action Suit Commences
QC HOLDINGS: North Carolina Class Action Suit Still Pending
QC HOLDINGS: Court Approves Settlement of South Carolina Lawsuit
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Appeal on Merger-Related Suit Settlement Pending

SLM CORP: Awaits Final Court Approval of Class Action Settlement
SMURFIT-STONE: Seeks to Enjoin 4 Class Actions in Illinois
SPECTRA ENERGY: Agrees to Share Liability in Duke Energy Suit
STATE STREET CORP: Two ERISA Class Actions Still Pending
STATE STREET CORP: 3 Shareholder-Related Suits Pending in Boston

TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS: Continues Defense in NY Securities Suit
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit
UNITED WATER: Faces Class Action Over Worthless Warranties
UTILITIES INC: Willow Creek Homeowners File Class Action
UTSTARCOM INC: Obtains Final Settlement Approval of Class Action

VALHI INC: Suits vs. Former NL Operations Remain Pending
WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces Suits in Canada Over ACTONEL Side Effects
WESCO FINANCIAL: Faces 3 Suits in Calif. Over Berkshire Proposal
* New Class Action Regime for NSW Introduced Into Parliament



                             *********

3M CO: Class Certification Issue Pending in "Whitaker" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A request for class certification in a lawsuit alleging employment
discrimination against 3M Co. is pending in Minnesota, 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 December, 2004, one current and one former employee of the
Company filed a purported class action in the District Court of
Ramsey County, Minnesota, seeking to represent a class of all
current and certain former salaried employees employed by the
Company in Minnesota below a certain salary grade who were age 46
or older at any time during the applicable period to be determined
by the Court -- Whitaker Lawsuit.

The complaint alleges the plaintiffs suffered various forms of
employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the
Minnesota Human Rights Act and seeks injunctive relief,
unspecified compensatory damages (which they seek to treble under
the statute), including back and front pay, punitive damages
(limited by statute to $8,500 per claimant) and attorneys' fees.
In January 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to join four
additional named plaintiffs.

This motion was unopposed by the Company and the four plaintiffs
were joined in the case, although one plaintiff's claim was
dismissed following an individual settlement. A class
certification hearing was held in December 2007.

On April 11, 2008, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the case as a class action and defined the class as all
persons who were 46 or older when employed by 3M in Minnesota in a
salaried exempt position below a certain salary grade at any time
on or after May 10, 2003, and who did not sign a document on their
last day of employment purporting to release claims arising out of
their employment with 3M.  On April 28, 2009, the Minnesota Court
of Appeals reversed the District Court's class certification
decision. The Court of Appeals found that the District Court had
not required plaintiffs to meet the proper legal standards for
certification of a class under Minnesota law and incorrectly had
deferred resolving certain factual disputes that were relevant to
the class certification requirements. The Court of Appeals
remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings in
line with the evidentiary standards defined in its opinion.

The trial court took expert testimony on the class certification
issue on May 5 and 6, 2010, and held a hearing on the issue on
August 25, 2010, and later this year will issue a new decision on
whether the case should proceed as a class action.


3M CO: "Garcia" Lawsuit Still Pending in Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------
The Garcia lawsuit is in the initial phase of discovery before a
Minnesota district court, according to 3M Co.'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 was served on May 7, 2009 with a purported class
action/collective action age discrimination lawsuit, which was
filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division.  The case has since been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.  The case is still in the initial phase of discovery.

In this case, five former and one current employee of the Company
are seeking to represent all current and former salaried employees
employed by the Company in the United States during the liability
period, which plaintiffs define as 2001 to the present. In
addition to the six named plaintiffs, there are presently 87 other
current or former employees who have signed "opt-in" forms,
seeking to join the action.  This number has changed since the
case was filed and is likely to change again as the case
progresses. The Garcia lawsuit expressly excludes those persons
encompassed within the proposed class in the Whitaker lawsuit.
The same firm, joined by additional California counsel and local
Minnesota counsel for the Garcia lawsuit, represents the
plaintiffs in both cases.

The allegations of the complaint in the Garcia lawsuit are similar
to those in the Whitaker lawsuit. Plaintiffs claim that they and
other similarly situated employees suffered various forms of
employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the
federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  In regard to these
claims, plaintiffs seek to represent "all persons who were 46 or
older when employed by 3M in the United States in a salaried
position below the level of director, or salary grade 18, during
the liability period."  Because federal law protects persons age
40 and older from age discrimination, with respect to their claim
of disparate impact only, plaintiffs also propose an alternative
definition of similarly situated persons that would begin at age
40.  On behalf of this group, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
unspecified compensatory damages including back and front pay,
benefits, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees.

Certain of the plaintiffs' and putative class members' employment
terminated under circumstances in which they were eligible for
group severance plan benefits and in connection with those plans
they signed waivers of claims, including age discrimination
claims. Plaintiffs claim the waivers of age discrimination claims
were invalid in various respects.  This subset of release-signing
plaintiffs seeks a declaration that the waivers of age
discrimination claims are invalid, other injunctive, but non-
monetary, remedies, and attorneys' fees.


ABMD LIMITED: Court Certifies WARN Act Suit as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lawrence S. Walter has certified SCOTT BENT, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, v. ABMD LIMITED, Defendant (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Adv. Pro.
No. 09-3367), as a class action on behalf of "persons who worked
at or reported to one of 'Defendant's Facilities,' . . . and were
terminated without cause and without receiving the advanced notice
required by the WARN Act, on or about December 30, 2008, within 30
days of December 30, 2008, or in anticipation of, or as the
foreseeable consequence of, the mass layoffs or plant closings
ordered by Defendant on or about December 30, 2008, and who are
affected employees, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. [Sec.]
2101(a)(5), and who have not submitted a timely request to opt-out
of the class."  The Court designated and appointed Scott Bent and
John Boyd as Class Representatives and appoints Jack Raisner,
Esq., and Rene Roupinian, Esq., at Outten & Golden LLP and Ira
Thomsen, Esq., to serve as Class Counsel.

A copy of Judge Walter's November 17 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/hWaVXfrom Leagle.com.

Based in Dayton, Ohio, ABMD Limited filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy petition (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Case No. 09-30130) on
January 13, 2009.  Richard D Nelson, Esq., at Cohen, Todd, Kite &
Stanford LLC, in Cincinnati, Ohio, serves as bankruptcy counsel.
The Debtor estimated $10 million to $50 million in assets, and
$1 million to $10 million in debts in its petition.


ACCURAY INC: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Accuray Incorporated's motion to dismiss an amended complaint
filed by plaintiffs in a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit in California remains pending, according to the company's
November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On July 22, 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers. On August 7, 2009 and August 9, 2009, two
securities class action complaints, both similar to the one filed
on July 22, 2009, were filed against the same defendants in the
same court. These three actions were consolidated. The
consolidated complaint generally alleges that the Company and the
individual defendants made false or misleading public statements
regarding the Company's operations and seek unspecified monetary
damages and other relief. On August 31, 2010, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and
granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.

On September 27, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The
amended complaint names the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors as defendants and generally alleges
that the defendants made false or misleading public statements
regarding the Company's operations. The amended complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.  Defendants have
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Keri Stone Case to Proceed to Trial in 2011
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint captioned Kerri Stone v. Advance America,
Cash Advance Centers, Inc. et al., is ongoing and will proceed to
trial in 2011, according to the Advance America, Cash Advance
Centers, Inc.'s November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On July 16, 2008, Kerri Stone filed a putative class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California in San Diego against
the Company and its California subsidiary.

Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California.

The amended complaint alleges violations of the California
Deferred Deposit Transaction Law and the California Unfair
Competition Law and seeks an order requiring defendants to
disgorge or make restitution of all revenue and loan principal,
pay three times the amount of damages the class members actually
incurred, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and
punitive damages.  The complaint also seeks certain injunctive
relief.

The parties are engaged in discovery and the Company anticipates
that the case will proceed to trial during 2011.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Betts and Reuter Class Action Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., continues to defend
against a class action lawsuit captioned Betts and Reuter v.
McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, LLC et al., according to the
Company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

The Company and the Company's subsidiary, McKenzie Check Advance
of Florida, LLC, are defendants in a putative class action lawsuit
commenced by former customers, Wendy Betts and Donna Reuter, on
January 11, 2001, and a third named class representative, Tiffany
Kelly, in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida.

This putative class action alleges that McKenzie, by and through
the actions of certain officers, directors, and employees, engaged
in unfair and deceptive trade practices and violated Florida's
criminal usury statute, the Florida Consumer Finance Act, and the
Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The
suit seeks unspecified damages, and the named defendants could be
required to refund fees or interest collected, refund the
principal amount of cash advances, pay multiple damages, and pay
other monetary penalties.

Ms. Reuter's claim has been held to be subject to binding
arbitration, which the Company expects to proceed in parallel with
this case.  However, the trial court has denied the defendants'
motion to compel arbitration of Ms. Kelly's claims.

The Company has appealed this decision.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Obtains Court Approval of Hooper and Vaughn Pact
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A court in Missouri has approved a settlement agreement resolving
a class action complaint captioned Hooper and Vaughn v. Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers of Missouri, Inc., according to
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.'s November 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On March 10, 2008, Trishia Hooper and Josephine Vaughn filed the
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri against the Company's
Missouri subsidiary, Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of
Missouri, Inc.

The action alleged that the arbitration clause and class action
waiver in the Company's subsidiary's customer loan agreements were
unconscionable, that the Company's subsidiary's practices violated
the Missouri statutes governing unfair and deceptive trade
practices, interest rates, loan renewals, debt reduction, and
consideration of borrower's ability to repay.

The lawsuit sought certification as a class action, unspecified
monetary damages, and a declaratory judgment that the arbitration
clause and class action waiver was unconscionable and injunctive
relief.

On May 27, 2010, the Company and the class representatives entered
into a settlement agreement.  The settlement agreement does not
involve an admission of wrongdoing or liability.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the case will
be dismissed, the Company and all other defendants will be
released from any and all claims and liability, the Company will
establish a settlement pool of approximately $2 million for
payments or credits to settle the claims of certain customers of
the Company's Missouri subsidiary and payment of all attorney
fees, class action administration fees, and other fees and
expenses related to the litigation, and the Company's subsidiary
will offer discounts on the repayment of certain defaulted loans
and on fees to certain class members for future loans.

On November 4, 2010, the court entered an order granting final
approval of the settlement.  The Company does not expect any
additional charges related to this case.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Settles Kucan Suit for $18.75 Million
------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. will pay $18.75
million in settlement of the case captioned Kucan et al. v.
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of North Carolina, Inc., et
al., according to the Company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.

On July 27, 2004, John Kucan, Welsie Torrence, and Terry Coates,
each of whom was a customer of Republic Bank & Trust Company, the
lending bank for whom the Company previously marketed, processed,
and serviced cash advances in North Carolina, filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the General Court of Justice for the
Superior Court Division for New Hanover County, North Carolina
against the Company and Mr. William M. Webster IV, chairman of the
Company's board of directors and the Company's former chief
executive officer, alleging, among other things, that the
relationship between the Company's North Carolina subsidiary and
Republic constituted an alleged "rent a charter" relationship and,
therefore, Republic was not the "true lender" of the cash advances
it offered.  The lawsuit also claimed that the cash advances were
made, administered, and collected in violation of numerous North
Carolina consumer protection laws.  The lawsuit sought an
injunction barring the subsidiary from continuing to do business
in North Carolina, the return of the principal amount of the cash
advances made to the plaintiff class since August 2001, along with
three times the interest or fees associated with those advances,
which could have, under certain circumstances, totaled
approximately $220 million, plus attorneys' fees and other
unspecified costs.

On September 17, 2010, the Company and the class representatives
entered into a settlement agreement.  The settlement agreement
does not involve any admission of wrongdoing or liability and is
subject to court approval and certain other conditions before it
becomes final and the lawsuit is concluded.  Pursuant to the terms
of the settlement agreement, the case will be dismissed, the
Company and all other defendants will be released from any and all
claims and liability, the Company will establish a settlement pool
of approximately $18.75 million for payments or credits to settle
the claims of certain customers of the Company's North Carolina
subsidiary and payment of all attorney fees, class action
administration fees, and any and all other fees and expenses
related to the litigation.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Appeal of Johnson Arbitration Order Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 1, 2007, Sharlene Johnson, Helena Love, and Bonny
Bleacher filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., and two of its
subsidiaries alleging that they provided lines of credit to
borrowers in Pennsylvania without a license required under
Pennsylvania law and with interest and fees in excess of the
amounts permitted by Pennsylvania law.

The complaint seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment
that the monthly participation fee charged to customers with a
line of credit is illegal, an injunction prohibiting the
collection of the monthly participation fee, and payment of
damages equal to three times the monthly participation fees paid
by customers since June 2006, which could total approximately $135
million in damages, plus attorneys' fees and costs.

In January 2008, the trial court entered an order compelling the
purported class representatives to arbitrate their claims on an
individual basis, unless determined otherwise by the arbiter.

All parties appealed that order and the parties now await a ruling
on the appeals.

No further updates were provided in the Company's November 8,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Appeal of King-Coates Arbitration Order Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to a case captioned Raymond King and Sandra Coates v.
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Pennsylvania, LLC, are
awaiting a court's decision on an appeal of the arbitration ruling
issued on the case, according to the Company's November 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On January 18, 2007, Raymond King and Sandra Coates, who were
customers of BankWest Inc., the lending bank for which Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. previously marketed,
processed, and serviced cash advances in Pennsylvania, filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging various causes of
action, including that the Company's Pennsylvania subsidiary made
illegal cash advance loans in Pennsylvania in violation of
Pennsylvania's usury law, the Pennsylvania Consumer Discount
Company Act, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity
Act, and the Pennsylvania Credit Services Act.

The complaint alleges that BankWest Inc. was not the "true lender"
and that the Company's Pennsylvania subsidiary was the "lender in
fact."  The complaint seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
punitive damages, and the trebling of any compensatory damages.

In January 2008, the trial court entered an order compelling the
purported class representatives to arbitrate their claims on an
individual basis, unless determined otherwise by the arbiter.

All parties appealed that order and the appeal was stayed pending
a decision from the United States Supreme Court in Stolt-Nielsen
S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.

In April 2010, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion
in Stolt-Nielsen.

The parties now await a ruling on the appeals.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Class Suits Against Pennsylvania Units Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits filed against subsidiaries of Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., in Pennsylvania are ongoing,
according to the Company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On April 21, 2009, Yulon Clerk filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania, against the Company's subsidiaries, Advance America,
Cash Advance Centers of Pennsylvania, Inc., and NCAS of Delaware,
LLC, as well as BankWest, Inc., whose defense the Company is
handling pursuant to an indemnification agreement, and other
unrelated lenders and banks.  The complaint alleges that the
practices of the Company's subsidiaries and BankWest, Inc.
violated the Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Protection Act, the
Pennsylvania Loan Interest Protection Law, and Pennsylvania
Consumer Protection Laws.  The complaint seeks certification of a
class of individuals for the alleged violations, a declaration
that all loans made to class members are unenforceable, injunctive
relief, and monetary damages.  The complaint repeats allegations
asserted in other putative class actions filed in Pennsylvania
that have been stayed in favor of mandatory individual
arbitrations.

The Company removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and filed a motion to
compel arbitration and stay the underlying action's proceedings.

In August 2009, the District Court issued an order severing the
claims against the individual defendants.

On September 21, 2009, plaintiffs filed three separate complaints
seeking the same relief as the April 21, 2009, complaint against
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Pennsylvania, Inc., NCAS
of Delaware, LLC, and BankWest, Inc.

The case against the Company's Pennsylvania subsidiaries was
subsequently dismissed by consent of the parties on November 11,
2009.

Motions to stay and to compel individual arbitration have been
filed in the other cases.  Those cases were stayed pending a
decision from the United States Supreme Court in Stolt-Nielsen
S.A. v. Animal Feeds International Corp.

In April 2010, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion
in Stolt-Nielsen.  The cases against NCAS of Delaware and
Bankwest, Inc. are now proceeding before the trial court.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Suits Against South Carolina Unit Have Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Several class action lawsuits filed against a subsidiary of
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., in South Carolina
have concluded, according to the Company's November 8, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The eight separate putative class actions filed against the
Company's subsidiary Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of
South Carolina, Inc. and several other unaffiliated defendants
are:

   * John and Rebecca Morgan filed a complaint on August 27, 2007,
     in the Horry County Court of Common Pleas;

   * Margaret Horne filed a complaint on September 6, 2007, in the
     Spartanburg County Court of Common Pleas;

   * Tawan Smalls filed a complaint on September 10, 2007, in the
     Charleston County Court of Commons Pleas;

   * Chadric and Lisa Wiley filed a complaint on September 27,
     2007, in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas;

   * Mildred Weaver filed a complaint on September 27, 2007, in
     the Darlington County Court of Common Pleas;

   * Lisa Johnson and Gilbert Herbert filed a complaint on Oct. 2,
     2007, in the Georgetown County Court of Common Pleas;

   * Kimberly Kinney filed a complaint on October 12, 2007, in the
     Marion County Court of Common Pleas; and

   * Carl G. Ferrell filed a complaint on October 30, 2008, in the
     Richland County Court of Common Pleas.

The allegations and relief sought are similar in each case.
Plaintiffs allege that the Company's South Carolina subsidiary
violated the South Carolina Deferred Presentment Services Act and
the Consumer Protection Code by failing to perform a credit check
and evaluate a customer's ability to repay the advance.

Each complaint seeks an injunction to prohibit the Company from
continuing its operations, the return of fees and interest,
unspecified actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs.  Each of the lawsuits has been joined to ongoing
litigation in the South Carolina state court system pursuant to an
order of the South Carolina Supreme Court consolidating all cases
brought against the industry.

In December 2009, a group of industry defendants, including the
Company, reached an agreement in principle, subject to reaching a
definitive agreement and obtaining court approval, for the
settlement and release of all claims brought by the South Carolina
Claimants.

On June 2, 2010, the Company, several other unaffiliated
defendants, and the class representatives entered into a
settlement agreement.  The settlement agreement does not involve
an admission of wrongdoing or liability on the part of the Company
or its South Carolina subsidiary.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company and
its South Carolina subsidiary were released from any and all
claims associated with this lawsuit.  The Court entered an order
granting final approval of the settlement on September 20, 2010,
and the order became final on October 21, 2010.

The Company says this litigation has concluded and it does not
expect to incur any charges in connection with the settlement
beyond the charge of $0.9 million the Company recorded for the
fourth quarter of 2009.


AIG: Court Denies Dismissal Plea in 2008 Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
A district court has denied a motion to dismiss the 2008
securities litigation against American International Group, Inc.,
according to a November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

Between May 21, 2008 and January 15, 2009, eight purported
securities class action complaints were filed against AIG and
certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP, AIG's outside
auditors, and the underwriters of various securities offerings in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York alleging claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or
claims under the Securities Act of 1933. On March 20, 2009, the
Court consolidated all eight of the purported securities class
actions as In re American International Group, Inc., 2008
Securities Litigation.

On May 19, 2009, lead plaintiff in the Consolidated 2008
Securities Litigation filed a consolidated complaint on behalf
of purchasers of AIG stock during the alleged class period of
March 16, 2006 through September 16, 2008, and on behalf of
purchasers of various AIG securities offered pursuant to AIG's
shelf registration statements. The consolidated complaint alleges
that defendants made statements during the class period in press
releases, AIG's quarterly and year-end filings, during conference
calls, and in various registration statements and prospectuses in
connection with the various offerings that were materially false
and misleading and that artificially inflated the price of AIG's
stock. The alleged false and misleading statements relate to,
among other things, the Subprime Exposure Issues. The consolidated
complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities
Act.

On August 5, 2009, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, and on September 27, 2010, the Court
denied the motions to dismiss.


AIG: Pleas to Dismiss SDNY ERISA Actions Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Between June 25, 2008, and November 25, 2008, American
International Group, Inc., certain directors and officers of AIG,
and members of AIG's Retirement Board and Investment Committee
were named as defendants in eight purported class action
complaints asserting claims on behalf of participants in certain
pension plans sponsored by AIG or its subsidiaries. On March 19,
2009, the Court consolidated these eight actions as In re American
International Group, Inc. ERISA Litigation II. On June 26, 2009,
lead plaintiffs' counsel filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The action purports to be brought as a class action under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
(ERISA) on behalf of all participants in or beneficiaries of
certain benefit plans of AIG and its subsidiaries that offered
shares of AIG's common stock. In the consolidated amended
complaint, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the
defendants breached their fiduciary responsibilities to plan
participants and their beneficiaries under ERISA, by continuing to
offer the AIG Stock Fund as an investment option in the plans
after it allegedly became imprudent to do so. The alleged ERISA
violations relate to, among other things, the defendants'
purported failure to monitor and/or disclose certain matters,
including the Subprime Exposure Issues.

On September 18, 2009, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, and those motions are pending.

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


AIG: Canadian Securities Suits Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------
The Canadian securities class actions against American
International Group, Inc., 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 Sept. 30,
2010.

On November 12, 2008, an application was filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice for leave to bring a purported class
action against AIG, AIGFP, certain directors and officers of AIG
and Joseph Cassano, the former Chief Executive Officer of AIGFP,
pursuant to the Ontario Securities Act. If the Court grants the
application, a class plaintiff will be permitted to file a
statement of claim against defendants. The proposed statement of
claim would assert a class period of November 10, 2006 through
September 16, 2008 (later amended to March 16, 2006 through
September 16, 2008) and would allege that during this period
defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions in
quarterly and annual reports and during oral presentations in
violation of the Ontario Securities Act.

On April 17, 2009, defendants filed a motion record in support of
their motion to stay or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and forum
non conveniens. On July 12, 2010, the Court adjourned a hearing on
the motion pending a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in
another action with respect to similar issues raised in the action
pending against AIG.


ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Scient'x Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alphatec Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
purported securities class action complaint filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
August 10, 2010, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between December 19, 2009 and August 5,
2010.

The class action is also asserted against certain of the Company's
directors and executives.  It alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
HealthpointCapital, a principal stockholder of the Company, is
also a defendant in the matter.

The complaint alleges that the Company made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material facts about its
business, financial condition, operations and prospects,
particularly relating to the Scient S.A. transaction and the
financial guidance for the Company following the closing of that
transaction.

The Scient'x transaction refers to the Company's acquisition of
Scient'X, a global medical device company based in France that
designs, develops and manufactures surgical implants to treat
disorders of the spince.  The Company completed the transaction on
March 26, 2010.

The complaint seeks a determination that the action may be
maintained as a class action, an award of unspecified monetary
damages and other unspecified relief, according to the company's
November 8, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


AMERICAN EDUCATION: Plea for Securities Suit Lead Plaintiff Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion seeking appointment of a lead plaintiff in the West
Virginia securities class suit against American Public Education,
Inc., is pending, according to the company's November 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On August 12, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Wallace E. Boston, Jr., Frank B. McCluskey
and Harry T. Wilkins, in the United States Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia (Martinsburg Division). The action is
currently captioned Douglas N. Gaer v. American Public Education,
Inc. et al, C.A. No. 3:10 CV-81. The plaintiff alleges that the
Company and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff purports to be acting on
behalf of a class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of the
Company's stock between February 22, 2010 to August 5, 2010.  The
plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the defendants' allegedly
false misleading statements or omissions concerning the Company's
prospects, the Company's common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices throughout the Class Period. The plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages and fees and costs, among other relief, but
has not, at this time, specified the amount of damages being
sought in this action.

On October 12, 2010, the City of Miami Firefighters' and Police
Officers' Retirement Trust filed a motion seeking to be appointed
lead plaintiff and to approve its selection of lead plaintiffs'
counsel.  That motion has not been ruled upon, the Company said.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this action, according to
the filing.


ANIXTER INC: Motion to Dismiss Ill. Securities Suit Remain Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anixter International, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a securities class
action remains pending in Illinois, according to the company's
November 5, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 1, 2010.

On September 11, 2009, the Garden City Employees' Retirement
System filed a purported class action under the federal securities
laws in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois against the Company, its current and former chief
executive officers and its chief financial officer.

On November 18, 2009, the Court entered an order appointing the
Indiana Laborers Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and appointing
lead plaintiff's counsel. On January 6, 2010, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint.  The amended complaint principally
alleges that the Company made misleading statements during 2008
regarding certain aspects of its financial performance and
outlook. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf
of persons who purchased the common stock of the Company between
January 29 and October 20, 2008.

On April 19, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and is awaiting the court's decision. The Company and
the other defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously
against the allegations. Based on facts known to management at
this time, the Company cannot estimate the amount of loss, if any,
and, therefore, has not made any accrual for this matter in these
financial statements.


ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Two Zoladex Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
There are two Proposed Class Action Settlements with AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals LP related to two different classes of purchases
of the drug Zoladex.  This drug is used to treat prostate cancer,
advanced breast cancer, endometriosis, and uterine fibroids.  This
lawsuit is not about the safety of Zoladex.  The name of the
lawsuit is In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price
Litigation, Docket No. 01-CV-12257-PBS, MDL No. 1456 (D. Mass.).

Two class action Settlements with AstraZeneca, the maker of
Zoladex, have been reached.  The lawsuit claims, but AstraZeneca
denies, that AstraZeneca reported false and inflated average
wholesale prices for Zoladex.  The reported AWPs are used to set
drug prices that are paid by private health insurers and consumers
paying cash or making percentage cop-payments under private health
insurance plans.

AstraZeneca agreed to pay $90 million in the Nationwide Settlement
and $13 million in the Massachusetts Settlement.  The Settlements
are not an admission of wrongdoing or an indication that any law
was violated.

You are considered a class member of the AstraZeneca Zoladex class
action settlements if you made a cash or percentage co-payment for
Zoladex during the period from January 1, 1991 through June 11,
2010.  A "cash payment" is a payment for the full cost of the drug
without the help of payment by the insurer or other source, and a
"percentage co-payment" is one that varies with the cost of the
drug (e.g., 10% or 20% of the cost of the drug).  You are not
considered a class member if you meet any of the following
requirements:

   (1) You made flat co-payments (e.g., a flat amount of $10 or
       $25 per prescription, regardless of the cost of the drug);

   (2) Insurance paid all of your co-payment;

   (3) Your percentage co-payment was through Medicare Part B; or

   (4) You were never obligated to make a co-payment at all.

There are two different settlement classes you can make claims
under.  The Nationwide Zoladex Settlement class includes all U.S.
citizens who purchased Zoladex outside the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts during the period from January 1, 1991 through
June 11, 2010.  The Massachusetts Zoladex Settlement includes all
U.S. citizens who purchased Zoladex in Massachusetts during this
same period.  You may be included in one or both of the Zoladex
settlements, depending on where and when you purchased Zoladex.

As a class member of the AstraZeneca Zoladex settlement class, you
have two options to get a payment:

   (1) Easy Refund Option: Sign a claim form under penalty of
perjury stating that you paid cash or a percentage co-payment for
Zoladex during the class period and you will be entitled to a
one-time payment of up to $400, depending on how many consumers
file valid claims.

   (2) Full Estimated Refund Option: If you can provide
documentation showing the total amount you spent on cash payments
or percentage co-payments for Zoladex during the class period, and
you can receive a maximum refund of the total amount you spent.
This amount may vary, depending on how many class members make
successful claims.

All claim forms must be postmarked by February 15, 2011.  For
claims during the years 1997 through 2004, you may be able to
receive up to three time your out-of-pocket expenses for Zoladex.
For more information on the settlements visit
http://wwww.astrazenecasettlement.com/


BALTIMORE GAS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. continues to face a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit in Maryland, 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.

Three federal securities class action lawsuits have been filed in
the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New
York and the District of Maryland between September 2008 and
November 2008.  The cases were filed on behalf of a proposed class
of persons who acquired publicly traded securities, including the
Series A Junior Subordinated Debentures (Debentures), of
Constellation Energy between January 30, 2008 and September 16,
2008, and who acquired Debentures in an offering completed in June
2008.  The securities class actions generally allege that
Constellation Energy, a number of its present or former officers
or directors, and the underwriters violated the securities laws by
issuing a false and misleading registration statement and
prospectus in connection with Constellation Energy's June 27, 2008
offering of Debentures.  The securities class actions also allege
that Constellation Energy issued false or misleading statements or
was aware of material undisclosed information which contradicted
public statements including in connection with its announcements
of financial results for 2007, the fourth quarter of 2007, the
first quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2008 and the
filing of its first quarter 2008 Form 10-Q.  The securities class
actions seek, among other things, certification of the cases as
class actions, compensatory damages, reasonable costs and
expenses, including counsel fees, and rescission damages.

The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion
to transfer the two securities class actions filed there to the
District of Maryland, and the actions have since been transferred
for coordination with the securities class action filed there.  On
June 18, 2009, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, who filed a
consolidated amended complaint on September 17, 2009.

On November 17, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in its entirety.  On August 13,
2010, the District Court of Maryland issued a ruling on the motion
to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs failed to state a claim with
respect to the claims of the common shareholders under the
Securities Act of 1934 and restricting the suit to those persons
who purchased debentures in the June 2008 offering.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Another Suit Over HAMP Rules Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Donnelly, writing for the Staten Island Advance, reports
facing a burdensome mortgage and state foreclosure proceedings, a
New Brighton woman believed a federal loan modification program
was the answer to her prayers.

The Home Affordable Modification Program made Marie Freeman's
monthly payments on her $418,000 mortgage more manageable, and
gave her hope that she could keep her home.

But in a class-action suit recently filed in Brooklyn federal
court, Ms. Freeman and others allege the Bank of America turned
the tables on them.

Despite making the appropriate trial payments, the bank's
subsidiary denied her a permanent loan modification, Ms. Freeman
contends.  That violated HAMP rules and put her back at square
one.

Now, Ms. Freeman says she is living in limbo, and fears her home
of more than 10 years will be sold at foreclosure.

"Our client did everything by the book, only to have her
modification improperly denied after her file was transferred from
one Bank of America [loan] servicing subsidiary to another," said
Stephen Rodd, a private lawyer, working pro bono for Ms. Freeman.

"We believe she may be one of thousands of homeowners across the
United States who have fallen victim to Bank of America's
deceptive practices."

At least 12 class-action cases making similar allegations have
been filed against Bank of America nationwide, said Adam H. Cohen,
a lawyer for the non-profit MFY Legal Services Inc., which also is
representing Ms. Freeman.

Citing a February U.S. Treasury Department report, Ms. Freeman's
court filings said Bank of America and its loan-servicing
subsidiaries had provided permanent loan modifications to only 1.2
percent -- or 12,761 -- of the more than 1 million HAMP-eligible
loans in their servicing portfolio.  At the time of the report,
trial periods had been started on less than 238,000 of the 1.07
million HAMP-eligible loans.

Those documents said servicers receive $1,000 for each HAMP
modification; however, it typically is more profitable for them to
foreclose rather than modify loans.

The $75 billion HAMP program was established last year in the wake
of the staggering financial and housing-market collapse. Backed
largely by federal bailout money, it provides incentives to
participating mortgage loan servicers to restructure struggling
homeowners' mortgages.

The goal is to let homeowners keep their residences while paying
off their mortgage at a reduced monthly rate.

More than 50,000 foreclosures have been filed in New York state in
each of the last three years, said court papers.

Ms. Freeman's suit alleges breach of contract and state Business
Law violations and seeks to force the bank's subsidiaries to play
by the government-mandated rules, Cohen said.  He could not
immediately say how many people on Staten Island or in the state
would be eligible to participate in the suit.

Court papers say that more than $5 million is in dispute.

Ms. Freeman declined comment through Cohen.

According to court papers, Ms. Freeman, 50, bought her home in
2000. She and her husband live there.

Six years later, she refinanced her mortgage for $418,000 with a
California-based company.  The servicing of her mortgage was
transferred to Wilshire Credit Corporation.  That company was
bought by Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., which, in turn, was acquired
by Bank of America.

In 2009, Ms. Freeman, struggling financially, appealed to Wilshire
to lower her monthly payments.  In the meantime, Citibank, which
actually holds the mortgage, began foreclosure proceedings against
her in state Supreme Court, St. George.  That action is pending.

In October 2009, Wilshire, then a Bank of America subsidiary,
offered Ms. Freeman a trial period plan under HAMP.  Under the
program, the homeowner makes modified payments for three months.
If they do so and satisfy all other trial-period requirements,
they will be offered a permanent modification, according to
Ms. Freeman's court filings.

Ms. Freeman contends she made the on-time payments for the period
of November 2009 through January of this year.

She continued making the payments afterward and in February
received a notice advising that servicing of her loan would be
transferred the next month to BAC Home Loans Servicing, another
Bank of America subsidiary.

BAC accepted the payment for March, but rejected further payments,
deeming them insufficient to reinstate the loan and claiming they
were not certified.  She was then sent a bill exceeding her
adjusted monthly payment.

Later, in July, BAC allegedly informed Ms. Freeman she was
ineligible for the HAMP program because she had not made all the
required payments before the end of the trial period.

Ms. Freeman's lawyers maintain the bank and its servicing
companies are trying to full a fast one -- and have done so many
times before.

"Bank of America is making a mockery of the federal HAMP program,
which was designed to help homeowners keep their homes," said
Cohen.  "The banks collect hefty payments from homeowners, then
turn around and initiate foreclosure proceedings. Homeowners lose,
investors lose, and taxpayers, who own many of the mortgage-backed
securities lose, but the banks make money."

A BAC representative referred all inquiries to the Bank of
America's corporate office in Charlotte, N.C.,

A message left for a Bank of America spokesperson was not
returned.


BIDZ.COM INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Calif. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bidz.com, Inc., is awaiting a court ruling on its motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action complaint pending in
California, according to the Company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In May and June, 2009, the Company and certain of its officers
were named as defendants in three parallel class action complaints
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California:

   * Ramon Gomez v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-3216 (CBM) (C.D.
     Cal.; filed on May 7, 2009);

   * James Mitchell v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-03671 (CBM)
     (C.D. Cal.; filed on May 22, 2009); and

   * Mark Walczyk v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-0397 (CBM) (C.D.
     Cal.; filed on June 3, 2009).

On July 30, 2009, the Court consolidated the cases.  The
consolidated complaint charges violations of Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges
that the Company failed to disclose unethical and fraudulent
business practices, that it did not have controls in place to
prevent "shill bidding," that it uses unreliable or false
appraisal prices on its merchandise, and that it failed to
correctly account for and disclose in detail its co-op marketing
contributions and minimum gross profit guarantees.

On May 25, 2010, in a 30-page opinion, the Honorable Consuelo B.
Marshall of the United States District Court granted the Company's
Motion to Dismiss the securities fraud complaint with leave to
amend.

On June 22, 2010, the plaintiff filed its amended complaint.

On July 30, 2010, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
amended complaint and on September 8, 2010, the Plaintiff filed
another amended complaint.

On September 27, 2010, the Company filed another Motion to Dismiss
the amended complaint, which was heard by the Court on November 1,
2010.

The Court took Bidz.com's Motion under submission, and the Company
is awaiting the Court's ruling.

Bidz.com believes that the lawsuit is meritless and, if the Court
denies its Motion to Dismiss, it intends to defend the cases
vigorously.


BUCKEYE GP: Reaches MOU to Settle Merger-Related Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Buckeye GP Holdings L.P. has negotiated a settlement for $900,000
to resolve a class action litigation relating to its merger with
Grand Ohio LLC, the Company disclosed in its November 8, 2010 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On August 18, 2010, the Company entered into a merger agreement
with Buckeye Partners, L.P., and its subsidiary, Grand Ohio LLC.
Under the Agreement, Grand Ohio will be merged with the Company,
with the Company as the surviving entity.

On August 24, 2010, the District Court of Harris County, Texas,
entered an order consolidating three previously filed putative
class actions -- Broadbased Equities v. Forrest E. Wylie, et. al.,
Henry James Steward v. Forrest E. Wylie, et. al., and JR Garrett
Trust v. Buckeye GP Holdings L.P., et al. -- under the caption of
Broadbased Equities v. Forrest E. Wylie, et al. and appointing
interim co-lead class counsel and interim co-liaison counsel.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a consolidated amended class
action and derivative complaint on September 1, 2010.

The Complaint purports to be a putative class and derivative
action alleging that the Company's general partner, MainLine
Management, and its directors breached their fiduciary duties to
public unitholders in connection with the Merger by, among other
things, accepting insufficient consideration and failing to
disclose all material facts in order that the unitholders may cast
an informed vote on the Merger Agreement, and that Buckeye
Partners L.P., Buckeye GP LLP, MainLine Management, Merger Sub,
BGH GP, ArcLight Capital Partners LLC and Kelso & Company aided
and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty.

On October 29, 2010, the parties to the litigation entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding in connection with a proposed
settlement of the class action and the Complaint.  The MOU
provides for dismissal with prejudice of the litigation and a
release of the defendants from all present and future claims
asserted in the litigation in exchange for, among other things,
the agreement of the defendants to amend the Merger Agreement to
reduce the termination fees payable by the Company upon
termination of the Merger Agreement and to provide unitholders
with supplemental disclosure to Buckeye Partners' and the
Company's joint proxy statement/prospectus, dated September 24,
2010.  The supplemental disclosure is set forth in a joint proxy
statement/prospectus supplement, dated October 29, 2010, that was
filed with the SEC on November 1, 2010.  In addition, the MOU
provides that, in settlement of the plaintiffs' claims (including
any claim against the defendants by the plaintiffs' counsel for
attorneys' fees or expenses related to the litigation), the
defendants or their insurers will pay a cash payment of $900,000,
subject to final court approval of the settlement.  The proposed
settlement is subject to further definitive documentation and to a
number of conditions, including, without limitation, completion of
certain confirmatory discovery by the plaintiffs, the drafting and
execution of a formal Stipulation of Settlement, the consummation
of the Merger and court approval of the proposed settlement.

The Company and the other defendants vigorously deny all liability
with respect to the facts and claims alleged in the Complaint, and
specifically deny that any modifications to the Merger Agreement
or any supplemental disclosure was required or advisable under any
applicable rule, statute, regulation or law.  However, to avoid
the substantial burden, expense, risk, inconvenience and
distraction of continuing the litigation, and to fully and finally
resolve the claims alleged, the Company and the other defendants
agreed to the proposed settlement.


CABLEVISION CORP: Chappaqua Lawyer Pursues Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Tom Bartley, writing for Chappaqua-MountKisco Patch, reports
your favorite Fox programs may be back on Cablevision, their two-
week October interruption nothing but a month-old memory.  But for
Scott Krouner of Chappaqua and some other like-minded lawyers,
their battle with the cable provider has just begun.  Again.

During the blackout, Mr. Krouner hit Cablevision with a
$450 million class-action complaint, insisting the cable service
had to either provide its promised programming or rebate
subscribers' fees.  Now, he's joined his suit with that of two
class-action law firms.  Together they're seeking more than
$1.4 billion from Cablevision for what Mr. Krouner calls
"steadfastly refusing to compensate all but a few of its favored
customers."

In their amended complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in
Brooklyn, Mr. Krouner and class-action counsel Shalov Stone Bonner
& Rocco LLP and Sarraf Gentile LLP seek guaranteed rebates for
tri-state-area subscribers of $20 a month for up to two years.
More than 3 million customers subscribe to Cablevision in New
York, New Jersey and Connecticut, enjoying programming that
included New York Giants football and Philadelphia Phillies World
Series coverage as well as such hit shows as Glee, House and The
Simpsons.

But a dispute erupted over the fees Cablevision must pay Fox's
corporate parent, News Corp., to retransmit broadcast programming
over cable.  With talks stalemated, Fox abruptly pulled the plug
on channels 5 and 9 in the New York metropolitan area, blacking
out their programming from Oct. 16 to Oct. 30.

"Despite depriving its customers of Fox programming," the
complaint states, "Cablevision refused to provide any rebate to
its customers, who pay an average of approximately $150 per
month."

Cablevision makes the refusal "even though its terms of service
promise a credit for each 'known program or service interruption
in excess of 24 consecutive hours,'" Mr. Krouner said.

The complaint maintains that Cablevision was "far more generous"
when some customers sought to cancel their service over the Fox
interruption.  Cablevision "offered credit up to $480, or $20 per
month for up to two years," the complaint states without citing
particulars.  Cablevision had no immediate comment.


CNO FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of New York Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a purported
securities class action filed in New York is pending, according to
the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On August 6, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 719 Pension Trust
Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
Conseco, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-CIV-6966, on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
August 4, 2005 to March 17, 2008.  The complaint charges CNO and
certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On June 2, 2010, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.
The amended complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
defendants issued numerous statements regarding the Company's
financial performance. As alleged in the complaint, these
statements were materially false and misleading because the
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following
adverse facts, among others: (i) that the Company was reporting
materially inaccurate revenue figures; (ii) that the Company's
reported financial results were materially misstated and did not
present the true operating performance of the Company; (iii) that
the Company's shareholders' equity was materially overstated
during the Class Period, including the overstatement of
shareholders' equity by $20.6 million at December 31, 2006; and
(iv) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company,
its corporate governance practices, its prospects and earnings
growth.

On August 2, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The Company believes the action is without
merit and intends to defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome
of the action cannot be predicted with certainty.


CNO FINANCIAL: Court Junks Causes of Action in Valulife Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A California district court has dismissed the causes of action in
a class suit relating to the Valulife universal life policy,
according to CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s November 8, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On March 4, 2008, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Celedonia
X. Yue, M. D., on behalf of the class of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the General Public v. Conseco Life
Insurance Company, successor to Philadelphia Life Insurance
Company and formerly known as Massachusetts General Life Insurance
Company, Cause No. CV08-01506 CAS.

Plaintiff in this putative class action owns a Valulife universal
life policy insuring the life of Ruth S. Yue originally issued by
Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company in 1995.  Plaintiff
is claiming breach of contract on behalf of the proposed national
class and seeks injunctive and restitutionary relief pursuant to
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and
declaratory relief.  The putative class consists of all owners of
Valulife and Valuterm universal life insurance policies issued by
either Massachusetts General or Philadelphia Life and that were
later acquired and serviced by Conseco Life, a subsidiary of CNO
Financial.  Plaintiff alleges that members of the class will be
damaged by increases in the cost of insurance that are set to take
place in the twenty first policy year of Valulife and Valuterm
policies.  No such increases have yet been applied to the subject
policies.

Plaintiff filed a motion for certification of a nationwide class
and a California state class.  On December 7, 2009, the court
granted that motion.

On October 8, 2010, the court dismissed the causes of actions
alleged in the California state class.  Conseco Life and the
plaintiff have each filed motions for summary judgment, and the
court had scheduled a hearing on those motions for November 29,
2010.  The Company believes the action is without merit, and
intends to defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome of the
action cannot be predicted with certainty.


CNO FINANCIAL: Appeal in Florida Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
An appeal on a court order granting a summary judgment motion in a
(B)(2) class action lawsuit remains pending in Florida, according
to CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.

On December 8, 2008, a purported Florida state class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Sydelle Ruderman individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Washington National Insurance Company, Case
No. 08-23401-CIV-Cohn/Selzer.  In the complaint, plaintiff alleges
that the inflation escalation rider on her policy of long-term
care insurance operates to increase the policy's lifetime maximum
benefit, and that Washington National breached the contract by
stopping her benefits when they reached the lifetime maximum.  The
Company takes the position that the inflation escalator only
affects the per day maximum benefit.

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, and the
motion has been fully briefed by both sides.  The court has not
yet ruled on the motion or set it for hearing.

Additional parties have asked the court to allow them to intervene
in the action, and on January 5, 2010, the court granted the
motion to intervene and granted the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  The court certified a (B) (3) Florida state class
alleging damages and a (B) (2) Florida state class alleging
injunctive relief.  The parties have reached a settlement in
principle of the (B) (3) class.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for
summary judgment as to the (B)(2) class which was granted by the
court on September 8, 2010.  The Company filed a notice of appeal
on October 6, 2010.

The Company believes the action is without merit, and intends to
defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome of the action cannot
be predicted with certainty.


CNO FINANCIAL: Court OKs Nationwide Certification of Brady Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
A court has granted nationwide certification of a class led by
Cedric Brady, according to CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s November 8,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On December 24, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Cedric Brady, et al., individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life Insurance
Company Case No. 3:08-cv-05746.  In their complaint, plaintiffs
allege that Conseco Life and Conseco, Inc., which are subsidiaries
of CNO Financial, committed breach of contract and insurance bad
faith and violated various consumer protection statutes in the
administration of various interest sensitive whole life products
sold primarily under the name "Lifetrend" by requiring the payment
of additional cash amounts to maintain the policies in force.  On
April 23, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
the additional counts of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, conversion and declaratory relief.

On May 29, 2009, Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.  On July 29, 2009, the court
granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.  The
court dismissed the allegations that Conseco Life violated various
consumer protection statutes, the breach of fiduciary duty count,
and dismissed Conseco, Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On October 15, 2009, Conseco Life filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, seeking the establishment of an
MDL proceeding consolidating this case and the McFarland case.  On
February 3, 2010, the Judicial Panel on MDL ordered this case be
consolidated for pretrial proceedings.  On July 7, 2010,
plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification of a
nationwide class and a California state class.  The Company filed
its motion in opposition on July 21, 2010.  On October 6, 2010,
the court granted the motion for certification of a nationwide
class and denied the motion for certification of a California
state class.  The Company believes the action is without merit and
intends to defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome of the
action cannot be predicted with certainty.


CNO FINANCIAL: McFarland Class Gets Nationwide Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
A court has granted nationwide certification of a class led by
Bill McFarland, according to CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s Nov. 8,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On July 2, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Bill W.
McFarland, and all those similarly situated v. Conseco Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:09-cv-598-J-32MCR.  In his
complaint, plaintiff alleges that Conseco Life, a subsidiary of
CNO Financial, committed breach of contract and has been unjustly
enriched in the administration of various interest sensitive whole
life products sold primarily under the name "Lifetrend."  The
plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, punitive damages and attorney fees.

On February 3, 2010, the Judicial Panel on MDL ordered this case
be consolidated with the Brady case -- Cedric Brady, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v.
Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life Insurance Company Case No.
3:08-cv-05746 -- for pretrial proceedings in the Northern District
of California Federal Court.

On July 7, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class
certification of a nationwide class and a California state class.
The Company filed its motion in opposition on July 21, 2010.  On
October 6, 2010, the court granted the motion for certification of
a nationwide class and denied the motion for certification of a
California state class.  The Company believes the action is
without merit and intends to defend it vigorously.  The ultimate
outcome of the action cannot be predicted with certainty.


COGENT INC: Faces 10 Class Action Lawsuits Over 3M Transaction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cogent, Inc., has been named a defendant in 10 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 Sept. 30, 2010.

On August 29, 2010, Cogent, 3M Company and Ventura Acquisition
Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of 3M, entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger.

Between August 31 and September 16, 2010, the 10 purported class
action lawsuits were filed against Cogent, its directors and, in
some of the complaints, 3M and Ventura Acquisition, in connection
with Cogent's transaction with 3M:

    (1) Cockle v. Cogent, Inc.  
    (2) St. Nevan US Ltd. v. Cogent, Inc.
    (3) Bell v. Hsieh
    (4) Berman v. Cogent, Inc.
    (5) Kepple v. Hsieh
    (6) Berman v. Cogent, Inc.
    (7) Gusinsky Revocable Trust v. Cogent, Inc.
    (8) Slovin v. Cogent, Inc.
    (9) Lau v. Cogent, Inc.
   (10) Shanhan v. Cogent, Inc.      

Three suits were filed in Delaware Chancery Court, six were filed
in California Superior Court for Los Angeles County, and one in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

These suits allege that the defendants breached or aided and
abetted the breach of their fiduciary duties to Cogent by seeking
to sell Cogent through an allegedly unfair process and for an
unfair price and on unfair terms.  The suits seek various
equitable relief that would delay or enjoin the merger based on
allegations regarding the process by which offers or potential
offers were evaluated by Cogent.

On September 24, 2010, the California state cases were ordered
stayed pending a status conference set for November 2, 2010.  That
status conference was subsequently continued by the Court until
December 16, 2010.

The Delaware cases were consolidated, and on October 5, 2010,
Delaware Chancery Court Vice Chancellor Donald F. Parsons, Jr.,
denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin
the offer.

The plaintiff in the suit filed in United States District Court
for the Central District of California moved for expedited
proceedings and on October 7, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's
motion.

On October 19, 2010, the Delaware Supreme Court refused a
shareholder plaintiff's petition that the Court accept an
interlocutory appeal from the Delaware Chancery Court's October 5,
2010 opinion denying plaintiff's motion for an injunction to
enjoin the offer.  On November 1, 2010, defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the Delaware lawsuits, which will be scheduled for a
hearing at a later date.

Cogent believes the allegations in the lawsuits are without merit,
and is defending the actions vigorously.


CNO FINANCIAL: "Rowe" Plaintiffs Re-allege RICO Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the purported class action, Samuel Rowe and Estella
Rowe, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Bankers Life & Casualty Company and Bankers
Life Insurance Company of Illinois, Case No. 09CV491, re-alleged
their claims relating to Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act, CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s November 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On January 26, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Samuel Rowe and Estella Rowe, individually and on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bankers Life &
Casualty Company and Bankers Life Insurance Company of Illinois,
Case No. 09CV491.  Bankers Life is a subsidiary of CNO Financial.
The plaintiffs are alleging violation of California Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. and 17500 et seq., breach
of common law fiduciary duty, breach of implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing and violation of California Welfare and
Institutions Code Section 15600 on behalf of the proposed national
class and seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive
damages and attorney fees.  The plaintiff alleges that the
defendants used an improper and misleading sales and marketing
approach to seniors that fails to disclose all facts, misuses
consumers' confidential financial information, uses misleading
sales and marketing materials, promotes deferred annuities that
are fundamentally inferior and less valuable than readily
available alternative investment products and fails to adequately
disclose other principal risks including maturity dates, surrender
penalties and other restrictions which limit access to annuity
proceeds to a date beyond the applicants actuarial life
expectancy.

Plaintiffs have amended their complaint attempting to convert this
from a California only class action to a national class action.
In addition, the amended complaint adds causes of action under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act; aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty and for unjust enrichment.

On September 13, 2010, the court dismissed the plaintiff's RICO
claims.  On October 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint re-alleging their RICO claims.  A hearing date
on the motion for class certification has not been set.

The Company believes the action is without merit, and intends to
defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome of the action cannot
be predicted with certainty.


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Montreal Lawyer to File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Montreal Gazette reports a Montreal lawyer is seeking
permission in Quebec Superior Court to launch a national class-
action against the U.S. makers of prosthetic hips, claiming
patients have been harmed by defective implants.

In August, the DePuy orthopedic devices company issued a worldwide
recall of 93,000 ASR implants that had been installed on patients
since January 2006.  The company, a division of Johnson & Johnson,
announced that the recall would mean additional testing for some
patients, and in some cases, "revision surgery might be required."

DePuy's recall came just two days after the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration warned the company against selling two other hip-
replacement systems for unapproved uses.

David Assor, a lawyer for Merchant Law Group, said he doesn't know
how many Quebecers might be affected by the recall.

"Our position is that even if the (prosthetic) hips were installed
properly, the companies have now admitted that there were higher-
than-normal failure rates in the sense that either the body
rejects it or the hip itself breaks apart," Mr. Assor said.

DePuy is already facing a number of lawsuits in the U.S.

Separately, Jessica Murphy, writing for QMI Agency, reports
Eric Mets is recovering from his third hip-replacement operation
in two years, a painful saga the Toronto man blames in part on a
faulty implant.

The 50-year-old is one of a handful of Canadians behind a trio of
national class action lawsuits that have been launched in recent
months.  The claims target medical supply companies that have
recently recalled hip-replacement devices after patients began
complaining of problems.

In November, an Alberta-based law firm began legal proceedings in
Calgary, Halifax and Montreal against Zimmer, Stryker and DePuy,
claiming the components pulled from the market caused chronic and
painful complications.

The firm is seeking compensation for every Canadian implanted with
one of the five devices.

In October, a Toronto law firm also filed class action proceedings
over the orthopedic implants, but set its sights solely on Zimmer.
A B.C. law firm filed a similar suit in August.

DePuy, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, recalled two implant models
in August after finding one in eight patients who got the device
needed a second operation.

In 2008, Stryker recalled two implants after the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration posted a warning on its website after
receiving complaints of pain, squeaky joints and uneven wearing in
patients with the new joint.

And Zimmer pulled the Durom Cup model in July 2008 in the U.S.,
but only halted distribution and marketing of the device in Canada
16 months later.

According to the statement of claim filed by the Toronto firm, the
failure rate for the Zimmer device in both countries is roughly
24%.

But in a 2008 release, the company blamed doctors who failed to
perform "crucial technical steps" during surgery and claimed only
1.5% of patients need a second operation if the implant is
properly inserted.

That's cold comfort to Mr. Mets, whose hip was replaced with the
Zimmer product several months after the U.S. recall.

"When I found out they pulled it in the States and not up here, I
was livid," he said. It was after an infection and a third surgery
that he decided to sue.

Mets said one of the toughest times in the past two years was when
he realized he had to stop refereeing hockey because of his
ongoing health problems.

"That was a real sad day in my life. I loved it with a passion, I
loved the kids, loved the parents, loved the coaches. But now
that's no more," he said.

None of the allegations have been proven in court

In Canada, more than 23,000 hip replacements are performed each
year.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Alberta Class Actions Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
In 2003, Gareth Young, a former customer, commenced a
representative action against Money Mart(R), Dollar Financial
Group, Inc. and two other individual defendants in the Court of
Queen's Bench of Alberta, Canada on behalf of a class of
consumers.  The action seeks restitution and damages, including
punitive damages.  In 2004, Money Mart served Mr. Young a demand
for arbitration.  In July 2010, Dollar Financial and the
individual defendants in the case were dismissed.

In 2006, a former customer, H. Craig Day, commenced a purported
class action against Dollar Financial, Money Mart and several of
the Company's franchisees in the Court of Queen's Bench of
Alberta, Canada on behalf of a putative class of consumers who
obtained short-term loans from Money Mart in Alberta.  The
allegations and relief sought in the Day Litigation action are
substantially the same as those in the Young Litigation, but
relate to a claim period that commences before and ends after the
claim period in the Young Litigation and excludes the claim period
described in the Young Litigation.  In 2007, a demand for
arbitration was served on the Day action plaintiffs; in April
2010, plaintiffs' indicated that they would proceed with the
claims in the Alberta Litigation; Money Mart and the franchisees
have filed motions to enforce the arbitration clause and to stay
the actions.

Neither of the actions comprising the Alberta Litigation has been
certified to date as a class action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 8,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Manitoba Class Action Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp. operates a store network through Dollar
Financial Group, Inc.  The Company, through its subsidiaries,
provides retail financial services to the general public through a
network of 1,193 locations operating principally as Money Mart(R),
The Money Shop, Loan Mart(R), Insta-Cheques(R) and The Check
Cashing Store in 17 states, Canada, the United Kingdom and the
Republic of Ireland.

In 2004, an action was filed against Money Mart in Manitoba on
behalf of a purported class of consumers who obtained short-term
loans from Money Mart.  The action has not been certified to date
as a class action.  If the action proceeds, Money Mart intends to
seek a stay of the action on the grounds that the plaintiff
entered into an arbitration and mediation agreement with Money
Mart with respect to the matters which are the subject of this
action.

No further updates were provided in the Company's November 8,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.


FBR CAPITAL: Unit Continues to Defend Thornburg-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
FBR Capital Markets Corporation's principal U.S. broker-dealer
subsidiary, FBR Capital Markets & Co., intends to oppose any
motion for reconsideration of its dismissal as defendant in a
Thornburg Mortgage securities lawsuit, the Company disclosed in
its November 8, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Motion for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

FBR Capital Markets & Co is referred to as FBR & Co.

In May 2008, the lead plaintiff in a previously filed and
consolidated action filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint that, for the first time, named Friedman, Billings,
Ramsey & Co., Inc. -- now FBR & Co. -- and eight other
underwriters as defendants.  The lawsuit, styled In Re Thornburg
Mortgage, Inc. Securities Litigation and pending in the United
States District Court for the District of New Mexico, was
originally filed in August 2007 against Thornburg Mortgage, Inc.
and certain of its officers and directors, alleging material
misrepresentations and omissions about, inter alia, the financial
position of TMI.

The amended complaint now includes claims under Sections 11 and 12
of the Securities Act against nine underwriters relating to five
separate offerings -- May 2007, June 2007, September 2007 and two
offerings in January 2008.

The allegations against FBR & Co. relate only to its role as
underwriter or member of the syndicate that underwrote TMI's total
of three offerings in September 2007 and January 2008 -- each of
which occurred after the filing of the original complaint -- with
an aggregate offering price of approximately $818,000.

The plaintiffs seek restitution, unspecified compensatory damages
and reimbursement of certain costs and expenses.

Although FBR & Co. is contractually entitled to be indemnified by
TMI in connection with the lawsuit, TMI filed for bankruptcy on
May 1, 2009 and this likely will decrease or eliminate the value
of the indemnity that FBR & Co. receives from TMI.

On September 22, 2008, FBR & Co. filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint as to FBR & Co.  The District
Court granted that motion on January 27, 2010.

On July 5, 2010, the District Court ruled that it would allow the
plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint; the
District Court is also allowing plaintiffs to file a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's order dismissing the amended
complaint.  FBR & Co. will oppose those motions.


FORCE PROTECTION: Jan. 25 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Summary Notice of Pendency And Proposed Settlement of Class Action
for In Re Force Protection, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Consolidated Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-845-CWH.

To: All persons who purchased Force Protection, Inc. ("Force
Protection") common stock from January 18, 2007 to March 14, 2008,
inclusive (the "Class")

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a settlement hearing will be held on
January 25, 2011, at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable C. Weston
Houck, Senior United States District Judge, United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Federal
Courthouse, 85 Broad Street, Charleston, South Carolina 29401 (the
"Settlement Hearing").  The Settlement Hearing is to consider a
settlement with the Defendants in the above-captioned lawsuit (the
"Action") brought on behalf of the Class, as defined above. The
purpose of the Settlement Hearing is to determine, among other
things: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims against
the Defendants for the sum of $24,000,000 should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether,
thereafter, the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
the Defendants; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair,
reasonable and adequate and should be approved; (4) whether the
application of Lead Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel for the payment of
attorneys' fees and the reimbursement of expenses incurred in
connection with prosecuting the Action should be approved; and (5)
whether Compensatory Awards should be granted to the Lead
Plaintiffs.

If you purchased Force Protection common stock during the above-
referenced period, you may be a member of the Class, and your
rights may be affected by the proposed Settlement.

If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice"), or obtained a
copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies of
the same by contacting the Claims Administrator at 877-896-6933 or
by downloading these documents at:

          http://www.ForceProtectionClassAction.com/

You may also download the complaint in the Action and the
Stipulation of Settlement at the same site or at
http://www.pomlaw.com/or http://www.bermandevalerio.com/

These documents are also available for review at the Court.

To participate in the Settlement, you must submit to the Claims
Administrator a Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no later
than March 11, 2011.  To be excluded from the Class, and therefore
be ineligible to participate in, but not bound by, the Settlement,
you must do so in writing, to be received by the Claims
Administrator no later than December 27, 2010.  If you are a
member of the Class and wish to file an objection to the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, the request for attorneys'
fees and costs, and/or the request for Lead Plaintiff Compensatory
Awards, you must do so, with documentation as set forth in the
Notice.

Any such Person must submit a written notice of objection, which
must be filed on or before December 27, 2010, with the CLERK OF
THE COURT, United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina, Charleston Federal Courthouse, 85 Broad Street,
Charleston, SC 29401; and also served on or before December 27,
2010 upon: Brian C. Duffy, Duffy & Young, LLP, 96 Broad Street,
Charleston, SC 29401; Jason S. Cowart, Esq., Pomerantz Haudek
Block Grossman & Gross LLP, 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017;
Jeffrey C. Block, Berman DeValerio, One Liberty Square, Boston, MA
02109; M. Robert Thornton, King & Spalding LLP, 1180 Peachtree
Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30309; and Eleni M. Roumel, Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough LLP, 151 Meeting Street, Charleston, SC 29401.

Please Do Not Contact The Court Regarding This Summary Notice.

DATED: October 5, 2010
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION


FREDERICK COUNTY: In Talks to Resolve Lawsuit Filed Against Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick County Bancorp, Inc., is in talks to resolve a lawsuit
filed against its subsidiary in Maryland, according to the
Company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On July 30, 2010, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary Frederick
County Bank, was served with a lawsuit, Pionteck, v. Frederick
County Bank, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland, Greenbelt Division, alleging noncompliance
of the ATM notice requirements of the Electronic Funds Transfer
Act.  The complaint, which purports to be a class action, was
filed on July 15, 2010.

If the class action proceeds and the Bank is ultimately found to
be liable, statutory damages from the noncompliance could be up to
1% of the Bank's net worth, approximately $270 thousand at
September 30, 2010.

The Bank is in the process of discussions with respect to the
possible settlement of the claims for an amount, inclusive of
plaintiff legal fees and costs, below the maximum statutory
damages.

If settlement on the terms under discussion is reached and
approved by the court, the Company believes that it would not have
a material adverse affect on the Company's financial position.


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Fairness Hearing in "PSI" Suits Set for Dec. 10
------------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing in the Processing System Intrusion class action
against Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., is set for December 10,
2010, according to the company's November 8, 2010 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.

The Company said it has had several lawsuits filed against it and
additional lawsuits may be filed.  These include lawsuits which
assert claims against the Company by cardholders (including
various putative class actions seeking in the aggregate to
represent all cardholders in the United States whose transaction
information is alleged to have been placed at risk in the course
of the Processing System Intrusion), and banks that issued payment
cards to cardholders whose transaction information is alleged to
have been placed at risk in the course of the Processing System
Intrusion (including various putative class actions seeking to
represent all financial institutions that issued payment cards to
cardholders whose transaction information is alleged to have been
placed at risk in the course of the Processing System Intrusion),
seeking damages allegedly arising out of the Processing System
Intrusion and other related relief.

The actions generally assert various common-law claims such as
claims for negligence and breach of contract, as well as, in some
cases, statutory claims such as violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, state data breach notification statutes, and state
unfair and deceptive practices statutes. The putative cardholder
class actions seek various forms of relief including damages,
injunctive relief, multiple or punitive damages, attorneys' fees
and costs. The putative financial institution class actions seek
compensatory damages, including recovery of the cost of issuance
of replacement cards and losses by reason of unauthorized
transactions, as well as injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and
costs.

On June 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
entered an order centralizing the class action cases for pre-trial
proceedings before the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, under the caption In re Heartland
Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation,
MDL No. 2046, 4:09-md-2046. On August 24, 2009, the court
appointed interim co-lead and liaison counsel for the financial
institution and consumer plaintiffs. On September 23, 2009, the
financial institution plaintiffs filed a Master Complaint in the
MDL proceedings, which the Company moved to dismiss on October 23,
2009. Briefing on that motion to dismiss concluded on February 1,
2010 and the motion remains pending. On December 18, 2009, the
Company and interim counsel for the consumer plaintiffs filed with
the Court a proposed settlement agreement, subject to court
approval, of the consumer class action claims. On May 3, 2010, the
Court entered an order preliminarily certifying the settlement
class, authorizing notice to the class to proceed, and scheduling
a fairness hearing for December 10, 2010.


INTERNATIONAL COAL: Virginia Securities Litigation Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
On January 7, 2008, Saratoga Advantage Trust filed a class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia against International Coal Group, Inc., and certain
of its officers and directors seeking unspecified damages.  The
complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, based on alleged false and misleading statements in
the registration statements filed in connection with the Company's
November 2005 reorganization and December 2005 public offering of
common stock.  In addition, the complaint challenges other of the
Company's public statements regarding its operating condition and
safety record.

On July 6, 2009, Saratoga filed an amended complaint asserting
essentially the same claims but seeking to add an individual co-
plaintiff.  The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 8,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


JYSKE BANK: Hedge Fund Investors File Class Action Over Losses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Molin, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that
Denmark's Jyske Bank A/S (JYSK.KO) Friday said it received notice
of a class action lawsuit filed by law firm Lett to recover losses
suffered in the financial crisis by clients invested in an
independently managed hedge fund that Jyske marketed.

The head of Jyske's legal department, Peter Stig Hansen, told Dow
Jones Newswires the bank disputes the claim, which is the first
class action lawsuit in the bank's history and only the second
class action ever in Denmark.

"The financial crisis was a nightmare for everybody and lots of
funds got in trouble and lost a significant part of their value.
Nobody could have anticipated the way things turned out and
therefore, the bank cannot be held legally responsible," he said
in a phone interview.

The hedge fund, called Jyske Invest Hedge Markedneutral -
Obligationer, lost 84% of its value when markets plummeted in
autumn 2008 after the collapse of U.S. investment bank Lehman
Brothers Holding Inc. (LEHMQ).

Since then it has recovered part of its value, gaining 40% in 2009
and 18% so far in 2010.

The Lett attorney representing the case was not immediately
available for comment.

Denmark adopted its Chapter 23A court proceedings law in 2007 to
allow for class action lawsuits by private individuals to be filed
against companies.  The amendment sought to make it easier for
consumers to bring cases involving small amounts to court as well
as adding pressure on companies to behave.

Denmark's only other class action lawsuit involves Bank Trelleborg
A/S, which was also hit hard by the financial crisis and later
taken over by Sydbank A/S (SYDB.KO).

Class action makes it possible for private individuals with
similar complaints to combine them into one lawsuit rather than
filing separate claims.

Hansen said he didn't know how many people were behind the Lett
lawsuit, but that it was likely to snowball as other Jyske hedge
fund investors become aware of it.  The amount sought is also
unknown.

Prior to the suit being filed, the Danish regulator's complaints
board had ruled on 43 cases involving the independent Jyske hedge
fund.  Of those, the complaints board ruled in favor of the
customers 25 times and of the bank 18 times.

Jyske has challenged most of the rulings against the bank, arguing
that the burden of proof was incorrectly placed upon the bank.
"The complaints board took [the view] . . . that unless the bank
can prove it hasn't done anything wrong it should pay. We don't
think that is the proper procedure.  It's like the police asking
you to prove you didn't run a red light."

Shares in Jyske closed flat at DKK227.70 Friday, valuing the
company at 14.75 billion Danish kroner ($2.64 billion).  Shares
have gained 12% so far this year, compared with a 27% gain in the
broader Copenhagen index.


KINDER MORGAN: Inks $200 Mil. Settlement of "Going Private" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc., has entered into a $200 million settlement of
a consolidated class action in Kansas arising from a going private
transaction, 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 on May 29, 2006, the day after the proposal of Kinder
Morgan, Inc.'s merger with a wholly owned subsidiary of Kinder
Morgan Holdco LLC was announced, and in the days following, eight
putative Class Action lawsuits were filed in Harris County
(Houston), Texas and seven putative Class Action lawsuits were
filed in Shawnee County (Topeka), Kansas against, among others,
Kinder Morgan, Inc., its Board of Directors, the Special Committee
of the Board of Directors, and several corporate officers.

The eight Harris County cases were consolidated into the Crescente
v. Kinder Morgan, Inc. et al case, Cause No. 2006-33011, in the
164th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. The seven
Kansas cases were consolidated into the Consol. Case No. 06 C 801;
In Re Kinder Morgan, Inc. Shareholder Litigation; in the District
Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, Division 12. The Consolidated
Petitions filed by the plaintiffs challenged the proposed
transaction as inadequate and unfair to Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s
public stockholders. They alleged that Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s Board
of Directors and certain members of senior management breached
their fiduciary duties and the Sponsor Investors aided and abetted
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in entering into the merger
agreement. They sought, among other things, to enjoin the merger,
rescission of the merger agreement, disgorgement of any improper
profits received by the defendants, and attorneys' fees.
Defendants answered the Consolidated Petitions, denying the
plaintiffs' substantive allegations and denying that the
plaintiffs are entitled to relief.

In August, September and October 2008, the Plaintiffs in both
consolidated cases voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the
claims against those Kinder Morgan, Inc., directors who did not
participate in the buyout (including the dismissal of the members
of the special committee of the board of directors), Kinder
Morgan, Inc. and Knight Acquisition, Inc.

In addition, on November 19, 2008, by agreement of the parties,
the Texas trial court issued an order staying all proceedings in
the Texas actions until such time as a final judgment shall be
issued in the Kansas actions. The effect of this stay is that the
consolidated matters will proceed only in the Kansas trial court.

In February 2009, the parties submitted an agreed upon order which
has been entered by the Kansas trial court certifying a class
consisting of "All holders of Kinder Morgan, Inc. common stock,
during the period of August 28, 2006, through May 30, 2007, and
their transferees, successors and assigns. Excluded from the class
are defendants, members of their immediate families or trusts for
the benefit of defendants or their immediate family members, and
any majority-owned affiliates of any defendant." The parties
agreed that the certification and definition of the above class
was subject to revision and without prejudice to defendants' right
to seek decertification of the class or modification of the class
definition.

On September 8, 2010, the Company entered into a $200 million
settlement agreement to resolve the consolidated class action
cases currently pending before the Kansas trial court. The
settlement has been preliminarily approved by the Kansas trial
court and a hearing on final approval was held on November 12,
2010.

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, the
Company recognized a $200 million, pre-tax charge in the caption
"General and administrative expense" in its accompanying
consolidated statement of income and an increase to the caption
"Accrued other current liabilities" in its accompanying
consolidated balance sheet.


KOHLBERG CAPITAL: Continues Defense v. 3 Class Actions in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kolberg Capital Corporation continues to face three putative class
actions pending in the Southern District of New York, according to
the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

The company and certain directors and officers are named as
defendants in three putative class actions pending in the Southern
District of New York brought by shareholders of the Company and
filed in December 2009 and January 2010.  The complaints in these
three actions allege violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the
Exchange Act based on the company's disclosures of its year-end
2008 and first- and second-quarter 2009 financial statements.

The Company believes that each of the lawsuits is without merit
and will defend each vigorously.


LIONBRIDGE TECH: Appeals on Settlement of NY Suits Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals to reconsider final court approval of a settlement of
class action lawsuits against Lionbridge Technologies Inc. are
still pending, according to the company's November 8, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On or about July 24, 2001, a purported securities class action
lawsuit captioned "Samet v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. et al."
(01-CV-6770) was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain underwriters involved in the
Company's initial public offering.  The complaint in this action
asserted, among other things, that omissions regarding the
underwriters' alleged conduct in allocating shares in Lionbridge's
initial public offering to the underwriters' customers.  In March
2002, the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York entered an order dismissing without prejudice the
claims against Lionbridge and its officers and directors (the case
remained pending against the underwriter defendants).

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
naming as defendants not only the underwriter defendants but also
Lionbridge and certain of its officers and directors.  The amended
complaint asserts claims under both the registration and antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws relating to, among other
allegations, the underwriters' alleged conduct in allocating
shares in the Company's initial public offering and disclosures
contained in the Company's registration statement.  On July 15,
2002, the Company, together with the other issuers named as
defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a collective
motion to dismiss the complaint on various legal grounds common to
all or most of the issuer defendants.  In October 2002, the claims
against officers and directors were dismissed without prejudice.
In February 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motion to
dismiss, ruling that the claims under the antifraud provisions of
the securities laws could proceed against the Company and a
majority of the other issuer defendants.

In June 2003, Lionbridge elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If
the proposed settlement had been approved by the Court, it would
have resulted in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in
the litigation against Lionbridge and against any other of the
issuer defendants who elected to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants. This proposed issuer settlement was conditioned on,
among other things, a ruling by the District Court that the claims
against Lionbridge and against the other issuers who had agreed to
the settlement would be certified for class action treatment for
purposes of the proposed settlement, such that all investors
included in the proposed classes in these cases would be bound by
the terms of the settlement unless an investor opted to be
excluded from the settlement.

On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit issued a decision in In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation that six purported class action lawsuits
containing allegations substantially similar to those asserted
against the Company may not be certified as class actions due, in
part, to the Appeals Court's determination that individual issues
of reliance and knowledge would predominate over issues common to
the proposed classes.  On January 8, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a
petition seeking rehearing en banc of the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals' decision.  On April 6, 2007 the Court of Appeals denied
the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing of the Court's December 5,
2006 ruling but noted that the plaintiffs remained free to ask the
District Court to certify classes different from the ones
originally proposed which might meet the standards for class
certification that the Court of Appeals articulated in its
December 5, 2006 decision.  In light of the Court of Appeals'
December 5, 2006 decision regarding certification of the
plaintiffs' claims, the District Court entered an order on
June 25, 2007 terminating the proposed settlement between the
plaintiffs and the issuers, including Lionbridge.

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

On February 25, 2009, the parties advised the District Court that
they had reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the
litigation in its entirety.  A stipulation of settlement was filed
with the District Court on April 2, 2009.  On June 9, 2009, the
District Court preliminarily approved the proposed global
settlement. Notice was provided to the class and a settlement
fairness hearing, at which members of the class had an opportunity
to object to the proposed settlement was held on September 10,
2009. On October 6, 2009, the District Court issued an order
granting final approval to the settlement.

Ten appeals were filed objecting to the definition of the
settlement class and fairness of the settlement, five of which
have been dismissed with prejudice.  Appeal briefs have been filed
by the remaining objector groups, and briefs in opposition to
those appeals are currently due December 17, 2010.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Court Junks Certification Motion in Obesity Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A district court dismissed a certification motion filed by
plaintiffs in an "obesity" class suit against McDonald's
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 September 30, 2010.

On or about February 17, 2003, two minors, by their parents and
guardians, filed an Amended Complaint against McDonald's
Corporation in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Case No. 02 Civ. 7821) (Ashley Pelman, a
child under the age of 18 years, by her mother and natural
guardian, Roberta Pelman, and Jazlen Bradley, a child under the
age of 18 years, by her father and natural guardian, Israel
Bradley, v. McDonald's Corporation) seeking class action status on
behalf of individuals in New York under the age of 18 (and their
parents and/or guardians), who became obese or developed other
adverse health conditions allegedly from eating McDonald's
products.

On September 3, 2003, the Court dismissed all counts of the
complaint with prejudice. On January 25, 2005, following an appeal
by the plaintiffs, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the
District Court's decision to dismiss alleged violations of Section
349 of the New York Consumer Protection Act as set forth in Counts
I-III of the amended complaint.

On December 12, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint. In this complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that
McDonald's Corporation: (1) engaged in a deceptive advertising
campaign to "be perceived to be less nutritionally detrimental-
than-in-fact"; (2) failed to disclose adequately its use of
certain additives and ingredients; and (3) failed to provide
nutritional information about its products. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory damages; an order directing defendants to
label their individual products specifying the fat, salt, sugar,
cholesterol and dietary content; an order prohibiting marketing to
certain individuals; "funding of an educational program to inform
children and adults of the dangers of eating certain foods" sold
by defendants; and attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 27, 2010, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

The Company believes that it has substantial legal and factual
defenses to the plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend this
lawsuit vigorously.


NSTAR: Faces Merger-Related Class Action Lawsuits in Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------------
NSTAR is facing several class action lawsuits in connection with
its proposed merger with Northeast Utilities, according to the
company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

Following NSTAR and NU's announcement of the planned merger
transaction on October 18, 2010, several class action lawsuits
were filed against NSTAR, members of NSTAR's Board of Trustees,
and NU in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, and
in the federal court in the District of Massachusetts.  Thomas B.
Breene v. NSTAR, et al.; Max Glickman v. NSTAR, et al.; Ted Silver
v. Thomas May, et al.; William Fitzpatrick v. NSTAR, et al.;
Elaine Ferkauf v. NSTAR, et al.; Linda Alten-Mangels v. NSTAR, et
al.; Daniel Himmel v. NSTAR, et al.; Michael Orlando v. NSTAR, et
al.; and George Keuriam v. NSTAR, et al.  The lawsuits purport to
represent a class of NSTAR shareholders opposed to the terms of
the Merger Agreement.  The lawsuits make virtually identical
allegations that the consideration to be received by NSTAR's
shareholders in the merger is inadequate and that the members of
NSTAR's Board of Trustees breached their fiduciary duties, by
among other things, approving the merger.  Each lawsuit seeks
injunctive relief declaring that the Merger Agreement was in
breach of NSTAR trustees' fiduciary duties, enjoining NSTAR and NU
from proceeding with the merger, directing NSTAR's Board of
Trustees to exercise its fiduciary duties in the best interest of
NSTAR's shareholders and rescinding the Merger Agreement.

NSTAR believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends
to defend the lawsuits vigorously.


PIONEER FOODS: Wins Ruling in Class Suit Over Bread Prices
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Cohen, writing for Bloomberg News, reports Pioneer Foods
Ltd., Tiger Brands Ltd. and Premier Foods Ltd. won a preliminary
ruling in a South African lawsuit filed by human rights groups and
labor unions seeking class-action status to sue over bread prices.

Acting South Africa High Court Judge Francois van Zyl dismissed a
pre-trial application seeking class-action status at a hearing in
Cape Town Friday without giving any reasons.  While the case will
proceed, the companies may question the organizations' right to
file a class action during the trial, said Charles Abrahams, a
lawyer for the groups.

The Black Sash, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the
Children's Resources Center and the National Consumer Forum sued
the companies on behalf of consumers who they say were overcharged
for bread.

"I don't think [Fri]day's ruling is a blow to the case,"
Mr. Abrahams told reporters outside the court.  The organizations
"wanted to have certainty that they were duly authorized" to seek
damages on behalf of consumers.

Pioneer agreed on Nov. 2 to pay a 500 million-rand ($70 million)
fine by the country's Competition Commission for contravening the
nation's antitrust laws in its flour and corn milling unit and its
bakeries, eggs and poultry businesses.  Tiger and Premier Foods
were granted conditional immunity for cooperating with the probe.

In February, the regulator imposed a separate 195.7 million-rand
penalty on Paarl-based Pioneer for colluding with rivals to raise
bread prices.  Tiger Brands Ltd., which is based in Johannesburg,
admitted guilt in the same case and was fined 98.8 million rand in
Nov. 2007.

The companies' lawyers argued that the pre-trial application was
unnecessary and that the organizations failed to obtain a
certificate from regulators to file for civil damages for the
breach of competition laws as required under South African law.

The case number is 25302/10.

Separately, Regan Thaw, writing for Eyewitness News, reports
several NGO's that launched a class action against three bread
producers, regarding a price fixing scandal said they are not
deterred by the court application being dismissed.

The Western Cape High Court has set aside the application that
sought to clear the way for a landmark class action, but the
group's Mr. Abrahams said this does not mean that the lawsuit has
been derailed.

"I do not necessarily think it is a blow to the case because we
wanted to have certainty.  The summons will nonetheless go out, it
is not a blow to the case because the actual case is the
commencement of the proceedings," he explained.

The Children Resource Centre's Marcus Solomons said he is not
worried about the ruling.

"The struggle for the right to food continues and we will continue
to mobilize around this issue.  While summons will be issued we
are going to mobilize in big scale, people in general including
the government must see that people are serious about getting the
right to food," he said.


QC HOLDINGS: Discovery in Missouri Class Action Suit Commences
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by customers against QC Holdings,
Inc., in Missouri, is in its discovery phase, according to the
Company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On October 13, 2006, one of the Company's Missouri customers sued
the Company in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri in
a purported class action.  The lawsuit alleges violations of the
Missouri statute pertaining to unsecured loans under $500 and the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.  The lawsuit seeks monetary
damages and a declaratory judgment that the arbitration agreement
with the plaintiff is not enforceable on a variety of theories.

The Company moved to compel arbitration of this matter.

In December 2007, the court entered an order striking the class
action waiver provision in the Company's customer arbitration
agreement, ordered the case to arbitration, and dismissed the
lawsuit filed in Circuit Court.

In July 2008, the Company filed its appeal of the court's order
with the Missouri Court of Appeals.

In December 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of
the trial court.

In September 2009, the plaintiff filed her action in arbitration.
The Company has filed its answer, and a three-person arbitration
panel has been chosen.

Discovery has commenced, and the parties will possibly argue class
certification in early 2011.


QC HOLDINGS: North Carolina Class Action Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
On February 8, 2005, QC Holdings, Inc., two of its subsidiaries,
including its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Mr.
Don Early, the Company's chairman of the board and chief executive
officer, were sued in Superior Court of New Hanover County, North
Carolina in a putative class action lawsuit filed by James B.
Torrence, Sr., and Ben Hubert Cline.

The plaintiffs were customers of a Delaware state-chartered bank
for whom the Company provided certain services in connection with
the bank's origination of payday loans in North Carolina, prior to
the closing of the Company's North Carolina branches in fourth
quarter 2005.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various North
Carolina laws, including the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act,
the North Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North Carolina Loan
Brokers Act, the state unfair trade practices statute and the
state usury statute, in connection with payday loans made by the
bank to the two plaintiffs through the Company's retail locations
in North Carolina.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company made the payday loans to the
plaintiffs in violation of various state statutes, and that if the
Company is not viewed as the "actual lenders or makers" of the
payday loans, its services to the bank that made the loans
violated various North Carolina statutes.

Plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class, unspecified
monetary damages, and treble damages and attorneys' fees under
specified North Carolina statutes.

Plaintiffs have not sued the bank in this matter and have
specifically stated in the complaint that plaintiffs do not
challenge the right of out-of-state banks to enter into loans with
North Carolina residents at such rates as the bank's home state
may permit, all as authorized by North Carolina and federal law.

This case is in the preliminary stages.

The Company will argue its own issues concerning arbitration and
class certification before the trial court in early 2011.

No further updates were provided in the Company's November 8,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


QC HOLDINGS: Court Approves Settlement of South Carolina Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc., obtained court approval of its settlement of a
lawsuit filed against its unit in South Carolina, according to the
Company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On October 30, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company was sued in the
Fifth Judicial Circuit Court of Common Pleas in South Carolina in
a putative class action lawsuit filed by Carl G. Ferrell, a
customer of the South Carolina subsidiary.  Mr. Ferrell alleged
that the subsidiary violated the South Carolina Deferred
Presentment Services Act by including an arbitration provision and
class action waiver in its loan agreements.  Mr. Ferrell alleged
further that the subsidiary did not appropriately take into
account his ability to repay his loan with the subsidiary, and it
was his contention that this alleged failure violated the South
Carolina Deferred Presentment Services Act, was negligent,
breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and served
as the basis for a civil conspiracy.  Mr. Ferrell made the same
allegations in cases against several other lenders.

The Company and other lenders in South Carolina reached a
settlement agreement with the plaintiff, which was approved by the
Court in September 2010.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Appeal on Merger-Related Suit Settlement Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal has been filed in relation to the final approval of a
settlement resolving six securities class lawsuits commenced
against SandRidge Energy, Inc., arising from the Company's merger
transaction with Arena Resources Inc., according to the Company's
November 8, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

SandRidge and one of its subsidiaries completed the acquisition of
all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Arena on July 16,
2010, for an aggregate purchase price of $1.4 billion.

After the April 3, 2010 announcement of the transaction, nine
putative class action lawsuits challenging the transaction were
filed in state and federal court in Oklahoma and state court in
Nevada by Arena shareholders.  The titles of the nine shareholder
lawsuits, the courts in which they were filed, and the dates they
were filed are:

   1. Thomas Slater v. Arena Resources, Inc., et al. -- filed in
      District Court in Tulsa County, Tulsa, Oklahoma on April 6,
      2010

   2. City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v.
      Arena Resources, Inc., et al. -- filed in District Court in
      Washoe County, Reno, Nevada on April 8, 2010

   3. West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Rochford, et al. --
      filed in District Court in Clark County, Las Vegas, Nevada
      on April 12, 2010

   4. Henry Kolesnik v. Arena Resources, Inc., et al -- filed in
      District Court in Washoe County, Reno, Nevada on April 14,
      2010

   5. Richard J. Erickson v. Arena Resources, Inc., et al. --
      filed in Tulsa County, Tulsa, Oklahoma on April 16, 2010

   6. Thomas Stevenson v. Rochford, et al. -- filed in the United
      States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
      on April 26, 2010

   7. Raymond M. Eberhardt v. Arena Resources, Inc., et al. --
      filed in District Court in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma City,
      Oklahoma on April 8, 2010

   8. Roger and Kanya Tiemchan Phillips v. Rochford, et al. --
      filed in District Court in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma City,
      Oklahoma on April 16, 2010

   9. Reinfried v. Arena Resources, Inc., et al. -- filed in
      Oklahoma County, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on April 20, 2010.

All nine lawsuits asserted, based on substantially similar
allegations, that Arena's directors breached their fiduciary
duties by negotiating and approving the transaction and by
administering a sale process that failed to maximize shareholder
value and that Arena, SandRidge and/or a subsidiary of SandRidge
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  One of
the lawsuits, the action filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Oklahoma, also alleged violations of
federal securities laws in connection with allegedly issuing an
incomplete and misleading proxy statement.  The lawsuits sought,
among other relief, an injunction preventing the consummation of
the merger and, in certain cases, unspecified damages.

In order to avoid the cost, disruption and uncertainty of
litigation -- and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing --
on May 27, 2010, SandRidge and Arena reached an agreement to
settle six of the putative stockholder class actions related to
the merger, including five of the lawsuits filed in state courts
in Nevada and Oklahoma and the lawsuit filed in federal court, all
of which had been proceeding on a coordinated basis for purposes
of discovery before the District Court in Washoe County, Reno,
Nevada.

On September 30, 2010, the Nevada Court entered an Order Approving
Final Class Action Settlement and Award of Attorneys Fees, which
approved the terms of the settlement; overruled all objections to
the settlement; and certified a class consisting, with certain
exceptions, of all persons and entities who owned Arena common
stock during the period from April 3, 2010 through the Effective
Time of the Merger.  Pursuant to the Court's order and the
Stipulation of Settlement, certain claims of the Settlement Class
were released, and the Coordinated Actions were dismissed with
prejudice.  The Court's order also released, and enjoined
Settlement Class members from prosecuting, the claims filed by the
plaintiffs in the three lawsuits that were not part of the
Coordinated Action.

On November 1, 2010, Raymond M. Eberhardt and Tanya Kiemchan
Phillips, two former shareholders of Arena who had filed
objections to the settlement in the Nevada Court, filed a Notice
of Appeal appealing the Final Approval Order to the Nevada Supreme
Court.

SandRidge intends to vigorously defend the enforcement of the
Final Approval Order.


SLM CORP: Awaits Final Court Approval of Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington will hold a hearing on December 17, 2010, to consider
final approval of an agreement to settle a putative class action
suit against SLM Corporation, according to the company's Nov. 8,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On February 2, 2010, a putative class action suit was filed by a
borrower in U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington (Mark A. Arthur et al. v. SLM Corporation). The suit
complains that the Company allegedly contacted "tens of thousands"
of consumers on their cellular telephones without their prior
express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, Section 227 et seq.  Each violation under the TCPA provides
for $500 in statutory damages ($1,500 if a willful violation is
shown). Plaintiffs seek statutory damages, damages for willful
violations, attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive relief.  On
April 5, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint changing the defendant from SLM Corporation to Sallie
Mae, Inc.  The parties in this matter have reached a tentative
settlement which is subject to court approval and other
conditions.

On September 14, 2010, the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington agreed to Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement.  The Company has
vigorously denied all claims asserted against it, but agreed to
the settlement to avoid the burden and expense of continued
litigation.  If the settlement receives final approval from the
Court, settlement awards will be made to eligible class members on
a claims-made basis from a settlement fund of $19.5 million, and
class members may opt out of certain calls to their cellular
telephones.  The Court has set a final approval hearing for
December 17, 2010. The Company recorded $19.5 million of
contingency expense in the second quarter of 2010 related to this
matter.


SMURFIT-STONE: Seeks to Enjoin 4 Class Actions in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. is seeking an injunction against
four putative class action complaints in Illinois, 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 September 2010, four putative class action complaints were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against the company and several other paper
and packaging companies.  The Complaints allege that Smurfit-Stone
and the Defendants engaged in anti-competitive activities and
violation of antitrust laws by reaching agreements in restraint of
trade that affected the manufacture, sale and pricing of
corrugated products.  The Complaints seek an unspecified amount of
damages arising from the sale of corrugated products from 2005 to
present.

Smurfit-Stone has filed an adversary proceeding in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court seeking a determination that the filing of these
Complaints violates the Confirmation Order, along with a motion
for a preliminary injunction to prevent prosecution of the
Complaints.


SPECTRA ENERGY: Agrees to Share Liability in Duke Energy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spectra Energy Corporation has agreed to share liability in an
ERISA lawsuit commenced against Duke Energy Corporation, according
to the Company's November 8, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

Spectra was spun off from Duke Energy in 2007.

A class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in South
Carolina in 2006 against Duke Energy and the Duke Energy
Retirement Cash Balance Plan.  Various causes of action were
alleged in the class action lawsuit, including violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act.  These allegations arose out of
the conversion of the Duke Power Company Employees' Retirement
Plan into the Duke Power Company Retirement Cash Balance Plan.
The plaintiffs sought to represent present and former participants
in the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan.

Various motions were filed by the parties, and the Court issued a
series of rulings in 2008 denying the plaintiffs' class
certification motion, dismissing certain of the causes of action
originally filed by plaintiffs and allowing other causes of action
to proceed.

As a result of these rulings, the plaintiffs re-filed a new
Amended Class Action Complaint in 2008 asserting and re-pleading
the three remaining claims which the Court allowed to proceed.

In 2009, the Court issued an Order granting class certification
for two of plaintiffs' remaining claims and denying certification
of the plaintiffs' third breach of fiduciary claim.

Both parties filed motions for summary judgment on April 1, 2010
with respect to the two claims that were certified for class
action treatment and Duke Energy also filed a motion for summary
judgment on the plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary claims.

A mediation between the Plaintiffs and Duke Energy occurred on
September 21, 2010, and an agreement was reached to resolve all
claims remaining in the case.  The agreement is subject to Court
approval as it includes the resolution of the claims that were
certified as class actions.

In a SEC regulatory filing, Spectra notes that in connection with
its spin-off from Duke Energy, it has agreed to share with Duke
Energy any liabilities or damages associated with the matter that
specifically relate to those Spectra Energy "participants" who are
class members and who share in the settlement.

The Company states that the amount applicable to it for the
planned settlement is not expected to be material and therefore,
it believes that the final disposition of the matter will not have
a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of
operations, financial position or cash flows.


STATE STREET CORP: Two ERISA Class Actions Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation is currently defending two putative ERISA
class actions by investors in unregistered State Street Global
Advisors-managed funds which participated in the securities
lending program, 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.

One complaint alleges that State Street failed to exercise
prudence in its management of the collateral pools in which the
SSgA lending funds had invested cash collateral from securities
lending activities, and that investors were injured as a result of
the redemption restrictions imposed by State Street in October
2008 (and which State Street removed in August 2010).  In June
2010, in order to permit SSgA to remove the redemption
restrictions on its funds that engage in securities lending and
mitigate potential liability concerns, State Street made an
aggregate one-time cash contribution to certain collateral pools
and liquidity trusts of $330 million.  This contribution
eliminated the difference between the market value of the
portfolio holdings of the collateral pools and liquidity trusts
and the amortized cost of such holdings.

The second complaint challenges the division of securities
lending-related revenue between the SSgA lending funds and State
Street in its role as lending agent.


STATE STREET CORP: 3 Shareholder-Related Suits Pending in Boston
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three shareholder-related class action complaints against State
Street Corporation are currently pending in federal court in
Boston, 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.

One complaint purports to be brought on behalf of State Street
shareholders. The two other complaints purport to be brought on
behalf of participants and beneficiaries in the State Street
Salary Savings Program who invested in the plan's State Street
stock investment option. The complaints variously allege
violations of the federal securities laws and ERISA in connection
with the company's foreign exchange trading business, the
company's investment securities portfolio and the company's asset-
backed commercial paper conduit program. In addition, two State
Street shareholders have filed a shareholder derivative complaint
in Massachusetts state court alleging fiduciary breaches by
present and former directors and officers of State Street in
connection with the State Street Global Advisors active fixed-
income funds that were the subject of a February 2010 settlement
with the SEC.  The company has moved to dismiss the complaint
based on the Board of Directors' consideration and rejection of
the shareholders' original demand letter.


TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS: Continues Defense in NY Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Telecommunication Systems, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a securities class action in New York, according to the
company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

In November 2001, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed
against the company, certain of the company's current officers and
a director, and several investment banks that were the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering: Highstein
v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., et al., United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 01-
CV-9500.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages. The lawsuit
purports to be a class action suit filed on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's Class A Common Stock during the period August 8,
2000 through December 6, 2000. The plaintiffs allege that the
Underwriters agreed to allocate the Company's Class A Common Stock
offered for sale in its initial public offering to certain
purchasers in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions
and agreements by those purchasers to make additional purchases of
the Company's Class A Common Stock in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices.

The plaintiffs allege that all of the defendants violated Sections
11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act, and that the underwriters
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The claims against the Company of
violation of Rule 10b-5 have been dismissed with the plaintiffs
having the right to re-plead. On October 5, 2009, the Court
approved a settlement of this and approximately 300 similar cases.
On January 14, 2010, an Order and Final Judgment was entered.
Various notices of appeal of the Court's October 5, 2009 order
were subsequently filed. On October 7, 2010, all but two parties
who had filed a notice of appeal filed a stipulation with the
Court withdrawing their appeals with prejudice, and the two
remaining objectors filed briefs in support of their appeals.

The Company said it intends to continue to defend the lawsuit
until the matter is resolved. The Company added that it has
purchased a Directors and Officers insurance policy which it
believes should cover any potential liability that may result from
these laddering class action claims, but can provide no assurance
that any or all of the costs of the litigation will ultimately be
covered by the insurance. No reserve has been created for this
matter.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
TravelCenters of America LLC continues to face an antitrust class
action in relation to Comdata fuel cards, according to the
Company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On April 6, 2009, five independent truck stop owners, who are
plaintiffs in a purported class action suit against Comdata
Network, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, filed a motion to amend their complaint
to add TravelCenters as a defendant.  The request as to
TravelCenters was allowed on March 25, 2010.

The amended complaint also adds as defendants Ceridian
Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers LLC and Love's Travel Stops &
Country Stores, Inc.

Comdata markets fuel cards which are used for payments by trucking
companies to truck stops.  The amended complaint alleges antitrust
violations arising out of Comdata's contractual relationships with
truck stops in connection with its fuel cards.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and injunctive
relief.

The class action is in the discovery stage.

TravelCenters believes that there are substantial factual and
legal defenses to the plaintiffs' claims against it, and that the
costs to defend the case could be significant.


UNITED WATER: Faces Class Action Over Worthless Warranties
----------------------------------------------------------
Michaelangelo Conte, writing for NJ.com, reports United Water may
have to pay out tens of millions of dollars if a jury finds on
behalf of several Union City residents who have filed a class
action lawsuit alleging the company cheated customers by selling
worthless warranties to cover repairs.

United Water sells warranties to customers to cover repair of
broken water pipes, sewer pipes and other items, collecting about
$150 per year on average from customers who opt in, said the
attorneys for three 18th Street plaintiffs.  Although the
application says "Guaranteed Acceptance" in large print, there are
actually many exclusions, the attorneys said.

The application says all multiunit dwellings are excluded, but the
lawsuit says that has not stopped United Water from marketing and
selling the policies to the owners of multi-unit buildings.

The suit says United Water knew or should have known it was
accepting money from multiunit building owners but "took no
measures to refrain from marketing or promoting its service plans
to multiunit buildings, and regularly accepted premiums and
entered into and sought to enter into contracts with owners of
multiunit buildings such as plaintiffs."

The suit filed in Bergen County Superior Court in Hackensack,
where United Water is based, alleges breach of contract, consumer
fraud, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Plain Language Act.

Attorneys Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran held a press conference
Tuesday at the courthouse, where they said a large number of
United Water's 750,000 New Jersey customers are in the same
situation as the plaintiffs.  They are asking others wishing to
join the class action to reach out to them at
http://www.unitedwater.blogspot.com

The plaintiffs want United Water to refund the amount it was
"unjustly enriched by their illegal conduct" over the past six
years and "disgorge their illegal profits."  The suit also seeks
the cost of repairing damage to property that was supposedly
covered by the policies, and punitive damages and tripled damages.

Mr. Afran estimated that if all New Jersey residents in a
situation similar to the plaintiffs were to join the suit, and the
suit was successful, it could cost United Water as much as $50
million.

The lawyers said marketing the policies in Union City is
especially egregious because there are 23,750 housing units in the
city and only 947 of them are single-family homes.  They said that
means about 96 percent of the homes are excluded under the
policies.

"Why would United Water sell warranties on water and sewer pipes
to customers in cities like my city of Union City when virtually
the entire city is apartments and other multiunit dwellings?"
asked plaintiff Dan Molloy, who attended the press conference.

"The answer is that United Water takes the money and runs,"
Mr. Molloy said.  "In my case, when my pipes burst, United Water
would not honor the warranty contract I paid for with my hard-
earned money because, like almost everyone else in Union City, I
live in a multiunit home."

Reached for comment Tuesday evening, United Water spokeswoman
Deb Rizzi said the company had just received a copy of the
complaint and she could not comment on it until it is reviewed.


UTILITIES INC: Willow Creek Homeowners File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Las Vegas Sun reports a trio of homeowners has renewed a class
action lawsuit over the wastewater discharged by a Nevada utility
into ponds that irrigate a Pahrump golf course.

Court papers filed in Nye County's District Court on behalf of the
homeowners contend the noxious sewage-filled water has devalued
their Willow Creek golf course homes.

The Las Vegas Sun reports the homeowners are seeking damages of
more than $10,000 each and an injunction forcing Utilities Inc. of
Central Nevada to stop any unlawful discharge.

The utility's regional director Wendy Barnett says the sewage
discharge meets state requirements.

In May a federal judge dismissed an earlier lawsuit after the
homeowners agreed it conflicted with litigation between the
company and course owners.


UTSTARCOM INC: Obtains Final Settlement Approval of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
UTStarcom Inc. won final court approval of an agreement to settle
a consolidated class action lawsuit in California, according to
the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

Beginning in October 2004, several shareholder class action
lawsuits alleging federal securities violations were filed against
the Company and various officers and directors of the Company.
The actions have been consolidated in United States District Court
for the Northern District of California under the caption In re
UTStarcom, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-04-4908-
JW (PVT).  The lead plaintiffs in the case filed a First Amended
Consolidated Complaint on July 26, 2005.  The First Amended
Complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and was brought on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased the Company's stock after April 16,
2003 and before September 20, 2004.  On April 13, 2006, the lead
plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint adding new allegations
and extending the end of the class period to October 6, 2005.  In
addition to the Company defendants, the plaintiffs are also suing
Softbank.  Plaintiffs' complaint seeks recovery of damages in an
unspecified amount.

On June 2, 2006, the Company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.  On March 21,
2007, the Court granted defendants' motion and dismissed
plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.  The Court granted
plaintiffs leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, which
plaintiffs filed on May 25, 2007.  On July 13, 2007, the Company
and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a
motion to strike the Third Amended Complaint.  On March 14, 2008,
the Court granted defendants' motion and dismissed plaintiffs'
Third Amended Complaint.  The Court granted plaintiffs leave to
file a Fourth Amended Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on May 14,
2008.  On June 13, 2008, consistent with the Court's March 14,
2008 dismissal order, the Company and the individual defendants
filed objections to the form and content of the Fourth Amended
Complaint.  On July 24, 2008, the Court overruled the objections.
On September 8, 2008, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike certain
allegations from the Fourth Amended Complaint.  On March 27, 2009,
the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss and granted
defendants' motion to strike.

Plaintiffs, the Company and the individual defendants have signed
and filed a stipulation of settlement providing for the settlement
of the case.  Defendant Softbank is not a party to the settlement.
Under the terms of the settlement, the Company's and individual
defendants' insurers would pay the full amount of the settlement.
On May 13, 2010, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, and on August 31, 2010, the Court granted final
approval of the settlement.

On October 8, 2010, plaintiffs and Defendant Softbank filed a
motion for preliminary approval of a separate settlement between
plaintiffs and Defendant Softbank.  There is no assurance that
this settlement will receive court approval.


VALHI INC: Suits vs. Former NL Operations Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits against the former operations of Valhi,
Inc.'s subsidiary, NL Industries, Inc., 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 Sept. 30,
2010.

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

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

The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the
defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health
concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including
damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification
for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for
educational programs.  To the extent the plaintiffs seek
compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages
are generally unspecified. In some cases, the damages are
unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law.
A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or
withdrawn.  Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial
stages.  Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary
judgment rulings in favor of either the defendants or the
plaintiffs.  In addition, various other cases are pending (in
which the company is not a defendant) seeking recovery for injury
allegedly caused by lead pigment and lead-based paint.

The Company said that although it is not a defendant in these
cases, the outcome of these cases may have an impact on cases that
might be filed against the Company in the future.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces Suits in Canada Over ACTONEL Side Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company has been sued in Canada for
unpleasant side effects of one of its products, according to the
Company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On October 30, 2009, pursuant to a purchase agreement dated
Aug. 24, 2009, between Warner Chilcott and The Procter & Gamble
Company, Warner Chilcott acquired the global branded prescription
pharmaceutical business of P&G for $2,919,261 in cash and the
assumption of certain liabilities.  The two most significant
acquired intangible assets related to PGP's marketed products were
the ACTONEL intangible asset, valued at $530,242, and the ASACOL
intangible asset, valued at $1,859,257.

In September 2010, two purported product liability class actions
were brought in Canada against the Company alleging, among other
things, that ACTONEL caused the plaintiffs and the proposed class
members who ingested ACTONEL to suffer atypical fractures or other
side effects.  It is expected that these plaintiffs will seek
class certification.

The Company is reviewing these lawsuits and intends to defend
these actions vigorously.


WESCO FINANCIAL: Faces 3 Suits in Calif. Over Berkshire Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wesco Financial Corp. is facing three class action complaints in
connection with Berkshire Hathaway's proposed acquisition of
remaining shares of common stock that it does not own, according
to the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

Three shareholder class action complaints are pending in Los
Angeles County Superior Court against Wesco and Wesco's directors
in connection with Berkshire Hathaway's September 1, 2010 proposal
to acquire the remaining 19.9% of the shares of Wesco's common
stock that it does not presently own in exchange for shares of
Berkshire Hathaway Class B common stock and/or cash, at the
election of the shareholder.  In each complaint, the plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that the Berkshire proposal is unfair
and grossly inadequate, and seek an injunction preventing the
defendants from consummating the proposed transaction "unless and
until the Company adopts and implements a procedure or process" to
obtain a merger agreement providing the "best possible terms" (one
complaint) or the "highest possible value" (two complaints).
Except for a demand that the plaintiffs be awarded attorneys' fees
and a demand that "to the extent already implemented" the
Berkshire proposal be rescinded or rescissory damages be awarded
to the class, the complaints do not seek monetary damages from
Wesco.


* New Class Action Regime for NSW Introduced Into Parliament
------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Drinnan, Esq., and Mark Hare, Esq., at Allens Arthur
Robinson, writing for the firm's Litigation & Dispute Resolution
publication, report that a new class actions regime for NSW has
been introduced into Parliament.

                            Background

The Courts and Crimes Legislation Further Amendment Bill (NSW)
2010 (the Bill), containing a new class actions regime for the
state, was introduced into Parliament on November 24, 2010.

In August 2010, the NSW Attorney General announced a proposal to
introduce a new class action regime.  As we reported in our Client
Update, a consultation draft Bill and discussion paper were
released in October 2010.  The consultation draft Bill detailed a
class actions regime based on the existing regime for class
actions in the Federal Court but with the following key
differences:

    * Limitations on the class: a provision to confirm that it is
not inappropriate for representative proceedings to be brought
merely because the represented class does not include all persons
on whose behalf those proceedings might have been brought, or
where only those who have entered litigation funding arrangements
are represented.

    * Multiple defendants: a provision to confirm that a
representative proceeding can be commenced against several
defendants even though not all group members have a claim against
all defendants.

The consultation draft also included a provision granting the
court power to order a 'cy-pres' remedy, which would have meant
that the court could have ordered that unclaimed damages or
damages that could not be practicably distributed to group members
be paid to a charity or other public interest beneficiary.

               Proposed Class Actions Regime for NSW

The class actions regime contained in the Bill is modeled on the
regime in the Federal Court.  It includes the changes relating to
limitations on the class and multiple defendants set out in the
consultation draft.

The Bill departs from the consultation draft in one important
respect -- there is no provision granting the court power to order
a cy-pres remedy.  This brings the proposed class actions regime
back into line with the existing Federal Court framework, which,
similarly, does not make provision for a cy-pres remedy.

"We welcome that amendment to the Bill.  The introduction of a
cy-pres remedy would have amounted to a major shift for the law in
Australia.  Having regard to the experience with cy-pres remedies
in the United States, where there has been significant criticism
of them, we think there are good reasons why the cy-pres remedy
should not be adopted," Messrs. Drinnan and Hare wrote.

For further information, please contact:

    * Ross Drinnan Partner, Sydney
      Telephone: +61 2 9230 4931
      E-mail: ross.drinnan@aar.com.au

    * Peter O'Donahoo Partner, Melbourne
      Telephone: +61 3 9613 8742
      E-mail: peter.odonahoo@aar.com.au

    * Tracey Harrip Partner, Brisbane
      Telephone: +61 7 3334 3215
      E-mail: tracey.harrip@aar.com.au


                             *********

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, Neil U. Lim, 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  * * *