---

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

            Tuesday, December 7, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 241

                             Headlines

AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces Four Securities Lawsuits in California
AMERICAN EQUITY: Continues Defense in 2 Suits Over Sales Practices
AMERICAN TACK: Recalls 272,000 Forever-Glo(R) Cylinder Nite Lites
ASSURED GUARANTY: Continues to Defend "Wilson" Suit in Alabama
ASSURED GUARANTY: Continues to Defend Consolidated Antitrust Suit

ATLAS ENERGY: Consolidated Class Suit Still Pending in Delaware
ATRICURE INC: Court Approves $2.75MM Securities Suit Settlement
BELL POTTER: Slater & Gordon Files Class Action
BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Reaches Tentative Agreement to Resolve Claims
BURGER KING: Faces Potential Class Action Lawsuit in California

BURGER KING: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Franchisee Suit
BURGER KING: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Consolidated Suit
BURGER KING: Delaware Court Consolidates Class Action Suits
CANADA: May Face Class Suit Over Military Gay Discrimination
CAPSTONE TURBINE: Continues Defense in New York IPO Suit

CARE INVESTMENT: Motion for Summary Judgment Still Pending
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Class Actions Over Dec. 1 Network Crash
CHINA-BIOTICS: To Defend Two Suits Alleging Securities Violations
CIT GROUP: Continues to Defend Officers in NY Securities Suit
CIT GROUP: Subsidiary Awaits Approval of Texas Suit Settlement

COMPASS BANK: Sued Over Excessive Asset Termination Fees
CUMULUS MEDIA: SRC Employee Class Action Suit Still Pending
DISH DBS: Continues Defense in Channel Bundling Class Suit
DISH DBS: Awaits Final Approval of Retail Class Suits Settlement
DYNEGY INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Enjoin Denali Merger

ENLIGHTENED WEALTH: Sued Over Bogus Educational Seminars
ENTERPRISE GP: Faces Four Lawsuits Relating to Holdings Merger
FIRST NATIONS: Judge Certifies Class in Salmon Damage Suit
FIRST YEARS: Recalls 41,300 Cabinet Swing Locks
FISERV TRUST: Sued by IRA Investors for Breaching Fiduciary Duty

GLOBALSTAR INC: Court Approves Settlement of "Stickrath" Suit
GREAT LAKES DREDGE: Louisiana Class Action Suits Still Pending
HANSEN MEDICAL: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Complaint in Calif.
HARBIN ELECTRIC: Class Actions Filed Over Yang Proposal
HONEST TEA: Removes "Withoff" Complaint to N.D. Calif.

IKANOS COMMS: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Suits in New York
J. CREW: D&O's Sued Over Sale to TPG and Leonard Green
JDA SOFTWARE: Awaits Court Approval of Dallas Suit Settlement
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Nevada
MARQUEE HOLDINGS: Remains a Defendant in "FACTA" Lawsuits

MELA SCIENCES: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
NEUROMETRIX INC: Appeal in Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
NEWALLIANCE BANCSHARES: Seek Single Forum for Merger-Related Suits
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss NY Suit
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Inks Agreement to Settle Smithtown Lawsuit

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Remains a Defendant in "Barkwell" Counterclaim
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Awaits Dismissal of PRA v. Freeman Suit
REALOGY CORP: Discovery in New Jersey Class Action Ongoing
SK ENERGY: Taxi Drivers File Class Action Over Price Fixing
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Court Okays $62.8MM Class Action Settlement

SOUTHERN STAR: Awaits Plaintiffs' Next Move in "Price" Suits
STERLING CHEMICALS: Appeal in SFI ERISA Suit Remains Pending
SYNGENTA AG: 3rd Parties Seek to Quash Subpoenas in Atrazine Suit
TACO BELL: Accused in California Suit of Not Paying Overtime
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Dentist Association Suit Still Pending

URS CORP: Continues Defense in New Orleans Levee Failure Suit
WEBMD HEALTH: Remains a Defendant in "Kaye" TCPA Lawsuit
WELLS CORE: Trial Date in "Piedmont REIT" Suit to be Set



                             *********

AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces Four Securities Lawsuits in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Apparel, Inc., is named as a defendant in four separate
class action lawsuits alleging securities laws violations,
according to the company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

Four putative class action lawsuits, entitled Anthony Andrade v.
American Apparel, et al., Case No. CV106352 MMM (RCx), Douglas
Ormsby v. American Apparel, et al., Case No. CV106513 MMM (RCx),
James Costa v. American Apparel, et al., Case No. CV106516 MMM
(RCx), and Wesley Childs v. American Apparel, et al., Case No.
CV106680 GW (JCGx), were filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on August 25, 2010, August
31, 2010, August 31, 2010, and September 8, 2010, respectively,
against the Company and certain of its officers and executives on
behalf of American Apparel shareholders who purchased the
Company's common stock between December 19, 2006 and August 17,
2010.

Plaintiffs allege three causes of action for violations of
Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 14(a) of the 1934 Act, and Rules 10b-5
and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, arising out of alleged
misrepresentations contained in Company press releases, public
filings with the SEC, and other public statements relating to (i)
the adequacy of the Company's internal and financial control
policies and procedures; (ii) the Company's hiring practices; and
(iii) the effect that the dismissal of over 1,500 employees
following an Immigration and Customs Enforcement inspection would
have on the Company.

Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, reasonable
attorneys fees and costs, and equitable relief as the Court may
deem proper.  The Company is unable to predict the financial
outcome of these matters at this time, and any views formed as to
the viability of these claims or the financial exposure which
could result may change from time to time as the matters proceed
through their course.  However, the Company said no assurance can
be made that these matters, either individually or together with
the potential for similar suits and reputational harm, will not
result in a material financial exposure, which could have a
material adverse effect upon the Company's financial condition and
results of operations.


AMERICAN EQUITY: Continues Defense in 2 Suits Over Sales Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Company continues to
vigorously defend itself in two class action lawsuits alleging
improper sales practices, according to the company's November 9,
2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In recent years, companies in the life insurance and annuity
business have faced litigation, including class action lawsuits,
alleging improper product design, improper sales practices and
similar claims. The Company is currently a defendant in two
purported class action lawsuits alleging improper sales practices
and similar claims:

    (i) Stephens v. American Equity Investment Life Insurance
        Company, et. al., in the San Luis Obispo Superior Court,
        San Francisco, California (complaint filed November 29,
        2004) -- SLO Case -- and

   (ii) McCormack, et al. v. American Equity Investment Life
        Insurance Company, et al., in the United States District
        Court for the Central District of California, Western
        Division and Anagnostis v. American Equity, et al.,
        coordinated in the Central District, entitled, In Re:
        American Equity Annuity Practices and Sales Litigation, in
        the United States District Court for the Central District
        of California, Western Division (complaint filed Sept. 7,
        2005) -- Los Angeles Case.

The plaintiffs in the SLO Case represent a class of individuals
who are California residents and who either purchased their
annuity from the Company through a co-defendant marketing
organization or who purchased one of a defined set of particular
annuities issued by us. The named plaintiffs in this case are:
Chalys M. Stephens and John P. Stephens. Plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief and restitution on behalf of all class members
under California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et
seq.; compensatory damages for breach of contract and breach of
fiduciary duty; other pecuniary damages under California Civil
Code section 1750 and California Welfare & Institutions Codes
section 15600 et seq.; and punitive damages under common law
causes of action for fraud and breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing. The Company said it is vigorously
defending the allegations and may seek to decertify the entire
class after further discovery into the merits of the case and
during the initial trial phase. Trial in this matter began
November 1, 2010.

The Los Angeles Case is a consolidated action involving several
lawsuits filed by individuals, and the individuals are seeking
class action status for a national class of purchasers of
annuities issued by the Company. The named plaintiffs in this
consolidated case are Bernard McCormack, Gust Anagnostis by and
through Gary S. Anagnostis and Robert C. Anagnostis, Regina Bush
by and through Sharon Schipiour, Lenice Mathews by and through
Mary Ann Maclean and George Miller. The allegations generally
attack the suitability of sales of deferred annuity products to
persons over the age of 65. The plaintiffs seek recessionary and
injunctive relief including restitution and disgorgement of
profits on behalf of all class members under California Business &
Professions Code section 17200 et seq. and Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act; compensatory damages for breach of
fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting of breach of fiduciary
duty; unjust enrichment and constructive trust; and other
pecuniary damages under California Civil Code section 1750 and
California Welfare & Institutions Codes section 15600 et seq. The
Company also said it is vigorously defending against both class
action status as well as the claims.

The Company stated that it is often not possible to determine the
ultimate outcome of pending legal proceedings or to provide
reasonable ranges of potential losses with any degree of
certainty. One of the lawsuits is in the initial trial stage while
the other is in the pre-litigation and discovery stages and the
Company said it does not have sufficient information to make an
assessment of the plaintiffs' claims for liability or damages. The
plaintiffs are seeking undefined amounts of damages or other
relief, including punitive damages, which are difficult to
quantify and cannot be estimated based on the information
currently available. The Company does not believe that these
lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on its financial
position, results of operations or cash flows. However, there can
be no assurance that such litigation, or any future litigation,
will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial
condition, or results of operations, the Company said.


AMERICAN TACK: Recalls 272,000 Forever-Glo(R) Cylinder Nite Lites
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American Tack & Hardware Co. Inc., of Saddle River, N.J.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 272,000 Forever-Glo(R)
Cylinder Nite Lites.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

An electrical short circuit in the night light can cause it to
overheat and smolder or melt which can burn consumers or result in
a fire.

AmerTac has received nine reports of the recalled night lights
smoking, burning, melting and/or charring.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled Forever-Glo(R) Cylinder Nite Lite is a cylinder
shaped night light with a white base and clear top that plugs into
the wall. Only Model Number 71107 with a manufacturer code of SY
is included in this recall.  The model number and manufacturer
code are printed on the back of the night light.  The light
measures about 4 inches in height by 1-1/2 inches wide and is
about 1 inch deep.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11057.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
hardware stores, lighting showrooms and home centers nationwide
from May 2009 through September 2010 for about $5.

Consumers should stop using the recalled night lights immediately.
If the units are plugged into the wall, remove the light from the
wall socket.  Contact the firm for instructions on receiving a
full refund.  For additional information, contact AmerTac at (800)
420-7511 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday
through Friday, or visit AmerTac's Web site at
http://www.amertac.com/or http://www.recall-center.com/


ASSURED GUARANTY: Continues to Defend "Wilson" Suit in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
Assured Guaranty Ltd. said it cannot estimate the possible loss
that may arise from the putative class action filed against its
affiliate, Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., and other parties
relating to Jefferson County's $3.2 billion sewer debt, according
to the company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

In Aug. 2008, a number of financial institutions and other
parties, including Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., were named as
defendants in a civil action brought in the circuit court of
Jefferson County, Alabama, relating to the County's problems
meeting its debt obligations on its $3.2 billion sewer debt:
Charles E. Wilson vs. JPMorgan Chase & Co et al (filed the Circuit
Court of Jefferson County, Alabama), Case No. 01-CV-2008-
901907.00, a putative class action.

The action was brought on behalf of rate payers, tax payers and
citizens residing in Jefferson County, and alleges conspiracy and
fraud in connection with the issuance of the County's debt.  The
complaint in this lawsuit seeks equitable relief, unspecified
monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.

The Company said it cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of loss that may arise from this lawsuit.


ASSURED GUARANTY: Continues to Defend Consolidated Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Assured Guaranty Ltd. continues to defend against putative class
action lawsuits filed against it and its subsidiaries alleging
federal antitrust violations in the municipal derivatives
industry, according to the company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

During 2008, nine putative class action lawsuits were filed in
federal court alleging federal antitrust violations in the
municipal derivatives industry, seeking damages and alleging,
among other things, a conspiracy to fix the pricing of, and
manipulate bids for, municipal derivatives, including guaranteed
investment contracts.  These cases have been coordinated and
consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York as MDL 1950, In re Municipal
Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516.

Five of these cases named both Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp.
and Assured Guaranty Municipal Holdings Inc.: (a) Hinds County,
Mississippi v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (b) Fairfax County, Virginia
v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (c) Central Bucks School District,
Pennsylvania v. Wachovia Bank N.A.; (d) Mayor & City Council of
Baltimore, Maryland v. Wachovia Bank N.A.; and (e) Washington
County, Tennessee v. Wachovia Bank N.A. In April 2009, the MDL
1950 court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on the
federal claims, but granted leave for the plaintiffs to file a
second amended complaint.

In June 2009, interim lead plaintiffs' counsel filed a Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.  The complaints in
these lawsuits generally seek unspecified monetary damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.

The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range
of loss that may arise from these lawsuits; although the Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint currently describes
some of AGMH's and AGM's activities, it does not name those
entities as defendants.

In March 2010, the MDL 1950 court denied the named defendants'
motions to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint.

Four of the cases named AGMH (but not AGM) and also alleged that
the defendants violated California state antitrust law and common
law by engaging in illegal bid-rigging and market allocation,
thereby depriving the cities or municipalities of competition in
the awarding of GICs and ultimately resulting in the cities paying
higher fees for these products: (f) City of Oakland, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; (g) County of Alameda, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; (h) City of Fresno, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; and (i) Fresno County Financing
Authority v. AIG Financial Products Corp.

When the four plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in Sept.
2009, the plaintiffs did not name AGMH as a defendant.  However,
the complaint does describe some of AGMH's and AGM's activities.

The consolidated complaint generally seeks unspecified monetary
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.  In April
2010, the MDL 1950 court granted in part and denied in part the
named defendants' motions to dismiss this consolidated complaint.


ATLAS ENERGY: Consolidated Class Suit Still Pending in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Energy Resources LLC continues to defend itself from a
consolidated complaint filed against the company in connection
with its merger with Atlas America Inc., according to the
company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

Following the announcement of the Merger on April 27, 2009, five
purported class actions were filed in Delaware Chancery Court and
were later consolidated into a single complaint, In re Atlas
Energy Resources, LLC Unitholder Litigation, C.A. No. 4589-VCN
filed on July 1, 2009.  The Consolidated Complaint named ATLS and
various officers and directors as defendants, alleged violations
of fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, and requested
injunctive relief and damages.

In October 2009, Atlas Energy filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint.  Subsequently, in December 2009,
plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint.  The Amended Complaint
alleges that Defendants breached their purported fiduciary duties
to Atlas Energy's public unitholders in connection with their
negotiation of the Merger.  In particular, plaintiffs allege that
the Merger was not entirely fair to Atlas Energy's public
unitholders, and that Defendants conducted the Merger process in
bad faith.

Pursuant to the Delaware Chancery Court's January 2010 Scheduling
Stipulation and Order, Defendants filed their opening brief in
support of their motion to dismiss on February 18, 2010 and
plaintiffs filed their brief in opposition on May 3, 2010.
Defendants filed a reply brief on June 11, 2010 and oral argument
was held on the motion on July 20, 2010.  The Court dismissed the
claims against all of the directors and officers named as
defendants.  The Court held that there was no showing that any
individual defendant acted in bad faith.  However, the Court ruled
that the plaintiffs could proceed with their claim against Atlas
Energy.


ATRICURE INC: Court Approves $2.75MM Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division approved AtriCure, Inc.'s $2,750,000 settlement of a
securities class action lawsuit, according to the company's
November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

AtriCure, Inc., and certain of its current and former officers
were named as defendants in a purported securities class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Levine v. AtriCure, Inc., Case No. 06 CV
14324 (United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York)).  The suit alleges violations of the federal securities
laws and seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the period from the Company's initial public
offering in August 2005 through February 16, 2006.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.  This motion was denied in September
2007, and a motion for reconsideration of that denial was denied
in January 2009.  Although the Company admitted no wrongdoing, as
of December 31, 2009, the Company recorded a liability of
$2,000,000, which represented an estimate of the potential defense
and/or settlement costs, of which the Company expects to recover
all of that loss through an insurance claim.

On October 22, 2010, the parties signed a Definitive Stipulation
of Settlement for $2,000,000, which is subject to notice to the
class as well as approval by the court.  The Company expects to
recover all of the $2,000,000 loss through an insurance claim and
has recorded a $2,000,000 asset within current assets, which
represents the amount considered probable of recovery from the
insurance claim.

On December 12, 2008 AtriCure, Inc. and certain of its current
executive officers were named in a putative class action lawsuit
which is now captioned In re AtriCure, Inc. Securities Litigation,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Western Division.  The plaintiffs allege violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek unspecified damages
against AtriCure, Inc. and certain of its current executive
officers.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements that failed to
disclose that the Company improperly promoted certain products to
physicians and caused the filing of false claims for
reimbursement.  In July 2009 the Company filed a motion to
dismiss, and in September 2009, the plaintiffs filed their
memorandum in opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss to
which the Company responded on November 9, 2009.  On March 29,
2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's
motion to dismiss and, in particular, dismissed the claim that the
Company caused the filing of false claims for reimbursement.

Although the Company admitted no wrongdoing, as of June 30, 2010,
the Company recorded a liability of $2,750,000, which represented
an estimate of the potential defense and/or settlement costs, of
which the Company expects to recover all of that loss through an
insurance claim.  As such, the Company has recorded a $2,750,000
asset within current assets, which represents the amount
considered probable of recovery from the insurance claim.

On October 7, 2010, the court ordered final approval of the
settlement for $2,750,000.


BELL POTTER: Slater & Gordon Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Kate Kachor, writing for InvestorDaily, reports that litigation
firm Slater & Gordon has filed a class action suit against
financial services firm Bell Potter Securities after attempts at
an out-of-court settlement failed.

Slater & Gordon has begun class action proceedings against the
listed advisory firm on behalf of more than 50 former clients who
lost $22 million due to an alleged stock sale.

As part of the action filed in the Federal Court, clients claim
they lost the funds after Bell Potter representatives encouraged
them to buy shares in the Brisbane-based biotech company Progen
Pharmaceuticals in 2007.

Slater & Gordon Practice Group leader Van Moulis said the decision
to proceed with a class action came after negotiations between
both parties stalled.

"We invited Bell Potter to generally engage in possible settlement
negotiations as soon as we served the statement of claim and that
was back in October," Mr. Moulis said.

"There was an initial interest but then the lawyer for Bell Porter
became aggressive and has foreshadowed a number of applications
designed to contest the proceedings."

Mr. Moulis said the clients involved in the class action are
predominately based on Australia's eastern seaboard, though he
expects interest from investors based in Western Australia.

"I expect there to be interest from investors in Western Australia
because we understand this conduct and the promotion of the
purchase of the shares was done more vigorously in the Perth
office of Bell Potter," he said.

"It was aggressive in the offices on the eastern seaboard but we
expect there will be greater interest to come out of Western
Australia in particular."

A Bell Potter spokesperson said the firm had no comment to make
regarding the class action.

In April 2009, Slater & Gordon mounted proceedings against Bell
Potter over claims it recommended clients buy Progen stock in an
offer the firm was partly underwriting.

The class action is being supported by litigation funding firm,
Litigation Lending Services.

The matter is due back in court on January 17, 2011.


BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Reaches Tentative Agreement to Resolve Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
BlueKnight Energy Partners L.P.'s general partner -- Blueknight
Energy Partners G.P., L.L.C., formerly known as SemGroup Energy
Partners G.P., L.L.C. -- reached a tentative understanding with
Harvest Fund Advisors LLC to resolve claims asserted in its
amended complaint in Oklahoma, according to the company's Nov. 9,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Between July 21, 2008 and September 4, 2008, six class action
complaints were filed:

   * Poelman v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., et al., Civil
     Action No. 08-CV-6477, in the United States District Court
     for the Southern District of New York (filed July 21, 2008).
     The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case on August 26,
     2008;

   * Carson v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil Action
     No. 08-cv-425, in the Northern District of Oklahoma (filed
     July 22, 2008);

   * Charles D. Maurer SIMP Profit Sharing Plan f/b/o Charles D.
     Maurer v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil Action
     No. 08-cv-6598, in the United States District Court for the
     Southern District of New York (filed July 25, 2008);

   * Michael Rubin v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil
     Action No. 08-cv-7063, in the United States District Court
     for the Southern District of New York (filed August 8, 2008);

   * Dharam V. Jain v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al.,
     Civil Action No. 08-cv-7510, in the United States District
     Court for the Southern District of New York  (filed Aug. 25,
     2008); and

   * William L. Hickman v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al.,
     Civil Action No. 08-cv-7749, in the United States District
     Court for the Southern District of New York (filed Sept. 4,
     2008).

Pursuant to a motion filed with the MDL Panel, the Maurer case has
been transferred to the Northern District of Oklahoma and
consolidated with the Carson case.  The Rubin, Jain, and Hickman
cases have also been transferred to the Northern District of
Oklahoma.

A hearing on motions for appointment as lead plaintiff was held in
the Carson case on October 17, 2008.  At that hearing, the court
granted a motion to consolidate the Carson and Maurer cases for
pretrial proceedings, and the consolidated litigation is now
pending as In Re: SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 08-CV-425-GKF-PJC.  The court entered an
order on October 27, 2008, granting the motion of Harvest Fund
Advisors LLC to be appointed lead plaintiff in the consolidated
litigation.   On January 23, 2009, the court entered a Scheduling
Order providing, among other things, that the lead plaintiff may
file a consolidated amended complaint within 70 days of the date
of the order, and that defendants may answer or otherwise respond
within 60 days of the date of the filing of a consolidated amended
complaint.  On January 30, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a motion
to modify the stay of discovery provided for under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.  The court granted Plaintiff's
motion, and Blueknight Energy and certain other defendants filed a
Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals that was denied after oral argument on April 24, 2009.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on
May 4, 2009.  In that complaint, filed as a putative class action
on behalf of all purchasers of Blueknight Energy's units from July
17, 2007 to July 17, 2008, lead plaintiff asserts claims under the
federal securities laws against the Partnership, its General
Partner, certain of the Partnership's General Partner's current
and former officers and directors, certain underwriters in the
Partnership's initial and secondary public offerings, and certain
entities who were investors in SemCorp and their individual
representatives who served on SemCorp's management committee.
Among other allegations, the amended complaint alleges that the
Partnership's financial condition throughout the class period was
dependent upon speculative commodities trading by SemCorp and its
Chief Executive Officer, Thomas L. Kivisto, and that defendants
negligently and intentionally failed to disclose this speculative
trading in the Partnership's public filings during the class
period. The amended complaint further alleges there were other
material omissions and misrepresentations contained in the
Partnership's filings during the class period.  The amended
complaint alleges claims for violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2),
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for damages and rescission
with respect to all persons who purchased Blueknight Energy's
units in the initial and secondary offerings, and also asserts
claims under section 10b, Rule 10b-5, and section 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.  The amended complaint seeks
certification as a class action under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, compensatory and rescissory damages for class members,
pre-judgment interest, costs of court, and attorneys' fees.

On July 22, 2009, all of the defendants filed motions to dismiss
the amended complaint.  The lead plaintiff filed a response in
opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on September 1,
2009.  On October 8, 2009, the defendants filed a reply in support
of their motion to dismiss.  The lead plaintiff filed a
supplemental opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on
October 29, 2009.  On April 30, 2010, the court dismissed all
claims against Brent Cooper (SemCorp's former treasurer) and
dismissed the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim against W.
Anderson Bishop (a former member of the Board) and Brian F.
Billings (a former member of the Board).  The court denied the
remainder of the motions to dismiss, including the motion to
dismiss that the Partnership filed.  Under the operative
scheduling order, the remaining defendants filed their answers on
June 21, 2010.

SemGroup Energy Partners G.P., L.L.C., Thomas L. Kivisto (a former
member of the Board), Gregory C. Wallace (a former member of the
Board), Kevin L. Foxx (the Partnership's General Partner's former
President and Chief Executive Officer), Alex G. Stallings (the
Partnership's General Partner's Chief Financial Officer), Michael
J. Brochetti (the Partnership's General Partner's former Chief
Financial Officer), Mr. Billings and Mr. Bishop, have reached a
tentative understanding with lead plaintiff to resolve the claims
asserted in the amended complaint against those parties.  This
tentative understanding is subject to negotiating and completing a
definitive settlement agreement and documentation and obtaining
court approval and does not include all parties to the litigation.
There can be no assurance that a settlement will be finalized and
approved or as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation.


BURGER KING: Faces Potential Class Action Lawsuit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burger King Holdings Inc. may face another class action lawsuit in
California, according to the company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On September 10, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The complaint alleged that all 96 Burger
King restaurants in California leased by the Company and operated
by franchisees violate accessibility requirements under federal
and state law.  In September 2009, the court issued a decision on
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  In its decision,
the court limited the class action to the 10 restaurants visited
by the named plaintiffs, with a separate class of plaintiffs for
each of the 10 restaurants and 10 separate trials.  In March 2010,
the Company agreed to settle the lawsuit with respect to the 10
restaurants and, in July 2010, the court gave final approval to
the settlement.

In April 2010, the Company received a demand from the law firm
representing the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, notifying
the Company that the firm was prepared to bring a class action
covering the other restaurants.


BURGER KING: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Franchisee Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Burger King Holdings Inc. moved to dismiss a
consolidated class action complaint filed by its franchisees,
according to the company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

The National Franchisee Association, Inc. and several individual
franchisees filed class action lawsuits on November 10, 2009, and
June 15, 2010, respectively, claiming to represent Burger King
franchisees.  The lawsuits seek a judicial declaration that the
franchise agreements between Burger King Corporation and its
franchisees do not obligate the franchisees to comply with maximum
price points set by BKC for products on the BK(R) Value Menu sold
by the franchisees, specifically the 1/4 lb. Double Cheeseburger
and the Buck Double.  The lawsuit filed by the individual
franchisees also seeks monetary damages for financial loss
incurred by franchisees who were required to sell those products
for no more than $1.00.

In June 2010, the court entered an order in the NFA case granting
in part BKC's motion to dismiss.  The court held that BKC had the
authority under its franchise agreements to set maximum prices but
that, for purposes of a motion to dismiss, the NFA had asserted a
"plausible" claim that BKC's decision may not have been made in
good faith.

Both cases have been consolidated into a single consolidated class
action complaint which BKC moved to dismiss on September 22, 2010.


BURGER KING: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Consolidated Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Burger King Holdings Inc. continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action lawsuit in connection with its merger
with Blue Acquisition Sub Inc., according to the company's
November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On September 3, 2010, four purported class action complaints were
filed in the Circuit Court for the County of Miami-Dade, Florida
by purported stockholders of BKH, in connection with the Merger
Agreement.  Each of the complaints names as defendants BKH, each
member of BKH's Board and 3G Capital.  The suits allege that the
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of
BKH in connection with the sale of BKH and that 3G Capital aided
and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties.

The court consolidated the four Florida actions.


BURGER KING: Delaware Court Consolidates Class Action Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated two putative
stockholder class action suits against Burger King Holdings Inc.,
according to the company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On September 8, 2010, another putative stockholder class action
suit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against the directors, BKH, 3G Capital, 3G Special Situations Fund
II, L.P., Parent and Merger Sub.  The complaint generally alleges
that the directors breached their fiduciary duty to maximize
shareholder value by entering into the proposed transaction via an
unfair process and at an unfair price, and that the Merger
Agreement contains provisions that unreasonably dissuade potential
suitors from making competing offers.  The complaint also alleges
that BKH and 3G Capital aided and abetted these alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty.  The complaint seeks class certification,
certain forms of injunctive relief, including enjoining the Merger
and rescinding the Merger Agreement, unspecified damages, and
costs of the action as well as attorneys' and experts' fees.

BKH filed an answer to the complaint on September 9, 2010, and 3G
filed an answer to the complaint to on September 15, 2010,
disputing the allegations contained therein.  On September 27,
2010, a second complaint was filed in Delaware, with substantially
the same allegations as in the first Delaware action, and on
September 29, 2010, the court consolidated the two Delaware
actions.


CANADA: May Face Class Suit Over Military Gay Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a Halifax lawyer and veteran of successful
class-action lawsuits believes the Canadian government could be
held financially responsible for military discrimination against
homosexuals.

A Halifax newspaper from 1985 details the uncovering of a
"homosexual clique" at a submarine tracking base in Shelburne,
N.S. Seven people were kicked out of the military.  A Halifax
newspaper from 1985 details the uncovering of a "homosexual
clique" at a submarine tracking base in Shelburne, N.S. Seven
people were kicked out of the military.

John McKiggan -- who helped launch the successful class action for
victims of Native residential schools, as well as the $13-million
sexual abuse settlement for victims in a Roman Catholic diocese of
Nova Scotia -- says recent cases have set a precedent for
compensation for breaches of charter rights.

"Sexual orientation is protected by the charter," Mr. McKiggan
said. "If there are people who had their charter rights breached
by being unfairly terminated from the military, the potential
exists for a claim for all of those people."

Until 1992, Canadian Forces investigators would track down
homosexuals as a potential security risk and have them fired.  The
Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted in 1982, so there's a
10-year window of potential legal responsibility.

"This is clearly a case that cries out for a remedy, it cries out
for an answer," Mr. McKiggan said.  "What that answer is remains
to be seen."

Mr. McKiggan said a possible case could face legal hurdles,
including the fact that the policy ended 18 years ago.  However,
he believes there's a possibility of a class-action lawsuit
because the discrimination was part of a concerted national
policy.

"When issues like this come up that have been ignored for a very
long time, the first inclination is to ignore it," he said.  "But
now that it's been outed, so to speak, the Canadian government is
going to be forced to address the decisions that were made by the
military, and come up with an appropriate response.  They're not
going to have any choice but to do that."

Mr. McKiggan would not say if he's been contacted by anyone
seeking compensation for losing their military job due to their
sexual orientation.


CAPSTONE TURBINE: Continues Defense in New York IPO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Capstone Turbine Corporation continues to defend itself in a
purported stockholder class action lawsuit filed in a New York
district court, according to the company's November 9, 2010 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In December 2001, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, two of its then
officers, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering.  The suit purports to be a class action filed on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
June 28, 2000 to December 6, 2000. An amended complaint was filed
on April 19, 2002.

The plaintiffs allege that the prospectuses for the Company's June
28, 2000 initial public offering and November 16, 2000 secondary
offering were false and misleading in violation of the applicable
securities laws because the prospectuses failed to disclose the
underwriter defendants' alleged agreement to allocate stock in
these offerings to certain investors in exchange for excessive and
undisclosed commissions and agreements to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.
Similar complaints have been filed against hundreds of other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998; the
complaints have been consolidated into an action captioned In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92.

On October 9, 2002, the plaintiffs dismissed, without prejudice,
the claims against the named officers and directors in the action
against the Company, pursuant to the terms of Reservation of
Rights and Tolling Agreements entered into with the plaintiffs.
Subsequent addenda to the Tolling Agreements extended the tolling
period through August 27, 2010. The District Court directed that
the litigation proceed within a number of "focus cases" and on
October 13, 2004, the District Court certified the focus cases as
class actions. The Company's case is not one of these focus cases.
The underwriter defendants appealed that ruling, and on Dec. 5,
2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the
District Court's class certification decision. On August 14, 2007,
the plaintiffs filed their second consolidated amended complaints
against the six focus cases and on September 27, 2007, again moved
for class certification. On November 12, 2007, certain of the
defendants in the focus cases moved to dismiss the second
consolidated amended class action complaints. On March 26, 2008,
the District Court denied the motions to dismiss except as to
Section 11 claims raised by those plaintiffs who sold their
securities for a price in excess of the initial offering price and
those who purchased outside the previously certified class period.
The motion for class certification was withdrawn without prejudice
on October 10, 2008. On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement
of settlement between the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and
underwriter defendants was submitted to the District Court for
preliminary approval. The District Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval and preliminarily certified the
settlement classes on June 10, 2009. The settlement "fairness"
hearing was held on September 10, 2009. On October 6, 2009, the
District Court entered an opinion granting final approval to the
settlement and directing that the Clerk of the District Court
close these actions.

On August 26, 2010, based on the expiration of the tolling period
stated in the Tolling Agreements, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Termination of Tolling Agreement and Recommencement of Litigation
against the named officers and directors. The plaintiffs stated to
the Court that they do not intend to take any further action
against the named officers and directors at this time. Notices of
appeal of the opinion granting final approval have been filed.
Because of the inherent uncertainties of litigation and because
the settlement remains subject to appeal, the ultimate outcome of
the matter is uncertain, and management believes that the outcome
of this litigation will not have a material adverse impact on its
consolidated financial position and results of operations.


CARE INVESTMENT: Motion for Summary Judgment Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Care Investment Trust Inc. is awaiting court approval of its
motion for summary judgment filed in a class action lawsuit
pending in New York, according to its November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On September 18, 2007, a class action complaint for violations of
federal securities laws was filed in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York alleging that the
Registration Statement relating to the initial public offering of
shares of Care Investment common stock, filed on June 21, 2007,
failed to disclose that certain of the assets in the contributed
portfolio were materially impaired and overvalued and that Care
Investment was experiencing increasing difficulty in securing its
warehouse financing lines.  On January 18, 2008, the court entered
an order appointing co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.  On
February 19, 2008, the co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint citing additional evidentiary support for the
allegations in the complaint.  Care Investment believes the
complaint and allegations are without merit and intends to defend
against the complaint and allegations vigorously.

Care Investment filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
April 22, 2008.  The plaintiffs filed an opposition to Care
Investment's motion to dismiss on July 9, 2008, to which Care
Investment filed its reply on September 10, 2008.  On March 4,
2009, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss.  Care
filed its answer on April 15, 2009.  At a conference held on May
15, 2009, the Court ordered the parties to make a joint submission
setting forth: (i) the specific statements that Plaintiffs claim
are false and misleading; (ii) the facts on which Plaintiffs rely
as showing each alleged misstatement was false and misleading and
(iii) the facts on which Defendants rely as showing those
statements were true.  The parties filed the Joint Statement on
June 3, 2009.  On July 31, 2009, the parties entered into a
stipulation that narrowed the scope of the proceeding to the
single issue of the warehouse financing disclosure in the
Registration Statement.  Fact discovery closed on April 23, 2010.

The Court ordered the parties to file an abbreviated joint pre-
trial statement on June 9, 2010, and scheduled a pre-trial
conference for June 11, 2010.  At the conclusion of the pre-trial
conference, the Court asked the parties to agree on a summary
judgment briefing schedule, which the parties did.  Defendants
filed their motion for summary judgment on July 9, 2010.  Summary
judgment briefing was completed on September 17, 2010.  The Court
has yet to rule on the motion.  The outcome of this matter cannot
currently be predicted.  To date, Care has incurred approximately
$1.0 million to defend against this complaint and any incremental
costs to defend will be paid by Care's insurer.  No provision for
loss related to this matter has been accrued at September 30,
2010.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Class Actions Over Dec. 1 Network Crash
-------------------------------------------------------------
Efrat Aharoni, writing for Globes, reports that Cellcom Israel
Ltd. (NYSE:CEL; TASE:CEL) customers want to sue the mobile carrier
for anguish caused by Wednesday's nationwide crash of the
company's network, which intermittently silenced its 3.3 million
subscribers.  Three lawsuits have already been filed with the
Central District Court with requests to be recognized as class
action suits in the amount of NIS2.4 billion.

One lawsuit is seeking NIS1.1 billion in compensation from
Cellcom, based on NIS350 in damages for anguish caused to the
company's 3.3 million subscribers who could not manage their usual
affairs.

Adv. Josef Fuchs, representing the petitioner, said, "The power of
the class-action lawsuit is exactly intended for a case like this.
Although so many people were affected Wednesday because of their
inability to manage their work, family and other affairs, only a
few stood up and sued for compensation for the damage caused
them."

Politicians also jumped on the bandwagon.  At the request of MK
Nachman Shai (Labor), Minister of Communications Moshe Kahlon will
report to the Knesset Economics Affairs Committee how his ministry
is dealing with the breakdown.  Mr. Kahlon will update the
committee this week on how he intends to ensure that Cellcom's
customers will be compensated for the damages caused them.

In his letter to Mr. Kahlon, Mr. Shai said, "The breakdown at
Cellcom must be investigated.  The Ministry of Communications
should order the company to compensate its customers for the
losses caused for loss of their business day.  The financial
damage to consumers is immense.  A mobile carrier should know how
to pay refunds to customers when necessary, and not only know how
to bill them when possible."

The second lawsuit was filed by Orna Dahan of Tel Aviv, through
Adv. Shlomo Hardi, in the amount of NIS1.3 billion for alleged
negligence by Cellcom.  Ms. Dahan has three Cellcom cellphones.
Her statement of claim says, "For most of the day the cellphones
were stones."

Mr. Hardi told "Globes" that there was a good chance that the
court would approve the request for a class-action lawsuit against
Cellcom.  He said that the company should have anticipated a
breakdown of this magnitude.

"Globes: Do you really believe that Cellcom neglected its
infrastructure in order to enrich itself at its customers'
expense, as you allege in your statement of claim?

Mr. Hardi said: "We assert that it's necessary to invest in
infrastructures so that such a breakdown cannot occur.  Since
there was a breakdown, then Cellcom apparently did not invest
enough. Customers pay Cellcom, so such a breakdown should never
have happened."

The third lawsuit by two claimants is seeking NIS18 for each
Cellcom customer, amounting to NIS60 million.


CHINA-BIOTICS: To Defend Two Suits Alleging Securities Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Two putative shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed
against China-Biotics, Inc. and certain of its officers in
California and New York alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act, according to the company's November 9, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

China-Biotics, Inc., and certain of its current and former
officers and directors have been named as defendants in two
putative shareholder class action lawsuits -- one filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, and a second filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiff in each case seeks to represent a class of persons
or entities that purchased the securities of China-Biotics, Inc.
between July 10, 2008 and August 30, 2010. The Complaints name as
defendants China-Biotics, Inc., Song Jinan, Li Chi Yuen, Lewis
Fan, Yan Yihong, and Travis Cai.

The Complaints allege that the Defendants violated Section 10(b)
and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, by
making material misstatements or failing to disclose certain
material information regarding, among other things, China-Biotics,
Inc.'s financial condition, operations, and future business
prospects, and the quality, nature, and quantity of China-Biotics,
Inc.'s retail outlets and stores.

The Complaints seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, interest, and costs.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit, and intends to defend these actions vigorously.


CIT GROUP: Continues to Defend Officers in NY Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CIT Group Inc. still defends and indemnifies officers named in a
consolidated class action lawsuit before a New York federal court,
according to the company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010

In July and August 2008, two putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of the company's pre-reorganization
stockholders against the company, its former Chief Executive
Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer.  In August 2008, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed in the New York District
Court by a holder of CIT-PrZ equity units against the company, its
former CEO, former CFO and former Controller and members of its
current and former Board of Directors.

In May 2009, the Court consolidated these three shareholder
actions into a single action and appointed Pensioenfonds Horeca &
Catering as Lead Plaintiff to represent the proposed class, which
consists of all acquirers of CIT common stock and PrZ preferred
stock from December 12, 2006 through March 5, 2008, who allegedly
were damaged, including acquirers of CIT-PrZ preferred stock
pursuant to the October 17, 2007 offering of such preferred stock.

In July 2009, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. Specifically, it is alleged
that the Company, its former CEO, former CFO, former Controller,
and a former Vice Chairman violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act
by allegedly making false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding the company's subprime home lending and student lending
businesses.

The allegations relating to the company's student lending business
are based upon the assertion that the company failed to account in
its financial statements or, in the case of the preferred
stockholders, its registration statement and prospectus, for
private loans to students of a helicopter pilot training school,
which it is alleged were highly unlikely to be repaid and should
have been written off.  The allegations relating to the company's
home lending business are based on the assertion that the company
failed to fully disclose the risks in the Company's portfolio of
subprime mortgage loans.

The Lead Plaintiff also alleges that the company, its former CEO,
former CFO and former Controller and those current and former
Directors of the company who signed the registration statement in
connection with the October 2007 CIT-PrZ preferred offering
violated the 1933 Act by making false and misleading statements
concerning the company's student lending business as described
above.

Pursuant to a Notice of Dismissal filed on November 24, 2009, the
company was dismissed as a defendant from the consolidated
securities action.  On June 10, 2010, the Court denied the
individual defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.

The action will continue as to the remaining defendants and the
company's obligation to defend and indemnify such defendants
continues.  Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified
damages and interest.


CIT GROUP: Subsidiary Awaits Approval of Texas Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court is expected this month to rule on a settlement
entered by CIT Group Inc.'s subsidiary and plaintiffs to multiple
lawsuits alleging violations of state consumer protection laws,
according to the company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010

In February 2008, a helicopter pilot training school filed for
bankruptcy and ceased operating.  Student Loan Xpress, Inc., a
subsidiary of CIT engaged in the student lending business, had
marketed and acquired private (non-government guaranteed) loans
made to approximately 2,600 students of the Pilot School, totaling
approximately $196.8 million in principal and accrued interest as
of December 31, 2007.  SLX ceased marketing and acquiring new
Pilot School Student Loans in September 2007.

SLX voluntarily placed those students who were attending school at
the time of the Pilot School's closure "in grace" such that no
payments under their loans have been required to be made and no
interest on their loans has been accruing.  Multiple lawsuits,
including putative class action lawsuits and collective actions,
have been filed against SLX and other lenders alleging, among
other things, violations of state consumer protection laws.

In December 2008, SLX completed a confidential settlement of a
collective action commenced by approximately 37 Pilot School
students and some of their co-signers in Georgia.

SLX also reached a settlement agreement with a nationwide class of
approximately 2,200 students who were in attendance at the Pilot
School when it closed.  The proposed settlement agreement provides
for (i) discounts to students based on the number of
certifications earned by such students in connection with their
attendance at the pilot school, (which aggregate discount is
projected to be approximately $130 million in debt and interest
forgiveness); (ii) reduction in interest rates for certain
students for up to 3%; (iii) payment of attorneys' fees to class
counsel; and (iv) service awards to the class representatives.  In
November 2009, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida preliminarily approved the proposed settlement
agreement.

Objections to the settlement were filed with respect to fewer than
3% of the loans and opt-outs were received with respect to fewer
than 5% of the loans.  The Attorneys General of several states
also engaged in a review of the impact of the Pilot School's
closure on the student borrowers and any possible role of SLX.
SLX cooperated in the review and reached agreement with twelve out
of fourteen Attorneys General, pursuant to which, among other
things, such Attorneys General support the proposed settlement.
The Court is expected to consider approval of the settlement in
December 2010.

In February 2010, approximately 80 plaintiffs who had opted out of
the proposed nationwide class settlement filed a collective action
against SLX in Texas State Court.  Among other claims, these
plaintiffs allege violations of Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices
Act and aiding and abetting fraud.  They seek to have the loans
declared unenforceable and an award of actual damages, treble
damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Discovery in the matter is ongoing.

The company provided an allowance for credit losses in its pre-
emergence financial statements for the estimate of loan
forgiveness and a reserve for third party legal fees.  Following
emergence from bankruptcy, the allowance for credit losses was
eliminated and the loans were recorded at estimated fair value in
connection with the Company's implementation of FSA.  As a result
of recording the loans at estimated fair value under FSA, the
company expects that it will have no additional loss with respect
to the class settlement in the Florida District Court.

In addition, the company has fully accounted for the settlement in
the Georgia collective action.  Assuming the collective action in
Texas settles within a range comparable to the other two lawsuits,
the Company will have an immaterial or no additional loss on the
loans which were recorded at estimated fair value under FSA.


COMPASS BANK: Sued Over Excessive Asset Termination Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports
that the country's 15th largest bank is illegally charging
excessive termination fees to discourage its customers from
transferring their assets, according to a putative class action
lawsuit recently filed by a Beaumont man.

George W. Brown III filed the suit Nov. 23 in Jefferson County
District Court against Compass Bank.

Mr. Brown claims Compass Bank began charging its excessive fees
after its account manager and other trust department personnel
left the company to form their own wealth management business,
Genesis Wealth Management.

When Mr. Brown attempted to transfer his money from Compass Bank
to Genesis, Compass threatened to charge him a termination fee of
no more than 1% -- fees that would result in charges in excess of
the $25 asset termination fee Compass promised Brown when he
invested with the bank, according to the complaint.

"Compass ultimately charged Plaintiff and the Class members a
termination fee in an amount equal to 34 basis points of their
account balances, which violated the Hibernia trust department fee
schedule as well as the industry standard, and resulted in a
termination fee substantially in excess of a $25 per asset
termination fee, or the flat fee industry, which is unreasonable
for the industry and is unconscionable," the suit states.

By charging the fees, Compass is "utilizing accountholders as
litigation pawns to punish Compass' former employees and charging
excessive and unearned management fees and account termination
fees," the complaint says.

In his complaint, Mr. Brown alleges breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
conversion, violations of the Texas Theft Liability Act and
Violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer
Protection Act against Compass.  In addition, he alleges unjust
enrichment.

In his complaint, Mr. Brown is seeking actual and treble damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest at the highest legal rate,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief the
court deems just.

Mitchell A. Toups of Weller, Green, Toups and Terrell in Beaumont
and Richard L. Coffman of The Coffman Law Firm in Beaumont will be
representing him.

The case has been assigned to Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th District
Court.

Case No. B188-855


CUMULUS MEDIA: SRC Employee Class Action Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cumulus Media Inc. continues to defend itself from a class action
lawsuit filed against the company by a former employee of
Susquehanna Radio Corp., according to the company's November 1,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On January 21, 2010, Brian Mas, a former employee of Susquehanna
Radio Corp., filed a purported class action lawsuit against the
Company claiming (i) unlawful failure to pay required overtime
wages, (ii) late pay and waiting time penalties, (iii) failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, (iv) failure to
indemnity for necessary expenses and losses, and (v) unfair trade
practices under California's Unfair Competition Act.  The
plaintiff is requesting restitution, penalties and injunctive
relief, and seeks to represent other California employees
fulfilling the same job during the immediately preceding four-year
period.


DISH DBS: Continues Defense in Channel Bundling Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS Corporation continues to defend itself in the "Channel
Bundling" class action lawsuit pending in California, according to
the company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

During 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers
filed an antitrust action against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. The suit
also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision, Cox,
Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC Universal,
Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group and Walt Disney Company. The suit
alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged in a
conspiracy to provide customers with access only to bundled
channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the ability to
purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis.

On October 16, 2009, the District Court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss with prejudice. The plaintiffs have appealed. The
Company said it intends to vigorously defend this case. The
Company added that it cannot predict with any degree of certainty
the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential
liability or damages.


DISH DBS: Awaits Final Approval of Retail Class Suits Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS Corporation is awaiting final approval of a settlement of
class actions filed by retailers in Colorado state and federal
courts, according to the company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

During 2000, lawsuits were filed by retailers in Colorado state
and federal courts attempting to certify nationwide classes on
behalf of certain of the Company's retailers. The plaintiffs
requested that the Courts declare certain provisions of, and
changes to, alleged agreements between the Company and the
retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to award damages for lost
incentives and payments, charge backs and other compensation.

On September 20, 2010, the Company agreed to a settlement of both
lawsuits that provides, among other things, for mutual releases of
the claims in the litigation, payment by the Company of up to $60
million, and the option for certain class members to elect to
reinstate certain monthly incentive payments, which the parties
agreed have an aggregate maximum value of $23 million. The
settlement is conditioned upon approval by the court.  While the
Company has received preliminary court approval, final court
approval is still pending.

The Company said it cannot predict with any degree of certainty
how many class members will elect to reinstate these monthly
incentive payments. As a result, the Company recorded a $60
million reserve in "Litigation accrual" on its Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets and in "Litigation expense" for both
the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010 on its
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive
Income (Loss).


DYNEGY INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Enjoin Denali Merger
---------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action petition and request for injunction
was filed against Dynegy Inc. in connection with its merger with
Denali Merger Sub Inc., according to the company's November 9,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In connection with the Merger Agreement, between August 13, 2010
and August 24, 2010, nineteen stockholder lawsuits were filed (one
of which was subsequently voluntarily dismissed) in the District
Courts of Harris County, Texas against Dynegy, its directors and
The Blackstone Group L.P.  Denali Parent Inc., Merger Sub, the
guarantor, NRG Energy Inc., and certain of Dynegy's executive
officers have also been named as defendants in certain of these
lawsuits.  The remaining eighteen Texas state actions were
consolidated on September 9, 2010.  The First Amended Verified,
Consolidated Class Action Petition and Request for a Temporary and
Permanent Injunction was filed on September 21, 2010.


ENLIGHTENED WEALTH: Sued Over Bogus Educational Seminars
--------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that a RICO class
action claims the Enlightened Wealth Institute and the men who run
it are charlatans who take thousands of dollars up front for
worthless real-estate classes.  The bogus "institute" works in
league with an Escondido, Calif.-based collections company, Conrad
Acceptance Co., which aggressively pursues victims for payments as
soon as they sign up, according to the complaint.

"In fact, EWI is not an 'institute,' and it exists solely as a
scheme by defendants to prey on individual by inducing them to pay
thousands of dollars up front, using high-pressure sales tactics,
for an 'education' in 'nothing down' real estate investing that
fails to meet any of its promises," the complaint states.  "Only
after they have secured their victims' money do defendants reveal
their 'enlightened' methods, which are nothing more than a variety
of highly risky property flipping schemes that are themselves
deceptive, likely illegal, and completely unfeasible," the
complaint states.

Named plaintiff Yanqiu Ke claims Enlightened Wealth's founders,
defendants Robert Allen and Tom Painter, prey on the unwitting by
falsely claiming that their program "has produced one millionaire
after another" for 25 years, and claiming to provide "world-class
instructors" on real estate, stocks, Internet businesses and
'InfoPreneuring."

"Mr. Allen assures, 'It works whether the real estate market is
going up, down, or sideways.'  In its free 'seminars' in which it
tries to entice people into signing up as paying participants, EWI
claims that 91% of EWI 'students' are successful, and make their
first deal within 90 says.  On information and belief, and as set
forth below, these representations are all false," according to
the complaint.

It adds: "Defendants completely misrepresent the feasibility of
the EWI nothing down strategies, and they omit key information
that would allow consumers to meaningfully evaluate the services
they sell. . . . EWI offers model deals that by their very
structure would require misleading lenders about one's ability to
make a required down payment on an investment property."

The Enlightened Wealth Institute promotes itself as "a leader in
investment education, providing enlightened wealth-building
education to empower individuals to make a positive global
impact."

Messrs. Allen and Painter started the institute in 2004 as the
latest incarnation of educational seminars they'd offered for
years on how to become wealthy through real estate investment,
according to the complaint.  Previous incarnations of the
defendants' "seminars" were called the "Enlightened Millionaire
Institute," "Multiple Streams of Income," "The Robert Allen
Institute" and "No Money Down," according to the complaint.

Mr. Painter, of Salt Lake City, claims to have been working with
Allen for 25 years, according to the complaint.  Defendant Lorenzo
Spencer, also of Salt Lake City, is a "motivational speaker who
promotes EWI programs at its free seminars and 'boot camp'
trainings."  He was the one who roped her in, Ms. Ke says.

EWI is based in Provo Utah, and Conrad Acceptance in Escondido,
Calif.  "It acts with full knowledge of the EWI program, and
conspires with other defendants to collect full or substantial
portions of tuition payments from participants before they become
aware the EWI will not teach them successful real estate
investment methods," according to the complaint.

Ms. Ke seeks class damages and punitive damages for RICO
violations, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation, and other charges.

A copy of the Complaint in Ke v. Allen, et al., Case No.
10-cv-02036 (D.D.C.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/02/Enlightened.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven A. Skalet, Esq.
          Craig L. Briskin, Esq.
          MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 822-5100

               - and -

          Tracy D. Rezvani, Esq.
          Richard M. Volin, Esq.
          Shiva Sharifahmadian, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          1050 30th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 337-8000


ENTERPRISE GP: Faces Four Lawsuits Relating to Holdings Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise GP Holdings L.P. is named as one of the defendants in
four separate lawsuits pending in Delaware relating to the merger
agreement between the Parent Company and Enterprise Products
Partners, according to the company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On September 9, 2010, Sanjay Israni, a purported unitholder of the
Parent Company, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of the
unitholders of the Parent Company, captioned Sanjay Israni v. EPE
Holdings LLC, Enterprise GP Holdings L.P., Enterprise Products
Company, Enterprise Products Partners L.P., Oscar S. Andras, Ralph
S. Cunningham, Richard H. Bachmann, Randa Duncan Williams, Thurmon
M. Andress, Charles E. McMahen, Edwin E. Smith and B.W. Waycaster.
The Israni Complaint alleges, among other things, that Enterprise
Products Partners along with the named directors and EPCO have
breached fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed Holdings
Merger and that the Parent Company aided and abetted in these
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

On September 24, 2010, Richard Fouke, a purported unitholder of
the Parent Company, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware as a putative class action on behalf of the
unitholders of the Parent Company, captioned Richard Fouke v. EPE
Holdings LLC, Enterprise GP Holdings L.P., Enterprise Products
Company, Enterprise Products Partners L.P., Enterprise Products
GP, LLC, Oscar S. Andras, Ralph S. Cunningham, Richard H.
Bachmann, Randa Duncan Williams, Thurmon M. Andress, Charles E.
McMahen, Edwin E. Smith and B.W. Waycaster.  The Fouke Complaint
alleges, among other things, that Enterprise Products Partners,
along with the named directors, EPE Holdings, EPGP and EPCO
breached the implied contractual covenant of good faith and fair
dealing in connection with the proposed Holdings Merger and that
the Parent Company and the other defendants aided and abetted in
the alleged breach.

Additionally, on September 28, 2010, Eugene Lonergan, Sr., a
purported unitholder of the Parent Company, filed a complaint in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, as a putative
class action on behalf of the unitholders of the Parent Company,
captioned Eugene Lonergan, Sr. v. EPE Holdings LLC, Enterprise GP
Holdings L.P., Oscar S. Andras, Ralph S. Cunningham, Richard H.
Bachmann, Randa Duncan Williams, Thurmon M. Andress, Charles E.
McMahen, Edwin E. Smith and B.W. Waycaster.  The Lonergan
Complaint alleges that the named directors and EPE Holdings
breached the implied contractual covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, including failing to make adequate disclosures, in
connection with the proposed Holdings Merger.  On October 8, 2010,
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware held a hearing on a
motion by the plaintiff to expedite the proceedings.  On Oct. 11,
2010, the motion was denied.

Finally, on October 11, 2010, John Psomas, a purported unitholder
of Enterprise Products Partners' common units, filed a complaint
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, as a putative
class action on behalf of Enterprise Products Partners'
unitholders, captioned John Psomas v. Enterprise Products Partners
L.P., Enterprise Products GP, LLC, Michael A. Creel, W. Randall
Fowler, A. James Teague, Michael J. Knesek, E. William Barnett,
Charles M. Rampacek and Rex C. Ross.  The Psomas Complaint alleges
that Enterprise Products Partners and its general partner breached
its partnership agreement by failing to submit the Holdings Merger
Agreement to a vote of Enterprise Products Partners' unitholders
and that the named directors breached their fiduciary duties of
candor and full disclosure.

Each of the Israni, Fouke, Lonergan and Psomas Complaints seeks to
enjoin the proposed merger transaction and, in the event the
merger is consummated, the Psomas Complaint seeks a vote of
Enterprise Products Partners' unitholders to ratify approval of
the Holdings Merger and damages resulting from the named
directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  The Company said
it cannot predict the outcome of these or any other lawsuits nor
the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve
these or any other lawsuits filed in connection with the proposed
Holdings Merger.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against
these lawsuits and any similar actions.


FIRST NATIONS: Judge Certifies Class in Salmon Damage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Ian Mulgrew, writing for The Vancouver Sun, reports that First
Nations has won the right to launch a class-action lawsuit over
damage to wild salmon stocks from sea-lice allegedly caused by
salmon farms on the Broughton Archipelago.

Victoria challenged proposed representative plaintiff, Robert
Chamberlin, the elected chief of an aboriginal collective known as
the Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish First Nation, saying Indians are
barred by the Class Proceedings Act from launching such
litigation.

The provincial government contended that a class action is not the
preferable procedure for resolving the native claims, and that the
challenges the First Nations would face in establishing the
fishing rights said to have been infringed would overwhelm the law
suit.

Ottawa raised similar objections and argued the evidence failed to
establish adverse impacts on wild salmon stocks attributable to
sea lice contamination from fish farms.

In addition, the two governments said the complications involved
in deciding what rights the native people enjoyed would make the
damages phase of the case interminable.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Harry Slade disagreed and said the
lawsuit should be certified and allowed to proceed.


FIRST YEARS: Recalls 41,300 Cabinet Swing Locks
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Learning Curve Brands Inc. d/b/a The First Years, of Oak Brook,
Ill., announced a voluntary recall of about 41,300 The First Years
American Red Cross Cabinet Swing Locks.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The installed latches can break and children could gain access to
contents of a cabinet, posing the risk of exposure to hazardous
items.

The First Years has received seven reports of latches breaking.
No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves The First Years American Red Cross cabinet
swing locks with item number Y7181.  The latches are mounted on
cabinets or drawers to help prevent young children from gaining
access and were sold two per blister card.  An America Red Cross
logo and "cabinet swing lock" is printed on the package.
"American Red Cross" is molded onto the front of the lock.  A date
code is printed on the bottom of the back of the package and on
the back side of each latch just above the connection point.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

       http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11056.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Toys R Us, Babies R Us and other retail stores nationwide and on
the Internet from September 2008 through September 2010 for about
$4 per pair.

Consumers should immediately remove the latches from cabinets,
record the date code on the back of each latch and contact The
First Years to obtain a $5 coupon toward the purchase of another
Learning Curve product.  When removing the latches, consumers
should take special care to store hazardous items out of reach of
children.  For additional information, contact The First Years
toll-free at (866) 725-4407 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Central Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.recalls.thefirstyears.com/


FISERV TRUST: Sued by IRA Investors for Breaching Fiduciary Duty
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class
action claims Fiserv Trust and other banks were "asleep at the
switch" when they lost millions of dollars in Individual
Retirement Accounts to a Ponzi scheme by giving money manager
Daniel Spitzer "unfettered access" to the accounts.  The SEC sued
Spitzer in June in a case involving $105 million.

In its June 14 complaint, the SEC claimed Mr. Spitzer "moved more
than $105 million through his affiliated investment funds, sold
interests to over 400 investors under the pretense of managing
investments in funds engaged in primarily currency transactions,
commingled the money and used it to pay off older investors and
Spitzer's expenses and lavish lifestyle."

In the new case, three named plaintiffs claim Fiserv failed to
investigate Mr. Spitzer before giving him "a position of trust
over their customer's IRA and pension funds accounts and by giving
. . . access to all of the monies that had been deposited in such
accounts by plaintiffs and the class."

Had Fiserv investigated Mr. Spitzer, it would have found that in
March 2001 the SEC entered a cease and desist order against him
for selling more than $17 million of unregistered securities, the
investors say.

Instead, Fiserv and other defendants, including Lincoln Trust Co
and Trust Industrial Bank, "failed to obtain audited financial
statements from a recognized accountant and advice from Depository
Trust Company, Euroclear or others that the assets with the third
party (Daniel Spitzer) existed," according to the complaint.  So
Mr. Spitzer was able to use the defendant companies "as a
clearinghouse to loot the IRA," diverting cash to foreign bank
accounts and to himself to cover up his gambling debts, the
complaint states.

Had Fiserv performed "the minimum standards of fiduciary conduct,"
it would have learned that Spitzer failed to provide "sufficient
liquid funds in certain Fiserv customer accounts to pay required
minimum distributions to IRA beneficiaries," the class claims.
The investors say that the defendant companies failed to keep
their accounts safe, so Spitzer "immediately commingled and took
them."

Although Fiserv received repeated complaints from IRA
beneficiaries about late, required minimum distribution payments,
it still failed to investigate the issue across all of its IRA
accounts, the class claims.

It claims that a former president of Fiserv's own Affinity Group
acknowledged that Fiserv "systemically failed to maintain red
flags, customer complaints or other indicia indicating that an
audit should be undertaken to insure that assets were being
preserved."

The class claims its members had no contact with Fiserv until
after Spitzer's arrest, although Fiserv "repeatedly and
continuously sent inaccurate account statements to plaintiffs and
the class reflecting investments in purported uncovered securities
. . . which did not in substance exist."

Lead plaintiffs Ralph and Debra Rosato claim they invested about
$800,000 through IRA accounts in the Spitzer Ponzi scheme through
defendants, while plaintiff John Hill III claims he invested
$480,000.

The defendants also acted as IRA custodians for Bernard Madoff and
his company, Bernard Madoff Investment Securities, allowing him to
defraud thousands of investors of billions of dollars, the class
claims.

Named as defendants are Fiserv Inc., Fiserv Trust Co., Retirement
Accounts Inc., NTC & Co. LLP, Trust Industrial Bank, and Lincoln
Trust Co.

The class seeks class certification, restitution, and compensatory
and punitive damages for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, gross negligence, and breach of contract, under state
and federal laws.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          LOVELL, STEWART, HALEBIAN & JACOBSON LLP
          61 Broadway, Suite 501
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900


GLOBALSTAR INC: Court Approves Settlement of "Stickrath" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Globalstar Inc. obtained court approval of an agreement to settle
a class action complaint filed against the company in California,
according to its November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On April 7, 2007, Kenneth Stickrath and Sharan Stickrath filed a
purported class action complaint against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No.
07-cv-01941.  The complaint is based on alleged violations of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and
California Civil Code Section 1750, et seq., the Consumers' Legal
Remedies Act.  In July 2008, the Company filed a motion to deny
class certification and a motion for summary judgment.  The court
deferred action on the class certification issue but granted the
motion for summary judgment on December 22, 2008.  The court did
not, however, dismiss the case with prejudice but rather allowed
counsel for plaintiffs to amend the complaint and substitute one
or more new class representatives.  On January 16, 2009, counsel
for the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Class Action Complaint
substituting Messrs. Walsh and Kesler as the named plaintiffs.

A joint notice of settlement was filed with the court on March 9,
2010.  The court heard the motion for settlement on March 29, 2010
and the parties subsequently submitted a first amendment to the
stipulated class settlement agreement on April 2, 2010.  The court
entered an order approving the settlement on October 14, 2010, and
the Company has proceeded to implement it.  The Company had a
liability of $1.3 million for this settlement as of September 30,
2010.


GREAT LAKES DREDGE: Louisiana Class Action Suits Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation continues to defend itself
from class action complaints filed in Louisiana, according to the
company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On April 24, 2006, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of
Louisiana citizens who allegedly suffered property damage from the
floodwaters that flooded New Orleans and surrounding areas when
Hurricane Katrina hit the area on August 29, 2005.  The Reed
Complaint names as defendants the U.S. government, Great Lakes
Dredge & Dock Company and numerous other dredging companies that
completed dredging projects on behalf of the Army Corps of
Engineers in the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet between 1993 and
2005.  The Reed Complaint alleges that the dredging of MRGO caused
the destruction of Louisiana wetlands, which had provided a
natural barrier against some storms and hurricanes. The Reed
Complaint alleges that this loss of natural barriers contributed
to the failure of levees as Katrina floodwaters damaged
plaintiffs' property.  The Reed Complaint asserts claims of
negligence, warranty, concealment and violations of the Water
Pollution Control Act.  Other plaintiffs have filed similar class
action complaints and one mass tort case.  All of these cases
raise the same claims as the Reed Complaint.  The amount of
claimed damages in these claims is not stated, but is presumed to
be significant. On March 9, 2007, the District Court dismissed
with prejudice the Katrina Claims against Great Lakes and those
plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.  On November 25, 2009, the Fifth Circuit affirmed
the dismissal of the Katrina Claims and later denied the
plaintiffs' Motion for Rehearing. The plaintiffs did not file a
writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On October 19, 2006, Great Lakes and the other dredging companies
filed in federal district court for exoneration or limitation of
liability under the Limitation of Liability Act.  The Limitation
Action stays all outstanding Katrina Claims against Great Lakes in
the district court, pending resolution of the Limitation Action.
Approximately 40,000 claims by individuals, businesses, and the
State of Louisiana were filed against Great Lakes asserting the
same basic theory of liability as in the Katrina Claims and
seeking damages significantly in excess of the $55 million
limitation bond posted by Great Lakes. In addition, all of the
dredging companies, including Great Lakes, filed cross-claims
against each other in the Limitation Action seeking contribution
and indemnification.  Great Lakes currently believes that it has
meritorious claims for either exoneration from all liability or
limitation of liability to not more than $55 million, which is the
value of the vessels which conducted the MRGO dredging work.
These defenses include arguments for both statutory and
constitutional immunity from liability.  On September 7, 2007,
Great Lakes filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims.  The
District Court granted the motion on June 12, 2008, dismissing
these claims with prejudice.  The plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal in the Fifth Circuit.  The Fifth Circuit stayed the appeal
pending issuance of its opinion in the Katrina Claims. Following
the Fifth Circuit's affirmance of the dismissal of the Katrina
Claims, briefing on this appeal was completed.  Oral argument was
conducted on August 2 and, on October 14, 2010, the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of the Limitation Claims. Claimants had
fifteen days to pursue a rehearing en banc which has now expired
and has ninety days (i.e. until January 12, 2011) to file a writ
of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. Great Lakes maintains
$150 million in insurance coverage for the Katrina Claims and
these claims.


HANSEN MEDICAL: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Complaint in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Medical, Inc., and its the other defendants are asking the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to
dismiss the second amended complaint filed in connection with the
restatement of certain of its financial statements, according to
the company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

Following the company's Oct. 19, 2009 announcement that it would
restate certain of its financial statements, a securities class
action lawsuit was filed on Oct. 23, 2009 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, naming the company
and certain of its officers.  The suit is Curry v. Hansen Medical,
Inc. et al., Case No. 09-05094.

The complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of Hansen stock between May 1, 2008
and October 18, 2009, inclusive, and alleges, inter alia, that
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to make disclosures regarding the company's financial results and
compliance with GAAP while improperly recognizing revenue; that
these misstatements and/or nondisclosures resulted in
overstatement of company revenue and financial results and/or
artificially inflated the company's stock price; and that
following the company's Oct. 19, 2009 announcement, the price of
the company's stock declined.

On Nov. 4, 2009 and Nov. 13, 2009, substantively identical
complaints were filed in the Northern District of California by
other purported Hansen stockholders asserting the same claims on
behalf of the same putative class of Hansen stockholders.  The
suits are Livingstone v. Hansen Medical, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-
05212 and Prenter v. Hansen Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-
05367.

All three complaints seek certification as a class action and
unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys fees.

On Dec. 22, 2009, two purported Hansen stockholders, Mina and
Nader Farr, filed a joint application for appointment as lead
plaintiffs and for consolidation of the three actions.

On Feb. 25, 2010, the Court issued an order granting Mina and
Nader Farr's application for appointment as lead plaintiffs and
consolidating the three securities class actions.

On July 15, 2010, the Court entered an order granting lead
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

Lead plaintiffs' second amended complaint, in addition to alleging
that shareholders suffered damages as a result of the decline in
the company's stock price following the Oct. 19, 2009
announcement, also alleges that shareholders suffered additional
damages as the result of share price declines on July 28, 2009,
July 31, 2009, Jan. 8, 2009, July 6, 2009, and Aug. 4, 2009, all
of which lead plaintiffs allege were caused by the disclosure of
what they claim was previously misrepresented information.

The defendants filed their motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on October 13, 2010.  The Company and the named officers
intend to defend themselves vigorously against these actions.


HARBIN ELECTRIC: Class Actions Filed Over Yang Proposal
-------------------------------------------------------
Several shareholder class actions have been filed in the states of
Nevada and New York against Harbin Electric, Inc., and certain
officers over the proposed buyout of the company by Tianfu Yang
and his affiliates, according to the company's November 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Ten punitive shareholder class action complaints have been filed
against Harbin Electric, Inc., and certain officers and directors
in connection with the Oct. 10, 2010 non-binding proposal made by
Mr. Tianfu Yang and Baring Private Equity Asia Group Limited for
Mr. Yang, and the investment fund advised by Baring, to acquire
all of the outstanding shares of Common Stock of Harbin not
currently owned by Mr. Yang and his affiliates in a going private
transaction for $24 per share in cash, subject to certain
conditions.

In each complaint, the plaintiffs challenge the Yang Proposal and
allege, among other things, that the consideration to be paid in
such proposal is unfair and inadequate.  The complaints seek,
among other relief, to enjoin defendants from consummating the
Yang Proposal and to direct defendants to exercise their fiduciary
duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of
the Company's shareholders.

Seven of these complaints were filed in the State of Nevada, and
the remaining complaints were filed in the State of New York.

The Company reviewed the allegations contained in the various
complaints and believed they are without merit and intended to
defend the litigation vigorously.


HONEST TEA: Removes "Withoff" Complaint to N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
Scott Witthoff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Honest Tea, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-10-504987 (Calif. Super.
Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed on October 29, 2010.  The
plaintiff accuses Honest Tea of falsely claiming that its Kombucha
fermented tea beverages contained less than 0.5% alcohol when in
fact they contained up to 2% to 3% alcohol, equal to or greater
than some brands of beer, in violation of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and the California Bus. & Prof. Code.

On the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1332, Honest Tea, on December 1, 2010, removed the
lawsuit to the Northern District of California, and the Clerk
assigned Case No. 10-cv-05442 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Kristen Simplicio, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Telephone: (415) 336-6545

The Defendant is represented by:

          Forrest A. Hainline, Esq.
          Robert B. Bader, Esq.
          Elise E. Leung, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 733-6000
          E-mail: fhainline@goodwinprocter.com
                  rbader@goodwinprocter.com
                  eleung@goodwinprocter.com


IKANOS COMMS: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Suits in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ikanos Communications, Inc., remains a defendant in class action
lawsuits alleging that the company made misrepresentations and
omissions in its initial public offering and follow-up offering,
according to the company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 3, 2010.

In November 2006, three putative class action lawsuits were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the company, its directors and two former
executive officers, as well as the lead underwriters for its
initial and secondary public offerings.  The lawsuits were
consolidated and an amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2007.
The amended complaint sought unspecified damages for certain
alleged material misrepresentations and omissions made by the
company in connection with both its initial public offering in
September 2005 and its follow-on offering in March 2006.

On June 25, 2007, the company filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint, and on March 10, 2008, the Court dismissed the case
with prejudice.  On March 25, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration, and on June 12, 2008, the District Court denied
the motion for reconsideration.  On October 15, 2008, plaintiffs
appealed the District Court's dismissal of the amended complaint
and denial of its motion for reconsideration to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On September 17, 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's dismissal of the amended complaint, but vacated its
judgment on the motion for reconsideration and remanded the case
to the District Court for further proceedings.  On May 13, 2010,
the District Court granted plaintiffs leave to file a motion to
amend the pleadings.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend
the complaint on June 11, 2010.  The company filed an opposition
to the motion on July 11, 2010, and plaintiffs filed a reply in
support of the motion on August 10, 2010.

Oral argument on the motion for leave to amend has not yet been
scheduled.  The company cannot predict the likely outcome of the
motion for leave to amend, and an adverse result in the litigation
could have a material effect on its financial statements.


J. CREW: D&O's Sued Over Sale to TPG and Leonard Green
------------------------------------------------------
Hossein Taki, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. J. Crew Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 652125/2010 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., New York Cty. November 30, 2010), asserts claims for breach
of fiduciary duties against the Company, certain of its officers
and directors, TPG Capital, and Leonard Green & Partners, L.P.,
arising out of the proposed sale of the Company to TPG and Leonard
Green for $43.50 per share, or a total consideration of roughly
$3.0 billion.

Mr. Taki states that the offer price of $43.50 per share
materially undervalues the Company, whose stock has traded as high
as $50.96 over the past year.  Moreover, Mr. Taki says that
Millard Drexler, the Company's CEO and Board Chairman, stands to
receive over $300 million from his stock and option holdings, and
will continue as Chairman and CEO of the Company and maintain a
substantial equity investment in the Company, while the Company's
President, Jenna Lyons, will continue with J. Crew after the
proposed acquisition in completed.  The Company's shareholders,
however, will not share in these benefits.

Mr. Taki contends that in choosing TPG and Leonard Green without
adequately exploring other strategic alternatives, the individual
defendants were motivated by financial and professional benefits
for themselves that were not shared with the public shareholders.

In addition, the proposed acquisition contains a prohibitive
termination fee of $54 million (payable by the Company) that
strongly discourages the Special Committee that was formed to
solicit, evaluate, and enter into negotiations with other
potential acquirers, from rejecting the offer.  Moreover, Mr.
Drexler, who owns nearly 12% of the Company, has publicly declared
his support for TPG and Leonard Green, making other potential
buyers reluctant to submit a competing proposal.

The proposed acquisition also contains a "no shop" provision in
which no other potential buyers may submit bids beginning on
January 16, 2011, the day after J. Crew will announce its fourth
quarter 2010 earnings.  Given the extreme importance of holiday
earnings for retailers like J. Crew, the Complaint explains that
few if any companies will venture to submit a bid without the
prior benefit of evaluating the Company's future performance.

TPG is a Texas limited partnership and private investment firm
with more than $48 billion of assets under management and offices
worldwide, while Leonard Green is a Delaware limited partnership
and private equity firm with over $9 billion in equity capital
under management.

New York-based J. Crew is a Delaware corporation and a nationally
recognized multi-channel retailer of apparel, shoes, and
accessories.  The suit says that as of November 23, 2010, the
Company operates 250 retail stores, the J. Crew catalog business,
jcrew.com, madewell.com, and 85 factor outlet stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY, FRABJ 6 SAILER LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 682-1818

               - and -

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr.
          Shawn E. Fields, Esq.
          JOHNSON BOTTINI, LLP
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 1720
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063


JDA SOFTWARE: Awaits Court Approval of Dallas Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement in principle has been reached by JDA Software Group
Inc. and the plaintiffs in a putative shareholder class action
filed in Dallas County, according to the company's November 9,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In December 2009, the Company was sued in a putative shareholder
class action against i2 and its board of directors, in the County
Court of Law No. 2 of Dallas County (No. CC-09-08476-B).

The plaintiffs allege in this lawsuit that the directors of i2
breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders of i2 by selling
i2 to the Company via an allegedly unfair process and at an unfair
price, and that the Company aided and abetted this alleged breach.

On January 26, 2010, the Court denied the plaintiffs' request for
a preliminary injunction that sought to enjoin the merger between
JDA and i2. The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended
complaint, alleging unspecified monetary damages in addition to
declaratory and injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The
Company, i2 and i2's directors have denied all allegations and
discovery is ongoing.

A settlement agreement in principle has been reached among the
parties, which is subject to formal documentation and court
approval. The agreement, if it is finalized and then approved by
the court, will provide that (i) the pendency and prosecution of
the lawsuit and the efforts of plaintiffs' counsel were a reason
and cause for the decision by i2's then board of directors to
provide additional disclosures in the Registration Statement on
Form S-4, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or
about November 19, 2009, in connection with the Company's
acquisition of i2 and (ii) plaintiffs' counsel may apply to the
court for an award of attorneys' fees and costs of $450,000 to be
paid by i2, which will be funded by its directors and officers'
liability insurer.


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Nevada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. continues to defend itself in a consolidated
class action lawsuit in Nevada, according to the company's
November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada, against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson, and William
P. Weidner.  The complaint alleges that LVSC, through the
individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false
information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press
releases, investor conference calls and other means from August 1,
2007 through November 6, 2008.  The complaint seeks, among other
relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.

On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada, against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson, and William
P. Weidner.  The complaint alleges that LVSC, through the
individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false
information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press
releases, investor conference calls and other means from June 13,
2007 through November 11, 2008.  The complaint, which is
substantially similar to the Fosbre litigation, discussed above,
seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 31, 2010, the Court entered an order consolidating the
two cases, and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.

On November 1, 2010, a purported class action amended complaint
was filed in the consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G.
Adelson and William P. Weidner.  The amended complaint alleges
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false and misleading information, or failed to
disclose material facts, through press releases, investor
conference calls and other means from August 2, 2007 through
November 6, 2008.  The amended complaint seeks, among other
relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys'
fees and costs. The defendants have until December 31, 2010, to
file a responsive pleading.

This action is in a preliminary stage and management has
determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently
unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter.
The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.


MARQUEE HOLDINGS: Remains a Defendant in "FACTA" Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
Marquee Holdings Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits
alleging Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act violations,
according to the company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

In January 2007, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company in the Central District of the United States District
Court of California alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act.  FACTA provides in part that neither
expiration dates nor more than the last 5 numbers of a credit or
debit card may be printed on receipts given to customers.  FACTA
imposes significant penalties upon violators where the violation
is deemed to have been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to
actual losses incurred by the card holder.  On October 24, 2008,
the District Court denied plaintiff's renewed motion for class
certification.

On September 27, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated
the District Court's order and remanded the proceedings for a new
determination consistent with their opinion.  The Company filed
its Petition for En Banc and/or Panel Rehearing on October 8,
2010.  The parties have reached a tentative settlement, subject to
court approval, which is not expected to have a material adverse
impact to the Company's financial condition.

On May 14, 2009, Harout Jarchafjian filed a similar lawsuit
alleging that the Company willfully violated FACTA and seeking
statutory damages, but without alleging any actual injury
(Jarchafjian v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Case No.
CV09-03434).  The Jarchafjian case has been deemed related to the
Bateman case and was stayed pending a Ninth Circuit decision in
the Bateman case, which has now been issued.  The Company has
renewed settlement discussions in this matter as well.  The
Company believes the plaintiff's allegations in this case,
particularly those asserting AMC's willfulness, are without merit.
The Company is currently unable to estimate a possible loss or
range of loss related to this matter.


MELA SCIENCES: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit against MELA Sciences, Inc. (Nasdaq:MELA) and certain
of its officers.  The class action (Civil Action No.: 10-CV-9024)
is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities
who purchased MELA securities from February 13, 2009 through
November 16, 2010, inclusive.  The Complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

MELA is a medical device company that focuses on the design and
development of a non-invasive, point-of-care instrument to assist
in the early diagnosis of melanoma.  MELA's principal product,
MelaFind, features a hand-held imaging device that emits multiple
wavelengths of light to capture images of suspicious pigmented
skin lesions and extract data.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants represented to the
investing public that an approval of MelaFind by the United States
Food and Drug Administration would be forthcoming through a series
of materially false and misleading statements regarding the status
of MelaFind's ongoing clinical studies, and the safety and
efficacy of the Company's products.  For instance, at the
beginning of the Class Period, Defendants announced "positive top-
line results of its pivotal trial of MelaFind, a non-invasive,
point-of-care instrument to assist in the early detection of
melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer."

In misrepresenting positive aspects of MelaFind, Defendants were
able to, among other things: (a) deceive the investing public
regarding the Company's business, operations, management, future
business prospects and the intrinsic value of MELA's common stock;
(b) deceive the investing public regarding MELA's business and
management; (c) deceive the investing public regarding the
efficacy of MelaFind and its prospects for FDA approval; (d)
enable Defendants to sell almost $79 million of MELA's common
stock to the public while in possession of material adverse non-
public information about the Company; and (e) cause plaintiff and
other members of the Class to purchase MELA common stock at
artificially inflated prices.

Finally, on November 16, 2010, it was reported, in part, that
MelaFind "could cause harm because of the potential for
misdiagnosis," and that "FDA staff pointed to numerous problems
with MELA's study of the device, called MelaFind, including a
significant lack of data, and urged a new clinical trial."

On this news, MELA's stock price plummeted approximately 54% or
$3.45 per share, to close at $2.92 per share.

If you are a shareholder who purchased MELA securities during the
Class Period, you have until January 21, 2011 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/

To discuss this action, contact Fei-Lu Qian at flqian@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free.  Those who inquire
by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and
telephone number.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago and
Washington, D.C., -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/-- is
acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of
corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.  Founded by
the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions.  Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz
Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the
rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duty, and corporate misconduct.  The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.


NEUROMETRIX INC: Appeal in Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal of a court order dismissing an amended consolidated
securities lawsuit is pending in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, according to NeuroMetrix Inc.'s
November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On March 17, 2008, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers.  On March 27, 2008, a related putative securities
class action complaint was filed in the same court, against the
same defendants.  These two actions were subsequently
consolidated, and the court appointed a lead plaintiff.

On November 10, 2008, a consolidated amended class action
complaint was filed, which alleged, among other things, that
between October 27, 2005 and February 12, 2008, the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by allegedly making false and
misleading statements and failing to disclose material information
to the investing public.  The plaintiffs sought unspecified
damages.  On January 30, 2009, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on the grounds, among
others, that it failed to state a claim on which relief can be
granted.  On December 8, 2009, the Court entered an order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissing the consolidated
amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on January 6, 2010.  Oral
arguments on the plaintiffs' appeal were conducted on Sept. 15,
2010.  The appeal is currently pending.


NEWALLIANCE BANCSHARES: Seek Single Forum for Merger-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nine more lawsuits have been filed against NewAlliance Bancshares,
Inc., and its officers over its proposed merger with First Niagara
Financial Group, Inc., according to the company's November 9,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On Aug. 20, 2010, a lawsuit was filed by Stanley P. Kops against
NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc., and its directors in the Connecticut
Superior Court for the Judicial District of New Haven (NNH-CV10-
6013984) challenging the proposed merger between NewAlliance and
First Niagara Financial Group, Inc.  The purported class action
alleges that the NewAlliance board of directors breached its
fiduciary duties to NewAlliance stockholders by failing to
maximize stockholder value in approving the merger agreement with
First Niagara and that NewAlliance and First Niagara aided and
abetted this alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

Since the first action was commenced, nine additional lawsuits
have been filed against NewAlliance, First Niagara, Merger Sub,
and the NewAlliance directors and certain officers of NewAlliance.
The plaintiffs in the additional lawsuits are: Southwest Ohio
Regional Council of Carpenters Pens ion Plan (NNH-CV10-6014110);
Cynthia J. Kops (NNH-CV10-6014155); Joseph Caldarella (NNH-CV10-
6014192); Michael Rubin (NNH-CV10-6014328); Arlene H.Levine and
Gertrude M. Nitkin (NNH-CV10-6014477); Port Authority of Alleghany
County Retirement & Disability Allowance Plan for Employees
Represented by Local 85 of the Amalgamated Transit Union (NN-CV10-
6014634); Alan Kahn (Case No. 5785); Moses Eilenberg (Case No.
5796); and Erie County Employees' Retirement System (Case No.
5831).

The latter three lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware and the remainder were filed in the
Connecticut Superior Court.  The claims in the nine additional
lawsuits are substantially the same as the claims in the first
lawsuit and seek, among other things, to enjoin the proposed
merger on the agreed upon terms. Certain of the new actions,
however, also seek attorneys' and experts' fees and actual and
punitive damages if the merger is completed.

On September 28, 2010, the three Delaware actions were
consolidated into In re NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation (No. 5785-VCP), and the plaintiffs in the consolidated
action filed an amended complaint which adds allegations
challenging the accuracy of disclosures in the preliminary Form S-
4, a motion to preliminarily enjoin the defendants from taking any
action to consummate the merger and a motion seeking expedited
discovery.

On Oct. 22, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for expedited
discovery and tentatively scheduled a preliminary injunction
hearing for Dec. 1, 2010.

On Oct. 19, 2010, the seven Connecticut actions were transferred
to the complex litigation docket in the Judicial District of
Stamford.  The cases were consolidated on October 20 and, on
October 22, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which adds
allegations challenging the accuracy of disclosure in the
preliminary Form S-4.  The plaintiffs in the Connecticut actions
also have indicated that they intend to seek a preliminary
injunction and expedited discovery.

On Oct. 18 and 19, 2010, the defendants filed motions in the seven
Connecticut actions and in the consolidated Delaware action
requesting that the courts direct the plaintiffs in all the
actions to confer and agree on a single forum in which to litigate
their claims, or if the plaintiffs are unable to agree, that the
courts confer and designate a single forum, and that the cases in
the other forum be stayed.  The defendants ' motions are pending.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss NY Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a purported class
action case remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's Nov. 9,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated.

Defendants in the case include NovaStar Mortgage Funding
Corporation and its individual directors, several securitization
trusts sponsored by the company, and several unaffiliated
investment banks and credit rating agencies.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by
making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that
served as collateral for securities purchased by plaintiff and the
purported class members.

On Aug. 31, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims.

No further developments were reported in the company's November 9
Form 10-Q filing.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Inks Agreement to Settle Smithtown Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
People's United Financial, Inc., entered into an agreement with
stockholders of Smithtown Bancorp Inc. to settle a class action
lawsuit, according to the company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

People's United Financial was named as a defendant in a class-
action lawsuit filed on behalf of Smithtown Bancorp, Inc.
stockholders in New York state court (In re Smithtown Bancorp
Shareholder Litigation, No. 026751/2010.  The primary claims in
the complaint are directed towards the directors and certain
executive officers of Smithtown, alleging that in approving the
merger agreement between People's United Financial and Smithtown,
those individuals did not maximize shareholder value and agreed to
deal protection devices that impermissibly limit their ability to
pursue and accept any competing offer for Smithtown.  People's
United Financial is alleged to have aided and abetted the actions
of the individual defendants.  The complaint also alleges that the
proxy statement/prospectus relating to the proposed merger
contains material omissions which, if not cured, would prevent
Smithtown shareholders from casting an informed vote in connection
with the proposed merger.  The complaint seeks an order enjoining
the defendants from proceeding with the transaction, other
equitable relief, damages, and attorneys' fees.

On October 12, 2010, all parties to the proceedings entered into
an agreement to settle the litigation.  As part of that agreement,
the defendants agreed (without admitting any wrongdoing or other
liability) to make certain additional disclosures requested by the
plaintiffs in the proxy statement/prospectus.  The proposed
settlement is subject to, among other things, court approval,
plaintiffs conducting confirmatory discovery to confirm the
fairness and adequacy of the terms of the settlement and the
additional disclosures relating to the proposed merger, and the
closing of the proposed merger.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Remains a Defendant in "Barkwell" Counterclaim
------------------------------------------------------------------
Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., continues to defend a
purported class action counterclaim entitled PRA v. Barkwell,
4:09-cv-00113-CDL, according to the company's November 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The purported class action counterclaim was filed in response to a
motion filed by the company that sought to confirm an arbitration
award, in the amount of $9,781.43.  The counterclaim, which was
filed against the company, the National Arbitration Forum and MBNA
America Bank, N.A., on July 29, 2009 in the Superior Court of
Muscogee County, Georgia, and has since been removed to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, where it
is currently pending.

The counterclaim alleges that in pursuing arbitration claims
against Barkwell and other consumer debtors, pursuant to the terms
and conditions of their respective cardholder agreements, the
company breached a duty of good faith and fair dealing and made
negligent misrepresentations concerning its "arbitration
practices."  The counterclaim asserts that because NAF was
financially tied to Axiant, LLC, a large, nationwide debt
collector, NAF lacked the necessary independence and impartiality
to conduct arbitration proceedings, such as the ones filed by PRA,
including the arbitration claim that was filed against Barkwell.
Barkwell asserts that PRA knew, or should have known, of the
relationship between NAF and Axiant, and brought this action on
behalf of a purported class of consumers to, among other things,
vacate the arbitration awards that the company has obtained before
NAF and have the company disgorge the amounts collected with
respect to such awards.

While it is not possible at this time to accurately estimate the
possible loss, if any, as the company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the allegations made in this counterclaim and intend
to defend itself vigorously against them.

This matter has not progressed to the discovery stage yet,
therefore the company currently lacks the necessary information to
determine the aggregate amount of arbitration claims potentially
impacted by the purported class herein.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Awaits Dismissal of PRA v. Freeman Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., intends to submit an order
dismissing a purported class action in North Carolina, according
to the company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

The company is a defendant in the purported class action related
to matters previously brought before NAF, styled PRA v. Freeman
(Case No.: 10-CVD-1003) which was filed in the District Court for
Wake County, North Carolina on or about March 26, 2010.

The court in PRA v. Freeman recently heard arguments on the motion
to dismiss that the company had filed earlier this year and has
informed the parties that the matter will be dismissed, pending
submission of an appropriate order.  The company anticipates
submitting such an order and having the matter dismissed
imminently.


REALOGY CORP: Discovery in New Jersey Class Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Court denied a motion for
leave to file an interlocutory appeal of the class certification
order issued in a putative class action filed by Frank K. Cooper
Real Estate #1, Inc., according to Realogy Corp.'s November 9,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Frank K. Cooper Real Estate #1, Inc. filed a putative class action
against Cendant and Cendant's subsidiary, Century 21 Real Estate
Corporation.  The complaint alleges breach of certain provisions
of the Real Estate Franchise Agreement entered into between
Century 21 and the plaintiffs, the implied duty of good faith and
fair dealing, fraud and certain express and implied fiduciary
duties.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that Cendant
diverted money and resources from Century 21 franchisees and
allotted them to NRT owned brokerages.

On October 29, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint adding a count against Cendant as guarantor of Century
21's obligations to its franchisees.  On June 30, 2006, the court
denied plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.  Three motions were
filed with the court in 2009: a renewed class certification
motion; the motion to strike class allegations from the complaint,
and the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' pre-1998 claims because
there is no class representative for any such claim. Oral argument
was held on October 23, 2009 and further oral argument on the
motions was heard on April 9, 2010.

On August 17, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion
to certify a class, and denied in whole or in part the other
motions.  The certified class includes all Century 21 franchisees
between August 1, 1995 and April 17, 2002 whose franchise
agreements contain a New Jersey choice of law and a New Jersey
choice of venue provision who have not executed releases releasing
the claim (other than in the context of a renewal of their
franchise agreement).  On September 7, 2010, Century 21 filed
motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal of the class
certification order.  On October 15, 2010, the Appellate Division
of the New Jersey Court denied Cendant's and Century 21's motion
for leave to file an interlocutory appeal of the class
certification order.  This case was originally filed in 2002, but
with the recent class certification is now just entering the
discovery phase.


SK ENERGY: Taxi Drivers File Class Action Over Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lee Hyo-sik, writing for The Korea Times, reports that more than
60,000 taxi drivers nationwide have filed a class action lawsuit
against SK Energy, GS Caltex and other local refiners, claiming
they paid more than they should for auto fuel over the past six
years as a result of price fixing.

Linklaw and Jihyang, the law firms representing about 30,000
members of the Korea National Joint Conference of Taxi
Association, said Thursday that price collusion on liquefied
petroleum gas among 10 refiners and LPG importers during 2003 to
2008 had caused huge financial loss to taxi drivers.

"Through this class action lawsuit filed to the Seoul Central
District Court, we seek to recollect part of the extra money paid
by cab drivers for auto fuel and to prevent LPG producers and
other large companies from engaging in dubious price-fixing
schemes again," the two law firms said in a joint statement.

Another association for self-employed taxi drivers also filed the
class action suit against LPG retailers on behalf of its 31,380
members.

Unlike regular vehicles, taxis here run on LPG because of its
cheaper price, compared to those of gasoline and diesel.

The law firms argued that LPG producers had kept the price at an
artificially-high level to illegally realize greater profits,
costing each cab driver at least 1 million won.  "After recruiting
more taxi drivers and others negatively affected by LPG price-
fixing, we plan to file a second class action suit."

In December 2009, the Fair Trade Commission, Korea's anti-trust
watchdog, slapped a combined 668.9 billion won fine on six
refineries -- SK Energy, SK Gas, GS Caltex, S-Oil, Hyundai Oil
Bank, and E1.

FTC said the companies pocketed a massive amount of surplus
revenue from 2003 to 2008 through price collusion, claiming the
LPG prices of the six companies differed by less than 1 won per
kilogram during the six-year period.

It said the six gas companies reaped a combined 21 trillion won in
LPG revenue for six years during which they were involved in price
fixing, although it was difficult to pinpoint how much of that
profit was unlawfully earned.

In protest, the six refiners filed an administrative lawsuit
against the FTC, insisting LPG retail prices cannot differ
significantly from one refiner to another, given the similar
import prices of crude oil, and identical production and
distribution costs.


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Court Okays $62.8MM Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that a $62.8 million settlement
has been approved by the Humboldt Superior Court in the class
action lawsuit against Skilled Healthcare Nursing Homes.  The suit
alleged that the company filed to provide sufficient staffing
levels for its patients at all 22 of its facilities.

Up to $26 million of the settlement is expected to go to
individuals represented by the class action lawsuit.  The lawyer
representing the plaintiffs said his office has received about
4,000 claims since it distributed news of the settlement over one
month ago.

As part of the settlement, Skilled Healthcare will pay $12.8
million to comply with an injunction that requires the company to
maintain state-mandated staffing levels, which is 3.2 nursing
hours per patient day.  The injunction, which will be in effect
for two years, allows a third-party monitor to inspect each
facility involved in the lawsuit for compliance with staffing
requirements.  If the facilities maintain compliance for 18 months
the injunction could be reduced.

Individuals represented by the class-action lawsuit have until
January 5, 2011 to file claims.


SOUTHERN STAR: Awaits Plaintiffs' Next Move in "Price" Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Star Central Corp. said in its November 9, 2010 Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it
doesn't know if plaintiffs in these lawsuits intend to proceed
with the merits of their claims, absent class certification, or
plan to move to dismiss these lawsuits:

   -- Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al., Case
      No. 99 C 30, District Court, Stevens County, Kansas, or
      Price Litigation I

   -- Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al., Case
      No. 03 C 23, District Court, Stevens County, Kansas, or
      Price Litigation II

Will Price, et al., filed the Price I suit on May 28, 1999,
against more than 50 defendants, including Central.  Asserting
theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, accounting and
unjust enrichment, their Fourth Amended Class Action Petition
alleges that the defendants have under measured the volume of, and
therefore have underpaid for, the natural gas they have obtained
from or measured for Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified
actual damages, attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest,
and reserved the right to plead for punitive damages.  On August
22, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf of
Central. Despite a denial by the Court on April 10, 2003 of their
original motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs continue
to seek the certification of a class.

The Price II suit, filed May 12, 2003, was initiated by the same
plaintiffs in the Price I suit against the same defendants,
including Central.  Asserting substantially identical legal and
equitable theories, as in Price Litigation I, the Price II
petition alleges that the defendants have under measured the
British thermal units, or Btu, content of, and therefore have
underpaid for, the natural gas they have obtained from or measured
for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages,
attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the
right to plead for punitive damages.  On November 10, 2003, an
answer to that pleading was filed on behalf of Central.

The Plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification, along with
Plaintiffs' second class certification motion in Price Litigation
I, was fully briefed and the Court heard oral argument on this
motion on April 1, 2005.

On September 18, 2009, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider
that ruling on October 2, 2009. The defendants, including Central,
filed a response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration on January 18, 2010.  The Plaintiffs filed a
reply, and oral argument, which was presented before a different
judge, was heard on February 10, 2010.

By order dated March 31, 2010, the Court denied the Plaintiff's
October 2, 2009 motion to reconsider the earlier denial of class
certification. The Plaintiffs did not file for interlocutory
review of the March 31, 2010 order.

Southern Star said it is unknown at this time whether the
Plaintiffs intend to proceed with the merits of their claims,
absent class certification or plan to move to dismiss the lawsuit.


STERLING CHEMICALS: Appeal in SFI ERISA Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal on a district court's order dismissing claims asserted
by plaintiffs in a purported class action filed by three retired
employees of Sterling Fibers, Inc., remains pending, according to
Sterling Chemicals, Inc.'s November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On February 21, 2007, three retired employees of Sterling Fibers,
Inc., one of the Company's former subsidiaries, sued the Company,
several of its benefit plans and the plan administrators for those
plans in a class action suit, Case No. H-07-0625 filed in the
United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company is not permitted to
increase their premiums for retiree medical insurance based on a
provision contained in an asset purchase agreement between the
Company, Sterling Fibers, Inc. and Cytec Industries Inc. and
certain of its affiliates that governed the Company's purchase of
its former acrylic fibers business in 1997.

During the Company's bankruptcy case, it specifically rejected
this asset purchase agreement and the bankruptcy court approved
that rejection. The plaintiffs claimed that the Company violated
the terms of the benefit plans and breached fiduciary duties
governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and failed
to comply with sections of the Bankruptcy Code dealing with
retiree benefits, and sought damages, declaratory relief, punitive
damages and attorneys' fees. A trial for this matter was held
during the second week of November 2009.

On July 1, 2010, the judge ruled for the Company on the merits and
dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs filed an
appeal on July 16, 2010. Oral arguments for this appeal have not
been scheduled to date.

The Company says it is vigorously seeking affirmation of the trial
judge's rulings. The Company adds that it is unable to state at
this time if a loss is probable or remote and is unable to
determine the possible range of loss related to this matter, if
any.


SYNGENTA AG: 3rd Parties Seek to Quash Subpoenas in Atrazine Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that the Illinois Farm Bureau is calling a subpoena it faces as
third party to a proposed Madison County class action "overbroad."

Claiming First Amendment protection, the Farm Bureau on Nov. 24
filed a response to a subpoena it received from plaintiff attorney
Stephen Tillery.  It seeks to protect documents and activities
from a case involving the popular herbicide atrazine.

The Farm Bureau and other third party trade groups have sought to
quash subpoenas in one of six proposed class actions filed on
behalf of lead plaintiff Holiday Shores Sanitation District.

Holiday Shores, which proposes to lead of class of Illinois water
providers, is suing Syngenta and a number of other makers and
distributors of atrazine, alleging the chemical contaminates
drinking water when it runs off of farm fields.

In the Farm Bureau's recent filing, it also submitted a privilege
log related to the response to the court, but it was not yet
available in the case file.

In September, Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder issued an order
detailing what Holiday Shores was entitled to, but third parties
to the litigation, including the Farm Bureau, the University of
Chicago and others, took issue with parts of the order.

Judge Crowder, who no longer presides over the case, later
certified questions for appeal related to her order detailing what
Holiday Shores is entitled to discover.

Syngenta has tried unsuccessfully to have the suit thrown out.

Meanwhile, a new third party in the case, Du-Con, filed a motion
to quash a defense subpoena Nov. 16.

Du-Con claims that it has explained to defense counsel Kurtis Reeg
that it does not have documents related to its work for Holiday
Shores.

The company states in a letter to Reeg dated Sept. 28 that the
documents Syngenta seeks are kept at the sanitation district site
and that an employee the defense wishes to question also works
there.

"To the best of Du-Con, Inc.'s understanding and belief, all
documents being requested have been produced by Holiday Shores
Sanitary District," the motion to quash reads.

It asks the court to throw out the subpoena.

Christopher Byron represents the Farm Bureau.

Bob Perica represents Du-Con.

Although Judge Crowder has continued to hear motions in the case,
the suit is part of the docket assigned to Madison County Circuit
Judge Daniel Stack, who was retiring Friday, Dec. 3.

His docket will likely go to William Mudge, who won November's
election for Judge Stack's vacancy.

Judge Mudge will be sworn in Monday.

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

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


TACO BELL: Accused in California Suit of Not Paying Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Taco Bell stiffs workers for overtime.

A copy of the Complaint in Nave v. Taco Bell of America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-02222 (E.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/02/TacoBell.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Coats, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 286-0246
          E-mail: michael@yablonovichlaw.com


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Dentist Association Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation remains a defendant in a purported
class action lawsuit filed by the Puerto Rico Dentists
Association, according to the company's November 9, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On February 11, 2009, the Puerto Rico Dentists Association
(Colegio de Cirujanos Dentistas de Puerto Rico) filed a complaint
in the Court of First Instance against 24 health plans operating
in Puerto Rico that offer dental health coverage.  The company and
two of its subsidiaries, TSS and Triple-C, Inc., were included as
defendants.  This litigation purports to be a class action filed
on behalf of Puerto Rico dentists who are similarly situated;
however, the complaint does not include a single dentist as a
class representative nor a definition of the intended class.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, on their own and as
part of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish
the payments due to dentists so that they are not paid in a timely
and complete manner for the covered medically necessary services
they render.  The complaint also alleges, among other things,
violations to the Puerto Rico Insurance Code, antitrust laws, the
Puerto Rico racketeering statute, unfair business practices,
breach of contract with providers, and damages in the amount of
$150 million.  In addition, the complaint claims that the Puerto
Rico Insurance Companies Association is the hub of an alleged
conspiracy concocted by the member plans to defraud dentists.

There are numerous available defenses to oppose both the request
for class certification and the merits. The company intends to
vigorously defend this claim.

Two codefendant plans removed the case to federal court, which the
plaintiffs and the other codefendants, including the company
opposed.  The federal District Court decided that it lacked
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act and remanded the
case to state court.  The removing defendants petitioned to appeal
to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.  Having accepted the
appeal, the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order in late
October 2009 which found the lower court's decision premature.

The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the federal District
Court and allowed limited discovery to determine whether the case
should be heard in federal court pursuant to CAFA. The parties
completed the limited discovery in August 2010 and supplemented
their previous filings.


URS CORP: Continues Defense in New Orleans Levee Failure Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
URS Corporation continues to defend itself in a class suit arising
from alleged negligence in their design, construction and
maintenance of the New Orleans levees, which resulted to personal
injury damages during the surge of Hurricane Katrina in 2005,
according to the company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 1, 2010.

From July 1999 through May 2005, Washington Group International,
Inc., an Ohio company, subsequently renamed URS Energy &
Construction, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary acquired by the
Company on November 15, 2007, performed demolition, site
preparation, and environmental remediation services for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers on the east bank of the Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal in New Orleans, Louisiana.  On August 29, 2005,
Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.  The storm surge created
by the hurricane overtopped the Industrial Canal levee and
floodwall, flooding the Lower Ninth Ward and other parts of the
city.

Since September 2005, 59 personal injury, property damage and
class action lawsuits have been filed in Louisiana State and
federal court naming WGI Ohio as a defendant.  Other defendants
include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Board for the
Orleans Parish Levee District, and its insurer, St. Paul Fire and
Marine Insurance Company.  Over 1,450 hurricane-related cases,
including the WGI Ohio cases, have been consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  The
plaintiffs claim that defendants were negligent in their design,
construction and maintenance of the New Orleans levees.  The
plaintiffs are all residents and property owners who claim to have
incurred damages arising out of the breach and failure of the
hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina.  The allegation against the Company is that the
work it performed adjacent to the Industrial Canal damaged the
levee and floodwall and caused and contributed to breaches and
flooding.  The plaintiffs allege damages of $200 billion and
demand attorneys' fees and costs.  WGI Ohio did not design,
construct, repair or maintain any of the levees or the floodwalls
that failed during or after Hurricane Katrina.  WGI Ohio performed
the work adjacent to the Industrial Canal as a contractor for the
federal government and has pursued dismissal from the lawsuits on
a motion for summary judgment on the basis that government
contractors are immune from liability.

On December 15, 2008, the District Court granted WGI Ohio's motion
for summary judgment to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that the
Company performed the work adjacent to the Industrial Canal as a
contractor for the federal government and are therefore immune
from liability, which was appealed by a number of the plaintiffs
on April 27, 2009 to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals.  On September 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the
District Court's summary judgment decision and WGI Ohio's
dismissal, and remanded the case back to the District Court for
further litigation.

WGI Ohio intends to continue to defend these matters vigorously;
however, the Company cannot provide assurance that it will be
successful in these efforts.  The potential range of loss and the
resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this time, the
Company said.


WEBMD HEALTH: Remains a Defendant in "Kaye" TCPA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
WEBMD Health Corp. continues to defend an amended complaint
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
under a similar Connecticut statute, according to the company's
November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In December 2009, a lawsuit was filed by Dr. Roger H. Kaye (and
Roger H. Kaye MD PC) individually, and as an alleged class action,
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and under a similar
Connecticut statute, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut against subsidiaries of the Company.  The lawsuit
claims that faxes allegedly sent during the period August 1, 2006
to the present by subsidiaries of the Company and by The Little
Blue Book business that the Company sold in September 2009 were
sent in violation of the TCPA and the Connecticut statute.

With respect to the TCPA claims, the lawsuit seeks statutory
damages in excess of $5,000 for each of two classes of plaintiffs,
and a trebling of those damages.  With respect to the claims under
the Connecticut statute, under which trebling is unavailable, the
lawsuit additionally seeks an undetermined amount of damages.

In April 2010, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint making
substantially the same claims as were asserted in the original
complaint.  The Company's subsidiaries have filed their answer as
well as a motion to dismiss the action with prejudice on the
grounds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and also
filed a motion to stay discovery, which was granted pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss.

On July 8, 2010, the Court denied the motion to dismiss and
ordered that class-related discovery should proceed, while
continuing a stay of full merits discovery.  The parties have
agreed on terms to settle the matter, subject to approval by the
Court.  The Company believes that any costs related to this
litigation are covered by insurance, subject to the Company's
deductible.


WELLS CORE: Trial Date in "Piedmont REIT" Suit to be Set
--------------------------------------------------------
A trial date on questions of fact relating to a putative class
action filed by a stockholder of Piedmont Office Realty Trust,
Inc., has yet to be set, according to Wells Core Office Income
REIT, Inc.'s November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On March 12, 2007, a Piedmont REIT stockholder filed a putative
class action and derivative complaint, presently styled In re
Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
against, among others, Piedmont REIT; Leo F. Wells, III, the
company's President and a director; Wells Capital, an affiliate of
the company's advisor; Wells Management, the company's property
manager; certain affiliates of WREF; the directors of Piedmont
REIT; and certain individuals who formerly served as officers or
directors of Piedmont REIT prior to the closing of the
internalization transaction on April 16, 2007.

The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the
federal proxy rules and breaches of fiduciary duty arising from
the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction and the related
proxy statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, as
amended.  The complaint sought, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and nullification of the Piedmont REIT
internalization transaction.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
attempted to assert class action claims on behalf of those persons
who received and were entitled to vote on the Piedmont REIT proxy
statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, and derivative
claims on behalf of Piedmont REIT.

On March 31, 2008, the Court granted in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The Court dismissed five
of the seven counts of the amended complaint in their entirety.
The Court dismissed the remaining two counts with the exception of
allegations regarding the failure to disclose in the Piedmont REIT
proxy statement details of certain expressions of interest in
acquiring Piedmont REIT.

On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
which alleges violations of the federal proxy rules based upon
allegations that the proxy statement to obtain approval for the
Piedmont REIT internalization transaction omitted details of
certain expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont REIT.

The second amended complaint seeks, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind the
internalization transaction, and to cancel and rescind any stock
issued to the defendants as consideration for the internalization
transaction.  On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised
certain defenses to the second amended complaint.

On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  On September 16, 2009, the Court granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.  On September 20,
2009, the defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal
immediately the Court's order granting the motion for class
certification with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
petition for permission to appeal was denied on October 30, 2009.
On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the
second amended complaint to add additional defendants.  The Court
denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on June 23, 2009.

On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment.  On August 2, 2010, the Court entered an order denying
the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting, in part,
the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.  The Court
ruled that the question of whether certain expressions of interest
in acquiring Piedmont REIT constituted "material" information
required to be disclosed in the proxy statement to obtain approval
for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction raises questions
of fact that must be determined at trial.  A trial date has not
been set.

Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, and Wells Management believe that the
allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend this action.  Any financial loss
incurred by Wells Capital, Wells Management, or their affiliates
could hinder their ability to successfully manage the company's
operations and its portfolio of investments.


                             *********

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  * * *