CAR_Public/101209.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, December 9, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 243

                             Headlines

AIR CANADA: Aeroplan Program Sued Over Loss of Loyalty Points
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Class Settlement Hearing Set for December 17
AMCOR LTD: Expert Says Class Action Potential Damages Overstated
BENTON HARBOR: Commissioners to Discuss Protest & Class Suit Today
BREAD PRODUCERS: To Face R460MM Damages if Class Suit Proceeds

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Still Faces Securities Class Suit in New York
CLOROX CO: Settles Class Action Over Toilet Bowl Cleaners
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Consumer Lawsuits May Go to Trial in 2011
DELPHI FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend v. "Moore" Suit in Miss.
DISH NETWORK: Sued Over Unauthorized Automatic Fund Transfers

DREW INDUSTRIES: Court Dismisses Calif. Unfair Competition Suit
DYNEX CAPITAL: Pennsylvania Tax Receivable Case Still Pending
DYNEX CAPITAL: Teamsters' Class Action Suit Still Pending in NY
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Faces IPO Securities Class Litigation
GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Street View Application

GENERAL MOTORS: Labourers' Pension Fund Case Still Pending
GENERAL MOTORS: Mogle Case Still Pending in Texas Court
GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Class Suit Over Defective Parking Brakes
HANSEN NATURAL: Opt-Out Deadline in "Chavez" Suit Is Dec. 10
HANSEN NATURAL: Cert. Documents Yet to be Filed in "Wellman" Suit

HANSEN NATURAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
HAWK CORP: Faces Class Suits Over Merger Agreement With Carlisle
HELEN KELLER: Accused in New York Suit of Not Paying Overtime
HURON CONSULTING: Settles Securities Class Action for $38 Mil.
HYPERCOM CORP: Being Sold to VeriFone for Too Little, Suit Says

LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Obtains Approval of Fertitta Suit Settlement
LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Continues to Defend Joe's Crab Shack Suit
MBIA INC: NY Consolidated Class Action Suit Remains Pending
MECOX LANE: Faces Two Securities Class Actions in the U.S.
MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit

MEDQUIST INC: Continues to Monitor New Jersey Shareholder Suit
MVR COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Securities Suit Settlement Approval
NATIONAL LAMPOON: Accused in Calif. of Misleading Shareholders
NYMAGIC INC: Awaits Court Okay of Merger-Related Suits Settlement
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Class Action to Be Litigated in the U.S.

OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Appeal on NY Suit Dismissal Pending
PLAINSCAPITAL CORP: Calif. Class Action Suits Against Unit Ongoing
POPULAR INC: Consolidated Hoff & ERISA Suits Still Ongoing
POPULAR INC: Defends Breach of Contract Suit in Puerto Rico
PROTECTIVE PRODUCTS: Investors Sue D&Os, Bank Over Bankruptcy

PSYCHIATRIC SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Against 7 Merger Suits
SEARS ROEBUCK: Judge Defends Decision to Toss Class Action
TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Texas Court Dismisses Class Action Suits
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE: "Treadwell" Complaint Removed to N.D. Calif.
WAL-MART STORES: Supreme Court to Review Discrimination Suit

XANODYNE PHARMA: Darvocet Unfit for Intended Uses, Suit Claims
YOUPORN: Faces Class Suit for Accessing Users' Browsing History


                             *********

AIR CANADA: Aeroplan Program Sued Over Loss of Loyalty Points
-------------------------------------------------------------
Don Cayo, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a class action
claims lack of communication from Aeroplan resulted in the loss of
70,000 loyalty points.

It's the story of the aggravation suffered by Alma Pasker, a
recently widowed 82-year-old, and it fits right in with the kinds
of cases at the heart of the suit.  Mrs. Pasker, like tens of
thousands of other Air Canada customers who earned Aeroplan points
as a "reward" for loyalty, lost them all to a rule change that
came out of the blue.

But several details make her case more egregious than most.

Though both she and her late husband, Ronald, were both Air Canada
customers and members of Aeroplan pretty much since its inception,
the 70,000 points in question started out as Ronald's, not Alma's.

It's something they discussed after their last trip, a family
visit to Edmonton a couple of years ago, ended with Ronald being
taken ill.  So, with him still ailing, they arranged to transfer
his points to her.

Alma is a careful record-keeper and has correspondence and notes
of her dealings with Aeroplan going back a decade or more.  These
include asking an Aeroplan agent to spell out the rules on points
for her, and being told to "go to www-something" -- not a helpful
suggestion since, as she pointed out to the agent, she doesn't
have a computer.

Then to add injury to insult, when she called last February, the
agent she spoke with didn't have the courtesy or good sense to
give her a heads-up that all 70,000 points were poised to expire
due to lack of activity on the account.  She didn't find out until
a couple of months later, after Ronald had died, when she tried to
book a ticket to fly with his ashes to see family in Regina.

Owen Falquero, a Montreal-based lawyer with the Merchant Law
Group, which is launching the class action, says he understands
the sour taste this story leaves.

"But I'm not shocked to hear it about Aeroplan.  I hear that kind
of thing all the time."

Mrs. Pasker's problem, as well as the difficulties faced by all
those many thousands of others, stems from a policy change that,
Mr. Falquero maintains, was poorly communicated, if at all.  It
involved arbitrarily deciding that a not-so-frequent flyer's
points would expire after one year if no points were added or
used.

Many customers keep their accounts alive by using a credit card
that earns Aeroplan miles, or shopping with designated merchants.
Mrs. Pasker says her husband used to have a points-earning card,
but they dropped it because the annual fees were too high to make
it worthwhile after his health made it unlikely that he would fly
any more.  And -- having never received either the brochure she
asked for, or the steady flow of Aeroplan e-mails that irritate
those of us with computers -- she never knew what merchants she
should deal with to keep the points alive.  Or even that she had
to do something within 12 months -- she thought she had three
years.

Even if she had a computer, Mr. Falquero scoffs at its usefulness
as a real communication tool given the volume of bumf Aeroplan
sends to its members.

"You might get 14 e-mails a month, 13 of them about the credit
cards you can get," he says derisively.  "And they expect you to
read carefully through the 14th?"

The class-action case has gone through some preliminary steps,
motions and examinations, and is to go to a hearing in May that
will determine if it's allowed to proceed as a class action.

On the Net: http://www.merchantlaw.com/classactions


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Class Settlement Hearing Set for December 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. on Monday provided an update on the
settlement of the class action lawsuit brought by Dr. Christopher
J. Leiszler against the Company concerning its proficiency
requirements.  As announced previously on October 21, 2010, Align
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to resolve this lawsuit
filed earlier this year in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.  On December 3, the
plaintiffs' counsel filed an unopposed motion seeking preliminary
approval of the settlement.  A hearing has been scheduled on this
matter for December 17 regarding the request for preliminary
approval.

Under the terms of the settlement and as described in the
Settlement Agreement, if the settlement receives Court approval,
all class members can obtain reinstatement to prescribe
Invisalign(R) treatment following completion of a free 3-hour on-
line course.  Certain class members will have the option to elect
a cash remedy instead of the Reinstatement Benefit.

Doctors who had their Invisalign accounts deactivated or suspended
as a result of the proficiency requirements program are included
in the settlement class.  If the Court grants preliminary approval
of the settlement at the hearing on December 17, all class members
will be notified of their options via postal mail within
approximately two weeks of the Court's decision.  Doctors who have
questions regarding their class status or rights in this matter
should visit http://www.stuevesiegel.com/CM/CurrentCases/Invisalign.asp
or call toll free 1-888-816-1761.

In May 2010, Christopher J. Leiszler, a general practice dentist,
filed a Complaint against the Company alleging that Align
implemented unfair requirements for the prescription of Invisalign
through the Company's annual proficiency requirements.
Dr. Leiszler's Invisalign provider status was changed in January
2010 for failing to meet the Company's proficiency requirements.
Dr. Leiszler sued Align on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, seeking a refund of the price paid to Align
for Invisalign training.

Align Technology (Nasdaq:ALGN) designs, manufactures and markets
Invisalign, a proprietary method for treating malocclusion, or the
misalignment of teeth.


AMCOR LTD: Expert Says Class Action Potential Damages Overstated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elisabeth Sexton, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports a
class action by cardboard-box customers of Amcor and Visy had
overestimated the potential damages involved by "many hundreds of
millions of dollars", the Federal Court heard Monday.

The claim, contained in an unpublished report by an economic
expert retained by Amcor, prompted an allegation by lawyers for
the customers that their independent expert had been misled.

Amcor "very strenuously opposes any notion that anyone has been
misled," its solicitor, Richard Harris, told the court.

The class action, run by the plaintiff law firm Maurice Blackburn,
is suing Amcor and Visy to recover losses claimed from a price-
fixing cartel from 2000 and 2005.  A six-week hearing is scheduled
to begin in March.

The damages debate began nine months ago when Maurice Blackburn's
expert, Professor Daniel Rubinfeld from the University of
California Berkeley, filed a report estimating the potential
damages including interest at $1.05 billion, two-thirds
attributable to Amcor and one-third to Visy.

Professor Rubinfeld's report was based on historical data produced
by Amcor and Visy under a court order.

Last month Amcor's expert, Professor Jerry Hausman from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, filed a report responding
to Professor Rubinfeld which Mr. Harris said Monday "indicates
that the estimates of damages put forward were overstated by many
hundreds of millions of dollars".

"That in part is said to have occurred due to some
misunderstandings or errors in relation to accounting treatments
and the selection of data . . . by Professor Rubinfeld," said
Mr. Harris, a partner of Allens Arthur Robinson.

The customers' barrister, Ian Wylie, said his clients wanted a
fresh order from Justice Peter Jacobson for Amcor to supply
additional accounting data.

It became apparent from Professor Hausman's report that Amcor had
changed its accounting treatment of costs between 2002 and 2003,
Mr. Wylie said.  "The applicant's position is that it was misled
as to the nature of those records by the respondents," he said.

Justice Peter Jacobson, who will hear submissions later this month
on whether Amcor should produce further data, said he did not want
"expensive" additional evidence from the two experts.  In
September the judge said the cost of Professor Rubinfeld's report
-- $1.7 million -- was "quite extraordinary" and "a staggering
amount of money".

At the time Mr. Wylie said the sum reflected "the complexity and
volume of record-keeping" by Amcor and Visy and "an enormous
amount of time and effort has been devoted to understanding and
analyzing those records".


BENTON HARBOR: Commissioners to Discuss Protest & Class Suit Today
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Lewis, writing for WNDU.com, reports some Benton Harbor
city commissioners are organizing a protest and class action
lawsuit, taking other commissioners by surprise.

On Tuesday, Mayor Pro Temp Marcus Muhammad scheduled a news
conference for Thursday afternoon.

In a release to news media he wrote:

"The purpose of the press conference is to explain the organized
protest of the Granholm administration and the Emergency Financial
Manager's violation of public act 72 of 1990.  The terms of a
class action lawsuit will be addressed."

Public Act 72 of 1990 is the Local Government Fiscal
Responsibility Act that allows the state government to intervene
in local government finances during serious problems.

Mr. Muhammad said the mayor, commissioners and the city's lawyers
will be in attendance, but at least two commissioners said they
were unaware of the pending protest and lawsuit until they
received the news release.

"I don't even know if the class action lawsuit is a reality, there
hasn't been any vote on it.  I don't understand what's going on
because there has been no meeting held concerning this, and I know
you don't have to have a resolution to hold a press conference,
but what comes into question is the content of the press
conference," said Commissioner James Hightower.

Commissioner Bryan Joseph also expressed his frustrations in an
e-mail to Mr. Muhammad:

"I must say that I was very surprised to receive an email stating
that there is a press conference scheduled for Thursday December
9th at 4:00pm with the Benton Harbor city Commission.  First of
all, this is the first time that I have heard of the class action
law suit.  Can you enlighten me as to how this lawsuit has come
about without me having any knowledge of this? Secondly, which
commissioners voted in favor of this decision to seek legal
action? Thirdly, who authorized legal counsel for the lawsuit and
what is the cost? Fourthly, who is paying for the legal expense?
Where is the transparency as it relates to this latest action
taken by this city commission? Lastly, where did the meeting take
place in order for the commission to take this action?"

Once again this is another clear example of certain commissioners
operating on their own without the full commission having
knowledge of what is happening with the city's business."

NewsCenter 16 contacted Mr. Muhammad Tuesday night, but he
declined to elaborate on the protest or lawsuit, instead
suggesting we attend Thursday's news conference for details.
Mr. Muhammad said there will be a united front.

Mr. Hightower disagreed with the news conference and the plans to
file a lawsuit.

"The financial manager would not be in Benton Harbor had the
commission did the necessary things that it was supposed to do.
When you can't make payroll, that means you have no city services
and that means that the people responsible for that is the city
commission and that hasn't been accepted," said Mr. Hightower.

Representatives from Governor Jennifer Granholm's office declined
to comment on the protest or class action lawsuit since nothing
has formally been brought to their attention or filed with the
courts.  They said they received a copy of Mr. Muhammad's news
release, but are unaware of any complaints and stressed the
conference was being orchestrated by only a few of the nine member
commission.


BREAD PRODUCERS: To Face R460MM Damages if Class Suit Proceeds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lindo Xulu, writing for Moneyweb, reports the bread producers
found guilty of collusion and/or price fixing could face a further
R460 million in damages, if the consumer class action succeeds.

This was revealed by Charles Abrahams, from Abrahams Kiewitz an
attorney, who is representing the National Consumer Forum,
Children Resources Centre, Black Sash and Cosatu in the Western
Cape.

Mr. Abrahams told Moneyweb that the grouping was seeking
provisional damages "in the region of R460 million"; in spite of
the court application to proceed with a class action being
dismissed on November 26.  Essentially Abrahams tried to secure a
pre-trail class action status.  Given the dismissal his clients
will now go to court seeking damages without the certification of
class-action.  The action can still proceed despite his
application having failed.

"What happened" on November 26 "was that two applications were
filed -- one on behalf of the consumers the other on behalf of the
distributors asking the court to authorize the applicants . . . to
act as class representatives on behalf of all the affected
consumers in the Western Cape and those affected nationally to act
as class representatives on their behalf", he adds.

The problem we ran into at that hearing, says Mr. Abrahams is that
there was no clear prescriptions at least in existing law on how
class action applicants ought to proceed: "At present we don't
have any class action legislation or class action or procedure
that would guide and regulate the conduct of how to bring class
action matters in the country it's all new, however what we do
have is that in 1998 the South African Law Commission made certain
recommendations to Parliament suggesting that if there's going to
be any class action legislation in the country then one of the
recommendations should be that whoever  wants to institute an
action on behalf of a class must first approach a court and ask
for certification, if certification is granted by that court only
then would you be entitled to institute litigation against the
other party.

"Similarly in early 2002 there was a case in the Eastern Cape
which was the Ngxuza case which was brought by the Legal Resources
Centre and there also the precedent was that they applied to court
for class certification and the certification was granted in order
to allow them to act on behalf of a class.  So all indications to
our mind seemed to suggest that the appropriate route to follow
was first the certification and then only the institution of the
action and it's based on that we applied for certification".

Mr. Abrahams acknowledges it could take years to resolve but is
determined to seek damages not only from Tiger Brands and Pioneer
Foods which have already paid massive fines but also from Premier,
which the Competition Tribunal granted leniency to.

Even Premier, which received immunity, will have to pay

It is remarkable that Premier is also a target of the class
action, as Mr. Abrahams is using evidence obtained as a result of
Premier's co-operation with the competition authority that bought
Tiger Brands and Pioneer to book but gave Premier immunity.

According to the Competition Commission's policy, "cartel
operation is often collusive, deceptive and secretive and is
conducted through a conspiracy among a group of firms with the
result that it becomes difficult to detect or prove without the
assistance of a member who is part of it".

As a result it created its corporate leniency policy, a policy
which includes granting immunity to a member of the cartel.  The
policy says "the granting of immunity becomes an incentive for a
firm that participates in a cartel activity to terminate its
participation, and inform the commission accordingly".  Applicants
who receive immunity will not go before the tribunal and the
commission says it "would not propose to have any fines imposed"
to the party receiving immunity.

Mr. Abrahams says while the above is true, "it does not mean that
a leniency applicant cannot be sued for civil damages . . ." .
Premier having received leniency from the commission, it did not
appear before the Competition Tribunal.  In order to issue civil
proceedings against any party one needs [to] obtain a certificate
from the tribunal, given that Premier did not appear no
certificate was issued.  Due to this technicality, Abrahams says,
"we are liaising with the commission in order to have the leniency
applicant [Premier] referred to the tribunal so that we can make
the necessary representation in order for the certificate to be
issued against the leniency applicant".

Abrahams refused to be drawn on whether the commission would
support his client's case or side with the bread producers
however; it's more likely that it will sit on the fence.

If the litigants are successful, a Black Sash spokesperson said,
"the money would be put into a trust from where marginalized
communities particularly old age homes and children centers will
receive assistance, the trust will be transparent".

Timing of the court application

Asked why the consumer action groups waited, until the last day
one could legally serve summons on Tiger Brands over the bread
cartel after a settlement had been reached with the Competition
Tribunal, Mr. Abrahams says: "there were a number of other
logistical aspects that we needed to complete prior to that . . .,
amongst others we felt that there was a need to institute
proceeding[s] not only around Tiger but also against Premier and
Pioneer Foods and the settlement around Pioneer Foods was only
recently resolved and we had to wait for a certificate from the
Competition Tribunal in that regard".

A lawyer with penchant for class action suits

Mr. Abrahams is no stranger to class-action suits, he was a member
of the legal team representing the Khulumani Support Group, which
filed a suit in the District Court of New York in 2002 against
several multi-national corporations, for aiding and abetting the
apartheid government to commit acts of gross human rights
violations.  The litigants were seeking up to US$400 billion.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Still Faces Securities Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation continues to face a securities class
action lawsuit after a New York court refused to grant its motion
to dismiss, the Company noted in its November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On February 25, 2009, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors along with
certain underwriters of the company's July 2008 common stock
offering.

Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and counsel, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 11, 2009,
alleging that the registration statement for the offering
contained material misstatements and omissions and seeking damages
under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 of an
unspecified amount and rescission. The action was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on
October 13, 2009.

On September 2, 2010, the defendants' motion to dismiss was
denied.


CLOROX CO: Settles Class Action Over Toilet Bowl Cleaners
---------------------------------------------------------
Ben Popken, writing for The Consumerist, reports you can get up to
$175 if you bought, used, or suffered property damage from using
Clorox Automatic Toilet Bowl cleaners, thanks to a class action
settlement.

The lawsuit claims that while the package says the cleaner "does
not harm plumbing," the tablets cause the rubber and plastic parts
in the tank to corrode.  Eventually the tank could fail or the
seals aren't tight anymore, according to the suit.  Clorox denies
these claims and says the tablets are safe when used properly, but
has settled to end the legal battle.

You're eligible to file for a piece of the settlement if you used
the tablets between Dec 13, 2002, to Sep 15, 2010.  There are two
payout classes: you can claim less than $30 of damage, or you can
get up to $175 if you provide explanation and proof of the damage.

The filing deadline is Jan. 28, 2011.  Claim forms and more info
are available at http://www.CATBCsettlement.com/


CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Consumer Lawsuits May Go to Trial in 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------
A trial in a lawsuit filed against Cypress Semiconductor
Corporation is tentatively scheduled for 2011, 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 October 2006, the Company received a subpoena related to the
Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice's investigation
into the SRAM market.

In December 2008, the DOJ closed its two year investigation
without any charge or allegation brought against the Company.

As a result of the DOJ's investigation, in October 2006, the
Company, along with a majority of the other SRAM manufacturers,
were named in numerous consumer class action suits that are now
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

Despite the fact that the DOJ's investigation was closed without
any allegation or charge brought against the Company, the civil
cases remain active.  The cases variously allege claims under the
Sherman Antitrust Act and various state antitrust laws.

Direct and indirect purchaser classes have been certified.

The lawsuits seek restitution, injunction and damages in an
unspecified amount.

Trial is tentatively scheduled for January 31, 2011.

The Company says it expects to spend approximately $3 to $5
million defending the Company at trial.


DELPHI FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend v. "Moore" Suit in Miss.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action, Moore v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance
Company, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi in July 2008 against Delphi
Financial Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, RSLIC.

The action challenges RSLIC's ability to pay certain insurance
policy benefits through a mechanism commonly known in the
insurance industry as a retained asset account and contains
related claims of breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited
transactions under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.

The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of this
action will have a material adverse effect on its results of
operations, liquidity or financial condition.

No further updates were reported in 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.


DISH NETWORK: Sued Over Unauthorized Automatic Fund Transfers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Dish Network sets up automatic fund transfers from customers' bank
accounts without authorization, without asking, and without
informing them it's doing it.

The named plaintiff is Jacqueline Townsel.

A copy of the Complaint in Townsel v. Dish Network, LLC, Case No.
10-cv-07694 (N.D. Ill.) (Guzman, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/06/DishNet.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Ainat Margalit, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEITH J. KEOGH, LTD.
          227 W. Monroe St., Ste. 2000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312-726-1092
          E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com


DREW INDUSTRIES: Court Dismisses Calif. Unfair Competition Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On January 3, 2007, an action was commenced in the United States
District Court, Central District of California, entitled, as
amended, Gonzalez and Royalty vs. Drew Industries Incorporated,
Kinro, Inc., Kinro Texas Limited Partnership d/b/a Better Bath
Components; Skyline Corporation, and Skyline Homes Inc. (Case No.
CV06-08233).  The case purported to be a class action.

During the course of the proceeding, the Court dismissed six
claims asserted by the named plaintiffs.

On September 30, 2010, the Court dismissed the named plaintiffs'
seventh and final claim, concluding that plaintiffs had not
demonstrated that they suffered any injury, and therefore did not
have standing to bring a claim under the California Unfair
Competition Law.

Plaintiffs had until November 22, 2010, to appeal.

Plaintiffs alleged that certain bathtubs manufactured by Kinro
Texas Limited Partnership, a subsidiary of Kinro, and sold under
the name "Better Bath" for use in manufactured homes, failed to
comply with certain safety standards relating to flame spread
established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.  Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that sale of
these products is in violation of various provisions of the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1770
et seq.), the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 2301 et
seq.), the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Cal.
Civ. Code Sec. 1790 et seq.), and the California Unfair
Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 et seq.).

Plaintiffs sought to require defendants to notify members of the
class of the allegations in the proceeding and the claims made, to
repair or replace the allegedly defective products, to reimburse
members of the class for repair, replacement and consequential
costs, to cease the sale and distribution of the allegedly
defective products, and to pay actual and punitive damages and
plaintiffs' attorneys fees.  The Company's liability insurer
denied coverage on the ground that plaintiffs did not sustain any
personal injury or property damage.

Kinro conducted a comprehensive investigation of the allegations
made in connection with the claims, including with respect to the
HUD safety standards, test results, testing procedures, and the
use of labels.  In addition, at Kinro's initiative, independent
laboratories conducted multiple tests on materials used by Kinro
in the manufacture of bathtubs, the results of which tests
indicate that Kinro's bathtubs are in compliance with HUD
regulations.

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


DYNEX CAPITAL: Pennsylvania Tax Receivable Case Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against Dynex Capital, Inc., in
Pennsylvania remains pending, 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.

One of the Company's subsidiaries, GLS Capital, Inc., and the
County of Allegheny, Pennsylvania are defendants in a class action
lawsuit (Pentlong) filed in 1997 in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.  Between 1995 and 1997, GLS
purchased from Allegheny County delinquent county property tax
receivables for properties located in the County.

In their initial pleadings, the Pentlong plaintiffs alleged that
GLS did not have the right to recover from delinquent taxpayers
certain attorney fees, lien docketing, revival, assignment and
satisfaction costs, and expenses associated with the original
purchase transaction, and interest, in the collection of the
property tax receivables pursuant to the Pennsylvania Municipal
Claims and Tax Lien Act.

During the course of the litigation, the Pennsylvania State
Legislature enacted Act 20 of 2003, which cured many deficiencies
in the Act at issue in the Pentlong case, including confirming
GLS' right to collect attorney fees from delinquent taxpayers
retroactive back to the date when GLS first purchased the
delinquent tax receivables.

Subsequent to the enactment of Act 20, GLS has filed various
motions with the Court seeking dismissal of the Pentlong
Plaintiffs' remaining claims regarding GLS' right to collect
reasonable attorneys fees from the named plaintiffs and purported
class members; its right to collect lien docketing, revival,
assignment and satisfaction costs from delinquent taxpayers; and
its practice of charging interest on the first of each month for
the entire month.  Subsequently, the plaintiffs abandoned their
claims with respect to lien docketing, satisfaction costs, and the
issue of interest.

On April 2, 2010, the Court granted GLS' motion for summary
judgment with respect to its right to charge attorney fees and
interest in the collection of the receivables, and on August 25,
2010, the Court granted GLS' motion for summary judgment with
respect to lien costs, removing these claims from the Pentlong
Plaintiffs' case.  The Court has indicated that it will undertake
arguments over the reasonableness of attorney fees at a later
date.  GLS intends to seek decertification of the class at that
time as well.

The Pentlong Plaintiffs have not enumerated their damages in this
matter.


DYNEX CAPITAL: Teamsters' Class Action Suit Still Pending in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dynex Capital, Inc., MERIT Securities Corporation, a subsidiary,
and the former president and current chief operating officer and
chief financial officer of Dynex Capital, Inc., are defendants in
a putative class action brought by the Teamsters Local 445 Freight
Division Pension Fund in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The original complaint, which was filed on February 7, 2005,
alleged violations of the federal securities laws and was
purportedly filed on behalf of purchasers between February 2000,
and May 2004, of MERIT Series 12 and MERIT Series 13
securitization financing bonds, which are collateralized by
manufactured housing loans.

After a series of rulings by the District Court and an appeal by
the Company and MERIT, on February 22, 2008, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the litigation
against the Company and MERIT.

Teamsters filed an amended complaint on August 6, 2008, which
essentially restated the same allegations as the original
complaint and added the Company's former president and current
chief operating officer/chief financial officer as defendants.

The District Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

Teamsters seeks unspecified damages and alleges, among other
things, fraud and misrepresentations in connection with the
issuance of and subsequent reporting related to the Bonds.

The Company has evaluated the allegations made in the complaint
and believes them to be without merit and intends to defend itself
against them vigorously.

No further updates are provided in 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.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Faces IPO Securities Class Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Education Management Corporation continues to defend itself in a
securities class action complaint captioned Gaer v. Education
Management Corp., et. al, 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 action, commenced on August 11, 2010,  was filed against the
Company, certain of its executive officers and directors, and
certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering. The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act of 1934 due to allegedly false and misleading
statements in connection with the Company's initial public
offering and the Company's subsequent press releases and filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend itself.


GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Street View Application
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Massey, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports
Google is facing a class action that accuses the company of
intercepting electronic communications and violating privacy laws
through its Google Street View application.

Kimberly Costanza, Cindy Brady and Michael Hill, individuals and
as representatives of a class of similarly situated people, filed
suit against Google Inc. on Nov. 24 in the Eastern District of
Texas, Tyler Division.

Google Street View, used in Google Maps and Google Earth, provides
a ground level, panoramic view of streets.

According to the lawsuit, Google obtained these views by using
cars and other vehicles equipped with cameras and driving them all
over Texas, taking pictures from every angle of each address.

The lawsuit also states that these cameras included Wi-Fi
receivers in order to identify Wi-Fi transmitters to connect the
photos with corresponding map positions.

Google is accused of intentionally including software in the Wi-Fi
receivers that intercepted and recorded information from the
transmitters, including emails, passwords, and other private data.
These activities began in April 2007 and continued until May, when
the company was caught "data scraping."  Data scraping occurs when
a program extracts human readable output that is coming from
another program.

The defendant is accused of violating the Federal Wiretap Act,
Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Texas Common Law.

The proposed class is asking the court for a permanent injunction
against Google, for an order requiring Google to pay $100 a day
for each violation or $10,000, whichever is greater and for an
award of punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, actual damages
for mental anguish, intrusion on seclusion, court costs and
attorney's fees.

The plaintiff is represented by Eric H. Findlay and Brian Craft of
Findlay Craft in Tyler.

Jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis is assigned to the case.

Case No. 6:10-cv-000626


GENERAL MOTORS: Labourers' Pension Fund Case Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed against General Motors Financial Company, Inc., in
Texas remains pending, 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 July 28, 2010, an action styled Labourers' Pension Fund of
Central and Eastern Canada, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. AmeriCredit Corp., Clifton H. Morris, Jr.,
Daniel E. Berce, Bruce R. Berkowitz, John R. Clay, Ian M. Cumming,
A.R. Dike, James H. Greer, Douglas K. Higgins, Kenneth H. Jones,
Jr., Justin R. Wheeler and General Motors Company, Defendants, was
filed in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, Cause No.
236 246960 10.

In the Labourers' Pension Fund Case, the plaintiff seeks class
action status and alleges that certain current and former members
of the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties in negotiating and approving the transaction between the
Company and GM Holdings.

Among other relief, the complaint sought to enjoin both the
transaction from closing as well as a shareholder vote on the
pending transaction and seeks the recovery of damages on behalf of
shareholders and the recovery of attorney' fees and expenses.

The court has not yet determined whether the case may be
maintained as a class action.

The Company believes that the Labourers' Pension Fund Case the
Mogle Case is without merit and will assert vigorous defenses to
the litigation.


GENERAL MOTORS: Mogle Case Still Pending in Texas Court
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed against General Motors Financial Company, Inc.,
filed in Texas for breach of fiduciary duties remains pending,
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 September 1, 2010, an action styled Douglas Mogle, Plaintiff
vs. AmeriCredit Corp., Clifton H. Morris, Jr., Daniel E. Berce,
Bruce R. Berkowitz, John R. Clay, Ian M. Cumming, A.R. Dike, James
H. Greer, Douglas K. Higgins, Kenneth H. Jones, Jr., Justin R.
Wheeler, Leucadia National Corporation, Fairholme Funds Inc., and
General Motors Company, was filed in the District Court of Tarrant
County, Texas, Cause No. 153 247833 10.

In the Mogle Case, the complaint alleges that the Company's
individual officers and certain current and former directors
breached their fiduciary duties.  Among other relief, the
complaint sought to enjoin both the transaction from closing as
well as a shareholder vote on the transaction and seeks the
recovery of damages on behalf of shareholders and the recovery of
attorney fees and expenses.

The court has not yet determined whether the case may be
maintained as a class action.

The Company believes that the Mogle Case is without merit and will
assert vigorous defenses to the litigation.


GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Class Suit Over Defective Parking Brakes
----------------------------------------------------------------
KTBS reports a lawsuit that originated in Texarkana and affects
General Motors trucks and SUVs across the country has been
settled.

The lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit involving allegedly
defective parking brakes was Boyd Bryant of Texarkana.

Terms of the settlement weren't disclosed.

Mr. Boyd wasn't involved in an accident but was the first of many
people who had to get their parking brakes replaced, his lawyer
said.  Many of the vehicles could not pass inspection.

The suit alleged GM failed to warn customers the brakes were
defective because of the costs of a recall, said attorney Jim Wyly
of Texarkana, who handled the case in several courts.

There are nearly four million vehicles involved in the case,
Mr. Wyly said.

The suit affects 1999 to 2002 sport utility vehicles and 1500-
series pickups.  They were Chevrolet, Cadillac and GMC models.


HANSEN NATURAL: Opt-Out Deadline in "Chavez" Suit Is Dec. 10
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the class action lawsuit filed by Christopher Chavez
against Hansen Natural Corporation is ongoing and the opt-out
deadline is December 10, 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 September 2006, Christopher Chavez purporting to act on behalf
of himself and a class of proposed consumers filed an action in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco, against the Company and its subsidiaries for unfair
business practices, false advertising, violation of California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act fraud, deceit and/or
misrepresentation alleging that the Company misleadingly labels
its Blue Sky beverages as manufactured and canned/bottled wholly
in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

The Defendants removed the Superior Court action to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
under the Class Action Fairness Act and filed motions for
dismissal or transfer.

On June 11, 2007, the District Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss Chavez's complaint with prejudice.

On June 23, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit filed a memorandum opinion reversing the decision of the
District Court and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the CLRA claims; the
plaintiff filed a motion for a decision on a preemption issue; and
the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.  The hearing
for all three motions occurred on May 27, 2010.

On June 18, 2010, the District Court entered an order certifying
the class, ruled that there was no preemption by federal law, and
denied the Company's motion to dismiss.  The class that the
District Court certified initially consists of all persons who
purchased any beverage bearing the Blue Sky mark or brand in the
United States at any time between May 16, 2002 and June 30, 2006.

The Company subsequently filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit
seeking permission to file an immediate appeal to reverse the
decision to certify a class.  On August 27, 2010, the Ninth
Circuit denied the Company's petition.

On September 9, 2010, the District Court approved the form of the
class notice and its distribution plan; and set an opt-out date of
December 10, 2010 and a trial date for March 2011.

On September 28, 2010, the Company filed a Request for Leave to
file a motion for reconsideration of the order certifying the
class action.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to all the
allegations and plans a vigorous defense.

Discovery on the merits of the claims and defenses has just begun,
according to the Company's SEC disclosure.


HANSEN NATURAL: Cert. Documents Yet to be Filed in "Wellman" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for certification of a class action consumer suit
initiated by Avraham Hansen against Hansen Natural Corporation has
yet to be filed, 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 May 2009, Avraham Wellman, purporting to act on behalf of
himself and a class of consumers in Canada, filed a putative class
action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the City of
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, against the Company and its former
Canadian distributor, Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd., as defendants.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants misleadingly packaged
and labeled Monster Energy(R) products in Canada by not including
sufficiently specific statements with respect to contra-
indications and/or adverse reactions associated with the
consumption of the energy drink products.  The plaintiff's claims
against the defendants are for negligence, unjust enrichment, and
making misleading/false representations in violation of the
Competition Act (Canada), the Food and Drugs Act (Canada) and the
Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (Ontario).  The plaintiff claims
general damages on behalf of the putative class in the amount of
C$20 million, together with punitive damages of C$5 million, plus
legal costs and interest.

The plaintiff's certification motion materials have not yet been
filed.

In accordance with class action practices in Ontario, the Company
says it does not intend to file an answer to the complaint until
after the determination of the certification motion.

The Company believes that the plaintiff's complaint is without
merit and plans a vigorous defense.


HANSEN NATURAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Natural Corporation continues to defend a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit filed against it in California,
the Company related in 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 11, 2008, a federal securities class action complaint
styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  On September 17, 2008, a second federal securities
class action complaint styled Brown v. Hansen Natural Corp., et
al. was also filed in the District Court.

On July 14, 2009, the Court entered an order consolidating the
actions and appointing lead counsel and the Structural Ironworkers
Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff.

On August 28, 2009, lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Complaint
for Violations of Federal Securities Laws.  The Class Action
Complaint purported to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's stock during the period November 9,
2006 through November 8, 2007.  It named as defendants the
Company, Rodney C. Sacks, Hilton H. Schlosberg, and Thomas J.
Kelly.

Plaintiff principally alleged that, during the Class Period, the
defendants made false and misleading statements relating to the
Company's distribution coordination agreements with Anheuser-
Busch, Inc. and its sales of "Allied" energy drink lines, and
engaged in sales of shares in the Company on the basis of material
non-public information.  Plaintiff also alleged that the Company's
financial statements for the second quarter of 2007 did not
include certain promotional expenses.  The Class Action Complaint
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and sought an unspecified amount of damages.

On November 16, 2009, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), as well as the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.  On July 12, 2010, following a hearing, the
District Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Class
Action Complaint, with leave to amend, on the grounds, among
others, that it failed to specify which statements Plaintiff
claimed were false or misleading, failed adequately to allege that
certain statements were actionable or false or misleading, and
failed adequately to demonstrate that Defendants acted with
scienter.

On August 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws.  While
similar in many respects to the Class Action Complaint, the
Amended Class Action Complaint drops certain of the allegations
set forth in the Class Action Complaint and makes certain new
allegations, including that the Company engaged in "channel
stuffing" during the Class Period that rendered false or
misleading the Company's reported sales results and certain other
statements made by the defendants.  In addition, it no longer
names Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant.  The Amended Class Action
Complaint continues to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

The Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint was due November 8, 2010.


HAWK CORP: Faces Class Suits Over Merger Agreement With Carlisle
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hawk Corporation is facing class action lawsuits for its merger
agreement with Carlisle Companies Incorporated, 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 October 14, 2010, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Carlisle Companies Incorporated (Carlisle), a
publicly traded Delaware corporation and HC Corporation, a
Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Carlisle (the
Purchaser).

Since October 25, 2010, two putative stockholder class action
complaints challenging the Transaction contemplated by the Merger
Agreement were filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of
Delaware against Hawk, the individual members of Hawk's board of
directors, Carlisle and the Purchaser.

The complaints generally allege, among other things, that members
of Hawk's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed
to the public stockholders of Hawk by entering into the Merger
Agreement, approving the Offer and the proposed Merger and failing
to take steps to maximize the value of Hawk to the Company's
public stockholders, that the holders of Hawk's Series D preferred
stock breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and entire
fairness, and that Carlisle aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duties.

In addition, the complaints allege that the Merger Agreement
unduly restricts Hawk's ability to negotiate with rival bidders,
and that its stockholders have been deprived of the ability to
make an informed decision as to whether to tender their shares.

The complaints generally seek, among other things, declaratory and
injunctive relief concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches,
injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from consummating the
Merger and other forms of equitable relief.

While these lawsuits are at a preliminary stage, Hawk believes
that the claims are without merit, and it intends to vigorously
defend them.


HELEN KELLER: Accused in New York Suit of Not Paying Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Helen Keller Services for the
Blind stiff workers for overtime, a class action claims in Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Cruz v. Hellen Keller Services for the
Blind, Case No. 10-cv-05437 (E.D.N.Y.) (Spatt, J.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/06/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550

               - and -

          VALLI KANE & VAGNINI, LLP
          600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7180


HURON CONSULTING: Settles Securities Class Action for $38 Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Huron Consulting Group Inc. Monday disclosed that it has entered
into an agreement in principle with the lead plaintiffs in the
pending securities class action lawsuit related to the restatement
of its financial statements in 2009.

"We are pleased to have reached an agreement to settle this
matter, which is in the best interest of the Company and its
stakeholders.  The resolution of this matter will allow our
current management team to continue its focus on serving clients
and the future growth of the Company."

The agreement in principle provides that the settlement class will
receive total consideration of approximately $38 million,
consisting of $27 million in cash, which will be funded by the
Company's insurance carriers, and the issuance by the Company of
474,547 shares of common stock which has an aggregate value of
approximately $11 million, based on the closing market price on
November 24, 2010.  The Company expects to record a non-cash
charge to earnings in the fourth quarter of 2010 in the amount of
approximately $11 million, representing the fair value of the
shares.  The Company will adjust the amount of the non-cash charge
to reflect changes in the fair value of the shares until and
including the date of issuance.  The Company will issue the shares
following final court approval of the proposed settlement, which
the Company expects will occur in the first half of 2011.

The Company's insurance carriers will fund the cash portion of the
settlement.  Following such payment, the Company will not receive
any further contributions from its insurance carriers for the
reimbursement of legal fees expended on the finalization of the
class action settlement or any amounts related to the derivative
suits and SEC investigation described in the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010.

The proposed settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing.  The
Company has always maintained and continues to believe that it did
not engage in any wrongdoing or otherwise commit any violation of
federal or state securities laws or other laws.  However, given
the potential cost and burden of continued litigation, the Company
believes that the proposed settlement is in its best interest and
in the best interest of its stakeholders.

The proposed settlement is subject to the completion of final
documentation, preliminary and final court approval, funding of
the $27 million in cash by the Company's insurance carriers, and
issuance of the settlement shares.

John McCartney, non-executive chairman of the Huron board, said,
"We are pleased to have reached an agreement to settle this
matter, which is in the best interest of the Company and its
stakeholders.  The resolution of this matter will allow our
current management team to continue its focus on serving clients
and the future growth of the Company."

See the Company's Form 8-K filed Monday for additional information
related to the settlement.

Huron Consulting Group (NASDAQ: HURN)--
http://www.huronconsultinggroup.com/--  helps clients in diverse
industries improve performance, comply with complex regulations,
reduce costs, recover from distress, leverage technology, and
stimulate growth. The Company teams with its clients to deliver
sustainable and measurable results.  Huron provides services to a
wide variety of both financially sound and distressed
organizations, including healthcare organizations, Fortune 500
companies, leading academic institutions, medium-sized businesses,
and the law firms that represent these various organizations.


HYPERCOM CORP: Being Sold to VeriFone for Too Little, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Hypercom is selling itself
too cheaply to VeriFone, for $485 million or $7.32 plus 0.23
shares of Verifone stock per Hypercom share, shareholders claim in
Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Grayson v. Hypercom Corporation, et
al., Case No. 6044 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/06/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          919 North Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Tel: (302) 295-5310


LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Obtains Approval of Fertitta Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Landry's Restaurants Inc. has obtained final court approval of its
settlement agreement resolving a class action lawsuit related to
its acquisition agreement with certain Fertitta entities,
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 5, 2009, a purported class action and derivative
lawsuit was brought against all members of the Company's board of
directors, Fertitta Holdings, and Fertitta Acquisition in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The lawsuit
originally alleged, among other things, a breach of a fiduciary
duty by the directors for renegotiating the 2008 proposed
transaction merger agreement with the Fertitta entities, allowing
Tilman J. Fertitta, the Company's chairman and chief executive
officer, to acquire shares of stock in the Company and gain
majority control of it, and terminating the 2008 proposed
transaction merger agreement without requiring payment of the
reverse termination fee.

The suit seeks consummation of the transaction at $21.00 a share
or damages representing the difference between $21.00 per share
and the price at which class members sold their stock in the open
market, or damages for allowing Mr. Fertitta to acquire control of
the Company without paying a control premium, or alternately
requiring payment of the reverse termination fee or damages for
the devaluation of the Company's stock.

The Plaintiff amended its complaint on two occasions and now
further alleges, among other things, class action claims against
the members of the Company's directors for breach of fiduciary
duty related to the 2008 proposed transaction merger agreement and
derivative clams against the members of the Company's board of
directors for failure to seek a reverse termination fee following
the abandonment of the 2008 proposed transaction.  The Plaintiff
also asserts a derivative claim for breach of contract against Mr.
Fertitta and Fertitta Acquisition for failure to perform under the
2008 proposed transaction.

The Plaintiff also alleges that in connection with Mr. Fertitta's
proposal to acquire all of the Company's outstanding shares at
$14.75 per share, the Company's board of directors violated their
fiduciary duties by failing to ensure that the merger transaction
was accomplished by fair dealing and in a fair process.  Plaintiff
alleges that Fertitta Holdings, Fertitta Acquisition, Parent and
Merger Sub knowingly participated in the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty by Mr. Fertitta.

On May 23, 2010, the parties delivered a Memorandum of
Understanding for Partial Settlement to the Vice Chancellor of the
Delaware Chancery Court.

On June 22, 2010, following negotiations, the parties to the
Delaware Litigation entered into the May Settlement, memorializing
the terms of the May 23, 2010 Memorandum of Understanding for
Partial Settlement of the Delaware Litigation.  The May Settlement
will settle and release certain claims that were asserted and/or
could have been asserted against the defendants in connection with
Counts IV through VIII of the amended complaint.  On the same day,
the parties submitted the May Settlement to the Delaware Chancery
Court.

Thereafter, the parties to the Delaware Litigation agreed to
mediate the claims remaining in the Delaware Litigation and not
resolved by the May Settlement.  On July 7, 2010, the parties to
the Delaware Litigation and their respective counsel engaged in a
mediation conducted by a retired federal judge, which resulted in
the parties reaching an agreement in principle to settle the
remaining claims asserted against the defendants in the amended
complaint.  The parties memorialized the July Settlement in a term
sheet executed on July 14, 2010.

On July 23, 2010, the parties entered into the July Settlement
Stipulation, which would settle and release all remaining claims
asserted or that could have been asserted against the defendants
in the amended complaint that will not be settled and released
pursuant to the May Settlement, including the claims asserted
against the defendants in Counts I, II, III and IX of the amended
complaint.  On July 23, 2010, the parties submitted the July
Settlement Stipulation to the Delaware Chancery Court and
requested that the Delaware Chancery Court enter a scheduling
order for notice and hearing for final approval of the May and
July Settlements.

On July 26, 2010, the Delaware Chancery Court entered a scheduling
order setting the May and July Settlements for a hearing to
consider final approval on October 6, 2010.

The court granted final approval on October 6, 2010.


LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Continues to Defend Joe's Crab Shack Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Landry's Restaurants Inc. is still facing a class action lawsuit
related to its ownership of Joe's Crab Shack, the Company noted in
its November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On November 6, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit against
Joe's Crab Shack, Inc. was filed in the Superior Court of
California in Los Angeles County by Roberto Martinez.  On or about
March 24, 2008, Landry's Restaurants was also added as a Defendant
as the Company owned the Joe's Crab Shack locations during a
portion of the relevant time period.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Joe's Crab Shack
violated the California Labor Code by misclassifying managers as
exempt and, therefore, not properly paying overtime wages, and
failing to provide mandatory meal or rest breaks or payment in
lieu of the break.

The Company denies the plaintiffs' claims and is vigorously
defending the matter.

No further development on the case was noted in the Company's
latest SEC financial report filing.


MBIA INC: NY Consolidated Class Action Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed against MBIA Inc. for purported violations of
securities laws is ongoing, 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 October 17, 2008, a consolidated amended class action complaint
in a separate shareholder class action lawsuit against the Company
and certain of its officers, In re MBIA Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 08-CV-264, (KMK) was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.

Lead plaintiff, the Teachers' Retirement System of Oklahoma, seeks
to represent a class of shareholders who purchased MBIA stock
between July 2, 2007, and January 9, 2008.  The amended complaint
alleges that defendants MBIA Inc., Gary C. Dunton and C. Edward
Chaplin violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Among other things, the complaint alleges that defendants issued
false and misleading statements with respect to the Company's
exposure to collateralized debt obligations containing residential
mortgage-backed securities, specifically its exposure to so-called
"CDO-squared" securities, which allegedly caused the Company's
stock to trade at inflated prices.

On April 30, 2010, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint.  The motion to dismiss the Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint filed on behalf of
Messrs. Chaplin and Dunton was fully briefed as of October 29,
2010.


MECOX LANE: Faces Two Securities Class Actions in the U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------
People's Daily Online reports Mecox Lane, Ltd., the first Chinese
B2C company listed in the United States, is currently facing two
class action lawsuits after its share price fell below the issue
price.

U.S.-based Rosen Law Firm filed a class action lawsuit against
Mecox Lane on Dec. 4 on behalf of the purchasers of the company's
shares, alleging that certain directors, senior executives and
underwriters of the company are liable under the Securities Act of
1993 for inaccurate and misleading information in its IPO
registration statement.

The law firm alleges that contrary to Mecox Lane's registration
statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),
the company's gross margins have been adversely impacted by
increased costs and expenses, which made it impossible for Mecox
Lane to achieve the results it promised at the time of the IPO.
When the truth was revealed on Nov. 29, 2010, the value of the
company's shares dropped sharply, and investors suffered great
losses.

This is the second class action lawsuit filed against Mecox Lane
in a week.  Another U.S. law firm Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and KSF
partner Charles C. Foti, Jr., former attorney general of
Louisiana, announced the commencement of the firm's securities
class action lawsuit against Mecox Lane earlier last week.

Sun Jie, an Internet analyst in China, said that Mecox Lane's
shares falling below the issue price and the two class action
lawsuits have created a very bad impression of Chinese Internet
companies.  Online retailers such as Dangdang and Vancl as well as
video-sharing sites such as Youku and Tudou are lining up for
listing in the United States, but will face difficulties because
the SEC will likely be more critical of listing applications from
China.


MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation's efforts to seek dismissal of
a consolidated securities class suit were unsuccessful, 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 October 3, 10 and 27, 2008, purported stockholder class action
lawsuits styled Andrew Hall v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et
al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01821-MHB); Steamfitters Local 449 Pension
Fund v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-
01870-DKD); and Darlene Oliver v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et
al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01964-JAT) were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of
stockholders who purchased securities of the Company during the
period between October 30, 2003 and approximately September 24,
2008.  The Court consolidated these actions into a single
proceeding.

On May 18, 2009, an amended complaint was filed alleging
violations of the federal securities laws arising out of the
Company's restatement of its consolidated financial statements in
2008.

On December 2, 2009, the court granted the Company's and other
defendants' dismissal motions and dismissed the consolidated
amended complaint without prejudice.

On January 18, 2010 the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint.  On about August 9, 2010, the court denied the
Company's and other defendants' related dismissal motions.

The Company will continue to vigorously defend the claims in the
consolidated matters.  The Company, however, says there can be no
assurance that it will be successful, and an adverse resolution of
the lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on its financial
position and results of operations in the period in which the
lawsuits are resolved.


MEDQUIST INC: Continues to Monitor New Jersey Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
MedQuist, Inc., is no longer a party to a New Jersey shareholder
class litigation but it continues to monitor the case, the Company
disclosed in its November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On January 22, 2008, a shareholder of the Company commenced the
class action against the Company, Koninklijke Philips Electronics
N.V. (Philips), the Company's former majority shareholder, and
four of the Company's former non-independent directors in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Burlington
County.

On June 12, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint against the Company, eight of the Company's then current
and former directors, and Philips.  In the amended complaint, the
plaintiff alleged that the Company's then current and former
directors breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, fair
dealing, loyalty, and due care by not providing public
shareholders with the opportunity to decide whether they wanted to
participate in a share purchase offer with non-party CBaySystems
Holdings Limited.  The share purchase offer would have allowed the
public shareholders to sell their shares of the Company's common
stock for an amount above market price, according to the
plaintiff.  The Plaintiff further alleged that CBaySystems
Holdings made the share purchase offer to Philips and that Philips
breached its fiduciary duties by accepting CBaySystems Holdings'
offer.  Based on these allegations, the plaintiff sought
declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief from all defendants.

The Plaintiff claimed that the company was only named as a party
to the litigation for purposes of injunctive relief.

On November 21, 2008, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's amended
class action complaint with prejudice.

Thereafter, on July 1, 2010, the New Jersey Appellate Division
entered an Order and Opinion that affirmed the dismissal of the
claims against MedQuist and two of the MedQuist director
defendants.  The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of the
claims against the remaining defendants -- Philips and certain of
the company's former directors -- and remanded those claims back
to the Chancery Division.

The Company noted in its SEC disclosure that it is no longer a
defendant in the matter, but it continues to monitor the matter
since the case involves claims against the Company's former
directors.


MVR COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Securities Suit Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court has yet to issue an order on a proposed settlement
for the resolution of a stockholder class lawsuit asserted against
MVR Communications 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.

MRV and certain of its current and former directors and officers
have been subjected to a number of ongoing stockholder lawsuits.
Between June 10, 2008 and August 15, 2008, five purported
stockholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of
California and one derivative lawsuit was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California against the Company and certain
of the company's current and former officers and directors.  The
five lawsuits filed in the Central District of California were
consolidated.

Claims are asserted under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The allegations set forth in the
complaints are based on facts disclosed in MRV's press release of
June 5, 2008, which stated that the Company's financial statements
could not be relied on due to the Company's historical stock
option practices and related accounting.

The complaints seek to recover from the defendants unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, to require the Company to
undertake reforms to corporate governance and internal control
procedures, to obtain an accounting of stock option grants found
to be improper, to impose a constructive trust over stock options
and proceeds derived therefrom, to disgorge from any of the
defendants who received allegedly improper stock options the
profits obtained therefrom, to rescind improperly priced options
and to recover costs of suit, including legal and other
professional fees and other equitable relief.

In April 2010, the parties to the securities class action lawsuits
filed a stipulation and agreement of settlement of $10 million
with the court which was preliminarily approved.  The settlement
amount has been covered by the Company's director and officer
insurance policies pending final approval by the court in November
2010.

The Company and plaintiffs in the federal and California state
derivative lawsuits have attended mediations but have not been
successful in reaching a settlement on these claims.  Motions to
dismiss the defendants in both the federal and state derivative
lawsuits have been heard and certain defendants and claims have
been dismissed from the state lawsuit.  The judge in the federal
derivative lawsuit is expected to rule on the motions heard in his
court in January 2011.


NATIONAL LAMPOON: Accused in Calif. of Misleading Shareholders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action,
shareholders claim directors of National Lampoon inflated its
share price through false and misleading statements.

A copy of the Complaint in Ansell v. Laikin, et al., Case No. 10-
cv-09292 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/06/NatLampoon.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence Rosen, Eq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          333 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


NYMAGIC INC: Awaits Court Okay of Merger-Related Suits Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nymagic, Inc., entered into a settlement to resolve class action
lawsuits filed over its proposed merger with ProSight Specialty
Insurance 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 Sept. 30, 2010.

On July 15, 2010, the Company announced that it entered into a
definitive agreement to be acquired by ProSight for $25.75 per
share.

Between July 16 and July 26, 2010, four substantially similar
putative class action lawsuits were commenced by stockholders of
Nymagic, Inc., against the Company, its board of directors and
ProSight in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the
County of New York challenging the proposed merger, captioned:

   * Gross v. NYMAGIC, Inc., No. 650979/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed
     July 16, 2010),

   * Kahn v. Trumbull, No. 651033/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed July
     20, 2010),

   * Cambridge Retirement System v. NYMAGIC, Inc., No. 651058/2010
     (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed July 21, 2010), and

   * Walker v. NYMAGIC, Inc., No. 109851/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed
     July 26, 2010).

The complaints, each of which purports to be brought as a class
action on behalf of all of the Company's stockholders, excluding
the defendants and their affiliates, allege that the consideration
that stockholders will receive in connection with the merger is
inadequate and that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to stockholders in negotiating and approving the
merger agreement.  The complaints further allege that the Company
or ProSight aided and abetted the alleged breaches by the
Company's directors.  The complaints seek various forms of relief,
including injunctive relief to prevent consummation of the merger.

On September 1, 2010, the actions were consolidated and, on
September 3, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  In addition to the stated allegations, the
consolidated amended complaint also alleges that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in disseminating
incomplete or inaccurate information regarding the proposed
merger, and added Goldman, Sachs & Co. as a defendant based on
allegations that it aided and abetted the directors' alleged
breach of their fiduciary duties.

Although the Company believes that the claims asserted in the
actions are without merit, on October 22, 2010, the parties
entered into a memorandum of understanding reflecting an agreement
in principle to settle and dismiss the actions on the basis that
certain additional disclosures would be made in the Proxy
Statement provided to the Company's shareholders.  The proposed
settlement is subject to court approval and other conditions.


OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Class Action to Be Litigated in the U.S.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reports Occidental Petroleum Corp
must defend a lawsuit in the United States accusing the fourth
largest U.S. oil company of polluting the Peruvian rainforest for
nearly 30 years, a federal appeals court ruled on Monday.

The proposed class action was filed on behalf of members of
indigenous Achuar communities.  They accuse Occidental of
discharging millions of gallons of toxic oil byproducts into
waterways in the northern Peruvian rainforest, according to the
ruling from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

Occidental had convinced a lower court that the case should be
litigated in Peru.  But the 9th Circuit disagreed, ruling that the
case be heard in Occidental's hometown of Los Angeles.

Plaintiff lawyers on Monday called the ruling a "major victory"
for the rights of indigenous peoples.

"Oxy will now face justice in the U.S. federal courts, rather than
in a Peruvian legal system that has never compensated indigenous
groups for environmental contamination," Marco Simons, legal
director of EarthRights International, said in a statement.

Occidental said it has "empathy" for the issues raised by the
Achuar people, but that there are "no credible data" indicating
negative health impacts resulting from Oxy's operations.

The company transferred its interests in the area over 10 years
ago, it said in a statement.

"Occidental believes that the U.S. courts are not the appropriate
forum to litigate these Peruvian claims, and will continue to
advocate that position," the company said.

The case in the 9th Circuit is Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum,
08-56187.


OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Appeal on NY Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated class action
lawsuit against Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., a principal subsidiary of
Oppenheimer Holdings Inc., is pending, 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 11, 2008, Oppenheimer and a number of its affiliates was
named as a defendant in a proposed class action complaint
captioned Bette M. Grossman v. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. et. al in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that Oppenheimer
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as
well as other provisions of the Federal securities laws) by making
material misstatements and omissions and engaging in deceptive
activities in the offer and sale of Auction Rate Securities.

Oppenheimer filed an answer to the complaint denying the
allegations.

Oppenheimer believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims
raised in the lawsuit and intends to defend against these claims
vigorously.  On February 20, 2009, this action was consolidated
with a certain "Vining" action.

                          Vining Action

On May 12, 2008, Oppenheimer and a number of its affiliates was
named as a defendant in a proposed class action complaint
captioned David T. Vining v. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. et. al. in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that Oppenheimer
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as
well as other provisions of the Federal securities laws by making
material misstatements and omissions and engaging in deceptive
activities in the offer and sale of ARS.

Oppenheimer filed an answer to the complaint denying the
allegations.

Oppenheimer believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims
raised in the lawsuit and intends to defend against these claims
vigorously.

On February 20, 2009, the Grossman action was consolidated with
this action.

The action requests relief in the form of compensatory damages in
an amount to be proven at trial as well as costs and expenses.

On September 10, 2009, Oppenheimer filed a motion to dismiss this
consolidated action.  On September 27, 2010, Oppenheimer's motion
to dismiss was granted without prejudice.  Plaintiff filed an
appeal of this dismissal with the United States Circuit Court for
the Second Circuit on October 28, 2010.

Oppenheimer intends to defend itself vigorously in the appeal
process.


PLAINSCAPITAL CORP: Calif. Class Action Suits Against Unit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Plainscapital Corporation remains a defendant in several
class action lawsuits filed by California public entities,
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.

PlainsCapital Corp. owns 100% of the outstanding stock of
PlainsCapital Bank and 100% of the membership interest in
PlainsCapital Equity, LLC.

After the close of business on December 31, 2008, First Southwest
Holdings, Inc., a diversified, private investment banking
corporation headquartered in Dallas, Texas merged into FSWH
Acquisition LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of PlainsCapital Bank.
Following the merger, FSWH Acquisition LLC changed its name to
"First Southwest Holdings, LLC."  The principal subsidiaries of
First Southwest are First Southwest Company (FSC), a broker-dealer
registered with the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, and First Southwest Asset Management, Inc., a
registered investment advisor under the Investment Advisors Act of
1940.

FSC is a defendant in 17 lawsuits that were filed between July
2008, and September 2010, by several California public entities
and one New York non-profit corporation that do not seek to
certify a class.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has transferred or
is in the process of transferring these cases to the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York.

The California plaintiffs allege violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act and the California Cartwright Act.  The New
York plaintiff alleges violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act and the New York Donnelly Act.

The few allegations against FSC are very limited in scope and do
not relate to transactions involving any of these plaintiffs.

FSC filed an answer to the first 16 lawsuits, will soon answer the
latest lawsuit, and intends to defend itself vigorously in all of
these individual actions.

The relief sought is unspecified monetary damages.


POPULAR INC: Consolidated Hoff & ERISA Suits Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc., continues to defend two consolidated lawsuits filed
against the company in Puerto Rico, 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.

Between May 14, 2009 and September 9, 2009, five putative class
actions and two derivative claims were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rico
Court of First Instance, San Juan Part, against Popular, Inc.,
certain of its directors and officers, among others.

The five class actions have now been consolidated into two
separate actions: a securities class action captioned Hoff v.
Popular, Inc., et al. (consolidated with Otero v. Popular, Inc.,
et al.) and an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
class action entitled In re Popular, Inc. ERISA Litigation
(comprised of the consolidated cases of Walsh v. Popular, Inc. et
al.; Montanez v. Popular, Inc., et al.; and Dougan v. Popular,
Inc., et al.).

On October 19, 2009, plaintiffs in the Hoff case filed a
consolidated class action complaint which included as defendants
the underwriters in the May 2008 offering of Series B Preferred
Stock, among others.  The consolidated action purports to be on
behalf of purchasers of Popular's securities between January 24,
2008, and February 19, 2009, and alleges that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
issuing a series of allegedly false or misleading statements or
omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make statements
made by the Company not false and misleading.

The consolidated action also alleges that the defendants violated
Section 11, Section 12(a)(2) and Section 15 of the Securities Act
by making allegedly untrue statements or omitting to disclose
material facts necessary to make statements made by the Company
not false and misleading in connection with the May 2008 offering
of Series B Preferred Stock.

The consolidated securities class action complaint seeks class
certification, an award of compensatory damages and reasonable
costs and expenses, including counsel fees.

On January 11, 2010, Popular, the underwriter defendants and the
individual defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action complaint.

On August 2, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico granted the motion to dismiss filed by the underwriter
defendants on statute of limitations grounds.  The Court also
dismissed the Section 11 claim brought against Popular's directors
on statute of limitations grounds and the Section 12(a)(2) claim
brought against Popular because plaintiffs lacked standing.  The
Court declined to dismiss the claims brought against Popular and
certain of its officers under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
(and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder), Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act,
holding that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that defendants
made materially false and misleading statements with the requisite
state of mind.

On November 30, 2009, plaintiffs in the ERISA case filed a
consolidated class action complaint.  The consolidated complaint
purports to be on behalf of employees participating in the
Popular, Inc. U.S.A. 401(k) Savings and Investment Plan and the
Popular, Inc. Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Plan from January
24, 2008, to the date of the Complaint to recover losses pursuant
to Sections 409 and 502(a)(2) of ERISA against Popular, certain
directors, officers and members of plan committees, each of whom
is alleged to be a plan fiduciary.  The consolidated complaint
alleges that the defendants breached their alleged fiduciary
obligations by, among other things, failing to eliminate Popular
stock as an investment alternative in the plans.  The complaint
seeks to recover alleged losses to the plans and equitable relief,
including injunctive relief and a constructive trust, along with
costs and attorneys' fees.

On December 21, 2009, and in compliance with a scheduling order
issued by the Court, Popular and the individual defendants
submitted an answer to the amended complaint.  Shortly thereafter,
on December 31, 2009, Popular and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint or, in
the alternative, for judgment on the pleadings.

On May 5, 2010, a magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation in which he recommended that the motion to dismiss
be denied except with respect to Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, as
to which he recommended that the motion be granted.

On May 19, 2010, Popular filed objections to the magistrate
judge's report and recommendation.  On June 21, 2010, plaintiffs
filed a response to these objections.  On July 9, 2010, with leave
of the Court, Popular filed a reply to plaintiffs' response.

On September 30, 2010, the Court issued an order without opinion
granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss and
providing that the Court would issue an opinion and order
explaining its decision.

To date, no opinion has been issued.  Discovery is ongoing in the
ERISA case.


POPULAR INC: Defends Breach of Contract Suit in Puerto Rico
-----------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc., continues to defend a breach of contract suit filed
against the company in Puerto Rico, 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 October 7, 2010, a new putative class action suit for breach of
contract and damages, captioned Almeyda-Santiago v. Banco Popular
de Puerto Rico, was filed in the Puerto Rico Court of First
Instance against Banco Popular de Puerto Rico.  The complaint
essentially asserts that plaintiff has suffered damages because of
Banco Popular's alleged fraudulent overdraft fee practices in
connection with debit card transactions.  These practices
allegedly consist of:

   (a) the reorganization of electronic debit transactions in
       high-to-low order so as to multiply the number of overdraft
       fees assessed on its customers;

   (b) the assessment of overdraft fees even when clients have not
       overdrawn their accounts;

   (c) the failure to disclose, or to adequately disclose, its
       overdraft policy to its customers; and

   (d) the provision of false and fraudulent information regarding
       its clients' account balances at point of sale transactions
       and on its Web site.

Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution and provisional remedies
against Banco Popular for breach of contract, abuse of trust,
illegal conversion and unjust enrichment.

The Company intends to contend vigorously these claims.


PROTECTIVE PRODUCTS: Investors Sue D&Os, Bank Over Bankruptcy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Investors who sold common shares of Protective Products of
America, Inc. between August 14, 2009 up to and including
January 13, 2010, and all investors holding PPA shares as of
January 14, 2010, have launched a $120 million dollar class action
suit against PPA's former directors and officers as well as the
company's Florida-based investment bank, Farlie Turner & Co., and
its affiliate Bayshore Partners, LLC.

PPA's shares were publicly traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange
until January 14, 2010, when trading was suspended following an
announcement that the company had filed a voluntary assignment
into bankruptcy in Florida for the purpose of selling
substantially all of its assets to Protective Products
Enterprises, an affiliate of private equity firm Sun Capital
Partners.  PPA was later delisted from the TSX on February 19,
2010.

Prior to its bankruptcy filing, PPA was carrying on its business
of designing and manufacturing concealable and tactical body
armor.  Its primary customers and target market included agencies
of the U.S. Government such as the U.S. Marines and the U.S. Army.

The Statement of Claim in the class action alleges that PPA's
former directors and officers knowingly permitted negative
misrepresentations and non-disclosure of positive material
information about the company's business, operations, and capital,
in order to depress its share price.  PPA never disclosed, for
instance, that the U.S. Army had awarded the company a contract on
December 4, 2009, just over a month before the bankruptcy sale.
Throughout 2008 and 2009, PPA had touted this U.S. Army contract
as a highly valuable opportunity, potentially worth up to
US$300,000,000.

It is further alleged that PPA's directors and officers conspired
with Farlie Turner and Bayshore Partners, to depress PPA's share
price in order to take the company private for the benefit of
certain defendants.  PPA's artificially low share price hindered
the company's prospects for refinancing and recapitalization and
made it a more attractive target for private equity firms.

Sunrise, Florida-based Protective Products of America, Inc.,
formerly known as Ceramic Protection Corporation --
http://www.protectiveproductsofamerica.com/-- engages in the
design, manufacture and marketing of advanced products used to
provide ballistic protection for personnel and vehicles in the
military and law enforcement markets.

The Company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on
January 13, 2010 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Case No. 10-10711).  The
Company's affiliates -- PC Holding Corporation of America; Ceramic
Protection Corporation of America; Protective Products
International Corp.; and Protective Products of North Carolina,
LLC -- also filed separate Chapter 11 petitions.  Protective
Products disclosed $86,678,781 in assets and $27,460,502 in
liabilities as of the Petition Date.


PSYCHIATRIC SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Against 7 Merger Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seven class action lawsuits filed against Psychiatric Solutions,
Inc., by the Company's stockholders remain pending, 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 May 16, 2010, Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with Universal Health Services, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (UHS), and Olympus Acquisition Corp., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of UHS (Merger
Sub).  Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be
merged with and into Psychiatric Solutions, with the Company
continuing as the surviving corporation and as a wholly owned
subsidiary of UHS.

Seven putative class action complaints were filed on behalf of
alleged public stockholders of the Company.

   * Two of the lawsuits, Carpenters Pension Fund of West Virginia
     v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 38359, and
     Pedric v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No.
     38391, were filed in the Chancery Court for Williamson
     County, Tennessee.

   * One of the lawsuits, Smith v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., et
     al., Case No. 10-862-II, was filed in the Chancery Court for
     Davidson County, Tennessee.  The Smith case was transferred
     to Williamson County.

   * Another three lawsuits, Oklahoma Police Pension and
     Retirement System v. Jacobs, et al., Case No. CA 5514, City
     of Miami Police Relief and Pension Fund v. Jacobs, et al.,
     Case No. 5515, and Plumbers & Pipefitters, Local 152 Pension
     Fund v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 5532,
     were filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of
     Delaware.

   * A seventh lawsuit, Rosinek v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., et
     al., Case No. 3:10-cv-00534, was filed in the United States
     District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

The defendants generally include the Company, members of its board
of directors and, in certain of the cases, the Company's officers.
UHS and its affiliates are named as defendants in some of the
lawsuits.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that Psychiatric
Solutions' directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the proposed Merger by failing to maximize stockholder value.
The lawsuits also allege that the directors have put their
personal interests ahead of those of the Company's stockholders,
including by approving the Merger to extinguish any personal
liability they could suffer from previously asserted derivative
claims related to, among other things, violations of fiduciary
duties and federal securities laws and also by negotiating a
Merger Agreement that includes broad director and officer
insurance and indemnification provisions protecting them against
civil and criminal claims for six years from the date of the
Merger Agreement.

Certain of the lawsuits allege that various individual defendants
will receive improper change of control payments and Merger
Consideration in connection with equity awards that plaintiffs
contend were improper.  Certain of the lawsuits also allege that
the Company and UHS aided and abetted the various breaches of
fiduciary duty. Certain of the lawsuits also allege that various
individual defendants caused the Company to issue a proxy
statement containing materially false and misleading statements
and omissions in connection with its 2010 annual stockholder
meeting.

Among other things, the lawsuits seek to enjoin the Company and
its directors from consummating the Merger and also seek
rescission of the allegedly improper equity awards.

The three Delaware cases were consolidated and set for trial
beginning on August 5, 2010.  The three Tennessee state court
cases were consolidated in Williamson County, and then stayed in
favor of the consolidated Delaware action by agreed order of the
Williamson County court.

After substantially completing fact discovery in the consolidated
Delaware action, without admitting liability on the part of any of
the defendants, the parties to the consolidated Delaware action
and the consolidated Tennessee state court action have agreed in
principle to these terms of settlement:

   (1) requiring additional disclosures in the proxy statement
       delivered to stockholders in connection with the Special
       Meeting called to vote on the Merger regarding, among other
       things, the background of and negotiations relating to the
       Merger, the Executive Performance Incentive Plan, the
       amendment to the Company's 2009 Long-Term Equity
       Compensation Plan and adoption of the 2010 Long-Term Equity
       Compensation Plan, the circumstances surrounding the
       Company's compensation committee's approval of equity and
       restricted stock grants in February 2010, and the financial
       disclosures relating to the transaction, including the
       discounted cash flow and other analyses performed by
       Goldman Sachs & Co.;

   (2) allowing the Company's stockholders to revote on the
       proposal to amend the Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. Equity
       Incentive Plan to increase the number of shares of Common
       Stock subject to grant under the Equity Incentive Plan by
       900,000 and to restrict the repricing of options,
       originally approved by the Company's stockholders at its
       annual meeting of stockholders in May 2010, and which
       revote was held on October 5, 2010, with stockholders again
       approving the amendment to the Equity Incentive Plan;

   (3) requiring the release by the class of stockholders entitled
       to vote on the Merger of any and all claims that have been
       or could have been made against any of the defendants
       relating to the Merger, the disclosures made by or on
       behalf of the Company through and including consummation of
       the Merger, and the compensation received by any defendant
       through and including the consummation of the Merger; and

   (4) requiring the company to pay plaintiffs' reasonable
       attorneys' fees and expenses in the amounts ordered by the
       courts.

The Company says settlements in those actions are subject to court
approval, which has not yet been obtained.

The parties to the Rosinek case have agreed in principal to settle
that case on terms identical to the proposed settlement in the
consolidated cases, with the additional promise from the Rosinek
plaintiff that she will participate in, and not object to, the
class certification necessary in the consolidated cases for the
court to approve the settlement.  The United States District Court
has stayed the Rosinek case in light of the parties proposed
settlement and in favor of the settlement approval proceedings in
the consolidated cases.

The Company says settlements in the consolidated and Rosinek cases
will not affect the form or amount of the consideration to be
received by the Company's stockholders in the Merger.  The
defendants have denied and continue to deny any wrongdoing or
liability with respect to all claims, events, and transactions
complained of in the lawsuits or that they have engaged in any
wrongdoing.  The defendants have entered into the settlements to
eliminate the uncertainty, burden, risk, expense and distraction
of further litigation.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Judge Defends Decision to Toss Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that Judge
Richard Posner, responding to a lawyer's claim that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit acted "as the
self-assured Simon Cowell of the circuits," said the attorney had
"chutzpah" and defended the court's decision to toss a "near-
frivolous" class action against Sears over its stainless steel
dryers.

"Neither the judges on this panel nor other federal judges so far
as we are aware have denied that the class action is a worthwhile
device and indeed is indispensable for the litigation of many
meritorious claims," Judge Posner said, explaining his refusal to
rehear the case.  "But like many other good things, it is subject
to abuse.  It has been abused in the stainless steel clothes dryer
litigation."

Attorney Clinton A. Krislov represented a Tennessee man in a class
action claiming Kenmore stainless steel dryers leave rust stains
on clothes because they contain parts made from mild steel coated
with ceramic instead of stainless steel.

After Judge Posner and two colleagues in Chicago decertified the
class action, Mr. Krislov and co-counsel Mark Boling filed a
nearly identical class action in federal court in California.

Mr. Krislov also demanded $246,000 in attorneys' fees for his
Tennessee client, who won just $3,000.  Mr. Krislov argued that
the fees were a worthwhile investment, because Sears had offered
his client a $20,000 settlement -- all but $3,000 of which the
district court barred his client from collecting, because it
exceeded the amount in controversy.

The settlement offer, Mr. Krislov claimed, vindicated his theory
of liability.

Judge Posner called this argument "beyond weak," saying the
victory "could by no stretch of the imagination be thought a
vindication of a threadbare, idiosyncratic claim worth at most
$3,000."

Mr. Krislov fought back on appeal, saying the panel's Nov. 2
opinion "reads more like a posting in its author's well-known
blog," referring to becker-posner-blog.com, which Posner maintains
with University of Chicago economist Gary Becker.

Mr. Krislov said the ruling mischaracterized class counsel as
having sold out their clients' claims for massive class-action
settlement fees, and "substituted the authoring judge's personal
economic theories and baseless factual declarations for the
developed record."

"[T]he court's clearly prejudiced opinion presents an unsupported,
op-ed style portrayal of class action attorneys that . . .
demonizes all class action attorneys . . . and goes well over the
top in its characterization of undersigned counsel's actions and
motivations," Mr. Krislov argued.

He added that the ruling for Sears "appears to run afoul" of the
codes of judicial conduct: "Indeed, the panel's role as the self-
assured Simon Cowell of the circuits demeans not just us, but the
court as well," he wrote.

But Judge Posner refused to back down, saying Mr. Krislov "may
wish to moderate his fury."

He pointed out that the 7th Circuit's views on the abuse of class-
action litigation were backed by numerous legal scholars, sister
circuits and Supreme Court rulings.

Judge Posner also blasted Mr. Krislov for accusing Sears of forum
shopping, when the attorney admitted to doing the same thing.

"This is what is known as chutzpah," Judge Posner wrote, "since
Mr. Krislov brought his copycat suit in California because, as he
says unguardedly, 'the 9th Circuit's standards are decidedly more
favorable to plaintiffs' claims.'"

The judge added that he and his male colleagues took up
Mr. Krislov's challenge, at oral arguments, to quiz their wives on
whether they worry that a stainless steel dryer might cause rust
stains.

"The wives unanimously answered 'no,'" Judge Posner reported.

A copy of the Order in Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck and Company,
No. 10-2407 (7th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/ijFrK


TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Texas Court Dismisses Class Action Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
A Texas court dismissed class action lawsuits filed against TETRA
Technologies, Inc., after the parties reached a settlement of
disputed issues, 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.

Between March 27, 2008, and April 30, 2008, two putative class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) against
TETRA Technologies and certain former officers by certain
stockholders on behalf of themselves and other stockholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between January 3, 2007, and
October 16, 2007.

The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The complaints allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws during the period by, among other things,
disseminating false and misleading statements or concealing
material facts concerning the company's current and prospective
business and financial results.  The complaints also allege that,
as a result of these actions, the Company's stock price was
artificially inflated during the class period, which enabled
insiders to sell their personally held shares for a substantial
gain.

The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and
expenses.

On May 8, 2008, the Court consolidated these complaints as In re
TETRA Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 4:08-cv-0965
(S.D. Tex.).

On August 27, 2008, Lead Plaintiff Fulton County Employees'
Retirement System filed its Amended Consolidated Complaint.

On October 28, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
federal class action.

On July 9, 2009, the Court issued an opinion dismissing, without
prejudice, most of the claims in this lawsuit, but permitting
plaintiffs to proceed on their allegations regarding disclosures
pertaining to the collectability of certain insurance receivables.

On June 16, 2010, defendants and plaintiff's counsel reached a
settlement agreement whereby all claims against defendants will be
released in exchange for a payment of $8.25 million, which is
expected to be paid by the company's insurers.

On September 29, 2010, the Court approved the settlement and
entered the Order and Final Judgment terminating the class action
lawsuit.


WACHOVIA MORTGAGE: "Treadwell" Complaint Removed to N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aileen L. Treadwell aka Alezz Laielen, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Wachovia Mortgage Corporation, et
al., Case No. CIV1005962 (Calif. Super. Ct., Marin Cty.) was filed
on November 10, 2010.  The plaintiff says Wachovia acted in bad
faith and breached their forbearance agreement when, on
November 29, 2009, it allegedly refused to accept her installment
payment of $879.49, and later demanded the payment of the full
arrearage plus interest and last fee totaling $6,024.57.  Ms.
Treadwell says that under the forbearance agreement Wachovia
permitted her to make three monthly payments of $879.49 commencing
August 29, 2009, and additionally represented that any arrearage
would not become at the request of Wachovia but would be added to
the principal owed.

As the appropriate district court has jurisdiction of this case
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 because the action contains
allegations of defendant Wachovia's purported violations of at
least one federal statute with respect to the processing of
Plaintiff's loan, the defendant, on December 3, 2010, removed the
lawsuit to the Northern District of California, and the Clerk
assigned Case No. 10-cv-05505 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff (In Pro Per) represents herself in this action:

          Aileen L. Treadwell aka
          Alezz Laielen
          196 Southern Heights Blvd.
          San Rafael, CA 94901
          Telephone: (415) 454-0321
          E-mail: wirthinc@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher A. Carr, Esq.
          ANGLIN, FLEWELLING, RASMUSSEN, CAMPBELL & TRYTTEN LLP
          199 S. Los Robles Avenue, Suite 600
          Pasadena, CA 91101-2459
          Telephone: (626) 535-1900
          E-mail: ccarr@afrct.com


WAL-MART STORES: Supreme Court to Review Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that the
Supreme Court on Monday said it would review the employment
discrimination class action against Wal-Mart, which threatens to
cost the world's largest private employer billions in damages.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 6-5
in April to send the case to trial, but the high court took up one
of Wal-Mart's arguments for an appeal: whether a class action is
an appropriate forum for individual employees' claims.

Six women sued the Bentonville, Ark.-based company in San
Francisco Federal Court in 2001, claiming they received less pay
and fewer promotions than men in comparable positions.

A federal judge ruled that the class should encompass "all women
employed by Wal-Mart at any time after Dec. 26, 1998," across the
company's 3,400 stores.

Wal-Mart argued that the proposed class -- an estimated 1.5
million women -- is too big to fight, and that employees should
file individual lawsuits.

One circuit judge who affirmed the case wrote in April that "mere
size does not render a case unmanageable."

In a dissenting opinion from the April decision, Judge Sandra
Ikuta wrote: "No court has ever certified a class like this one,
until now.  And with good reason.  In this case, six women who
have worked in thirteen of Wal-Mart's 3,400 stores seek to
represent every woman who has worked in those stores over the
course of the last decade -- a class estimated in 2001 to include
more than 1.5 million women."


XANODYNE PHARMA: Darvocet Unfit for Intended Uses, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action, a
woman claims she suffered two heart attacks from taking Xanodyne
Pharmaceuticals' drug Darvocet (propoxyphene), which did not even
kill pain as it was supposed to, and which Xanodyne knew had been
"subject to safety concerns for decades."

A copy of the Complaint in Gallagher v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04455 (E.D. La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/06/PrescriptionDrug.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew B. Moreland, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL E. BECNEL, JR.
          106 West Seventh Street
          P.O. Drawer H
          Reserve, LA 70084
          Telephone: (985) 536-1186

               - and -

          Morris Bart, Esq.
          MORRIS BART, L.L.C.
          909 Poydras St., 20th Floor
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 525-8000


YOUPORN: Faces Class Suit for Accessing Users' Browsing History
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kashmir Hill, writing for Forbes.com's The Not-So Private Parts,
reports two California men, David Pitner and Jared Reagan, have
filed a class-action lawsuit over YouPorn's practice of "history
sniffing," or checking out other porn Web sites that visitors have
been to through exploiting a Javascript security flaw.

The practice works through checking whether your browser registers
certain links as previously visited, by seeing if they are
assigned the color "purple" -- that nifty change of color that
tells you that you've already clicked on a link.  I exposed
YouPorn's exploitation of the security flaw here last week, based
on an academic paper published a few months back.

By the end of the week, Messrs. Pitner and Reagan, both of Newport
Beach, had filed their lawsuit in the Central District of
California against Netherlands-based Midstream Media, the
innocuous-sounding company behind YouPorn, YouPorn Gay, and other
sites explicitly named enough that I shall not mention them on the
august pages of Forbes.com.

The suit accuses YouPorn and the other sites of "impermissibly
accessing [users'] browsing history" and seeks class-action
status.  The lawsuit alleges that the porn Web sites broke
California computer and consumer protection laws, as well as
"violat[ed] Plaintiffs' privacy interests."

The complaint does not go into detail about how often Pitner and
Reagan visit YouPorn, saying just that "Plaintiffs visited
Defendant's Web site."  Perhaps a greater blow to their personal
privacy than YouPorn sniffing their browsing history is this suit
labeling them as amateur porn aficionados.

The lawsuit emphasizes that YouPorn was deceptive in its practice,
hiding its "history sniffing" or "history hijacking" in its source
code with some simple cryptography.  The suit cites the same
example I gave last week of "pornhub.com" being hidden in the
source code as "qpsoivc/dpn" -- not very cryptically dialing up
each letter in the porn urls by one.

"The YouPorn sites promote themselves as vehicles to obtain and
share free pornographic media and make content generated by third-
parties available to their viewers . . .  Visitors to the Web site
can also 'rate' the content they view on a scale of 1 through 5,"
according to the complaint.  "The YouPorn sites do not mention
this [history-sniffing] process at all in their terms and
conditions."

YouPorn is not alone in the practice.  Academic researchers found
that a number of other investing, news, sports, and game Web sites
were history-sniffing.  In the majority of the cases, the script
was put on their sites by ad networks, specifically Interclick,
MeaningTool, and Feedjit, none of whom are named in this class
action suit.  Interclick told me that it has suspended the
practice, as has Feedjit, according to a statement from a
spokesperson on Saturday.

Additionally, sites like Wired.com, PerezHilton, Technorati, and
the HuffingtonPost use Javascript to look at what visitors do on
their pages, including where they click, where their mouse moves,
and what text they copy and paste, a practice not mentioned by
Wired, for one, in its privacy policy.

Since an article by Ms. Hill was published on YouPorn's sniffing
on Nov. 30, YouPorn quietly removed the history-sniffing code from
its Web site.  So at least for now, amateur porn lovers' browser
histories are safe.


                             *********

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  * * *