---

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

            Monday, December 13, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 245

                             Headlines

ADDUS HOMECARE: Motion to Dismiss IPO Suit in Illinois Pending
AGA MEDICAL: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
AGA MEDICAL: Defends "Walling" Stockholder Class Suit in Delaware
AKEENA SOLAR: Class Certification Hearing Set for February 7
AMERICAN PYSCHOLOGICAL: Faces Class Action Over Special Fees

APPLE INC: February 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BALDOR ELECTRIC: Being Sold to ABB for Too Little, Suit Claims
CALIFORNIA: Oral Arguments Heard in Prison Overcrowding Case
CBIZ INC: Continues to Face Suits From Mortgage Ltd.'s Actions
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Amended Securities Suits Still Pending

CENTURY ALUMINUM: USWA's Appeal on Denial of Injunction Pending
COLORADO: Two Cities Face Class Action Over Pit Bull Ban
CYPRESS BIOSCIENCE: Faces Lawsuit Over Rejection of Ramius Offer
DEAN FOODS: Continues to Defend "Dairy Farmer" Actions
DEAN FOODS: Tennessee Lawsuit Remains Stayed Pending Retailer Suit

DEAN FOODS: Discovery in Antitrust Suit in Vermont Ongoing
DENBURY RESOURCES: Court Resets Hearing on Israni and Scott Suits
DEX ONE: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Delaware
DEX ONE: Still Faces ERISA Class Action Lawsuit in Illinois
DG FASTCHANNEL: "Duncan" & "Tours" Suits Still Pending in New York

EMPIRE BLUE CROSS: Sued for Denying Autism Treatment Coverage
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Makes $8.7 Million Payment in Settled Suits
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Funds $0.8 Million Settlement of "Santana" Suit
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Final Hearing on "Delgado" Settlement Set Jan. 7
JAMBA INC: Reaches Settlement in Two Labor Lawsuits in California

JYSKE BANK: Faces Second Class Action Over Hedge Fund Losses
LSB CORPORATION: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Mass.
MACON, GA: Former Police Officers File Discrimination Class Suit
MEMC ELECTRONIC: Remains a Defendant in "Jerry Jones" Lawsuit
OCLARO INC: Appeal on Global Settlement Still Pending

OZ MINERALS: Slater & Gordon Mulls Shareholder Class Action
PANDA EXPRESS: Motion to Strike Failure to Promote Claims Denied
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Court Refuses to Certify Order in "Wells REIT"
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Discovery in Securities Suit in Georgia Ongoing
POLO RALPH: Reverses $3.6 Million Settlement Reserves Into Income

POSTROCK ENERGY: Continues Talks to Settle Class Action Suit
RBS GLOBAL: Subsidiaries Continue to Face Asbestos-Related Suits
SEMTECH CORP: Settles Securities Class Action for $20 Million
SMART TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
SYNGENTA CROP: Answers Amended Complaint in Atrazine Class Suit

TAIWAN KAI: Sued Over Alleged AM Sheet Metal Parts Price-Fixing
TEXAS: Faces Class Suit for Trading & Selling Infant Blood Spots
UNITED AMERICAN: Arkansas Supreme Court Affirms Certification
UNITED STATES: Obama Signs $4.6BB Cobell Class Action Settlement
US BANK: Faces Class Action for Covering Up Data Breach


                             *********


ADDUS HOMECARE: Motion to Dismiss IPO Suit in Illinois Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Addus HomeCare Corp.'s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit
related to its initial public offering is pending in Illinois,
according to its November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On March 26, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
October 27, 2009 and March 18, 2010, in connection with the
Company's IPO.  The Complaint, which was amended on August 10,
2010, asserts claims against the Company and individual officers
and directors pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and alleges, inter alia, that the Company's registration
statement was materially false and/or omitted the following: (1)
that the Company's accounts receivable included at least $1.5
million in aging receivables that should have been reserved for;
and (2) that the Company's home health segment's revenues were
falling short of internal forecasts due to a slowdown in
admissions from the Company's integrated services program due to
the State of Illinois' effort to develop new procedures for
integrating care.  The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and
other damages.

A motion to dismiss the Complaint was filed on behalf of the
defendants on September 20, 2010.  The Company believes the claims
are without merit and intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

In addition, on April 16, 2010, Robert W. Baird & Company, on
behalf of the underwriters of the IPO, notified the Company that
the underwriters are seeking indemnification in respect of the
action pursuant to the underwriting agreement entered into in
connection with the IPO.


AGA MEDICAL: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-------------------------------------------------------------
AGA Medical Holdings, Inc., is defending itself from a lawsuit
filed by stockholders alleging breach of fiduciary duties,
according to its November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On October 29, 2010, a putative stockholder class action complaint
was filed in Hennepin County District Court, Fourth Judicial
District Court, State of Minnesota.  The complaint, captioned
Michael Rubin v. AGA Medical Holdings, Inc., et al., names as
defendants the members of the Company's Board of Directors, as
well as the Company; Parent; Purchaser; Welsh, Carson, Anderson &
Stowe IX, L.P.; WCAS Capital Partners IV, L.P.; Gougeon Shares,
LLC; and The Franck L. Gougeon Revocable Trust.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders.  The complaint
also alleges that the Company's purported controlling stockholders
owed fiduciary duties to the Company's minority stockholders in
connection with the transaction and breached the duties.  The
plaintiff further claims that Parent and its subsidiaries aided
and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty.  The
complaint alleges, inter alia, that in approving the proposed
transaction between the Company and Parent, Company Board members
accepted an inadequate price, failed to make full disclosure, and
utilized unreasonable deal protection devices and that the Company
Board members acted to put their personal interests ahead of the
interests of Company stockholders.  The complaint seeks injunctive
relief, including to enjoin the transaction, in addition to
unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, other fees and
costs and other relief.


AGA MEDICAL: Defends "Walling" Stockholder Class Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to its Nov. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010, AGA Medical Holdings, Inc., is facing a lawsuit in Delaware
for breach of fiduciary duty.

On October 28, 2010, a putative stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The complaint,
captioned Jennifer Walling v. AGA Medical Holdings, Inc., et al.,
names as defendants the members of the Company's Board of
Directors, as well as the Company, Parent and Purchaser.  The
plaintiff alleges that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders and further alleges
that the Company and Parent aided and abetted the purported
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The complaint alleges, inter alia,
that in approving the proposed transaction between the Company and
Parent, Company Board members accepted an inadequate price, failed
to make full disclosure, and utilized unreasonable deal protection
devices and that the Company Board members acted to put their
personal interests ahead of the interests of Company stockholders.
The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin the
transaction, in addition to unspecified compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees, other fees and costs and other relief.


AKEENA SOLAR: Class Certification Hearing Set for February 7
------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider a motion to certify a class in a lawsuit
alleging securities violations pending in California is scheduled
for February 7, 2011, according to Akeena Solar, Inc.'s Nov. 10,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On May 18, 2009, the Company and certain of its officers were
named in a putative class action complaint in the United States
District Court Northern District of California San Jose Division
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.  The suit
alleges various omissions and misrepresentations during the period
of December 26, 2007 to March 13, 2008 regarding, among other
things, the Company's backlog reporting and bank line of credit.

The Company moved to dismiss the complaint on February 12, 2010,
for failure to state a claim for relief.  On May 20, 2010, the
District Court granted in part the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint.  The District Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims
relating to statements made prior to the class period, including
statements relating to the Company's backlog, the Company's
Andalay product, and the Company's supply agreement with Suntech
Power Holdings Co., Ltd.

Due to the stage of the case, the Company has not had the
opportunity to present any defenses to the only two remaining
allegations, which relate to its December 26, 2007 disclosure of
the Comerica line of credit and its January 2, 2008 announcement
of the Suntech license agreement.

On October 22, 2010, plaintiffs moved the court to certify
themselves as a class, a procedure required in order for
plaintiffs to move forward with their case as a class action.  The
Company will be moving to oppose plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and a hearing on the issue is scheduled for
February 7, 2011.  Discovery is also currently ongoing with a
court imposed cut-off date of August 1, 2011.

The Company believes that the claims in this case are entirely
without merit and it is defending the case vigorously.  However,
this matter is in the early stages and the Company cannot
reasonably estimate an amount of potential loss, if any, at this
time.


AMERICAN PYSCHOLOGICAL: Faces Class Action Over Special Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wexler Wallace LLP, with co-counsel, recently
filed a class action lawsuit against the American Psychological
Association and the American Psychological Association Practice
Organization (collectively, "APA"), alleging that the APA
deceptively billed its members by the millions during the last
decade.  The lawsuit challenges the APA's collection of "special"
or "practice" assessment fees that were presented, according to
the suit, as a mandatory part of APA annual dues.  The fee billed
to members is generally more than half of the annual dues.
According to the suit, the APA has collected reportedly between
$4.5 to 5 million per year over the last ten years.  The case,
entitled Engum v. American Psychological Association, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-01898 is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia.

The complaint alleges that most APA members believed that the
special fee was a mandatory part of their annual dues, by the
manner it appeared on a pre-printed annual membership dues
statement.  It further alleges that the APA had typically referred
to the fee as mandatory and had explicitly described it on the APA
website as a fee that licensed or certified members "must" pay.
The lawsuit seeks to recover tens of millions of dollars on behalf
of all APA members nationwide who paid a special or practice
assessment fees as part of their annual dues.

According to Wexler Wallace LLP partner, Mark J. Tamblyn, "these
fees were never required for American Psychological Association
membership.  But for nearly a decade the APA received tens of
millions of dollars it would not have otherwise collected."
Mr. Tamblyn also observed as significant the lawsuit's contention
that the "APA Board has now admitted to the deceptive nature of
the fee," quoting an APA newsletter stating "the manner in which
the APA, APAPO, and Division dues have been combined on past dues
statements does not make clear that the mandatory practice
assessment payment is required for APAPO membership but not for
APA membership" and that the "2011 dues statement instructions
will be modified to clarify this point."  Division 44 Newsletter,
Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgender Issues, A Division of the American Psychological
Association, volume 26, Number 2 (Summer 2010).

Wexler Wallace LLP -- http://www.wexlerwallace.com/-- is a
national leader in prosecuting class actions and other complex
litigation on behalf of individual and business clients in state
and federal courts throughout the United States.  The firm is
based in Chicago, Illinois, and maintains its west coast office in
Sacramento, California.

Contact: Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq.
         WEXLER WALLACE LLP
         Telephone: (916) 492-1106


APPLE INC: February 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
The following notice is being issued pursuant to an order by the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division.

Proceeding: In re Apple Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-06-
5208-JF (N.D. Cal.).

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED APPLE INC. ("APPLE")
COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN AUGUST 24, 2001, AND JUNE
29, 2006, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS"; MEMBERS OF THE CLASS
ARE REFERRED TO AS "CLASS MEMBERS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and a Court Order, that the above-captioned
action has been certified as a class action for purposes of a
proposed settlement for $16.5 million in cash, plus interest.  In
addition, Apple has agreed to implement certain corporate
governance measures.  Apple also has agreed to pay the reasonable
costs of administering and distributing the settlement fund and
the reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses as may be awarded by
the Court to compensate plaintiffs' counsel.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Jeremy Fogel in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
located at 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA, at 9:00 a.m., on
February 18, 2011, to determine whether the proposed settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate, to consider the proposed plan of
allocation, and to consider the application for attorneys' fees
and expenses.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT
FUND.  If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of
Proposed Settlement, Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Notice"), you may obtain a copy
of this document by contacting the Claims Administrator:

          In re Apple Inc. Securities Litigation
          P.O. Box 6809
          Portland, OR 97228-6809
          1-888-760-4869
          http://www.AppleSecuritiesSettlement.com

To participate in the settlement, you must submit your completed
and signed Proof of Claim either online at
http://www.AppleSecuritiesSettlement.com/by no later than
March 15, 2011, or send it by first-class mail postage prepaid
postmarked no later than March 15, 2011, in the manner and form
explained in the Notice.  Unless you submit a valid Proof of
Claim, you cannot participate in the settlement.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion by first-class mail postage prepaid
postmarked no later than January 21, 2011, in the manner and form
explained in the Notice.  Unless you validly exclude yourself from
the Class, you will be bound by any judgment entered in this
action whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim.

If you want to object to the proposed settlement, the plan of
allocation, or the application for attorneys' fees and expenses,
you must file your objection with the Court no later than
January 21, 2011, and send a copy of it on the same day to the
parties' counsel by first-class mail postage prepaid, in the
manner and form set forth in the Notice.

DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS
NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be
made to Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel:

          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          1201 N. Market Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000


BALDOR ELECTRIC: Being Sold to ABB for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that in two class
actions, shareholders say Baldor Electric is selling itself too
cheaply to ABB, a Swiss electrical company whose U.S. branch is
based in North Carolina.  The $4.2 billion deal would have ABB
acquire Baldor Electric for $63.50 a share.

"The proposed transaction serves no legitimate business purpose
for Baldor but rather is an attempt by defendants to aggrandize
their own financial interests and enable ABB to benefit unfairly
from the transaction at the expense of Baldor's shareholders,"
according to the complaints in St. Louis County Court.

"In contract, the proposed cash-out transaction will forever
divest Baldor's shareholders of their ownership interest in the
company for grossly inadequate consideration and will deprive the
plaintiff and the other members of the class (defined herein) of
their right to share proportionately in the future success of
Baldor and its valuable assets."

Baldor stock closed at $24.68 a share on Jan. 29, and by Nov. 29,
the day before the merger was announced, the stock had climbed to
$45.11, an 82 percent increase.

"Rather than permitting the Baldor's common stock to continue to
trade freely and allowing its public shareholders to reap the
benefits of the company's increasingly positive prospects, the
individual defendants have acted for their own benefit and the
benefit of ABB, and to the detriment of Baldor's shareholders, by
entering into the proposed transaction," the complaints state.
"In so doing, the individual defendants have effectively placed a
cap on Baldor's value at a time when the company's shareholders
were just beginning to capitalize on the company's positive and
encouraging financial outlook."

The class wants the merger enjoined.  Baldor, ABB, Brock
Acquisitions and 10 individual Baldor board members were named as
defendants.

ABB is a Swiss-based manufacturer of generators and electrical
transformers.  The company's St. Louis plant made national
headlines in January this year when disgruntled employee Timothy
Hendron opened fire at the plant, shooting eight and killing
three, then killing himself.

A copy of the Complaint in Fortier v. McFarland, et al., Case No.
10SL-0004903 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/08/BaldorABB.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John M. Parisi, Esq.
          Daniel Singer, Esq.
          SHAMBERG, JOHNSON & BERGMAN, CHTD.
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 550
          Kansas City, MO 64108-4627
          Telephone: 816-474-0004

               - and -

          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-983-9330


CALIFORNIA: Oral Arguments Heard in Prison Overcrowding Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Friend, writing for SEOLawFirm.com, reports the Supreme
Court heard oral arguments last Tuesday in a case that will
further clarify the role federal courts can play in regulating
state prison systems.

California's prison system has faced overcrowding for over 20
years.  In 2009, a specially convened federal three-judge court
issued a prisoner release order.  The court determined the order
was only remedy for the problem of California's chronic prison
overpopulation.

The Supreme Court is now being asked to determine whether to
uphold the ruling of the three-judge court.  The order, if
enforced, will reduce California's prison population through the
release of roughly 44,000 inmates over the next two years.

The case is a combination of two class action lawsuits that have
been working their way through lower courts for two decades.  The
court extended the Nov. 30 oral arguments from 60 to 80 minutes,
providing an extra 20 minutes to hear arguments from both sets of
respondents' attorneys.

Under consideration is, first, whether the three-judge panel had
jurisdiction to order the release of prisoners under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act.  If the court did have jurisdiction, did it
properly find that a prisoner release order was the only possible
remedy, and did the court give appropriate weight to public safety
concerns.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act gives federal courts the right to
issue prisoner release orders.  However, any orders must be
narrowly crafted to address only Eighth Amendment violations, and
they must take public safety into account.  A special court may be
convened under the PLRA only after a reasonable amount of time has
been provided to allow state officials to pursue other remedies.

California's prisons have been contending with a population
explosion for decades.  California began enacting mandatory
sentencing guidelines and fixed sentencing lengths in the 1950s,
and sentencing terms have subsequently been extended by a series
of laws and ballot initiatives.  One result of these policies is
that the state's 33 prisons now function at almost double their
intended capacity, meaning they house must two inmates in
facilities intended for only one person.

In 1990, attorneys for a group of California inmates filed a class
action lawsuit, stating that as a result of overcrowding, their
client's rights were being systematically violated under the
Eighth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the federal
Rehabilitation Act.  The case, Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, focused
specifically on mental health care issues.  The inmates claimed
that they were being provided inadequate mental health services,
resulting in unacceptably high rates of suicide and mental
illness.

The second suit, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, was filed in 2001.  In
Plata, inmates alleged the lack of adequate health care services
of any kind, mental or physical, was so severe that inmates'
rights were being violated under the Eighth Amendment's
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.  The violations, the plaintiffs
claimed, were caused unnecessary pain and suffering, injury and
even death.

The Supreme Court has defined adequate health care as, "the
minimal civilized measure of life's necessities."  Inmates are not
demanding cutting edge care.  They are asking that at the very
least their basic mental and physical health needs be met so that
people stop dying of treatable illnesses and suicide.  Among the
conditions documented in the California prison system is the
suicide rate: twice the national average.

In both cases district courts have agreed with the plaintiffs,
ruling that prison overcrowding was the chief issue preventing the
state from providing constitutionally adequate health care
services.  The decisions produced series of around 70 court orders
intended to remedy the problem. In 1995, a special master was
appointed to supervise mental health care in California's prisons.
Since 1995, district courts have found inadequate mental health
care to be a continuing problem for which California officials
have failed to find a suitable remedy.

The Plata suit was settled in 2002, with the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitations agreeing to enforce policies
that would bring the standard of health care in California's
prisons up to the constitutionally mandated minimum level.

Regardless of the rulings and subsequent court orders, the
overcrowding situation in California's prisons has remained dire.
In 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson placed
California's prison system into Receivership.  In his ruling,
Judge Henderson wrote that an inmate died as a direct result of
inadequate health care every six to seven days.  In 2006, Governor
Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency as a result of prison
overcrowding, calling the state's prisons places "of extreme
peril."

Both sets of plaintiffs continued to allege that California had
not addressed its overcrowding or health care issues. In 2007, the
Plata and Coleman courts agreed that a three-judge panel should be
convened to hear both cases.  In 2009, the court decided that
prisoner release order was the only remedy for California's prison
overpopulation, and gave the state two years to present a plan to
reduce the overall population in California's prisons to 137.5
percent of capacity.

Federalism, or states rights, is chief among the issues raised by
the case.  The Supreme Court's ruling has the potential to define
how involved federal judges may be in determining state prison
policy.  The case asks: When may federal judges force the state to
reduce its prison population?

A group of law enforcement and corrections personnel filed a brief
on behalf of the respondents, arguing for greater federal
involvement in state prison policy.  In their brief, the group
claimed federal intervention is necessary given the prior failures
of state policy.  The Greater Stockton Chamber of Commerce filed a
brief defending the state's right to make policy with less federal
intervention.  The Chamber's brief claims that the standard for
federal court intervention should be very high, since federal
courts do not have an understanding of state budgetary issues.

The four conservative leaning justices may be skeptical of federal
intervention in state policy, but the PLRA clearly intends to give
federal judges the right to become involved should conditions
warrant such action.  The Supreme Court will have to take the
intent of the law, and of Congress, into account when ruling on
the appropriate threshold for federal action.

The case also raises issues of prisoner's rights and public
safety.  The American Bar Association filed a brief claiming that
a decision in favor of the state of California would unjustly
punish prisoners since.  The state, the brief claims, has proven
itself incapable of providing constitutionally acceptable
conditions.

Opinions on whether or not a release of prisoners will adversely
affect public safety are mixed.  An increasing number of
criminologists and experts believe that lengthy incarceration and
mandatory sentences do little to actually reduce crime rates.
Prison population and crime, they allege, can be better controlled
through other measures, such as increasing parole rates and
keeping lower-risk offenders out of prisons.  Some State Attorneys
General disagree.  Attorneys General for Louisiana and 17 other
states filed a brief, arguing that prisoner release orders would
inevitably lead to an increase in crime.

In arguments last Tuesday, a majority of justices appeared to
agree that conditions in California's prisons are so bad that
inmates' constitutional rights are being violated.

Justice Stephen Breyer called the situation in California's
prisons "a big human rights problem," citing a brief that said
prisoners had been "discovered catatonic in pools of their own
urine after spending nights locked in small cages."

Carter G. Phillips, an attorney for state of California, admitted
that conditions in California's prisons had been bad, but claimed
that the state was making progress.  Mr. Phillips argued that the
state needs more time to alleviate the overcrowding problem,
saying the federal court's intervention was "extraordinarily
premature."

In response, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked, "How much longer
do we have to wait? Another 20 years?"

Conservative leaning justices appeared ready to overturn the order
of the three-judge court on public safety grounds.  "If I were a
citizen of California, I would be concerned about the release of
40,000 prisoners," said Justice Samuel Alito.

Chief Justice John Roberts echoed Justice Alito's concerns about
public safety, and added that too much federal intervention could
interfere with the state's other priorities.  Justice Roberts
asked, "What happens when you have this case, another district
court ordering the state to take action with respect to
environmental damage, another court saying you have got to spend
this much more on education for disabled, another court saying you
have got to spend this much more on something else? How does the
state sort out its obligations?"

Attorney for the respondents, Donald Specter, replied saying the
state had already received adequate flexibility.  Mr. Specter
argued that, at some point, the state had to meet its
constitutional obligations.

With the court appearing to split along the usual conservative-
liberal lines, the outcome of the case will most likely rest with
vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy.  Justice Kennedy acknowledged the
state had failed to address constitutional violations, saying,
"The problem is that at some point the court has to say: You have
been given enough time; the constitutional violation still
persists, as the state itself acknowledges."

While five of the nine justices seemed to agree the court was
correct in ordering California to remedy its prison overcrowding
problem, there was not clear agreement on whether the justices
believed the court ordered the right fix.

Justice Kennedy seemed skeptical of the three-judge court's
decision to cap the population at 137.5 percent of capacity.
Kennedy wondered whether that number was arbitrary, and whether a
higher number might be as effective in addressing the problem.
Justice Elena Kagan suggested that California might be given
longer than the mandated two years to meet the population goals.

The case is Schwarzenegger v. Plata.  A decision is not expected
until spring.


CBIZ INC: Continues to Face Suits From Mortgage Ltd.'s Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBIZ, Inc., remains a defendant in a purported class action
commenced by certain parties that have direct or indirect
investment in real estate mortgages through Mortgages Ltd.,
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, June, July, August and September of 2010, the company and
its subsidiary, CBIZ MHM, LLC (fka CBIZ Accounting, Tax & Advisory
Services, LLC), were named as defendants in lawsuits filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Robert
Facciola, et al v. Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al.) and in the
Superior Court for Maricopa County Arizona (Victims Recovery, LLC
v. Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al.; Roger Ashkenazi, et al v.
Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al.; Mary Marsh, et al v. Greenberg
Traurig LLP, et al.; and ML Liquidating Trust v. Mayer Hoffman
McCann, PC, et al.), respectively.  The Maricopa County cases have
been removed to the United States District Court or Bankruptcy
Court.  The Facciola plaintiffs seek to proceed as a class action.

Additionally, in November 2009, CBIZ MHM, LLC was named as a
defendant in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona (Jeffery C. Stone v. Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al.).
These matters arise out of the bankruptcy proceedings related to
Mortgages Ltd., a mortgage lender to developers in the Phoenix,
Arizona area.  Various other professional firms not related to the
Company are also defendants in these lawsuits.  The motion phase
of these proceedings has commenced.

The plaintiffs, except for those in the Stone and ML Liquidating
Trust cases, are all alleged to have directly or indirectly
invested in real estate mortgages through Mortgages Ltd.  The
Facciola, Victims Recovery, Ashkenazi and Marsh plaintiffs seek
monetary damages equivalent to the amounts of their investments.
The plaintiff in Stone sought monies it allegedly lost based on
the claim that Mortgages Ltd. did not fund development projects in
which it was a contractor.

The Stone case has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff in
that matter.  The plaintiff in the ML Liquidating Trust matter
asserts errors and omissions and breach of contract claims, and is
seeking monetary damages. The plaintiffs in these suits also seek
pre-and post-judgment interest, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees.

Mortgages Ltd. had been audited by Mayer Hoffman McCann PC, a CPA
firm which has an administrative services agreement with CBIZ.
The claims against the CBIZ Parties seek to impose auditor-type
liabilities upon the Company for audits it did not conduct.
Specific claims include securities fraud, common law fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, Arizona Investment Management Act
violations, control-person liability, aiding and abetting and
conspiracy.  CBIZ is not a CPA firm, does not provide audits, and
did not audit any of the entities at issue in these lawsuits.

The CBIZ Parties deny all allegations of wrongdoing made against
them in these actions and are vigorously defending the
proceedings.  The company has been advised by Mayer Hoffman McCann
PC that it denies all allegations of wrongdoing made against it
and that it intends to continue vigorously defending the matters.

Although the proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in
the litigation process and the ultimate disposition of these
proceedings is not presently determinable, management believes
that the allegations are without merit and that the ultimate
resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse
effect on the consolidated financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows of CBIZ.


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Amended Securities Suits Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Century Aluminum Company continues to face purported class
actions, as amended, alleging violations of securities laws,
according to the company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On April 27, 2010, the purported stockholder class actions
consolidated as In re: Century Aluminum Company Securities
Litigation were dismissed without prejudice by the court for
failure to state a claim.

On May 28, 2010 and June 24, 2010 plaintiffs filed amended
complaints, which, like the previous complaints, alleged that the
company improperly accounted for cash flows associated with the
termination of certain forward financial sales contracts which
accounting allegedly resulted in artificial inflation of the
company's stock price and investor losses.

Plaintiffs are seeking rescission of the company's February 2009
common stock offering, unspecified compensatory damages, including
interest thereon, costs and expenses and attorneys' fees.  A
hearing was held on September 3, 2010 to hear the company's motion
to dismiss the amended complaints, but no ruling has yet been made
on the motion.

The company intends to vigorously defend these actions.


CENTURY ALUMINUM: USWA's Appeal on Denial of Injunction Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from an order dismissing a request to enjoin Century
Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc., from terminating retiree medical
benefits remains pending, according to Century Aluminum 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 November 2009, CAWV filed the class action complaint for
declaratory judgment against the United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, the USWA's local union, and four
CAWV retirees, individually and as class representatives, seeking
a declaration of CAWV's rights to modify/terminate retiree medical
benefits.

Later in November, the USWA and representatives of a retiree class
filed a separate suit against CAWV, the company, Century Aluminum
Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John Does with respect to
the foregoing.

These actions, entitled Dewhurst, et al. v. Century Aluminum Co.,
et al., and Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. v. United
Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial & Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, et
al., have been consolidated and venue has been set in the District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

In January 2010, the USWA filed a motion for preliminary
injunction to prevent the company from implementing the foregoing
changes while these lawsuits are pending, which was dismissed by
the court  The USWA has appealed the decision and proceedings have
been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

Based upon the company's analysis of the court's ruling during the
third quarter of 2010, in accordance with ASC 715-60,
"Compensation -- Retirement Plans -- Defined Benefit Plans --
Other Postretirement," the amendment to the CAWV post retirement
medical plan benefits was recorded as a negative plan amendment in
the third quarter of 2010.  Post retirement medical benefit
liabilities were reduced by approximately $39,000,000 with an
equal offset to other comprehensive income.

The company continues to vigorously pursue its case in the
foregoing actions.


COLORADO: Two Cities Face Class Action Over Pit Bull Ban
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Wolf and Kevin Torres, writing for Colorado's New Leader,
report the federal authorities were clear when they told Denver it
cannot deny residents from owning pit bulls as service dogs.
Denver's defiant response is drawing a legal challenge.

Denver city leaders decided to uphold their pit bull ban on Monday
night, despite the Department of Justice's request.

The Department of Justice says the ban clearly defies the American
Disability Act.

The city of Aurora has a similar ban in effect.  It will decide
whether it wants to tweak its law in January.

The Animal Law Center based out of Wheat Ridge is now filing a
class-action lawsuit against the City and County of Denver and the
City of Aurora in direct regards to the violation of the ADA.

"I have clients who are disabled and who have had a dog chosen for
them that is a pit bull and that pit bull is the best choice for
them.  That's the root of it. It's their choice," said Attorney
Jennifer Reba Edwards with the Animal Law Center.

The center is representing three disabled people who own pit
bulls.  One lives in Aurora, another one lives in Denver and the
third person lives in Washington State.

"I think it's wrong because they're taking away from the
handicapped and elderly," said Allen Grider, one of the center's
clients.

Mr. Grider is a disabled Vietnam veteran.  His dog "Precious" is
part pit bull.  She is considered illegal in Aurora.

"She's good around kids," Mr. Grider said.  "She's just a loving
dog.  She's my heart and soul."

Aurora's and Denver's city councilors voted to ban the dogs
because they believe the breed is dangerous.

Some Denver city councilors say they're ready to fight the Federal
Government in court.

"We're going to stand up for our home rule authority.  That's a
very sacred belief that we have in our laws in Colorado that our
local government can control our animal control ordinances,"
Denver District 6 Councilman Charlie Brown said.

Mr. Brown says he's not sure if the city will win the debate, but
he says it's an issue worth fighting for.

Mr. Grider is hoping Aurora won't make the same decision Denver
did.

"It's just not fair," he said.


CYPRESS BIOSCIENCE: Faces Lawsuit Over Rejection of Ramius Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cypress Bioscience, Inc., is being sued by a shareholder because
of its rejection to sell itself to Ramius LLC, according to the
Company's Nov. 8, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On September 17, 2010, a Cypress shareholder, David Bates, on
behalf of himself and purportedly on behalf of a class of the
company's stockholders, filed a lawsuit in Delaware Chancery
Court, captioned Bates v. Cypress Bioscience, Inc., et al., Case
No. 5824. The complaint alleges that the company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to adequately consider
the unsolicited acquisition proposal the company received from
Ramius LLC on July 19, 2010, and by failing to apprise themselves
of the true value of Cypress.  Mr. Bates seeks to enjoin the
unsolicited acquisition proposal the company received from Ramius
LLC on July 19, 2010, and also seeks unspecified monetary damages
and other relief.


DEAN FOODS: Continues to Defend "Dairy Farmer" Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Company remains a defendant in a consolidated class
action complaint against companies in the milk industry, according
to the company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

The company is named, among several defendants, in two purported
class action antitrust complaints filed on July 5, 2007.  The
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Columbia Division, and allege
generally that the company and others in the milk industry worked
together to limit the price Southeastern dairy farmers are paid
for their raw milk and to deny these farmers access to fluid Grade
A milk processing facilities.

A third purported class action antitrust complaint was filed on
August 9, 2007, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division.  The
complaint in the retailer action was amended on March 28, 2008.
The amended complaint alleges generally that the company, either
acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry,
lessened competition in the Southeastern United States for the
sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other
customers, and that the defendants' conduct also artificially
inflated retail prices for direct milk purchasers.

Four additional purported class action complaints were filed
on August 27, 2007, October 3, 2007, November 15, 2007 and
February 13, 2008, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division.  The
allegations in these complaints are similar to those in the dairy
farmer actions.

On January 7, 2008, a United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of the pending cases
to the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division.

On April 1, 2008, the Eastern District Court ordered the
consolidation of the six dairy farmer actions, and ordered the
retailer action to be administratively consolidated with the
coordinated dairy farmer actions.  A motion to dismiss the dairy
farmer actions was denied on May 20, 2008, and an amended
consolidated complaint was filed by the dairy farmer plaintiffs on
June 20, 2008.  A motion to dismiss the retailer action was denied
on July 27, 2009.  Motions for class certification were filed in
both actions on May 1, 2009.

The motion for class certification in the dairy farmer action was
granted on September 7, 2010.  A petition seeking leave to appeal
that decision was filed with the Sixth Circuit on September 21,
2010 and is currently pending.  The motion for class certification
in the retailer action is still pending.  A motion for summary
judgment in the retailer action was granted in part and denied in
part on August 4, 2010.

Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration on September 10,
1010, and filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment as to
the remaining claims on September 27, 2010.  Those motions are
currently pending before the court.  A motion for summary judgment
in the dairy farmer action was filed on July 27, 2010 and remains
pending.  Fact discovery and expert discovery are complete in
these matters, and expert reports have been submitted.

The company intends to continue to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits.


DEAN FOODS: Tennessee Lawsuit Remains Stayed Pending Retailer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A stay in the proceedings relating to a class action lawsuit known
as indirect purchaser action remains, pending the outcome of
summary judgment motions in a "retailer action" that is part of
the Dairy Farmer Actions, according to Dean Foods 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 retailer action refers to a third purported class action
antitrust complaint that was filed on August 9, 2007, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, Greeneville Division.  The complaint, as amended, in
the retailer action alleges generally that the company, either
acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry,
lessened competition in the Southeastern United States for the
sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other
customers, and that the defendants' conduct also artificially
inflated retail prices for direct milk purchasers.

On June 29, 2009, another purported class action lawsuit was filed
in the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on
behalf of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk.
The allegations in this complaint are similar to those in the
retailer action, but primarily involve state law claims.

Because the allegations in this complaint substantially overlap
with the allegations in the retailer action, on September 1, 2009,
the Court granted the parties' joint motion to stay all
proceedings in the indirect purchaser action pending the outcome
of the summary judgment motions in the retailer action.


DEAN FOODS: Discovery in Antitrust Suit in Vermont Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action antitrust complaint involving Dean Foods
Company is in the fact discovery stage, 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 October 8, 2009, the company is named, among several
defendants, in the purported class action antitrust complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Vermont.  The original complaint was amended on January 21, 2010,
and contained allegations similar in nature to that of the dairy
farmer actions, and alleges generally that the company and others
in the milk industry worked together to limit the price dairy
farmers in the Northeastern United States are paid for their raw
milk and to deny these farmers access to fluid Grade A milk
processing facilities.  A second similar complaint was filed by a
different plaintiff on January 14, 2010.

Defendants filed multiple motions to dismiss these complaints, and
these motions were granted in part and denied in part on August
30, 2010.

On October 15, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
new consolidated amended complaint. The court has not yet ruled on
the plaintiffs' motion. This matter is currently in the fact
discovery stage.

The company intends to vigorously defend against this action.


DENBURY RESOURCES: Court Resets Hearing on Israni and Scott Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A judge adjourned to December 16, 2010, the hearing on the final
approval of a settlement in the Israni and Scott class action
cases, according to Denbury Resources Inc.'s November 9, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On October 21, 2010, the Presiding Judge in the Israni and Scott
cases related to the company's acquisition of Encore Acquisition
Company pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger which are
pending in Tarrant County District Court, delayed until
December 16, 2010, the October 21st hearing originally set to
consider final approval of the Stipulation of Settlement dated
June 22, 2010 settling the Israni and Scott cases, certifying the
class and dismissing the case with prejudice.  This delay was
ordered to allow time for mailing of a supplemental notice of
pendency and proposed settlement to all former Encore
shareholders.  The settlement amount agreed upon with the Israni
and Scott plaintiffs is immaterial to the company.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 9, 2010, in
connection with the Company's proposed acquisition of Encore
Acquisition Company, three shareholder lawsuits styled as class
actions have been filed against Encore and its board of directors.
The lawsuits are entitled:

   -- Sanjay Israni, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
      Similarly Situated vs. Encore Acquisition Company et al.
      (filed November 4, 2009 in the District Court of Tarrant
      County, Texas),

   -- Teamsters Allied Benefit Funds, Individually and On Behalf
      of All Others Similarly Situated vs. Encore Acquisition
      Company et al. (filed November 5, 2009 in the Court of
      Chancery in the State of Delaware), and

   -- Thomas W. Scott, Jr., individually and on behalf of all
      others similarly situated v. Encore Acquisition Company et
      al. (filed November 6, 2009 in the District Court of
      Tarrant County, Texas).

The Teamsters and Scott lawsuits also name Denbury as a defendant.
The complaints generally allege that (1) Encore's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating and approving the
Merger and by administering a sale process that failed to maximize
shareholder value and (2) Encore, and, in the case of the
Teamsters and Scott complaints, Denbury aided and abetted Encore's
directors in breaching their fiduciary duties. The Teamsters
complaint also alleges that Encore's directors and executives
stand to receive substantial financial benefits if the transaction
is consummated on its current terms. The plaintiffs in these
lawsuits seek, among other things, to enjoin the Merger and to
rescind the Merger Agreement. Encore and Denbury have entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs in these
lawsuits agreeing in principle to the settlement of the lawsuits
based upon inclusion in the Company's joint proxy statement and
prospectus dated February 5, 2010, mailed to shareholders of
Denbury and Encore in connection with their respective shareholder
meetings to approve the Merger.

On March 9, 2010, Denbury acquired Encore Acquisition Company
pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into with
Encore on October 31, 2009.

On June 11, 2010, Judge Dana Womack, the presiding judge in the
Israni and Scott class action cases, granted the defendants'
motions striking the merger class action claims of the Harbor
Police Retirement System and Harbor Police efforts to intervene in
the Israni and Scott cases.

On August 5, 2010, Judge Womack preliminarily approved the
Stipulation of Settlement dated June 22, 2010, settling the Israni
and Scott cases, permitting Encore shareholders the right to opt-
out of the settlement, appointing representatives of the class and
their counsel, approving the notice of class action which must be
mailed to former Encore shareholders by August 26, 2010, and
setting a hearing on October 21, 2010 to consider final approval
of the settlement, certification of the class and dismissal of the
case with prejudice.


DEX ONE: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------
Dex One Corporation continues to defend itself from a consolidated
class action lawsuit filed in Delaware, 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.

Beginning on October 23, 2009, a series of putative securities
class action lawsuits were commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded
securities between July 26, 2007, and the time the Company filed
for bankruptcy on May 28, 2009, alleging that certain Company
officers issued false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial condition and seeking damages and
equitable relief.

On August 19, 2010, an amended consolidated class action complaint
was filed as the operative securities class action complaint.  The
Securities Class Action Complaint extends the class to include all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly
traded securities between October 26, 2006 and May 28, 2009.


DEX ONE: Still Faces ERISA Class Action Lawsuit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
A putative ERISA class action lawsuit filed against Dex One
Corporation in Illinois 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 December 7, 2009, a putative ERISA class action lawsuit was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of certain participants in or
beneficiaries of the R.H. Donnelley 401(k) Savings Plan at any
time between July 26, 2007 and the time the lawsuit was filed and
whose plan accounts included investments in R.H. Donnelley common
stock.  The putative ERISA class action complaint contains
allegations against certain current and former Company directors,
officers and employees similar to those set forth in a putative
securities class action lawsuit in Delaware, which alleges that
certain Company officers issued false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and financial condition, as well
as allegations of breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA and
seeks damages and equitable relief.

The Company believes the allegations are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend any and all such actions pursued
against the Company and its current and former officers,
employees and directors.


DG FASTCHANNEL: "Duncan" & "Tours" Suits Still Pending in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
DG FastChannel, Inc., continues to defend securities class-action
lawsuits captioned Duncan v. Ginsburg, et al., and Tours v. DG
FastChannel Inc., 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 Duncan v. Ginsburg, et al., securities class-action lawsuit
was filed in September 2010, against the company and certain of
its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (10 Civ. 6523).  Subsequently, an
identical lawsuit by the same plaintiff, also captioned Duncan v.
Ginsburg, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas (10 Civ. 1769).

The plaintiff in the Duncan lawsuits purports to represent a class
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired DG FastChannel
common stock between August 4, 2010 and August 27, 2010,
inclusive, and alleges various violations by the defendants of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The Duncan lawsuits allege, among other
things, that the defendants made false or misleading statements of
material fact, or failed to disclose material facts, about the
Company's financial condition during the class period.

Shortly after the filing of the first lawsuit, a similar lawsuit,
captioned Tours v. DG FastChannel Inc., et al., was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by a
different plaintiff (10 Civ. 6930).  The Tours plaintiff purports
to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired DG FastChannel common stock between February 16, 2010,
and August 29, 2010, inclusive, and makes substantially similar
allegations.  In addition to alleging various violations by the
defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5, the Tours plaintiff also alleges violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

While the outcome of such lawsuits cannot be predicted with
certainty, the company intends to defend the actions vigorously.


EMPIRE BLUE CROSS: Sued for Denying Autism Treatment Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
that Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield refuses to provide benefits for
autistic children "even though it knows that the terms of its
plans provide coverage for the treatment."

A copy of the Complaint in Lorigan, et al. v. Empire Blue Cross
Blue Shield, Case No. 10-cv-14842 (E.D. Mich.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/08/BlueCross.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
          David F. Hansma, Esq.
          MANTESE AND ROSSMAN, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: (248) 457-9200
          E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com
                  dhansma@manteselaw.com

               - and -

          John J. Conway, Esq.
          JOHN J. CONWAY, P.C.
          645 Griswold St, Suite 3600
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 961-6525
          E-mail: john@johnjconway.com


EPL INTERMEDIATE: Makes $8.7 Million Payment in Settled Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
EPL Intermediate, Inc., made payments totaling $8.7 million in
connection with a settlement of class action lawsuits brought by
former managers, according to the company's November 12, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 29, 2010.

The company entered into an agreement in the fourth quarter of
2009 to settle for $8.0 million a purported class action lawsuit
brought by former managers Haroldo Elias, Marco Ramirez and Javier
Rivera.

The company funded the settlement on January 14, 2010 and the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
granted final approval of the class wide settlement and entered
Final Judgment at a hearing on April 20, 2010.

This settlement also included and settled the previously disclosed
purported class action complaint filed by Salvador Amezcua.

The company disclosed that total payments related to this case
were $8.7 million.


EPL INTERMEDIATE: Funds $0.8 Million Settlement of "Santana" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EPL Intermediate, Inc., funded a settlement agreement reached in a
class action lawsuit filed by Dora Santana on behalf of all
"assistant shift managers," according to the company's Nov. 12,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 29, 2010.

In April 2007, Ms. Santana filed the purported class action in
state court in Los Angeles County on behalf of the Assistant Shift
Managers.  Plaintiff alleges wage and hour violations including
working off the clock, failure to pay overtime, and meal break
violations on behalf of the purported class, currently defined as
all Assistant Managers from April 2003 to present.

The parties have agreed to settle this matter for approximately
$0.8 million and have executed a Settlement Agreement.  This
amount was fully accrued for in the prior year and is included in
the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets in accounts
payable as of September 29, 2010.

The Court granted final approval of this settlement in August 2010
and the settlement was funded on October 25, 2010.


EPL INTERMEDIATE: Final Hearing on "Delgado" Settlement Set Jan. 7
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Los Angeles court will consider final approval of a settlement
reached by EPL Intermediate, Inc., and Jeannette Delgado,
resolving purported class action lawsuit, according to the
company's November 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 29,
2010.

On May 30, 2008, Ms. Delgado, a former Assistant Manager filed the
purported class action on behalf of all hourly (i.e. non-exempt)
employees of the company in state court in Los Angeles County
alleging violations of certain California labor laws and the
California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay
overtime, failure to provide meal periods and rest periods and
unfair business practices.  By statute, the purported class
extends back four years, to May 30, 2004.

Plaintiff's requested remedies include compensatory and punitive
damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.  The parties have agreed to settle this
matter for approximately $1.9 million and have executed a
Settlement Agreement. This amount was accrued for in the prior
year and is included in the accompanying condensed consolidated
balance sheets in accounts payable as of September 29, 2010.

On October 28, 2010, the judge ruled that the settlement was fair
and granted final approval upon successful notice to additional
class members and a determination of the fees due to the
settlement administrator.  A final approval hearing is set for
January 7, 2011.

EPL Intermediate, Inc., reports that a purported class action
filed by Martin Penaloza will be included in the settlement
reached in Jeannette Delgado's lawsuit.  Mr. Penaloza, a former
Assistant Manager, filed the purported class action on May 26,
2009, in Superior Court in Orange County, California.  The claims,
requested remedies, and potential class in this case overlap those
in the Delgado lawsuit and will be included in that settlement.


JAMBA INC: Reaches Settlement in Two Labor Lawsuits in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamba, Inc., reached settlements for two of the three putative
class action lawsuits alleging violations of the California labor
laws, according to the company's November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 5, 2010.

Three putative class action lawsuits, brought on behalf of former
employees, are pending against the Company.  These lawsuits,
brought in 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively, allege the Company
failed to comply with various California labor laws.

In August 2010, after engaging in settlement negotiations, the
Company reached settlements for two of the lawsuits, each on a
California statewide basis.  The settlements are currently being
memorialized and will then be presented to the respective courts
for approval.  The settlements do not include any admission of
wrongdoing by the Company.

The Company said there is no assurance that the terms of the
settlements negotiated between the respective parties will be
memorialized into definitive settlement agreements, or that the
courts will approve of the settlement terms agreed to among the
respective parties.  However, the Company has established an
accrual based on the expected amount the Company will pay under
the settlements.

Should the settlements be approved, parts of the third lawsuit
which overlap with the other two lawsuits are expected to be
dismissed.  The Company denies the allegations in the remaining
claims of this lawsuit, believes they are without merit, and
intends to vigorously defend itself against them.


JYSKE BANK: Faces Second Class Action Over Hedge Fund Losses
------------------------------------------------------------
FINalternatives reports the second-ever class-action lawsuit in
Danish history has been filed against the country's Jyske Bank
over a hedge fund it marketed.

At issue is the Jyske Invest Hedge Markedneutral-Obligationer
levered bond fund, which lost 84% in 2008.  The fund has already
caused as series of headaches for the bank: It has been sued by
investors 43 times, losing 25 of those cases, and last year was
reprimanded by the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority for
providing an "insufficient description" of the fund to clients.

In June, Jyske admitted that its advice was less than adequate to
five customers.  But the bank told Dow Jones Newswires that it
would fight the class action, which includes an unspecified, and
likely growing, number of plaintiffs.

"The financial crisis was a nightmare for everybody and lots of
funds got in trouble and lost a significant part of their value,"
Peter Stig Hansen, head of Jyske's legal department, said.
"Nobody could have anticipated the way things turned out and
therefore the bank cannot be held legally responsible."

The class-action is seeking recovery of losses suffered by
investors.  The hedge fund has done its part to do that over the
past two years, bouncing back with a 40% return last year and
rising 18% this year.


LSB CORPORATION: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
LSB Corporation is named as a defendant in a consolidated
shareholders lawsuit pending in Massachusetts Superior Court,
according to the company's November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.

George Assad, Jr., and William S. Madden, both alleged
stockholders of the Company, each filed putative class action
lawsuits on July 27, 2010 and August 20, 2010, respectively,
allegedly on behalf of all Company stockholders.  The lawsuits
were filed in the Massachusetts Superior Court, Essex County,
against the Company, River Bank, the Company's board of Directors,
People's United Financial, Inc., People's United Bank, a wholly-
owned subsidiary of People's United, and Bridgeport Merger
Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of People's United.  The
case filed by Mr. Assad is captioned George Assad, Jr. v. LSB
Corporation et al., Civ. A. No. 2010-1616.  The case filed by Mr.
Madden is captioned William S. Madden v. LSB Corporation et al.,
Civ. A. No. 2010-1702.

Mr. Assad and Mr. Madden both filed amended complaints on
August 27, 2010.  The complaints generally allege that the
Company's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by
approving the agreement and plan of merger, dated as of July 15,
2010, by and among the Company, River Bank, People's United,
People's United Bank and Bridgeport Merger Corporation, because,
plaintiffs allege, the proposed merger would deny Company
stockholders the right to share proportionately in the value of
the Company's ongoing business and future growth, the merger
consideration of $21.00 per share is inadequate, the merger
agreement's termination fee and no solicitation provisions
discourage bids from other sources and the transaction unfairly
benefits the Company's board of directors and chief executive
officer to the disadvantage of its stockholders.

The amended complaints further allege that the proxy statement
sent to the Company's stockholders and filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission is deficient in that it fails to disclose
all of the underlying methodologies, projections, key inputs and
multiples relied upon and observed by Sandler O'Neill.  The
amended complaints also allege that People's United, People's
United Bank and Bridgeport Merger Corporation aided and abetted
the Company's Board's breach of fiduciary duties.  The complaints
seek an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining the
defendants from consummating, or closing the merger; in the event
that the merger is consummated, an order rescinding it and setting
it aside or awarding rescissory damages; an accounting; and
attorneys fees and costs.

The cases were subsequently consolidated and transferred to the
Business Litigation Section of the Massachusetts Superior Court
sitting in Suffolk County.  The consolidated case is captioned
George Assad, Jr. v. LSB Corporation et al., Suffolk Civil Action
No. 2010-3626-BLS2.

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

On October 22, 2010, the Superior Court denied the plaintiffs
motion for preliminary injunction to prevent, pending additional
disclosure, the shareholder vote scheduled for October 27, 2010,
stating that "overall, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs
have not established a likelihood of success on the merits of
their claim of inadequate disclosure."


MACON, GA: Former Police Officers File Discrimination Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bofta Yimam, writing for 13WMAZ.com, reports a group of former
Macon police officers say they've filed a federal class action
lawsuit for around $500,000, based on race discrimination,
retaliation and a hostile work environment.

They filed the suit in May 2009 and hope for a possible trial date
within a couple weeks.

45-year-old former Macon police officer Joseph Calloway says he
and three others were wrongly fired and not given a fair chance to
keep their jobs because they were black.

Mr. Calloway says he got fired in 2008 for two reasons.  One was a
complaint he filed claiming a hostile work environment and racial
discrimination.  He calls the other "a witch hunt" that happened
after he told then-Lt. Tracey Brazee that he'd heard a damaging
rumor about her.

"Had I been a white officer, it would've been swept under the
carpet," says Mr. Calloway.

He says Ms. Brazee accused him of passing on rumors.  Around the
same period in fall 2008, Mayor Robert Reichert held a news
conference about a complaint Ms. Brazee filed that accused
officers of violations like stealing and assaulting suspects.
Ms. Brazee was promoted less than a year later.  Mr. Calloway says
that's because she's a department insider.

He says Chief Mike Burns stacked six charges against him,
including lying and unbecoming conduct.  The former officer of the
year says other white officers have done far worse and kept their
jobs.

"I mean stole stuff on duty, wrecked cars, not answered the
radio," he said.

Former Macon Police Violent Crimes Detective K.A. Callum, 45, got
fired for excessive use of force after an incident at what was
then Club Money's on Pio Nono Avenue in 2007, police say.

Mr. Callum says he was working an authorized off-duty job when he
spotted a man trying to grab his partner's gun outside the club.
With eight years of police officer experience, Mr. Callum says he
was doing what he was trained to do and tried to protect a fellow
officer.  He hit the man several times with his baton and then
pepper sprayed him.  But the department said he used excessive
force and fired him.

"[The department] said I should have used pepper spray first
before using the baton," said Mr. Callum.

He maintains that he followed proper police protocol.

"Officers always have to keep in mind what the subject is doing,
so they can adjust their level of force," he said.  "There's a use
of force continuum."

An administrative judge upheld the charge.  The man who got hit
wasn't seriously injured and was never charged.

"It's not like I'm trying to hit a lawsuit lottery, all I want is
justice and fairness," said Mr. Callum.

The pair plans to cite cases in court where white officers got
multiple chances.  They say one of those cases involved Kenneth
Brown.

A Jones County Sheriff's Office incident report says Jones County
deputies charged Mr. Brown with use of force and felony
obstruction last year.

The report says Kenneth Brown was hostile when his son Christopher
Brown was not released from custody.  Jones Co. Deputy Duane Jones
reported, "Kenneth Brown took his left arm and struck me in the
chest with it.  I attempted to restrain Kenneth Brown by holding
him against the wall.  Kenneth Brown continued to struggle with
me."

According to the report, when a warrant was served to Kenneth
Brown, he told deputies, "You really gonna hit me with a felony,
man? We brothers in this and I'm from the old school and we all
look out for each other but apparently not."

Macon police planned to fire Mr. Brown, but Jones County dropped
the charges and he's still on the force, police say.

White officer Dennis Benjamin Wood was accused of simple battery
domestic violence, theft by taking and cruelty to children in the
2nd degree in 2008, according to a Macon police report.

He got his job back last year after the charges were dropped,
documents say.  According to those documents, the charges came
after several reprimands in 2008 that included missing court,
going AWOL and failing to do an incident report.

Personnel records show that Mr. Wood resigned a few months after
he got his job back.  They say he resigned after he allegedly made
harassing calls to his wife.

Messrs. Calloway and Callum say they never faced criminal charges,
but received harsher discipline.  They say the department has a
long history of racial bias.  They hope a jury will see the issue
as clear as black and white.

"Treat each officer like they need to be treated," said
Mr. Calloway.

Both also say they tried to get reinstated but did not get a
response from Macon Mayor Robert Reichert or Police Chief
Mike Burns.  They say the firing hurt their reputation and
afterwards, it took more than a year to find steady work.  Both
had served with Macon police for about eight years.

13WMAZ asked Mayor Reichert and Mr. Burns to comment on the case.

Mayor Reichert's office says with any pending litigation they will
withhold comment.

Mr. Burns said, "Anyone can sue if they feel wronged.  They have
already appealed their cases to me, to an administrative judge and
to the mayor.  Their terminations were upheld by all."

Rev. Jeffrey Jackson, a representative from the National Action
Network for Rev. Al Sharpton, says they're also supporting the
lawsuit.

Mr. Calloway says the NAACP has also taken an interest in the
case.


MEMC ELECTRONIC: Remains a Defendant in "Jerry Jones" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., continues to defend a putative
class action commenced by Jerry Jones on behalf of all
participants in and beneficiaries of the company's 401(k) Savings
Plan, 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.

Mr. Jones filed the putative class action lawsuit on December 26,
2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, purportedly on behalf of all participants in and
beneficiaries of the Plan between September 4, 2007 and
December 26, 2008, inclusive.  The complaint asserted claims
against the company and certain of its directors, employees and
other unnamed fiduciaries of the Plan.  The complaint alleges that
the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties owed under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, generally asserting that
the defendants failed to make full disclosure to the Plan's
participants of the risks of investing in the company's stock and
that the company's stock should not have been made available as an
investment alternative in the Plan.  The misstatements alleged in
the complaint significantly overlap with the misstatements alleged
in the federal securities class action.

On June 1, 2009, an amended class action complaint was filed by
Mr. Jones and another purported participant of the Plan, Manuel
Acosta, which raises substantially the same claims and is based on
substantially the same allegations as the original complaint.
However, the amended complaint changes the period of time covered
by the action, purporting to be brought on behalf of beneficiaries
of and participants in the Plan from June 13, 2008, through the
present, inclusive.  The amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, including losses the participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan allegedly experienced due to their
investment through the Plan in the company's stock, equitable
relief and an award of attorney's fees.  No class has been
certified and discovery has not begun.  The company and the named
directors and employees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which was fully briefed by the parties as of October 9, 2009.  The
parties each subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority
and corresponding responses.

On March 17, 2010, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The
MEMC defendants filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the
alternative, certification for interlocutory appeal, which was
fully briefed by the parties as of June 16, 2010.  The parties
each subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority and
corresponding responses.  On October 18, 2010, the court granted
the MEMC defendants' motion for reconsideration, vacated its order
denying the MEMC defendants' motion to dismiss, and stated that it
will revisit the issues raised in the motion to dismiss after the
parties supplement their arguments relating thereto.  Both parties
filed briefs supplementing their arguments on November 1, 2010.

The company and the named directors and employees intend to
vigorously defend themselves against these claims.


OCLARO INC: Appeal on Global Settlement Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the order approving a global settlement in the
lawsuit against New Focus, Inc., now known as Oclaro Photonics,
Inc., remains pending, according to Oclaro, Inc.'s November 10,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 2, 2010.

On June 26, 2001, the first of a number of securities class
actions was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against New Focus, Inc., now known
as Oclaro Photonics, Inc., certain of its officers and directors,
and certain underwriters for New Focus' initial and secondary
public offerings.

A consolidated amended class action complaint, captioned In re New
Focus, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 01
Civ. 5822, was filed on April 20, 2002.  The complaint generally
alleges that various underwriters engaged in improper and
undisclosed activities related to the allocation of shares in New
Focus' initial public offering and seeks unspecified damages for
claims under the Exchange Act on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of common stock from May 17, 2000 to Dec. 6, 2000.

The lawsuit against New Focus is coordinated for pretrial
proceedings with a number of other pending litigations challenging
underwriter practices in over 300 cases, as In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS), including actions
against Bookham Technology plc, now known as Oclaro Technology
Ltd. and Avanex Corporation, now known as Oclaro (North America),
Inc., and certain of each entity's respective officers and
directors, and certain of the underwriters of their public
offerings.

In Oct. 2002, the claims against the directors and officers of New
Focus, Bookham Technology and Avanex were dismissed, without
prejudice, subject to the directors' and officers' execution of
tolling agreements.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation.
On Oct. 5, 2009, the Court entered an order certifying a
settlement class and granting final approval of the settlement.
Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full amount of the
settlement share allocated to New Focus, Bookham Technology and
Avanex, and New Focus, Bookham Technology and Avanex will bear no
financial liability.

New Focus, Bookham Technology and Avanex, as well as the officer
and director defendants who were previously dismissed from the
action pursuant to tolling agreements, will receive complete
dismissals from the case.

Certain objectors have appealed the Court's Oct. 5, 2009 order to
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

If for any reason the settlement does not become effective, the
company believes that Bookham Technology, New Focus and Avanex
have meritorious defenses to the claims and therefore believe that
such claims will not have a material effect on the company's
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.


OZ MINERALS: Slater & Gordon Mulls Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
AAP reports law firm Slater & Gordon Ltd is preparing to notify
94,000 OZ Minerals Ltd shareholders of a class action against the
miner.

A statement from Slater & Gordon on Thursday said it was
representing investors who claim OZ Minerals failed to disclose
the full extent of its debt and refinancing difficulties as it
"struggled to stay afloat" in 2008.

It intends to mail out notices to 94,000 investors in OZ Minerals,
starting on Friday.

Slater & Gordon practice group leader Van Moulis alleged OZ
Minerals failed to release important financial information between
February 29, 2008 and December 1.

"The market relies on being fully informed and with OZ Minerals,
we believe, shareholders were sadly let down," Mr. Moulis claimed
in a statement.

Investors have alleged OZ Minerals breached its continuous
disclosure obligations and understated its liabilities by about
$300 million.

A spokeswoman for OZ Minerals said the copper and gold miner
rejected the allegations and would be strongly defending them.

Recently the Australian Securities and Investments Commission
(ASIC) investigated, among other things, OZ Minerals' disclosure
obligations between July 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008.

ASIC did not intend to take any further action as a result of that
investigation, but left open the option of recommencing it if
circumstances changed, OZ Minerals said last month.

The class action is funded by Litigation Lending Services.

At 1236 AEDT shares in OZ Minerals were trading up two cents, at
$1.675, while Slater & Gordon was untraded, at $1.90.


PANDA EXPRESS: Motion to Strike Failure to Promote Claims Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge refused to dismiss a class action brought by black and
Latino women who say they were passed over for promotions at Panda
Express restaurants because the chain only advances Asian workers.

Angelica De Los Santos claims the Panda Express in Santa Rosa,
Calif., where she has worked since October 2006, repeatedly denied
her requests for a counter or lead cashier position, and would not
provide her with managerial training.

Dasha Bays, who is black, said that in addition being denied
promotions at two Panda Express locations in Illinois, she also
endured racist remarks.  Bays' manager, who is Asian, allegedly
said black people "can't be trusted with money," and "black girls
have big butts, which makes them slow employees.'"

The third named member of the class, Lucia Salazar, also says she
was passed over for promotions at a Panda Express in Crestwood,
Ill.

All three women say they saw more advanced positions go to less
experienced or qualified Asian workers.  They sued Panda Express
and Panda Restaurant Group, both based in California.

U.S. District Judge Sandra Brown Armstrong rejected the class'
argument that Panda Express refuses to hire other races into
managerial positions, but refused to dismiss their claim for
refusal to promote.

Judge Armstrong also found the class had sufficiently alleged
discriminatory practices and may obtain more evidence through
discovery.

A copy of the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong's Dec. 3, 2010,
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and Denying Motion to Strike in de los Santos, et al. v.
Panda Express, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01370 (N.D. Calif.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/08/Panda%20Express.pdf


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Court Refuses to Certify Order in "Wells REIT"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
denied a motion seeking to certify the court's decision on the
parties' motions for summary judgment for immediate appeal in the
class action suit In Re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.,
Securities Litigation Case No. 07-cv-00862, according to Piedmont
Office Realty Trust, Inc.'s November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont REIT filed a
purported class-action suit and derivative complaint entitled,
"Washtenaw County Employees Retirement System v. Wells Real Estate
Investment Trust, Inc., et al." before the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland against, among others, Wells REIT, and
the officers and directors of Wells REIT prior to the closing of
the internalization transaction.  The complaint attempts to assert
class action claims on behalf of those persons who received and
were entitled to vote on the proxy statement filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 26, 2007.  The
complaint alleges, among other things:

      -- that the consideration to be paid as part of the
         Internalization is excessive;

      -- violations of Section 14(A), including Rule 14a-9
         thereunder, and Section 20(A) of the U.S. Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934, based upon allegations that the
         proxy statement contains false and misleading
         statements or omits to state material facts;

      -- that the board of directors and the current and
         previous advisors breached their fiduciary duties to
         the class and to Wells REIT; and

      -- that the proposed Internalization will unjustly enrich
         certain directors and officers of Wells REIT.

The complaint seeks, among other things:

      -- certification of the class action;

      -- a judgment declaring the proxy statement false and
         misleading;

      -- unspecified monetary damages;

      -- to nullify any stockholder approvals obtained during
         the proxy process;

      -- to nullify the merger proposal and the merger
         agreement;

      -- restitution for disgorgement of profits, benefits and
         other compensation for wrongful conduct and fiduciary
         breaches;

      -- the nomination and election of new independent
         directors, and the retention of a new financial advisor
         to assess the advisability of Wells REIT's strategic
         alternatives; and

      -- the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and experts'
         fees.

In April 2007, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for an
order enjoining the internalization transaction.  The court then
granted the defendants' motion to transfer venue to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and the case
was docketed in the Northern District of Georgia on April 24,
2007.  In June 2007, the court granted a motion to designate the
class lead plaintiff and class co-lead counsel.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
contains the same counts as the original complaint, with amended
factual allegations based primarily on events occurring subsequent
to the original complaint and the addition of a Piedmont officer
as an individual defendant.

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

On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
which alleges violations of the federal proxy rules based upon
allegations that the proxy statement to obtain approval for
Internalization omitted details of certain expressions of interest
in acquiring Piedmont.  The second amended complaint seeks, among
other things, unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind
Internalization, and to cancel and rescind any stock issued to the
defendants as consideration for Internalization.

On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised certain
defenses to the second amended complaint.  On June 23, 2008, the
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.

On Jan. 16, 2009, defendants filed their response to plaintiff's
motion for class certification.  The plaintiff filed its reply in
support of its motion for class certification on Feb. 19, 2009,
and the motion is presently pending before the court.  The parties
are presently engaged in discovery.

On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the
second amended complaint to add additional defendants.  The
defendants responded to the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend
on April 30, 2009.  The plaintiff filed its reply of its motion
for leave to amend on May 18, 2009.  The court denied the motion
for leave to amend on June 23, 2009.

On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment.

On August 2, 2010, the court entered an order denying the
defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting, in part, the
plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.

On August 12, 2010, the defendants filed a motion seeking to
certify the court's decision on the parties' motions for summary
judgment for immediate appeal.

On November 1, 2010, the court denied the defendants' motion to
certify its order on the parties' motions for summary judgment for
immediate appeal.

No trial date has been set.


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Discovery in Securities Suit in Georgia Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in In Re Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 07-cv-02660, is ongoing, according to
Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc.'s November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

A purported class action was filed on October 25, 2007, by a
Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc., stockholder before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against
Piedmont and its board of directors.  The complaint attempts to
assert class action claims on behalf of (i) those persons who were
entitled to tender their shares pursuant to the tender offer filed
with the SEC by Lex-Win Acquisition LLC, a former stockholder, on
May 25, 2007, and (ii) all persons who are entitled to vote on the
proxy statement filed with the SEC on October 16, 2007.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the federal
securities laws, including Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) promulgated thereunder.
In addition, the complaint alleges that defendants have also
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the proposed classes.

On December 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking that
the court designate it as lead plaintiff and its counsel as class
lead counsel, which the court granted on May 2, 2008.

On May 19, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
which contained the same counts as the original complaint. On June
30, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On March 30, 2009, the court granted in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The court dismissed two
of the four counts of the amended complaint in their entirety.
The court dismissed the remaining two counts with the exception of
allegations regarding (i) the failure to disclose information
regarding the likelihood of a listing in the company's amended
response to the Lex-Win tender offer and (ii) purported
misstatements or omissions in the company's proxy statement
concerning then-existing market conditions, the alternatives to a
listing or extension that were explored by the defendants, the
results of conversations with potential buyers as to the company's
valuation, and certain details of the company's share redemption
program.

On April 13, 2009, defendants moved for reconsideration of the
court's March 30, 2009 order or, alternatively, for certification
of the order for immediate appellate review.  The defendants also
requested that the proceedings be stayed pending consideration of
the motion.   On June 19, 2009, the court denied the motion for
reconsideration and the motion for certification of the order for
immediate appellate review.

On April 20, 2009, the plaintiff, joined by a second plaintiff,
filed a second amended complaint, which alleges violations of the
federal securities laws, including Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) promulgated thereunder.
The second amended complaint seeks, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and void any
authorizations secured by the proxy statement, and to compel a
tender offer. On May 11, 2009, the defendants answered the second
amended complaint.

On June 10, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on March 10, 2010.

On Aug. 6, 2010, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted the
defendants' petition for permission to appeal immediately the
court's order granting the motion for class certification.  The
defendants filed their opening brief in support of their appeal of
the class certification decision on Sept. 15, 2010.

The plaintiffs filed a response to the defendants' brief on
October 18, 2010.  The parties are presently engaged in discovery.

Piedmont believes that the allegations contained in the complaint
are without merit and will continue to vigorously defend the
action.


POLO RALPH: Reverses $3.6 Million Settlement Reserves Into Income
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. has reversed $3.6 million of its original
$5 million reserve into income, which reserve was initiated in
relation to a settlement agreement resolving two class action
lawsuits against it, according to the company's November 10, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended October 2, 2010.

On Oct. 11, 2007, and Nov. 2, 2007, two class action lawsuits were
filed by two customers in state court in California asserting that
while they were shopping at certain of the company's factory
stores in California, the company allegedly required them to
provide certain personal information at the point-of-sale in order
to complete a credit card purchase.  The plaintiffs purported to
represent a class of customers in California who allegedly were
injured by being forced to provide their address and telephone
numbers in order to use their credit cards to purchase items from
the company's stores, which allegedly violated Section 1747.08 of
California's Song-Beverly Act.  The complaints sought an
unspecified amount of statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief.

The company subsequently had the actions moved to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern and Central Districts of
California.

The company commenced mediation proceedings with respect to these
lawsuits and on Oct. 17, 2008, the company agreed in principle to
settle these claims by agreeing to issue $20 merchandise discount
coupons with six month expiration dates to eligible parties and
paying the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.  The Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement terms on July 17, 2009.

In connection with this settlement, the company recorded a $5
million reserve against its expected loss exposure during the
second quarter of Fiscal 2009.  As part of the required settlement
process, the company notified the relevant attorneys general
regarding the potential settlement, and no objections were
registered.  At a hearing on Dec. 7, 2009, the Court held that the
terms of the settlement were fair, just and reasonable and
provided fair compensation for class members.  In addition, the
Court overruled an objection that had been filed by a single
customer.  The Court then denied the objector's subsequent motion
for the Court to reconsider its order on the fairness of the
settlement.  The period within which the objector had to appeal or
otherwise seek relief from the Court's orders expired in February
2010 without an appeal and the settlement is effective.

Accordingly, the coupons were issued in February with an
expiration date of Aug. 16, 2010.

Based on the coupon redemption experience, the company reversed
$1.7 million of its original $5 million reserve into income during
Fiscal 2010, and the remaining $1.9 million of reserves was
reversed into income during the first half of Fiscal 2011.


POSTROCK ENERGY: Continues Talks to Settle Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Talks between Postrock Energy Corporation and a group of royalty
owners to settle a putative class action lawsuit against the
company remain ongoing, according to the company's November 10,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit filed by several royalty owners in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas.  The putative class consists of all
royalty and overriding royalty owners in the Kansas portion of the
Cherokee Basin.  Plaintiffs contend that the Company failed to
properly make royalty payments by, among other things, paying
royalties based on sale volumes rather than wellhead volumes, by
allocating expenses in excess of actual costs, by improperly
allocating production costs and marketing costs to royalty owners,
and by failing to pay interest on royalty payments made late.  The
Company has filed an answer, denying plaintiffs' claims.

The parties participated in a mediation in August 2010 and
continue to engage in settlement discussions.  The Court has
extended the previously entered stay of discovery to provide the
parties with time to continue settlement discussions and conduct
another mediation.  The Company has recorded an accrual of $1.0
million related to this case.


RBS GLOBAL: Subsidiaries Continue to Face Asbestos-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of RBS Global, Inc.'s Water Management
division continue to defend asbestos and class action related
litigation, according to the company's November 10, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended October 2, 2010.

Certain Water Management subsidiaries are also subject to asbestos
and class action related litigation.  As of October 2, 2010, Zurn
and an average of approximately 80 other unrelated companies were
defendants in approximately 6,000 asbestos related lawsuits
representing approximately 28,500 claims.  Plaintiffs' claims
allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used
primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment
of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components.
Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers.

These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy
funded by insurers.  As of October 2, 2010, the Company estimates
the potential liability for asbestos-related claims pending
against Zurn as well as the claims expected to be filed in the
next ten years to be approximately $86.0 million of which Zurn
expects to pay approximately $67.0 million in the next ten years
on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being
paid in subsequent years.

However, there are inherent uncertainties involved in estimating
the number of future asbestos claims, future settlement costs, and
the effectiveness of defense strategies and settlement
initiatives, the company said.


SEMTECH CORP: Settles Securities Class Action for $20 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Semtech Corp. Wednesday disclosed it has entered into an agreement
in principle to settle all claims asserted against all defendants
in the putative class action concerning the Company's stock option
accounting practices captioned In re Semtech Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:07-cv-07114-CAS (C.D. Cal).  The
agreement in principle provides for the payment of $20 million by
the Company.  The agreement in principle contemplates the
negotiation and execution of a final settlement agreement.  The
proposed settlement would fully resolve all claims against the
Company, all current officers and directors of the Company named
in the lawsuit, and certain former officers and directors of the
Company named in the lawsuit.  No parties admit any wrongdoing as
part of the proposed settlement.  The settlement also is subject
to preliminary approval by the Court, notice to the putative class
and subsequent final approval by the Court.

The agreement in principle was entered into after the Company
announced its preliminary results of operations for the three and
nine month periods ended October 31, 2010 but prior to the filing
of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.  Under U.S. Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles the agreement represents a recognized
subsequent event in its financial statements for the three and
nine month periods ended October 31, 2010. For details, please
refer to the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2010.

Semtech Corporation (Nasdaq: SMTC) -- http://www.semtech.com/--
is a supplier of analog and mixed-signal semiconductors for high-
end consumer, computing, communications and industrial equipment.


SMART TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of a class of investors who purchased Smart
Technologies Inc. (NASDAQ:SMT) common stock pursuant to and/or
traceable to the Company's July 15, 2010 Initial Public Offering.

The Complaint alleges SMT and certain of its officers and
directors with violating the federal securities laws by making
inaccurate and misleading statements in the Company's Registration
Statement and Prospectus by failing to disclose that: (1) there
was slower development at their NextWave acquisition due to a lack
of new touch screen applications for Windows 7, and (2) revenues
were declining in the second quarter of 2010 as a result. The
Complaint alleges that Defendants' inaccurate and misleading
statements caused SMART Technologies common stock to trade at
artificially high price levels.

On November 9, 2010, after the market closed, SMT announced
weaker-than-expected revenue for the 2010 second quarter.  In a
reaction to this news and a subsequent analyst downgrade, shares
of SMT fell from $13.07 per share to $8.91 per share on the
following day, a drop of more than 31% on extremely heavy trading
volume.

If you purchased SMT common stock pursuant to and/or traceable to
the IPO and you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this action,
you must move the Court no later than February 1, 2010.  Any
member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the proposed class.

If you would like to discuss this action or if you have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights as a potential
class member or lead plaintiff, you may contact:

          Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
          Arthur J. Chen, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, N.Y. 10119
          Telephone: 800-440-8986
          E-mail: info@aftlaw.com
                  achen@aftlaw.com

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


SYNGENTA CROP: Answers Amended Complaint in Atrazine Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. and its Swiss parent company have
filed an answer in a proposed atrazine class action suit brought
by the city of Greenville, denying they should be subject to
Southern District of Illinois' jurisdiction.

The company, a leading maker of the popular weed killer, also
argues that the complaint filed earlier this year by attorney
Stephen Tillery uses vague terms and is not specific.

Greenville proposes to lead a class of water providers from
Illinois, Missouri, Kansas and other states, claiming atrazine
runs off farm fields and contaminates drinking water supplies.

In its answer, Syngenta also offers a number of affirmative
defenses.

The company argues that many of the claims are barred by the
doctrine of comparative fault, the economic loss doctrine and
statutes of limitations.

Syngenta also argues that plaintiffs have not exhausted
administrative remedies and that they cannot recover some damages,
such as future damages, under the law.

The company also contends that the relief the plaintiffs seek is
barred by the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.

Recently, several plaintiffs from Indiana were thrown out of the
case after U.S. District Court Judge J. Phil Gilbert ruled that
Indiana law did not provide them with a means of relief.

The federal suit claims damages in the case to be greater than $5
million.

The case is nearly identical to six state class actions currently
pending in Madison County including one against Syngenta.

Those cases were filed six years ago by lead plaintiff Holiday
Shores Sanitation District, and they are in an early discovery
process.

While a case against Syngenta in Madison County has moved faster
than its counterparts, it is currently at the appellate court in
Mount Vernon due to discovery disputes among Holiday Shores,
Syngenta and a number of non-parties to the case that were served
with subpoenas.

None of the Madison County cases have been certified to date.

The same team of attorneys that represent Holiday Shores,
including Tillery, represent Greenville and the proposed class.

Kurtis Reeg represents Syngenta in both suits.

The case number is 3:10 - cv-00188-JPG-PMF

The older Madison County suit is case number 04-L-708.


TAIWAN KAI: Sued Over Alleged AM Sheet Metal Parts Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Taiwanese and Texas companies conspire to fix prices for
aftermarket automotive sheet metal parts, aka "AM crash parts."
Click 'Auto Parts Antitrust' headline to see the defendants.

Here are the defendants: Taiwan Kai Yih Industrial Company Ltd.
(Taiwan), TYG Products LP (Texas), Auto Parts Industrial Ltd.
(Taiwan), Cornerstone Auto Parts LLC (Texas), Jui Li Enterprise
Company Ltd. (Taiwan), and Gordon Auto Body Parts (Taiwan).

A copy of the Complaint in Lee, et al. v. Jui Li Enterprise
Company Ltd., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01101 (E.D. Wis.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/08/AutoParts.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John C. Cabaniss, Esq.
          CABANISS LAW, S.C.
          839 North Jefferson Street
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 220-9211
          E-mail: john@cabanisslaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO & KARON, P.C.
          700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 204
          Cleveland, OH 44113-1998
          Telephone: (216) 622.1851
          E-mail: karon@gsk-law.com

               - and -

          Isaac L. Diel, Esq.
          SHARP MCQUEEN, P.A.
          6900 College Blvd., Suite 285
          Overland Park, KS 66223
          Telephone: (913) 661-9931
          E-mail: idiel@sharpmcqueen.com

               - and -

          Donna F. Solen, Esq.
          MASON, LLP
          1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 605
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          E-mail: dsolen@masonlawdc.com

               - and -

          Krishna B. Narine, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF KRISHNA B. NARINE
          2600 Philmont Avenue, Suite 324
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 914-2460
          E-mail: knarine@kbnlaw.com

               - and -

          John G. Felder, Jr., Esq.
          MCGOWAN HOOD & FELDER, LLC
          1405 Calhoun Street
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 779-0100
          E-Mail: jfelder@mcgowanhood.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
          FREED & WEISS, LLC
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 220-0000
          E-mail: jeff@freedweiss.com

               - and -

          Derek G. Howard, Esq.
          Brad Yamaguchi, Esq.
          MINAMI TAMAKI, LLP
          360 Post St., 8th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 788-9000
          E-mail: dhoward@minamitamaki.com
                  byamaguchi@minamitamaki.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Mulligan, Esq.
          JENKINS MULLIGAN & GABRIEL, LLP
          660 Market Street, 3rd Floor
          San Francisco CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 982-8500
          E-mail: dan@jmglawoffices.com

               - and -

          Mary G. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
          KIRKPATRICK & GOLDSBOROUGH
          1233 Shelburn Road, Suite E-1
          South Burlington, VT 05403
          Telephone: (802) 651-0960
          E-mail: mkirk@vtlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Gordon Ball, Esq.
          Allen MacDonald, Esq.
          BALL & SCOTT
          Bank of America Center, Suite 750
          550 Main Street
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Telephone: (865) 525-7028
          E-mail: gball@ballandscott.com

               - and -

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          E-1250 First National Bank Bldg.
          332 Minnesota St.
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.
          PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP, LLC
          505 N. LaSalle, Suite 350
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 787-2717
          Chicago, IL 60654


TEXAS: Faces Class Suit for Trading & Selling Infant Blood Spots
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ann Roser, writing for The Statesman, reports a federal class
action lawsuit filed Wednesday in San Antonio claims the state
"deceptively and unlawfully sold, traded, bartered, and
distributed blood samples" from newborns in exchange for fees, lab
equipment and other purposes.

The suit was filed against the Texas Department of State Health
Services and its commissioner, David Lakey, by the Texas Civil
Rights Project on behalf of two parents, Jeffrey Higgins of San
Antonio and Andromida McCall of New Orleans.  It alleges that the
use of the samples was an unlawful "search and seizure" that
violated "fundamental privacy rights."

The plaintiffs claim the state has "no legal authority to 'seize'
the blood for commercial and police purposes and keep it
indefinitely, without consent."

The blood was collected from the babies as part of the state's
mandated Newborn Screening Program, which tests blood spots on
virtually every child born in Texas for 28 genetic disorders, some
of them deadly.  The Statesman published an article in May
describing how the state swapped and sold blood spots to private
companies that make testing kits and supply products to the state
lab.

State officials said at the time that what they were doing
benefited taxpayers and the public without compromising the
privacy of samples, which are marked with code numbers, not names.
They did not believe they had done anything wrong but said they
were putting a hold on the practice to come up with guidelines for
distributing blood spots left over after the genetic testing was
done.

About 400,000 babies are born each year in Texas, and most of them
are tested twice -- once in the first 48 hours and again one or
two weeks after birth, unless parents have religious objections.
Blood from the baby's heel is blotted onto filter paper, five
spots on each of two cards.  The screening tests generally use one
or two spots per card.

Since 2002, that blood was stored indefinitely, without parents'
consent, for possible research and for calibrating lab equipment.
A Statesman article in 2009 exposed the practice, resulting in
legislative changes, requiring parents to be informed and allowing
them to opt out of the storage of their child's blood spots.

This is the second suit the Texas Civil Rights Project has filed
against the state health department in connection with the blood
spots.  The two parties settled a suit last year over the storage
of the blood spots.

Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, said
today that during the settlement negotiations parents and lawyers
were not told about the blood spot exchanges despite asking
numerous times.


UNITED AMERICAN: Arkansas Supreme Court Affirms Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the order of the Saline
County Circuit Court certifying a class action in the lawsuit
filed by Jean Smith and Loria Ivie against United American
Insurance Company, Heartland Alliance of America Association, and
Farm & Ranch Healthcare, Inc.

United American, et al., filed an interlocutory appeal from the
certification order entered on September 9, 2009, asserting that
the circuit court erred in certifying the class pursuant to the
requirements provided in Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Specifically, appellants contend that the circuit erred in finding
that common issues of fact and law predominate over individual
issues; that the circuit court erred in finding that the
numerosity requirement was met where many of the class members
were barred by the doctrine of res judicata; that the circuit
court made improper findings on the merits; and that the class
defined by the circuit court is overly broad.

Associate Justice Jim Gunter wrote: "We hold that the circuit
court did not abuse its discretion in finding that common issues
of law and fact predominate over individual issues in this case.
Although individual issues may be raised by appellants to defend
against appellees' claims of fraud and misrepresentation, those
challenges do not override the crucial issue common to all members
of the class -- whether appellants engaged in a general scheme to
defraud and misrepresent to potential customers that a UA-
Heartland bundle was equal to or better than major medical
coverage and whether appellants falsely implied that a Heartland
membership and life insurance policy were included free with the
purchase of a UA healthcare policy."

Justice Gunter also pointed out that the law does not permit
Heartland to file an interlocutory appeal from the circuit court's
denial of its motion for summary judgment.  Rather, Justice Gunter
notes, it must be taken up on direct appeal after a final order
has been entered.  "Therefore, it is not proper to re-litigate
that issue at this stage."

Justice Gunter further held that the circuit court clearly used
its discretion to try to contain the class but to make sure its
limitations did not exclude any harmed party.

"In so much as any findings of the circuit court are alleged to be
determinations of merit, the circuit court expressly stated those
findings were not to be considered merit findings," Justice Gunter
wrote.

A copy of the Arkansas Supreme Court's opinion is available for
free at http://is.gd/inxkgfrom Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Obama Signs $4.6BB Cobell Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
President Barack Obama signed legislation on Wednesday to pay
$4.6 billion to Native Americans and black farmers in order to
address claims of government mistreatment over many decades.

Elouise Cobell of Browning was joined by Chairman Cedric Black
Eagle of the Crow Tribe as the President signed into law the
settlement in the Cobell v. Salazar class action lawsuit.

Ms. Cobell, who first brought the suit against the federal
government nearly 15 years ago, noted, "Today marks the end of a
sad chapter for Native Americans victimized by the federal
government.  Now we can finally begin the process of restoring
funds to Indian people across the nation."

In December 2009, the parties in the Cobell lawsuit agreed to
settle the case, involving a decades-old lawsuit over the
mismanagement of more than 300,000 American Indians' trust
accounts.

The legislation signed into law on Wednesday also ratifies the
Crow-Montana Water Rights Compact, which outlines the tribe's
authority over distributing, allocating and leasing water rights.
It also provides funding for the development of water resources
for irrigation, power, and other uses.

"I think it is an historic event for the Crow Tribe, an
accomplishment that will directly benefit all 12,000 members of
the tribe and the entire State of Montana," Chairman Black Eagle
said.

During the signing, President Obama said, "Today I have signed
into law H.R. 4783, the "Claims Resolution Act of 2010."  This
Act, among other things, provides funding and statutory
authorities for the settlement agreements reached in theCobell
lawsuit, brought by Native Americans; the Pigford II lawsuit,
brought by African American farmers; and four separate water
rights suits, brought by Native American tribes.  While I am
pleased that this Act reflects important progress, much work
remains to be done to address other claims of past discrimination
made by women and Hispanic farmers against the Department of
Agriculture as well as to address needs of tribal communities."


US BANK: Faces Class Action for Covering Up Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Dan Browning, writing for Star Tribune, reports a tiny mom- and
daughter-owned company in Arizona is taking aim at U.S. Bank in a
class-action lawsuit that alleges the bank failed to protect them
and countless other online merchants from crooks who breached the
bank's credit card database.

In a lawsuit filed last month in Hennepin County and removed to
U.S. District Court in Minneapolis last week, the company
Paintball Punks alleges that between August and December 2009, it
received nine orders totaling $11,259.91 that were fraudulently
billed to U.S. Bank-issued credit cards.

That's not a huge amount, but the potential client base from U.S.
Bank's $16 billion credit card portfolio drew the attention of two
major law firms that specialize in class-action cases.  U.S. Bank
said potential damages could exceed the $5 million threshold
required under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

The Arizona firm sells paintball supplies online.  It claims that
before it shipped out any merchandise, it took all the required
steps to verify cardholders' identities, including checking the
security codes on the backs of credit cards and cross-referencing
the shipping addresses against the cardholders' billing addresses
on file with the bank.

Even so, after the actual account holders disputed the charges,
U.S. Bank tapped into Paintball Punks' bank account in what's
known as a "chargeback" and recouped the money from the bogus
transactions.

According to the lawsuit, Minneapolis-based U.S. Bank covered up a
breach of its own security systems and shifted the cost of
fraudulent charges onto merchants.

The bank's attorney, Peter Carter of Dorsey and Whitney, disputed
the allegations.  "It is our strong view that this case is wholly
without merit and we're looking forward to establishing our
defense before the court," Mr. Carter said, declining further
comment.

                             *********

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  * * *