---

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

            Tuesday, December 14, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 246

                             Headlines

AFFINIA GROUP: Subsidiary Continues to Face "S&E Quick" Suit
ALP LIQUIDATING: "Rothal" Suit Remains Pending in Florida
AVERY DENNISON: Final Hearing on Calif. Settlement Set for Dec.
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Chapter 11 Filing Stays Cohen Class Action Suit
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Two Canadian Class Action Suits Remain Pending

BLOCKBUSTER INC: Chapter 11 Filing Stays Facebook Class Action
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Chapter 11 Filing Stays Dufrain Class Action
BLUEGREEN CORP: Awaits Ruling on Certification of "Schwarz" Suit
BSQUARE CORP: Appeal of Ruling on IPO Litigation Still Pending
CHEVIOT FINANCIAL: Defends Against "Burroughs" Suit in Ohio

CHINA SHENGHUO: Awaits Court Approval of "Varghese" Settlement
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Morefield Suit
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Petition for Rehearing Pending in 9th Circuit
COWEN GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
CULLEN AGRICULTURAL: Monitors "Goodman" Suit in Delaware

CVB FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Seek Consolidation of Two Lawsuits
DRUGSTORE.COM INC: Appeal of IPO Suit Settlement Ongoing
DYNAVOX INC: Stock Sale Triggers Filing of Class Action Suit
EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals of IPO Suit Dismissal Still Pending
ENERGYSOLUTIONS: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending

EXPRESSJET HOLDINGS: Reaches MOU to Settle SkyWest Merger Suits
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Federal Securities Class Suit Dismissed
GENTIVA HEALTH: "Rindfleisch" Suit Transferred From NY to Georgia
GENTIVA HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Wilkie" Suit in California
GENTIVA HEALTH: Still Faces "Allenman" Suit in Georgia

GENTIVA HEALTH: Faces 3 Class Suits Over Odyssey Healthcare Merger
GENTIVA HEALTH: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in New York
HECKMAN CORP: Motion to Transfer "Gielata" Suit Still Pending
HENRY BROS: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in NJ Over Hammer Deal
INSWEB CORP: Appeal of Securities Class Action Settlement Ongoing

INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: "Avery" Class Action Suit Still Pending
INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Calif. Labor Code Violation Suit Ongoing
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Several RISPERDAL-Related Suits Still Pending
KADANT INC: Tolling Period in GeoDeck Suits Expires
KELLY SERVICES: Continues to Face "Fuller" Class Suit in Calif.

KELLY SERVICES: Continues Defense in "Sullivan" Class Suit
KKR & CO: Remains a Defendant in Antitrust Suit in Massachusetts
LOCATEPLUS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Taylor" Suit in Texas
LOCATEPLUS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Wiles" Suit in Missouri
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: No Class Certified in Wage Suit Against Unit

ORION ENERGY: Reaches Agreement to Settle Consolidated NY Suit
PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Remains a Defendant in Securities Lawsuit
REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
SANDISK CORP: Court to Hear Motion to Dismiss Ritz Camera Suit
SANDISK CORP: Plaintiffs Seek Review of Class Certification Denial

SCIQUEST INC: Appeals of IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
ST. JUDE: Makes $7.8 Million in Payments for Two Settlements
ST. JUDE: Moves to Dismiss Securities Suit in Minnesota
STATION CASINOS: Class Action Suit Still Pending in Nevada
TELLABS INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in Ill.

TIGRENT INC: Continues to Defend Real Estate Suit in Canada
TIM HORTONS: Hearing on Summary Judgment Motion Set for April
USANA HEALTH: Nevada Court Dismisses Suit Alleging Business Fraud
VCG HOLDINGS: Faces Colorado Class Action Over Potential Sale
VCG HOLDINGS: Faces "Johnson" Suit in Maine Over Wage Violations

VESTIN FUND III: Court Approves Post-Judgment Rights Settlement
WASHINGTON POST: Faces Pension Fund Suit in Georgia
WELLS REAL: Continues to Defend Piedmont Stockholder Lawsuit
WILBER CORP: Faces Suit in New York Over Community Bank Merger
YRC WORLDWIDE: Discovery in Kansas ERISA Class Action Ongoing



                             *********

AFFINIA GROUP: Subsidiary Continues to Face "S&E Quick" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Affinia Group Intermediate Holdings Inc.'s subsidiary remains a
defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by S&E Quick Lube
Distributors, Inc., of Utah, 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 30, 2010.

On March 31, 2008, S&E filed the class action lawsuit against
several auto parts manufacturers for allegedly conspiring to fix
prices for replacement oil, air, fuel and transmission filters.
Several auto parts companies are named as defendants, including
Champion Laboratories, Inc., Purolator Filters NA LLC, Honeywell
International Inc., Cummins Filtration Inc., Donaldson Company,
Baldwin Filters Inc., Bosch USA., Mann + Hummel USA Inc.,
ArvinMeritor Inc., United Components Inc. and Wix Filtration Corp
LLC, one of the company's subsidiaries.

The lawsuit is currently pending as a consolidated Multi-District
Litigation Proceeding in Chicago, Illinois, because of multiple
"tag-along" filings in several jurisdictions.  Two suits have also
been filed in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec.  Wix
Filtration, along with other named defendants, have filed various
motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints, which were denied by
the court in December 2009.  Several defendants, including Wix
Filtration, refiled motions to dismiss based upon plaintiff's most
recent amended complaint. The court denied those motions in
September 2010.

As a result, discovery in the action continues and the deposition
of plaintiffs' main witness is scheduled to take place in December
2010.  In October 2010, William Bunch, plaintiff's main witness,
filed a qui tam lawsuit joining in the case.  Despite the U.S.
Department of Justice closing its investigation in this matter,
the State of Washington Attorney General issued Civil
Investigative Demands to all defendants.

The company believes that Wix Filtration did not engage in any
improper conduct and in any event did not have significant sales
in this particular market at the relevant time periods so the
company does not expect the lawsuit to have a material adverse
effect on the company's financial condition or results of
operations.

The company will vigorously defend this matter.


ALP LIQUIDATING: "Rothal" Suit Remains Pending in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action suit styled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB
Partners Ltd., et al., Case No. 03-10709, remains pending in the
Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward
County, Florida, according to ALP Liquidating Trust's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Effective Sept. 30, 2005, Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. (Partnership)
completed its liquidation by contributing all of its remaining
assets to ALP, subject to all of the Partnership's obligations
and liabilities.  Arvida Company, an affiliate of the general
partner of the Partnership, acts as Administrator (Administrator)
of ALP.

The Partnership, the General Partner and certain related parties
as well as other unrelated parties have been named defendants in
an action entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al.,
Case No. 03-10709 CACE 12, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.

In this suit that was originally filed on June 20, 2003,
plaintiffs purport to bring a class action allegedly arising out
of construction defects occurring during the development of
Camellia Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes.  On
May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended
complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages,
statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and other relief as the court may deem just
and proper.

Plaintiffs complain, among other things, that the homes were not
adequately built, that the homes were not built in conformity
with the South Florida Building Code and plans on file with
Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly
attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and
installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer
from improper shutter storm protection systems.  Plaintiffs have
filed a motion to expand the class to include other homes in
Weston.

The motion to expand the class has not yet been heard.  The
Arvida defendants intend to oppose the motion.

The matter hearing on a motion to certify the class was scheduled
on Dec. 21-22, 2009.

The Arvida defendants have filed their answer to the amended
complaint.

The case went to mediation on March 11, 2010.  The case did not
settle.  The matter is scheduled for a hearing on a motion to
certify the class on April 13, 2010.  The Arvida defendants have
filed their answer to the amended complaint.

The Arvida defendants believe that they have meritorious
defenses and intend to vigorously defend themselves.  The court
concluded its hearings on the motion to certify the class covering
the homes in Camellia Island and certified the class by order
dated September 16, 2010.

On October 15, 2010, the Partnership filed its notice of appeal
challenging the certification order.  The underlying case on the
merits continues to be litigated while the Partnership appeals the
certification.  The Partnership may seek a stay of the litigation
pending the outcome of the appeal of the certification order.


AVERY DENNISON: Final Hearing on Calif. Settlement Set for Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The final hearing to consider approval of Avery Dennison
Corporation's $2.5 million settlement of all claims in class
action lawsuits filed in California alleging unlawful competitive
practices is set for December 2010, the company noted in its
Nov. 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 2, 2010.

On May 21, 2003, The Harman Press filed in the Superior Court for
the County of Los Angeles, California, a purported class action on
behalf of indirect purchasers of label stock against the Company,
UPM and UPM's subsidiary Raflatac, seeking treble damages and
other relief for alleged unlawful competitive practices, with
allegations including that the defendants attempted to limit
competition among themselves through anticompetitive
understandings.  Three similar complaints were filed in various
California courts.  In November 2003, on petition from the
parties, the California Judicial Council ordered the cases be
coordinated for pretrial purposes.  The cases were assigned to a
coordination trial judge in the Superior Court for the City and
County of San Francisco on March 30, 2004.  On September 30, 2004,
the Harman Press amended its complaint to add Bemis' subsidiary
Morgan Adhesives Company or MACtac as a defendant.

Without admitting any liability, the Company paid $2.5 million on
July 15, 2010, to resolve all claims in the California action.
This settlement was preliminarily approved by the California court
on July 23, 2010, with the final approval hearing scheduled for
December 2010.  In respect of settlement of this claim, the
Company recorded $0.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2009 and
$0.3 million and $1.5 million in the first and second quarters of
2010, respectively.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Chapter 11 Filing Stays Cohen Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against Blockbuster Inc., in Illinois
has been stayed due to Blockbuster's Chapter 11 filing, according
to the Company's November 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 3,
2010.

Blockbuster Inc., was a defendant in 12 lawsuits filed by
customers in nine states and the District of Columbia between
November 1999 and April 2001.

These putative class action lawsuits alleged common law and
statutory claims for fraud and deceptive practices and unlawful
business practices regarding the Company's extended viewing fee
policies for customers who chose to keep rental product beyond the
initial rental term.  Some of the cases also alleged that these
policies imposed unlawful penalties and resulted in unjust
enrichment for the Company.

In January 2002, the 136th Judicial District Court of Jefferson
County, Texas entered a final judgment approving a national class
settlement.  Under the approved settlement, Blockbuster paid $9.25
million in plaintiffs' attorneys' fees during the first quarter of
2005 and made certificates available to class members for rentals
and discounts through November 2005. One additional extended
viewing fee case in the United States is inactive and subject to
dismissal pursuant to the Scott settlement.

In addition, there is one case, filed on February 18, 1999 in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, Cohen
v. Blockbuster, not completely resolved by the Scott settlement.
Marc Cohen, Uwe Stueckrad, Marc Perper and Denita Sanders assert
common law and statutory claims for fraud and deceptive practices,
unjust enrichment and unlawful penalties regarding Blockbuster's
extended viewing fee policies.  The claims were brought against
Blockbuster, individually and on behalf of all entities doing
business as Blockbuster or Blockbuster Video.  Plaintiffs seek
relief on behalf of themselves and other plaintiff class members
including actual damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

By order dated April 27, 2004, the Cohen trial court certified
plaintiff classes for U.S. residents who incurred extended viewing
fees or purchased unreturned videos between February 18, 1994, and
December 31, 2004, and who were not part of the Scott settlement
or who do not have a Blockbuster membership with an arbitration
clause.

In the same order, the trial court certified a defendant class
comprised of all entities that have done business in the United
States as Blockbuster or Blockbuster Video since February 18,
1994.

On August 15, 2005, the trial court denied Blockbuster's motion to
reconsider the trial court's certification of plaintiff classes.

On September 26, 2007, the Illinois Appellate Court remanded the
trial court's decision to certify plaintiff classes back to the
trial court for reconsideration of the company's motion to
decertify plaintiff classes.  Plaintiffs did not petition the
Illinois Supreme Court for leave to appeal.

On March 14, 2008, upon reconsideration, the trial court granted
Blockbuster's motion to decertify plaintiff classes and
decertified both plaintiff and defendant classes.

On September 23, 2010, Blockbuster filed a voluntary petition for
relief under Chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code in
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
New York.  Blockbuster's voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing
has automatically stayed this case.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' position in Cohen is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Two Canadian Class Action Suits Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two putative class action lawsuits are pending against Blockbuster
Inc., in Canada, according to the Company's November 11, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended October 3, 2010.

William Robert Hazell filed an action in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia on August 24, 2001, against Viacom Entertainment
Canada Inc., Viacom, Blockbuster Canada Inc. and Blockbuster Inc.
The case asserts claims for unconscionability, violations of the
trade practices act, breach of contract and high handed conduct.
The relief sought includes actual damages, disgorgement, and
exemplary and punitive damages.

Douglas R. Hedley filed an action in the Court of Queen's Bench,
Judicial Centre of Regina, in Saskatchewan on July 19, 2002.  The
case asserts claims of unconscionability, unjust enrichment,
misrepresentation and deception, and seeks recovery of actual
damages of $3 million, disgorgement, declaratory relief, punitive
and exemplary damages of $1 million and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' positions in all of these
cases are without merit and, if necessary, intends to vigorously
defend itself.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Chapter 11 Filing Stays Facebook Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against Blockbuster Inc., arising out
of Blockbuster and Facebook Web sites has been stayed due to
Blockbuster's Chapter 11 filing, according to the Company's
November 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 3, 2010.

On August 12, 2008, Sean Lane, Mohannaed Sheikha, Sean Martin, Ali
Sammour, Mohammaed Zidan, Sara Karrow, Colby Henson, Denton
Hunker, Firas Sheikha, Hassen Sheikha, Linda Stewart, Tina Tran,
Matthew Smith, Erica Parnell, John Conway, Austin Muhs, Phillip
Huerta, Alicia Hunker, and Megan Lynn Hancock (a minor, through
her parent Rebecca Holey) filed a putative class action complaint
under the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's
Computer Crime Law in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Plaintiffs assert claims against Facebook, Inc., Blockbuster Inc.,
Fandango, Inc., Hotwire, Inc., STA Travel, Inc., Overstock.com,
Inc., Zappos.com, Inc., Gamefly, Inc., and John Does 1-40,
corporations.

Plaintiffs are purporting to act on behalf of every Facebook
member who visited one or more of Facebook's affiliates' Web sites
and engaged in activities that triggered the Facebook affiliates'
Web sites to communicate with Facebook regarding the activity from
November 6, 2007, to December 5, 2007.

Plaintiffs claim Blockbuster violated the VPPA, ECPA, and CFAA by
allegedly violating the plaintiffs' privacy through their
activities on the Blockbuster and Facebook Web sites.

Plaintiffs seek class certification, injunctive and equitable
relief, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

On March 17, 2010, the court approved a settlement on behalf of
the putative class of plaintiffs.  The settlement is funded and
supported by Facebook and requires no contribution from
Blockbuster.

On May 27, 2010, the court entered final judgment dismissing the
case with prejudice.

In June 2010, several separate appeals of the final judgment were
filed by persons objecting to the terms of the settlement.

On September 23, 2010, Blockbuster filed a voluntary petition for
relief under Chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of New York (Case No. 10-14997).

On September 28, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit issued an order staying the appeals as to defendant
Blockbuster only.  The Company believes that the claims are
without merit and should it become necessary, intends to
vigorously defend itself.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Chapter 11 Filing Stays Dufrain Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against Blockbuster Inc., in
California has been stayed due to Blockbuster's Chapter 11 filing,
according to the Company's November 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended October 3, 2010.

On September 30, 2008, Ellen Dufrain filed a putative class action
against Blockbuster Inc. in the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, California, alleging failure to fully reimburse
California-based managers for work expenses and unfair business
practices.

Plaintiff seeks class certification, unpaid work expenses, an
accounting, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, equitable
relief, interest, costs, and attorney's fees.

On March, 9, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding a
new claim for statutory penalties.

On April 8, 2010, Blockbuster removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.

On May 17, 2010, the case was remanded back to the Superior Court
of Los Angeles County, California.

By order dated September 8, 2010, the trial court certified two
classes; one class of all California-based store-level management
employees employed from September 30, 2004, through the date of
judgment to whom Blockbuster failed to fully reimburse mileage
expenses for the use of their personal vehicle while performing
company business, and another class of those who were subjected to
unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices.

On September 23, 2010, Blockbuster filed a voluntary petition for
relief under Chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of New York (Case No. 10-14997).

Blockbuster's voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing has
automatically stayed this case.  The Company believes that the
claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.


BLUEGREEN CORP: Awaits Ruling on Certification of "Schwarz" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia has
yet to decide on a motion to certify a class in the matter styled
Paul A. Schwarz and Barbara S. Schwarz v. Bluegreen Communities
of Georgia, LLC, and Bluegreen Corporation, Cause No. 2008-5U-CV-
1358-WI, according to the company's Nov. 10, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2009.

On Sept. 18, 2008, Plaintiffs brought suit against the company
alleging fraud and misrepresentation with regards to the
construction of a marina at the Sanctuary Cove subdivision
located in Camden County, Georgia.

Plaintiff subsequently withdrew the fraud and misrepresentation
counts and replaced them with a count alleging violation of
racketeering laws, including mail fraud and wire fraud.

On Jan. 25, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a second complaint seeking
approval to proceed with the lawsuit as a class action
representing more than 100 persons who were harmed by the alleged
racketeering activities in a similar manner as Plaintiffs.

No decision has yet been made by the Court as to whether they
certify a class.


BSQUARE CORP: Appeal of Ruling on IPO Litigation Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
BSQUARE Corporation continues to defend against a consolidated
class action lawsuit filed against the Company in 2001, according
to the Company's November 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

In Summer and early Fall 2001, four shareholder class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors, and the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.

The complaints were consolidated into a single action and a
Consolidated Amended Complaint, which was filed on April 19, 2002.

The operative complaint alleged violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit
purported to be a class action filed on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock during the period from October 19,
1999, to December 6, 2000.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Underwriter Defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the Company's initial public offering to certain
investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions
and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of
stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus for the Company's
initial public offering was false and misleading in violation of
the securities laws because the Company did not disclose these
arrangements.

The action sought damages in an unspecified amount.

On December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a
decision by the district court granting class certification in six
of the coordinated cases, which are intended to serve as test, or
"focus" cases.  The plaintiffs selected these six cases, which do
not include the Company.

On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied a petition for
rehearing filed by the plaintiffs, but noted that the plaintiffs
could ask the district court to certify more narrow classes than
those that were rejected.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
the parties in the Company's case, reached a settlement in early
2009.  As part of the settlement, the insurers for the issuer
defendants will make the entire settlement payment on behalf of
the issuers, including the Company.

On October 5, 2009, the district court granted final approval of
the settlement.  Objectors to the settlement filed six notices of
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit and one petition seeking permission to appeal.  Two
objectors to the settlement filed briefs in support of their
appeals.  Appellees are required to file answering briefs on
December 17, 2010.

The remaining objectors withdrew their appeals with prejudice.

Following the district court's final approval of the settlement,
the Company determined that it is unlikely that the Company will
be liable for any damages that will not be paid for by the
Company's insurance carriers, even if any appeals are successful.


CHEVIOT FINANCIAL: Defends Against "Burroughs" Suit in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cheviot Financial Corp. continues to defend a purported class
action captioned as Burroughs v. First Franklin Corporation, et
al., 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 30, 2010.

On October 25, 2010, the company was named as a defendant in the
case Burroughs v. First Franklin Corporation, et al., which was
filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio.  The
complaint alleges that the individual directors of First Franklin
Corporation breached their fiduciary duty to First Franklin
shareholders by entering into a merger agreement to be acquired by
the Corporation.

The complaint also requests class certification.  The complaint
alleges that the company and Cheviot Merger Subsidiary, Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Corporation formed to facilitate
the acquisition, aided and abetted the individual named defendants
in their breaches of fiduciary duty to First Franklin
shareholders.  The complaint requests that the court declare the
case to be a proper class action, certifying the named plaintiff
as the class representative, and enjoin the acquisition.

The company's management believes the lawsuit is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.


CHINA SHENGHUO: Awaits Court Approval of "Varghese" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., is awaiting court
approval of its agreement to settle a consolidated suit captioned
Beni Varghese, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated v. China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., et al.,
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 30, 2010.

In 2008, putative class action lawsuits were asserted against the
company and certain other parties in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  On Feb. 12, 2009, an amended
complaint was served on the company by new lead counsel for the
class, consolidating the putative class actions and bearing the
caption Beni Varghese, Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Similarly Situated v. China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings,
Inc., et al., Index No. 1:08-cv-7422.

The defendants include the company, the company's controlling
shareholders, Lan's International Medicine Investment Co.,
Limited, the company's chief executive officer, Gui Hua Lan, the
company's former chief financial officer, Qiong Hua Gao, and the
company's former independent registered public accounting firm,
Hansen, Barnett & Maxwell, P.C.  Both the Company and HB&M filed
motions to dismiss the complaint, but those motions were denied by
the Court.  The substantive allegations of the amended
consolidated complaint have previously been summarized in
disclosures by the company.

On July 21, 2010, in a mediation conducted by Retired Judge
Nicolas H. Politan, the company entered into an agreement in
principle with counsel for plaintiffs in this litigation and HB&M,
in which the parties agreed to settle all claims by the putative
class members in exchange for payments of $200,000 by the company
and $600,000 by HB&M's professional liability insurer.

The settlement, including its provisions regarding the
notification of class members and administration of any claims,
will be entered into in a written stipulation and agreement of
settlement, to be executed by counsel for the parties, and then
must be submitted to the Court for approval.  The settlement is
expected to result in the dismissal of the class action
litigation.

According to Gui Hua Lan, Chief Executive Officer of China
Shenghuo, "We are pleased that this agreement in principle has
been reached.  While the Company believes that it has meritorious
defenses to the allegations and would have prevailed had the
matter been fully litigated, the company believes that it is in
the best interests of the company's stockholders to put this
litigation behind the company.  Clearly, it would have cost the
Company significant time and financial resources had the lawsuit
continued. By resolving this matter on the terms reached, and
assuming the settlement is approved by the Court, the Company and
the investment community can now focus their attention entirely on
the business and growth prospects of the Company."

The settlement must be approved by the Court to become effective
and, on or about Nov. 2, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion with
the Court seeking such approval.  It is anticipated that the Court
will consider objections to the settlement, if any, and conduct a
hearing in the coming months, after which it will determine if the
settlement is approved.  The Company said it does not have any
reason to believe that the Court will reject the settlement and,
accordingly, it is expected that the settlement will result in the
dismissal of the class action litigation.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Morefield Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corporation is awaiting a ruling on its motion
to dismiss a class action complaint initiated by Shirley
Morefield, according to the company Nov. 10, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended October 1, 2010.

On May 29, 2009, a class action lawsuit entitled Shirley Morefield
vs. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al., Case # A-09-591338-C,
was brought in state court in Clark County, Nevada, against the
Company and certain current and former officers and directors
asserting claims for declarative and injunctive relief related to
stock option backdating.  The alleged factual basis for the claims
is the same as that which was alleged in a prior derivative case,
In re CSC Shareholder Derivative Litigation, CV 06-5288, filed in
U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, which was dismissed on
August 9, 2007, by that court.  This dismissal was affirmed on
appeal by the Ninth Circuit, which judgment is final.

The defendants in the Morefield case deny the allegations in the
complaint.  On June 30, 2009, the Company removed the case to the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Case No.
2:09-cv-1176-KJD-GWF.  On motion made by the plaintiffs, the
District Court remanded the case to state court on February 18,
2010.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 30, 2010, and
plaintiffs filed their opposition on June 14, 2010.  A hearing
took place on August 18, 2010.  A decision is pending.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Petition for Rehearing Pending in 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A petition for rehearing en banc by plaintiffs in a consolidated
ERISA class action against Computer Sciences Corp. and other
defendants is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the Company's Nov. 10,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 1, 2010.

On August 15, 2006, a federal ERISA class action alleging stock
options backdating at the Company and miscellaneous violations of
ERISA fiduciary duties with respect to CSC's 401(k) plan was filed
in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of New York
entitled Quan, et al. v. CSC, et al., CV 06-3927.

On September 21, 2006, a related ERISA class action was filed in
the same court entitled Gray, et al. v. CSC, et al., CV 06-5100.
The complaints named as defendants the Company, the Company's
Retirement and Employee Benefits Plans Committee and various
directors and officers.

The ERISA actions were consolidated and, on February 28, 2007,
plaintiffs filed an amended ERISA class action complaint.  On
January 8, 2008, the District Court granted a motion to transfer
the consolidated cases to the United States District Court in Los
Angeles, California, where the cases were consolidated before the
District Court judge in Case No. CV 08-2398-SJO.  Class
certification was granted on December 29, 2008.  Defendants and
plaintiffs each filed motions for summary judgment on May 4, 2009,
and supplemental briefs thereafter.

On July 13, 2009, the District Court entered an Order granting
summary judgment in favor of the Company and the other defendants.
Briefing on plaintiffs' appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was completed on January 11,
2010.  Oral argument took place on June 10, 2010.

On September 30, 2010, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of
the District Court in favor of the Company and the other
defendants.  On October 21, 2010, plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth
Circuit to rehear en banc the September 30, 2010, decision.


COWEN GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cowen Group, Inc., remains a defendant in a consolidated putative
securities class action, 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 30, 2010.

On July 26, 2010, the court consolidated two putative class
actions in which the Company was named as a defendant with several
related actions and appointed as lead plaintiffs the Puerto Rico
Government Employees and Judiciary Retirement Systems
Administration, Craig B. Laub, J.D. Pisut, and Sandra Redfern.  At
that time the court ordered Plaintiffs to file a consolidated
complaint by August 25, 2010, and defendants to answer, move, or
otherwise respond to the consolidated complaint by September 14,
2010.

On August 20, 2010 the court ordered that Plaintiffs shall file
their consolidated complaint no later than 30 days after defendant
Fuqi publicly releases its financial statements for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2009, and its restated financial
statements for the periods ended March 31, June 30, and
September 30, 2009. The court further ordered that Defendants
shall have 45 days after the date on which Plaintiffs file their
complaint to answer, plead, or otherwise response to the
complaint.


CULLEN AGRICULTURAL: Monitors "Goodman" Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------
Watson, et al., continue to defend a lawsuit alleging breached of
fiduciary duties relating to Cullen Agricultural Holding Corp.'s
merger with Triplecrown Acquisition Corp., according to Cullen
Agricultural's November 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2010.

The Company is not party to any litigation.   However, on Dec. 9,
2009, a second amended class action complaint, styled Goodman v.
Watson, et al., was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the former directors of Triplecrown.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties and their duty of disclosure in connection with the Merger.

The plaintiff seeks, as alternative remedies, damages in the
amount of approximately $9.74 per share, to have Triplecrown's
trust account restored and distributed pro rata to members of the
putative class, a quasi-appraisal remedy for members of the
putative class, and an opportunity for members of the putative
class to exercise conversion rights in connection with the Merger.

The defendants filed an answer on December 23, 2009.  The former
directors intend to defend this action vigorously but can provide
no assurance as to the manner or timing of its resolution.
Adjustments, if any, that might result from the resolution of this
matter have not been reflected in the condensed consolidated
financial statements, the Company said.


CVB FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Seek Consolidation of Two Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
CVB Financial Corp. disclosed in its Nov. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that it is
facing two similar class action lawsuits in California.

On August 23, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company in an action captioned Lloyd v. CVB Financial Corp., et
al., Case No. CV 10-6256-MMM, in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California.  Along with the Company,
Christopher D. Myers (President and Chief Executive Officer) and
Edward J. Biebrich Jr. (Chief Financial Officer) are also named as
defendants.  The complaint alleges violations by all defendants of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder and violations by the individual
defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Specifically,
the complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented and failed to
disclose conditions adversely affecting the Company throughout the
purported class period, which is alleged to be between October 21,
2009 and August 9, 2010.  Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and
other relief in favor of the purported class.

On September 14, 2010, a second class action complaint was filed
against the Company in an action captioned Englund v. CVB
Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06815-RGK, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
The Englund complaint, which names the same defendants as the
Lloyd complaint, makes allegations that are substantially similar
to those included in the Lloyd complaint.

Plaintiff in the Englund action has moved for consolidation of
the two actions under the Lloyd action.


DRUGSTORE.COM INC: Appeal of IPO Suit Settlement Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Appeals of a court ruling approving a settlement of a consolidated
class action lawsuit against drugstore.com inc. remain pending,
according to the Company's November 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended October 3, 2010.

A consolidated amended complaint, which is now the operative
complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  It names drugstore.com as
a defendant, along with the underwriters and certain of its
present and former officers and directors, in connection with the
Company's July 27, 1999 initial public offering and March 15, 2000
secondary offering.  The suit purports to be a class action filed
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
period July 28, 1999 to December 6, 2000.

In general, the complaint alleges that the prospectuses through
which the Company conducted the Offerings were materially false
and misleading because they failed to disclose, among other
things, that:

     (i) the underwriters of the Offerings allegedly had solicited
         and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
         certain investors in exchange for which the underwriters
         allocated to those investors' material portions of the
         restricted number of shares issued in connection with the
         Offerings; and

    (ii) the underwriters allegedly entered into agreements with
         customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate
         drugstore.com shares to customers in the Offerings in
         exchange for which customers agreed to purchase
         additional drugstore.com shares in the after-market at
         predetermined prices.

The complaint asserts violations of various sections of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.  The action seeks damages in an
unspecified amount and other relief.  The action is being
coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical actions
filed against other companies or their present and former officers
and directors.

On October 9, 2002, the District Court dismissed the Individual
Defendants from the case without prejudice.

On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit vacated a decision by the District Court granting class
certification in six of the coordinated cases, which are intended
to serve as test, or "focus," cases.  The plaintiffs selected
these six cases, which do not include drugstore.com.

On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied a petition for
rehearing filed by plaintiffs, but noted that plaintiffs could ask
the District Court to certify more narrow classes than those that
were rejected.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
the parties in drugstore.com's case, reached a settlement.

The insurers for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases
will make the settlement payment on behalf of the issuers,
including drugstore.com.

The District Court approved the settlement on October 5, 2009.
Objectors to the settlement filed six notices of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and one
petition seeking permission to appeal.  Two objectors to the
settlement filed briefs in support of their appeals.

Appellees are required to file answering briefs on December 17,
2010.

The remaining objectors withdrew their appeals with prejudice.


DYNAVOX INC: Stock Sale Triggers Filing of Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
DynaVox Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit which stems from the
sale of its common stock, according to the company's November 12,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 1, 2010.

On October 14, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania against the company, two of the company's officers,
Edward L. Donnelly, Jr. and Kenneth D. Misch, and two of the
underwriters in the company's IPO. The lawsuit seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the
company's Class A common stock pursuant to the company's
prospectus dated April 21, 2010, filed with the SEC in accordance
with Rule 424(b) of the Securities Act on April 23, 2010.

The complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements in the company's prospectus in light of
the Company's September 30, 2010 press release announcing it had
experienced a softening of demand for both its speech generating
devices and software products during the first quarter of its
fiscal year 2011 which ended October 1, 2010.  The press release
also announced that as a result of the softening of demand
operating results for the fiscal first quarter would not be
consistent with historical performance or indicative of what
management believes to be the Company's long-term future operating
potential.


EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals of IPO Suit Dismissal Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals of a ruling dismissing eGain Communications Corporation
from a lawsuit filed in New York remain pending, 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. 30,
2010.

Beginning on October 25, 2001, a number of securities class action
complaints were filed against eGain Communications, and certain of
its then officers and directors and underwriters connected with
its initial public offering of common stock.

The class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaints alleged generally that the prospectus under which
the securities were sold contained false and misleading statements
with respect to discounts and excess commissions received by the
underwriters as well as allegations of "laddering" whereby
underwriters required their customers to purchase additional
shares in the aftermarket in exchange for an allocation of IPO
shares.  The complaints sought an unspecified amount in damages
on behalf of persons who purchased the common stock between
September 23, 1999, and December 6, 2000.

Similar complaints were filed against 55 underwriters and more
than 300 other companies and other individuals.  The over 1,000
actions were consolidated into a single action called In re
Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig.

In 2003, eGain Communications and the other issuer defendants, but
not the underwriter defendants, reached an agreement with the
plaintiffs to resolve the cases as to the Company's liability and
that of its officers and directors.  The settlement involved no
monetary payment or other consideration by the Company or its
officers and directors and no admission of liability.

On August 31, 2005, the Court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement.

On April 24, 2006, the Court held a public hearing on the fairness
of the proposed settlement.  Meanwhile the consolidated case
against the underwriters proceeded.

In October 2004, the Court certified a class.  On December 5,
2006, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit reversed, holding that the class certified by the District
Court could not be certified. In re Initial Public Offering Sec.
Litig., 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006), modified F 3d 70 (2d Cir.
2007).

The Second Circuit's holding, while directly affecting only the
underwriters, raised doubt as to whether the settlement class
contemplated by the proposed issuer settlement could be approved.

On June 25, 2007, the district court entered a stipulated order
terminating the proposed issuer settlement.  Thereafter pretrial
proceedings resumed.

In March 2009, all parties agreed on a new global settlement of
the litigation; this settlement included underwriters as well as
issuers.  Under the settlement, the insurers would pay the full
amount of settlement share allocated to eGain Communications, and
the Company would bear no financial liability.  eGain
Communications, as well as the officer and director defendants,
who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant to a
stipulation, would receive complete dismissals from the case.

On June 10, 2009, the Court entered an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement.

On October 5, 2009, the Court issued an order finally approving
the settlement.

Starting on October 23, 2009, some would-be objectors to the
certification of a settlement class (which occurred as part of the
October 5, 2009 order) petitioned the Court for permission to
appeal from the order certifying the settlement class, and on
October 29 and November 2, 2009, several groups of objectors filed
notices of appeal seeking to challenge the Court's approval of the
settlement.

On November 24, 2009, the Court signed, and on, December 4, 2009,
the Court entered final judgment pursuant to the settlement
dismissing all claims involving the company.

The appeals remain pending and briefing on the appeals is set to
begin in October 2010 and end in the spring of 2011.

On October 7, 2010, lead plaintiffs and all but two of the
objectors filed a stipulation pursuant to which these objectors
withdrawing their appeals with prejudice.  The remaining two
objectors, however, are continuing to pursue their appeals and
have filed their opening briefs.

The Company says that if the settlement and final judgment were to
be overturned on appeal and litigation were to proceed, it has
meritorious defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend
the action vigorously.


ENERGYSOLUTIONS: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
EnergySolutions, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated lawsuit
filed in New York related to the Company's initial public offering
remains pending, according to the Company's Nov. 9, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On October 9, 2009, a purported class-action lawsuit captioned
City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System vs.
EnergySolutions, Inc. et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Civil Number 09 CV 8633,
and on October 12, 2009, a second complaint was filed in the same
court captioned Building Trades United Pension Trust Fund vs.
EnergySolutions, Inc., et al., Civil Number 09 CV 8648.

On February 18, 2010, the Court consolidated the Related Actions
and appointed the lead plaintiff.

On April 20, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed its consolidated
amended complaint.  The consolidated amended complaint names as
defendants EnergySolutions, Inc., current and prior directors,
certain officers, the lead underwriters in the company's initial
public offering in November 2007 and the secondary offering in
July 2008 and ENV Holdings, LLC, the company's former parent.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the registration
statements and prospectuses for the IPO and the July 2008 Offering
contained inaccurate statements of material facts and omitted
material information required to be disclosed therein regarding
the potential size of the nuclear services market, the company's
ability to take advantage of opportunities in that market in the
near term, the status and prospects of the company's rule making
petition to the NRC to permit the use of decommissioning funds for
disposal of major components prior to the cessation of activities
at nuclear facilities, the status and prospects of the company's
license stewardship initiative, and other matters.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks to include all purchasers
of the Company's common stock from November 14, 2007 through
October 14, 2008 as a plaintiff class and seek damages, costs and
interest, rescission of the IPO and July 2008 Offering, and other
relief as the court may find just and proper.

On June 18, 2010, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  Rather than oppose the
defendants' motion to dismiss, the lead plaintiff filed a second
consolidated amended complaint on August 4, 2010, expanding the
allegations in the consolidated amended complaint and adding new
allegations regarding the Company's life of plant agreements and
the integrity of the revenue and earnings forecasts in the IPO and
the July 2008 Offering registration statements and prospectuses.

On September 17, 2010, the defendants filed their motion to
dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint.


EXPRESSJET HOLDINGS: Reaches MOU to Settle SkyWest Merger Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
ExpressJet Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself against
class suits relating to its merger agreement with SkyWest Inc.,
the Company disclosed in its November 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange for the quarter dated
September 30, 2010.

The Company's August 2010 merger agreement with SkyWest provides
that SkyWest will acquire all of the outstanding common shares of
the Company for $6.75 per share in cash subject to certain
conditions.  SkyWest advised that its intention is that ExpressJet
Airlines will be merged with its wholly owned subsidiary, Atlantic
Southeast Airlines, following the closing of the transaction and
receipt of all required regulatory approvals.
Between August 5, 2010 and August 25, 2010, nine substantially
similar putative shareholder class action suits were filed by
individual ExpressJet stockholders in the District Court of Harris
County, Texas, against ExpressJet and its directors.  Many of the
petitions also name SkyWest, Inc. and Atlantic Southeast and/or
merger sub as defendants in the litigation.
The petitions filed in the Texas State Actions generally allege
that the ExpressJet director defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the negotiation and approval of the
merger agreement and that the Additional Defendants aided and
abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  The Texas
State Actions seek, among other things, an injunction enjoining
the merger and the transactions contemplated by the merger
agreement and rescission of any transactions contemplated by the
merger agreement which may be completed.
On August 18, 2010, plaintiff Rayside filed a motion to
consolidate the Texas State Actions into Case No. 2010-48784 in
the first-filed court -- the "189th District Court".  On August
20, 2010, plaintiffs Levine, Tejeda, Doraiswamy and Swanepoel
filed a similar motion in the 189th District Court -- the
Consolidated Texas State Action.
On September 10, 2010, the 189th District Court ordered the
consolidation of the Texas State Actions with and into Case No.
2010-48784.
On September 10, 2010, a putative stockholder class action -- the
Texas Federal Action -- was commenced in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division.  The complaint filed in the Texas Federal Action
includes substantially identical allegations to and requests
substantially the same relief as the petitions in the Texas State
Actions but also includes allegations related to the ExpressJet
preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on September 3,
2010.
On September 20, 2010, the 189th District Court appointed counsel
for plaintiff Rayside, Edison, McDowell & Hetherington LLP and
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, as interim class counsel in the
Consolidated Texas State Action, with authority to speak for all
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Texas State Action in matters
regarding pre-trial procedure, trial and settlement negotiations.

On September 27, 2010, plaintiff Levine filed a motion for
clarification order seeking the appointment of Class Counsel as
interim class counsel and liaison counsel and his counsel, Powers
& Frost L.L.P. and Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, as interim co-class
counsel.

Subsequent to September 30, 2010, counsel for the defendants in
the Actions, Class Counsel and counsel for plaintiff in the Texas
Federal Action agreed to and executed a memorandum of
understanding (containing the terms of an agreement in principle
to resolve the Actions.  The MOU provides that, in consideration
for the settlement of the Actions, ExpressJet will make certain
disclosures in the definitive proxy statement to be sent to the
ExpressJet stockholders soliciting approval of the merger.

In the MOU, the defendants in the Actions acknowledge that they
considered the claims raised by the plaintiffs in the Actions in
connection with the disclosures contemplated by the MOU.  In
exchange, the parties to the MOU have agreed to use their best
efforts to draft and execute a definitive stipulation of
settlement that includes a plaintiff class consisting of all
record and beneficial holders of ExpressJet stock, other than
defendants in the Consolidated Texas State Action and any firm,
trust, corporation or other entity controlled by any such
defendant, during the period beginning on and including Dec. 2,
2009, through and including the date of the consummation of the
merger.

If approved by the parties and the 189th District Court, the
settlement will result in the dismissal with prejudice of the
Consolidated Texas State Action and release by the plaintiff class
of all claims under federal and state law that were or could have
been asserted in the Actions or which arise out of or relate to
the transactions contemplated by the merger.  The MOU further
provides that, in the event the Consolidated Texas State Action is
dismissed in accordance with the settlement stipulation, the
parties to the MOU will use their best efforts to obtain the
dismissal with prejudice of the Texas Federal Action.

The settlement of the Consolidated Texas State Action is subject
to numerous conditions set forth in the MOU and to be contained in
any stipulation of settlement, including the completion of the
merger.


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Federal Securities Class Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Flotek Industries, Inc., has won dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a
shareholder in Texas, according to the company's Nov. 10, 2010,
Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

A class action suit was commenced in August 2009 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 2007 and
January 2008, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint alleged that, throughout the
time period indicated, the Company made misrepresentations and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about its true financial
condition, business and prospects.

On September 29, 2010, the United Stated District Court dismissed
the class action suit, finding that the plaintiffs failed to
allege sufficient facts to state a claim under applicable federal
securities laws.

The plaintiffs did not file an appeal within the time period
required, and absent a showing of good cause by the plaintiffs for
failure to file this appeal, the time period for appeal of the
dismissal has expired.


GENTIVA HEALTH: "Rindfleisch" Suit Transferred From NY to Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court has approved the transfer of a class action suit
by employees against Gentiva Health Services Inc. over wage
violations from New York to Georgia, according to the Company's
November 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 3, 2010.

On May 10, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled
Lisa Rindfleisch et al. v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York against the Company in which five former employees allege
wage and hour law violations.

On October 8, 2010, the New York Court granted the Company's
motion to transfer the venue of the lawsuit to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The former employees claim they were paid pursuant to "an unlawful
hybrid" compensation plan that paid them on both a per visit and
an hourly basis, thereby voiding their exempt status and entitling
them to overtime pay.  The plaintiffs allege continuing violations
of federal and state law and seek damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as well as under the New York Labor Law and North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

The Plaintiffs seek class certification of similar employees and
seek attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back
three years under the FLSA, six years under the New York statute
and two years under the North Carolina statute.

The Company says it continues to vigorously defend the lawsuit.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Wilkie" Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services, Inc., continues to face a class action
suit over labor law violations in California.  The Company made
the disclosure in its November 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 3, 2010.

On June 11, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled
Catherine Wilkie, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California against the Company in which a former employee alleges
wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
California law.

The complaint alleges that the Company paid some of its employees
on both a per visit and hourly basis, thereby voiding their exempt
status and entitling them to overtime pay.  The complaint further
alleges that California employees were subject to violations of
state laws requiring meal and rest breaks, accurate wage
statements and timely payment of wages.

The plaintiff seeks class certification, attorneys' fees, back
wages, penalties, and damages going back three years on the FLSA
claim and four years on the state wage and hour claims.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Still Faces "Allenman" Suit in Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services Inc. was sued by Nelson Alleman, on behalf
of himself and other similarly situated, in a collective action
complaint over wages violations, 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 30, 2010.

The Class Action, filed on July 29, 2010, was initiated by Mr.
Alleman in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Gainesville Division, against the Company in
which a former employee employed as a certified respiratory
therapist alleges overtime wage violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The plaintiff seeks collective action certification of similar
employees, attorneys' fees, back wages and damages going back
three years under the FLSA.

The Company says it intends to defend itself vigorously in the
lawsuit.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Faces 3 Class Suits Over Odyssey Healthcare Merger
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Healthcare Inc. continues to face three putative class
action lawsuits in connection with its acquisition of Odyssey
HealthCare, Inc.:

   * The first, entitled Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters'
     Retirement System v. Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. et al., was
     filed on May 27, 2010 in the County Court, Dallas County,
     Texas.

   * The second, entitled Eric Hemminger et al. v. Richard Burnham
     et al., was filed on June 9, 2010 in the District Court,
     Dallas, Texas.

   * The third, entitled John O. Hansen v. Odyssey HealthCare,
     Inc. et al., was filed on July 2, 2010 in the United States
     District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The disclosure was made in Gentiva Health's November 12, 2010,
Form 10-q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended October 3, 2010.

All three lawsuits name the Company, GTO Acquisition Corp.,
Odyssey and the members of Odyssey's board of directors as
defendants.

All three lawsuits are brought by purported stockholders of
Odyssey, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of
stockholders, alleging that Odyssey's board of directors breached
its fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger by failing to
maximize shareholder value and that the Company and Odyssey aided
and abetted the alleged breaches.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit.

At the current time, the Company is unable to assess the probable
outcome or potential liability, if any, arising from these
matters.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services Inc. has been named in a shareholder class
action complaint in New York, the Company disclosed in its
November 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 3, 2010.

On November 2, 2010, a putative shareholder class action
complaint, captioned Steve Endress v. Gentiva Health Services,
Inc. et al., Civil Action 10-CV-5064,  was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The
action, which names Gentiva and certain current and former
officers as defendants, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
the Company's participation in the Medicare Home Health
Prospective Payment System.

The complaint alleges that the Company's public disclosures
misrepresented and failed to disclose that the Company improperly
increased the number of in-home therapy visits to patients for the
purposes of triggering higher reimbursement rates under the HH
PPS, which caused an artificial inflation in the price of
Gentiva's common stock during the period between July 31, 2008 and
July 20, 2010.

The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint, and, given
the preliminary stage of the action, the Company says it is unable
to assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if any,
arising from the action.


HECKMAN CORP: Motion to Transfer "Gielata" Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
On May 21, 2010, Richard P. Gielata, an individual purporting to
act on behalf of shareholders, served a class action lawsuit filed
May 6, 2010, against Heckman Corporation and various directors and
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware.  The Class Action alleges violations of federal
securities laws in connection with the acquisition of China Water.
The Company responded to the Class Action by filing a motion to
transfer and consolidate the Delaware action to California. The
motion to transfer is presently pending for decision, after which
the Company intends to file a motion to dismiss.

On May 21, 2010, Westfield Retirement Board, also purporting to
act on behalf of shareholders, filed a virtually identical class
action lawsuit in the United States District for the Central
District of California. On July 26, 2010, Westfield filed a
request to voluntarily dismiss that case.  On July 27, 2010, the
case was dismissed.

No further updates were reported in the company's November 9,
2010, Form 10-Q filing for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


HENRY BROS: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in NJ Over Hammer Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Bros. Electronics, Inc., has been sued in a class action
complaint relating to its proposed sale deal with Hammer
Acquisition Inc., the Company disclosed in its November 12, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On November 3, 2010, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County,
against the Company, its directors and Kratos Defense & Security
Solutions, Inc. purportedly on behalf of holders of the Company's
common stock.

Atoll Advisors v. James E. Henry, et al., alleges that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
Company's stockholders in an attempt to sell the Company to Hammer
Acquisition Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Kratos, and Kratos
at an unfair price and through an unfair and self serving process
and by omitting material information in the preliminary proxy
statement the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 25, 2010.

The lawsuit further alleges that the Company and Kratos aided and
abetted the Company's directors in their alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  The complaint seeks, among other relief, class
certification, unspecified damages and plaintiff's costs,
disbursements and reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.

The Company and the other defendants have not yet responded to the
complaint.

Based on the Company's review of the lawsuit, it believes that the
claims are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend
against them.  The Company adds that regardless of the merits or
eventual outcome, the lawsuit may cause a diversion of its
management's time and attention and the expenditure of legal fees
and expenses.


INSWEB CORP: Appeal of Securities Class Action Settlement Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit was filed on December 5, 2001,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased
Insweb Corporation common stock from July 22, 1999, through
December 6, 2000.

The complaint named as defendants InsWeb, certain current and
former officers and directors, and three investment banking firms
that served as underwriters for InsWeb's initial public offering
in July 1999.

The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10
and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that
the prospectuses incorporated in the registration statements for
the offering failed to disclose, among other things, that (i) the
underwriters had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the
underwriters allocated to those investors material portions of the
shares of the Company's stock sold in the offerings and (ii) the
underwriters had entered into agreements with customers whereby
the underwriters agreed to allocated shares of the stock sold in
the offering to those customers in exchange for which the
customers agreed to purchase additional shares of InsWeb stock in
the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  No specific damages are
claimed.

Similar allegations have been made in lawsuits relating to more
than 300 other initial public offerings conducted in 1999 and
2000, all of which have been consolidated for pretrial purposes.

In October 2002, all claims against the individual defendants were
dismissed without prejudice.

In February 2003, the Court dismissed the claims in the InsWeb
action alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
but allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with the remaining claims.

In June 2003, the plaintiffs in all of the cases presented a
settlement proposal to all of the issuer defendants.  Under the
proposed settlement, the plaintiffs would dismiss and release all
claims against participating defendants in exchange for a
contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all the
related cases, and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs
of certain claims the issuer defendants may have against the
underwriters.  InsWeb and most of the other issuer defendants have
accepted the settlement proposal.

While the District Court was considering final approval of the
settlement, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the class
certification of plaintiffs' claims against the underwriters in
six cases designated as focus or test cases.

On December 14, 2006, the District Court ordered a stay of all
proceedings in all of the lawsuits pending the outcome of
plaintiffs' petition to the Second Circuit for rehearing en banc
and resolution of the class certification issue.

On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied the plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing, but clarified that the plaintiffs may seek
to certify a more limited class in the District Court.

Because of the significant technical barriers presented by the
Court's decision, the parties withdrew the proposed settlement and
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

Representatives of all of the parties to the IPO litigation agreed
to a revised settlement; as with the earlier settlement proposal,
the revised settlement proposal does not require InsWeb to
contribute any cash.  The revised settlement was approved by the
District Court on October 5, 2009, but a number of plaintiffs
appealed the approval to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal.

The Company says there is no assurance that the new settlement
will be upheld on appeal.  If the settlement is not upheld, InsWeb
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

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


INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: "Avery" Class Action Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
On June 5, 2009, a potential class action lawsuit was filed
against Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc., by Alexandra Avery.
Ms. Avery purports to represent all 12-hourly employees and the
complaint alleges causes of action for restitution of unpaid wages
as a result of unfair business practices, injunctive relief for
unfair business practices, failure to pay overtime wages, and
penalties associated therewith.

On December 23, 2009, the Company filed an answer to the
complaint, generally denying all of the plaintiff's allegations.

The parties are currently exchanging discovery in the action.

No further updates were provided in the Company's November 12,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.


INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Calif. Labor Code Violation Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
On January 25, 2010, a potential class action lawsuit was filed
against t Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc., by Julie Ross.
Ms. Ross purports to represent all similarly-situated employees
and the complaint alleges causes of action for violation of the
California Labor Code and unfair competition law.

The parties are currently exchanging discovery in the action.

No further updates were provided in the Company's November 12,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Several RISPERDAL-Related Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson is still facing several purported class-action
lawsuits with regard to the drug RISPERDAL, which is used for
the treatment of schizophrenia.

There are six cases filed by union health plans seeking damages
for alleged overpayments for RISPERDAL, several of which seek
certification as class actions.

One of the cases has been dismissed on Summary Judgment, according
to Johnson & Johnson's Nov. 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.


KADANT INC: Tolling Period in GeoDeck Suits Expires
---------------------------------------------------
The tolling period as to GeoDeck class action lawsuits against
Kadant, Inc., has expired, according to the company's 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 co-defendant in seven state class
action complaints filed on behalf of individuals who own
GeoDeck(TM) decking or railing products manufactured by Composites
LLC between April 2002 and October 2003.

The parties to the litigation voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice all of the state class actions, subject to a tolling
agreement that was extended to November 30, 2010, while the
parties pursue potential alternative dispute resolution or other
settlement of these matters.

There can be no assurance that the parties to the state court
matters will reach a resolution on terms satisfactory to the
parties, or that the plaintiffs will not file new complaints in
the named states or other states, following the expiration of the
tolling period.


KELLY SERVICES: Continues to Face "Fuller" Class Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Fuller v. Kelly Services, Inc.,
and Kelly Home Care Services, Inc., remains pending in California,
the company noted in its Nov. 10, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 3, 2010.

The Fuller action, currently pending in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles, involves claims for monetary damages by
current and former temporary employees working in the state of
California.  The Fuller matter involves claims relating to alleged
misclassification of personal attendants as exempt and not
entitled to overtime compensation under state law and to alleged
technical violations of a state law governing the content of
employee pay stubs.

On April 30, 2007, the Court in the Fuller case certified both
plaintiff classes involved in the lawsuit.  In the third quarter
of 2008, Kelly was granted a hearing date for its motions related
to summary judgment on both certified claims.

On March 13, 2009, the Court granted Kelly's motion for
decertification of the classes. Plaintiffs filed a petition for
review on April 3, 2009 requesting the decertification ruling be
overturned.

The Plaintiffs' request was granted on May 17, 2010, and the suit
was recertified as a class action.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses in the Fuller
lawsuit and will continue to vigorously defend itself during the
litigation process.


KELLY SERVICES: Continues Defense in "Sullivan" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Services, Inc., continues to defend itself in a class action
complaint filed by a certain Sullivan, the company noted in its
Nov. 10, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 3, 2010.

The Sullivan Action, currently pending in the U.S. District Court
Southern District of California, involves claims for monetary
damages by current and former temporary employees working in the
State of California.  The Sullivan matter relates to claims by
temporary workers for compensation while interviewing for
assignments.  On April 27, 2010, the Court in the Sullivan matter
certified the lawsuit as a class action.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses in the lawsuit
and will continue to vigorously defend itself during the
litigation process.


KKR & CO: Remains a Defendant in Antitrust Suit in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
KKR & Co. LP disclosed in its Nov. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, that it remains a defendant in a consolidated
class action lawsuit pending in Massachusetts.

In December 2007, KKR, along with 15 other private equity firms
and investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
class action complaint filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts by shareholders in certain
public companies acquired by private equity firms since 2003.

In August 2008, KKR, along with 16 other private equity firms and
investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
consolidated amended class action complaint.  The suit alleges
that from mid-2003 defendants have violated antitrust laws by
allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private
equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at
artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for
private equity services for leveraged buyouts.  The amended
complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all persons who
sold securities to any of the defendants in leveraged buyout
transactions and specifically challenges nine transactions.

The first stage of discovery concluded on or about April 15, 2010.
On August 18, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to
proceed to a second stage of discovery in part and denied it in
part.  Specifically, the court granted a second stage of discovery
as to eight additional transactions but denied a second stage of
discovery as to any transactions beyond the additional eight
specified transactions.

On October 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed under seal a fourth
amended complaint that includes new factual allegations concerning
the additional eight transactions and the original nine
transactions.  The fourth amended complaint also includes eight
purported sub-classes of plaintiffs seeking unspecified monetary
damages or restitution with respect to eight of the original nine
challenged transactions and new separate claims against two of the
original nine challenged transactions.


LOCATEPLUS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Taylor" Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
LocatePlus Holdings Corporation continues to face an ongoing
litigation, entitled Sharon Taylor, et al., v. Biometric Access
Company, et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, C.A. No. 2:07-CV-00018.  The matter is styled
as a class action suit brought by the plaintiff class against a
group of defendants, including the Company, under the Driver
Privacy Protection Act, 18 USC Sec. 2721 et seq.

The defendants filed a joint Motion to Dismiss which was granted
by the Court.  The plaintiff class has filed an appeal of the
dismissal of the case, which is being vigorously opposed.

The Company disclosed in its November 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the
likelihood of success of the defendants' opposition to the appeal
is excellent.  The potential for loss is negligible, the Company
added.


LOCATEPLUS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Wiles" Suit in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LocatePlus Holdings Corporation continues to face an ongoing
litigation in the matter of Sam Wiles, Carol Watkins, Jackson
Wills and Sarah Smith, Individually and on behalf of all others
Similarly Situated, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, C.A. No. 09-4164-CV-C-NKL.

The matter is styled as a class action suit brought by the
plaintiff class against the Company, alleging a violation of the
Driver Privacy Protection Act, 18 USC Section 2721, et. seq., and
is one of several similar actions brought by the class against a
number of entities in the same industry as the Company.

The Company is vigorously defending the suit, and believes that
its defenses to the plaintiff class's claims are strong, 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. 30,
2010.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: No Class Certified in Wage Suit Against Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
No class has been certified in a putative class action lawsuit
against Lumber Liquidators, Inc., alleging failure to pay overtime
wages properly, according to Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc.'s
Nov. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On Sept. 3, 2009, a former store manager and a current assistant
store manager filed a putative class action suit against Lumber
Liquidators, Inc. (LLI), in the Superior Court of California in
and for the County of Alameda.  The Plaintiffs allege that with
regard to certain groups of current and former employees in LLI's
California stores, LLI violated California law by failing to
calculate and pay overtime wages properly, provide meal breaks,
compensate for unused vacation time, reimburse for certain
expenses and maintain required employment records.  The Plaintiffs
also claim that LLI did not calculate and pay overtime wages
properly for certain of LLI's non-exempt employees, both in and
out of California, in violation of federal law.  In their suit,
the Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, certain statutory
penalties, costs, attorney's fees and injunctive relief.

LLI removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

No class has been certified with regard to any of the alleged
causes of action.


ORION ENERGY: Reaches Agreement to Settle Consolidated NY Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orion Energy Systems, Inc., reached a preliminary agreement to
settle a consolidated class action lawsuit pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to
the company's Nov. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

In February and March 2008, three class action lawsuits were filed
against the company, several of its officers, all members of the
company's then existing board of directors, and certain
underwriters from the company's December 2007 IPO.  The plaintiffs
claimed to represent certain persons who purchased shares of the
company's common stock from Dec. 18, 2007 through Feb. 6, 2008.
The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the defendants
made misstatements and failed to disclose material information in
the company's IPO registration statement and prospectus.  The
complaints alleged various claims under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended. The complaints sought, among other relief, class
certification, unspecified damages, fees, and such other relief as
the court may deem just and proper.

On Aug. 1, 2008, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint.  On Sept. 15, 2008, the company
and the other director and officer defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint and the underwriters filed a
separate motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on Jan. 16,
2009.  After oral argument on Aug. 19, 2009, the court granted in
part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.

The plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint on
Sept. 4, 2009, and the defendants filed an answer to the complaint
on Oct. 9, 2009.

In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010, the company reached a
preliminary agreement to settle the class action lawsuits.


PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Remains a Defendant in Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prosper Marketplace, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
lawsuit alleging violations of the California and federal
securities laws, 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 30, 2010.

On November 26, 2008, plaintiffs, Christian Hellum, William
Barnwell and David Booth, individually and on behalf of all other
plaintiffs similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company, certain of the Company's executive officers
and its directors in the Superior Court of California, County of
San Francisco, California.  The suit was brought on behalf of all
loan note purchasers in the Company's online lending platform from
January 1, 2006 through October 14, 2008.  The lawsuit alleges
that Prosper offered and sold unqualified and unregistered
securities in violation of the California and federal securities
laws.  The lawsuit seeks class certification, damages and the
right of rescission against Prosper and the other named
defendants, as well as treble damages against Prosper and the
award of attorneys' fees, experts' fees and costs, and pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest.

Some of the individual defendants filed a demurrer to the First
Amended Complaint, which was heard on June 11, 2009 and sustained
by the court with leave to amend until July 10, 2009.  The
plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 10, 2009, to
which the same individual defendants demurred.  On September 15,
2009, this demurrer was sustained by the court without leave to
amend.

Prosper's insurance carrier with respect to the class action
lawsuit, Greenwich Insurance Company, has denied coverage.  On
August 21, 2009, Prosper filed suit against Greenwich in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, California.
The lawsuit seeks a declaration that Prosper is entitled to
coverage under its policy with Greenwich for losses arising out of
the class action lawsuit as well as damages and the award of
attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the class action lawsuit
and vigorously prosecute its suit against Greenwich.  The Company
said it cannot, however, presently determine or estimate the final
outcome of either lawsuit, and there can be no assurance that
either matter will be finally resolved in its favor.  If the class
action lawsuit is not resolved in the Company's favor, the Company
might be obliged to pay damages, and might be subject to such
equitable relief as a court may determine.  If the Company's
lawsuit against Greenwich is not resolved in its favor, the
Company might not be able to recover any proceeds from Greenwich
to offset any losses the Company incurs in the class action
lawsuit.

As of September 30, 2010, the lawsuits are in their preliminary
stages and their probable outcomes cannot presently be determined,
nor can the amount of damages or other costs that might be borne
by Prosper be estimated, the Company said.


REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Repros Therapeutics, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on its motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action complaint which alleges that
it made certain misleading statements related to its Proellex(R)
drug, the Company said in a Nov. 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On August 7, 2009, R.M. Berry filed a putative class action
lawsuit naming the Company, Joseph Podolski, Paul Lammers, and
Louis Ploth, Jr., as defendants.  The lawsuit is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division.  The lawsuit is styled R.M. Berry, on Behalf of
Himself and all Others Similarly Situated v. Repros Therapeutics,
Inc., Joseph Podolski, Paul Lammers, and Louis Ploth, Jr.  Among
other claims, the lawsuit contends that the defendants
misrepresented the side effects of the drug related to liver
function, and the risk that these side effects could cause a
suspension of clinical trials of Proellex(R).  The lawsuit seeks
to establish a class of shareholders allegedly harmed by the
misleading statements, and asserts causes of action under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On August 14, 2009, a lawsuit making similar allegations and
naming the same defendants was also filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  This suit is
styled Josephine Medina, Individually and On Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated v. Repros Therapeutics, Inc., Joseph Podolski,
Paul Lammers, and Louis Ploth, Jr.

On September 25, 2009, a lawsuit also making allegations similar
to those in the Berry action, and naming the same defendants, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.  That lawsuit is styled Shane Simpson, Paul
Frank and Clayton Scobie, on Behalf of Themselves and all Others
Similarly Situated v. Repros Therapeutics, Inc., Joseph Podolski,
Paul Lammers, and Louis Ploth, Jr.

The lawsuits have now been consolidated, and lead plaintiffs
appointed.

On January 27, 2010, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint styled In re Repros Therapeutics, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 09 Civ. 2530 (VDG).  The
lawsuit names Repros Therapeutics, Inc., Joseph Podolski, Paul
Lammers, and Louis Ploth, Jr. as defendants.  The allegations in
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint are substantially the
same as those contained in the prior complaints, and focus on the
claim that the defendants deliberately withheld information
concerning the negative side-effects of Proellex(R) related to
liver function.  Plaintiffs seek to establish a class action for
all persons who "purchased or otherwise acquired Repros common
stock between July 1, 2009, and August 2, 2009."  No discovery
has yet occurred in the matter.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class
Action Complaint on March 15, 2010.  Briefing has been completed
on that motion, but the court has not yet ruled on it.


SANDISK CORP: Court to Hear Motion to Dismiss Ritz Camera Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SanDisk Corporation has filed a motion to dismiss a complaint
alleging violations of antitrust laws and the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California will hear the motion on
Friday, according to the company's Nov. 10 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 3, 2010.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC, filed a complaint in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust
law by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for
flash memory products.  The lawsuit, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v.
SanDisk Corporation, Inc., and Eliyahou Harari, Case No. 5:10-cv-
02787-HRL, purports to be on behalf of purchasers of flash memory
products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled by the
Company from June 25, 2006 through the present.  The Complaint
alleges that the Company created and maintained a monopoly by
fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to restrain
competition and by allegedly converting other patents for
its competitive use.

On October 1, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Ritz's
claims.  A court hearing on the motion is scheduled for
December 17, 2010.


SANDISK CORP: Plaintiffs Seek Review of Class Certification Denial
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in an antitrust class action, which named SanDisk
Corporation as co-defendant, have asked the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California for leave to file a motion
for reconsideration of the Court's April 15, 2010, order denying
certification, according to the company's Nov. 10 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended October 2, 2010.

Between August 31, 2007, and December 14, 2007, the Company (along
with a number of other manufacturers of flash memory products) was
sued in the Northern District of California, in eight purported
class action complaints.

On February 7, 2008, all of the civil complaints were consolidated
into two complaints, one on behalf of direct purchasers and one on
behalf of indirect purchasers, in the Northern District of
California in a purported class action captioned In re Flash
Memory Antitrust Litigation, Civil Case No. C07-0086.

Plaintiffs alleged the Company and a number of other manufacturers
of flash memory and flash memory products conspired to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of NANDflash memory in violation
of state and federal laws.  They sought an injunction, damages,
restitution, fees, costs, and disgorgement of profits.

The direct purchaser lawsuit was recently dismissed with
prejudice.

On April 15, 2010, the Court denied the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' class certification motion, denied plaintiffs' motion
for leave to amend the Consolidated Amended Complaint to
substitute certain class representatives, and dismissed the claims
on behalf of South Dakota purchasers with prejudice.

Indirect purchaser plaintiffs have moved for leave to file a
motion for reconsideration of that decision.


SCIQUEST INC: Appeals of IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
In 2001, SciQuest, Inc., was named as a defendant in several
securities class action complaints filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York originating
from its December 1999 initial public offering.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the prospectus
used in the Company's initial public offering contained material
misstatements or omissions regarding the underwriters' allocation
practices and compensation and that the underwriters manipulated
the aftermarket for the Company's stock.

These complaints were consolidated along with similar complaints
filed against over 300 other issuers in connection with their
initial public offerings.

After several years of litigation and appeals related to the
sufficiency of the pleadings and class certification, the parties
agreed to a settlement of the entire litigation, which was
approved by the Court on October 5, 2009.

Notices of appeal to the Court's order have been filed by various
appellants.

No further updates are provided in the Company's November 12,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.


ST. JUDE: Makes $7.8 Million in Payments for Two Settlements
------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc., has made a total of $7.8 million in
payments as part of settlements resolving two class actions,
according to the company's Nov. 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 2, 2010.

The company has been sued in various jurisdictions beginning in
March 2000 by some patients who received a heart valve product
with Silzone(R) coating, which the company stopped selling in
January 2000.  Some of these claimants allege bodily injuries as
a result of an explant or other complications, which they
attribute to these products.  Others, who have not had their
Silzone-coated heart valve explanted, seek compensation for past
and future costs of special monitoring they allege they need over
and above the medical monitoring of all other replacement heart
valve patients receive.  Some of the lawsuits seeking the cost of
monitoring have been initiated by patients who are asymptomatic
and who have no apparent clinical injury to date.

The company has been able to successfully resolve class action
matters in British Columbia and Quebec.

As part of the British Columbia class action settlement, the
company made a $2.1 million payment in March 2010.

As part of the Quebec class action settlement, the company made a
$5.7 million payment in April 2010.  The Quebec class action
settlement also resolved the claim raised by the Quebec
Provincial health insurer seeking to recover the cost of insured
services furnished or to be furnished to class members in the
Quebec class action.


ST. JUDE: Moves to Dismiss Securities Suit in Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss a securities
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota, according to the company's Nov. 10, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 2, 2010.

The suit was filed on March 18, 2010, against the company and
certain officers on behalf of purchasers of St. Jude Medical
common stock between April 22, 2009 and Oct. 6, 2009.  The lawsuit
relates to the company's earnings announcements for the first,
second and third quarters of 2009, as well as a preliminary
earnings release dated Oct. 6, 2009.  The complaint, which seeks
unspecified damages and other relief as well as attorneys' fees,
alleges that the company failed to disclose that it was
experiencing a slowdown in demand for its products and was not
receiving anticipated orders for cardiac rhythm management
devices.  Class members allege that the company's failure to
disclose the above information resulted in the class purchasing
St. Jude Medical stock at an artificially inflated price.

In October 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit, which is scheduled to be heard by the District Court in
early January 2011.


STATION CASINOS: Class Action Suit Still Pending in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------
Station Casinos LLC continues to defend itself from a class action
complaint filed by former employees in Nevada, according to the
company's November 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On February 4, 2008, Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie St. Cyr
filed a purported class action complaint against the Company and
certain of its subsidiaries in the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada, Case No. CV-00141.  The plaintiffs are
all former employees of the Company or its subsidiaries.  The
complaint alleged that the Company (i) failed to pay its employees
for all hours worked, (ii) failed to pay overtime, (iii) failed to
timely pay wages and (iv) unlawfully converted certain earned
wages. The complaint in the Federal Court Action sought, among
other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, compensatory
damages in excess of $5,000,000, punitive damages and an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel.

On October 31, 2008, the Company filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings. During a hearing on that motion, the United States
District Court questioned whether it had jurisdiction to
adjudicate the matter.  After briefing regarding the jurisdiction
question, on May 16, 2009, the United States District Court
dismissed the Federal Court Action for lack of jurisdiction and
entered a judgment in the Company's favor.  Subsequently, on
July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action
complaint against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in
the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A-09-595614-
C.  The complaint in the State Court Action alleges substantially
the same claims that were alleged in the complaint in the Federal
Court Action.

On August 19, 2009, the corporate defendants, other than the
Company, filed an answer responding to the complaint.
Subsequently, on August 27, 2009, the corporate defendants, other
than the Company, filed a motion to stay the State Court Action
pending the resolution of the Company's bankruptcy petition.  That
motion was granted on September 30, 2009.


TELLABS INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tellabs, Inc., continues to defend itself in a consolidated class
action complaint alleging violations of federal securities laws,
according to the company's Nov. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 1, 2010.

On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against
Tellabs; Michael Birck, Chairman of the Board of Tellabs; and
Richard Notebaert, former CEO, President and Director of Tellabs.
Thereafter, eight similar complaints were also filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. All nine of
these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on December 3,
2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed
against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain other of
the Company's current or former officers and directors.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class
period -- December 11, 2000 to June 19, 2001 -- the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making materially false
and misleading statements, including, among other things,
allegedly providing revenue forecasts that were false and
misleading, misrepresenting demand for the company's products, and
reporting overstated revenue for the fourth quarter 2000 in the
company's financial statements. Furthermore, certain of the
individual defendants were alleged to have violated the federal
securities laws by trading the company's securities while
allegedly in possession of material, non-public information about
the company pertaining to these matters. The consolidated amended
complaint seeks unspecified restitution, damages and other relief.

On January 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in its entirety.  On May 19, 2003, the Court granted
the Company's motion and dismissed all counts of the consolidated
amended complaint, while affording the plaintiffs an opportunity
to replead.

On July 11, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck and
Notebaert, and many, although not all, of the other previously
named individual defendants, realleging claims similar to those
contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class
action complaint.  The Company filed a second motion to dismiss on
August 22, 2003, seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all
claims alleged in the second consolidated amended class action
complaint.  On February 19, 2004, the Court issued an order
granting that motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.

On March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
United States Federal Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit,
appealing the dismissal.  The appeal was fully briefed and oral
argument was heard on January 21, 2005.  On January 25, 2006, the
Seventh Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing
in part the judgment of the district court, and remanding for
further proceedings.  On February 8, 2006, defendants filed with
the Seventh Circuit a petition for rehearing with suggestion for
rehearing en banc.  On April 19, 2006, the Seventh Circuit ordered
the plaintiffs to file an answer to the petition for rehearing,
which was filed by the plaintiffs on May 3, 2006.  On July 10,
2006, the Seventh Circuit denied the petition for rehearing with a
minor modification to its opinion, and remanded the case to the
district court.

On September 22, 2006, defendants filed a motion in the district
court to dismiss some, but not all, of the remaining claims.

On October 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the U.S. Supreme
Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to appeal the
Seventh Circuit's decision. On January 5, 2007, the defendants'
petition was granted. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments
on March 28, 2007. On June 21, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court
vacated the Seventh Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

On November 1, 2007, the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments for
the remanded case.  On January 17, 2008, the Seventh Circuit
issued an opinion adhering to its earlier opinion reversing in
part the judgment of the district court, and remanded the case to
the district court for further proceedings.

On February 24, 2009, the district court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The case is now proceeding in the district court and discovery is
ongoing.  A trial date has not yet been set.


TIGRENT INC: Continues to Defend Real Estate Suit in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tigrent Inc. continues to defend itself against a class action
complaint with respect to certain real estate investments of the
plaintiffs, the Company disclosed in its November 12, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On January 11, 2007, Whitney Canada, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company, and Whitney Information Network
received notice of an Amended Motion for Authorization to
Institute a Class Action in the Province of Quebec, Canada on
behalf of all persons who are alleged to have made various real
estate investments at the alleged inducement of, or through, Marc
Jemus, Fran‡ois Roy, Robert Primeau and/or their companies, and/or
B2B Trust, and/or Whitney Canada, Inc., and/or Jean Lafreniere
and/or the Company.

The complaint filed in Superior Court for the Province of Quebec,
District of Hull (Canada), seeks repayment of $39,235 to the
petitioner; unspecified payment to each member of the class of an
amount corresponding to their lost investments; payment of $10,000
to each member of the class as general damages; recovery of costs
and other litigation expenses; and unspecified equitable relief.

On October 19 to 20, 2009, WIN argued its motions to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction and challenging the authorization of the
class claims against WIN.

On November 3, 2009, the Canadian Court denied the Company's
motion for lack of jurisdiction.

On August 19, 2010, the Canadian Court denied the petitioner's Re-
re-Amended Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class action
against the Company, but granted the motion against, Whitney
Canada, Inc.

On September 17, 2010, the petitioner filed a notice of appeal
with respect to the Canadian Court's denial of the petitioner's
Re-re-Amended Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class action
against the Company.

The Company says it will continue to vigorously defend against the
claims made in the lawsuit.


TIM HORTONS: Hearing on Summary Judgment Motion Set for April
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice will hear in April 2011 a
motion for summary judgment filed by Tim Hortons Inc. and certain
of its affiliates together with plaintiffs' request for class
certification, according to the company's November 12, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended October 3, 2010.

On June 12, 2008, a claim was filed against the Company and
certain of its affiliates in the Canadian Court by two of its
franchisees, Fairview Donut Inc. and Brule Foods Ltd., alleging,
generally, that the Company's Always Fresh baking system and
expansion of lunch offerings have led to lower franchisee
profitability.  The claim, which seeks class action certification
on behalf of Canadian franchisees, asserts damages of
approximately $1.95 billion.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of the putative
class in May of 2009 and the Company filed its responding
materials as well as a motion for summary judgment in November of
2009. Cross examinations on both sides' affidavits are being
scheduled.  The Court has reserved the week of November 29, 2010,
for the hearing on this matter.

Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the Company's summary
judgment motion be heard following hearing and determination of
plaintiffs' motion for certification.  It was the Company's
position that the motions should be heard together.  A hearing on
plaintiffs' motion to separate the certification and summary
judgment motions was heard on May 13, 2010, and the court ruled in
favour of the Company that the two motions should be heard
together.

Both motions are now scheduled for April 2011, subject to the
delivery of required materials and completion of examinations.

On Oct. 28, 2010, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to submit for
the Court's review proposed amendments to the amended statement of
claim asserting claims for price maintenance, supplementing the
already asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty
of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation and
unjust enrichment.

The Company continues to believe the claim is without merit and
will not be successful, and intends to oppose the certification
motion and defend the claim vigorously.


USANA HEALTH: Nevada Court Dismisses Suit Alleging Business Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On April 17, 2009, USANA, and certain of its present and former
officers and directors, were named as defendants in this purported
class action lawsuit in State District Court in Clark County,
Nevada.  The complaint alleged a number of purported material
misrepresentations to the market in violation of state pyramid
law, deceptive business practices, and business fraud law.

On September 29, 2010, the Nevada State District Court dismissed
the lawsuit with prejudice, according to the Company's Nov. 10,
2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


VCG HOLDINGS: Faces Colorado Class Action Over Potential Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
VCG Holdings Corp. continues to face a class action complaint in
relation to the Company's potential sale, according to the
Company's November 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ending
September 30, 2010.

On July 20, 2010, the Company received a non-binding proposal from
Family Dog LLC and Lowrie Management LLLP, an entity controlled
and majority owned by the Company's Chairman of the Board and
Chief Operating Officer, Troy Lowrie, to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of common stock (other than the shares held by
Parent, its affiliates and certain other investors) for $2.10 per
share in cash.  The Proposal contemplated that the Company would
no longer be a public reporting or trading company following the
closing of the Acquisition.  Pursuant to further negotiations with
the investors, on November 9, 2010, the Company entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with Family Dog, LLC ("Parent"), FD
Acquisition Co. ("Merger Sub"), Mr. Lowrie, and the Company's
President and Chief Operating Officer, Micheal Ocello.  Under the
terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and
into the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving
corporation and becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.  The
transaction is expected to close in the first quarter of 2011.

On August 13, 2010, the Company received a complaint filed in
Colorado state court, First Judicial District, Jefferson County
District Court challenging the Sale Proposal.  The complaint was
filed by David Cohen, Timothy Cunningham, Gene Harris, Dean R.
Jakubczak and William C. Steppacher, Jr. derivatively on behalf of
the Company and as a class action on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated shareholders against Troy Lowrie, each of
the individual members of the Company's Board of Directors and the
Company, as a nominal defendant.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
the individual Directors breached their fiduciary duties under
Colorado law and that Mr. Lowrie has conflicts of interest in
connection with the Proposal.

The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, certification of the
lawsuit as a class action with the plaintiffs as class
representatives; an injunction preventing the Company's Board of
Directors from accepting the Proposal; an order requiring the
Directors to fulfill their fiduciary duties; an accounting of
alleged damages if the Company's Board of Directors accepts the
Proposal; and an award of the plaintiffs' attorneys' and experts'
fees.

As of November 12, 2010, neither the Company nor any of the
individual defendants have been served with process.

On October 19, 2010, the court issued an Order re Failure to
Prosecute, directing the plaintiffs to show cause why the
complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and
giving the plaintiffs until November 19, 2010 to make such a
showing, in the absence of which the case will be dismissed
without prejudice and without further notice.

The Company believes that the allegations set forth in the
complaint are baseless and intends to mount a vigorous defense if
and when process is served.


VCG HOLDINGS: Faces "Johnson" Suit in Maine Over Wage Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
VCG Holding Corp. has been named a defendant in a class action
complaint captioned Johnson et al. v. VCG Holding Corp., Case No.
2:10-cv-00442, 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 30, 2010.

The Complaint, initiated on October 27, 2010, was filed against
the Company in the United States District Court for the District
of Maine.

The Company has not been formally served with the lawsuit,
however, the Company, via its attorneys, has agreed to accept
service of the Complaint.

The Complaint was filed by two former employees of one of the
Company's subsidiaries, KenKev II, Inc. d/b/a PT's(R) Showclub
Portland, Maine, who allege that the Company misclassified them as
tipped minimum wage employees while employed by the Company as
disk jockeys and, as a result, failed to pay all wages due to them
under applicable law.  The action is plead as a class action,
pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29
U.S.C. 216(b)), and seeks to certify a class action on behalf of
all similarly situated employees who are employed by the Company
nationwide.  In addition, the two named plaintiffs allege that the
Company failed to pay them all wages required to be paid to them
under Maine law.

The Company remains that the it intends to deny all liability in
the matter.


VESTIN FUND III: Court Approves Post-Judgment Rights Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
VRM I, VRM II and Vestin Mortgage, Inc., were defendants in a
breach of contract class action filed in San Diego Superior Court
by certain plaintiffs who alleged, among other things, that they
were wrongfully denied roll-up rights in connection with the
merger of Fund I into VRM I and Fund II into VRM II.  The court
certified a class of all former Fund I unit holders and Fund II
unit holders who voted against the merger of Fund I into VRM I and
Fund II into VRM II.  The trial began in December 2009 and
concluded in January 2010.

On February 11, 2010, the Defendants were notified of a Tentative
Statement of Decision, in their favor issued by the Superior Court
for the State of California in San Diego following a trial.  In
the Tentative Statement, the Court found that there was no roll-up
and therefore no breach of contract.  The Court entered final
judgment for the Defendants on March 18, 2010.

Defendants and Plaintiffs agreed to a post-judgment settlement by
which Plaintiffs agreed to not appeal the judgment in
consideration of a waiver by the Defendants of any claim to
recover actual court costs from the Plaintiffs.  The Court granted
final approval of this settlement of post-judgment rights on
July 9, 2010.

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


WASHINGTON POST: Faces Pension Fund Suit in Georgia
---------------------------------------------------
The Washington Post Company is facing a purported securities class
action complaint filed by the Plumbers Local #200 Pension Fund in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, according to
the company's November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 3,
2010.

A purported class action complaint was filed against the Company,
Donald E. Graham and Hal S. Jones on Oct. 28, 2010, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, by the Plumbers Local
#200 Pension Fund.  The complaint alleges that the Company and
certain of its officers made materially false and misleading
statements, or failed to disclose material facts relating to
Kaplan Higher Education (KHE), in violation of the federal
securities laws.  The complaint seeks damages, attorneys' fees,
costs and equitable/injunctive relief.

Based on an initial review of this complaint, the Company believes
the complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against it.


WELLS REAL: Continues to Defend Piedmont Stockholder Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Certain affiliates of Wells Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc.,
continue to defend a lawsuit filed by a shareholder alleging proxy
statement rules violations, according to the company's Nov. 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 Office Realty Trust,
Inc. filed a putative class action and derivative complaint,
presently styled In re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.
Securities Litigation, in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland against, among others, Piedmont REIT; Leo F.
Wells, III, the Chairman of the Company's Board of Directors;
Wells Capital; Wells Management, the Company's property manager;
certain affiliates of WREF; the directors of Piedmont REIT; and
certain individuals who formerly served as officers or directors
of Piedmont REIT prior to the closing of the internalization
transaction on April 16, 2007.

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

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

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

On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
which alleges violations of the federal proxy rules based upon
allegations that the proxy statement to obtain approval for the
Piedmont REIT internalization transaction omitted details of
certain expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont REIT.  The
second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages, to nullify and rescind the internalization
transaction, and to cancel and rescind any stock issued to the
defendants as consideration for the internalization transaction.
On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised certain
defenses to the second amended complaint.

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

On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the
second amended complaint to add additional defendants.  The Court
denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on June 23, 2009.

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

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


WILBER CORP: Faces Suit in New York Over Community Bank Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Wilber Corporation is defending itself from a lawsuit filed by
a shareholder for alleged breach of fiduciary duties, according to
the Company's Nov. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On November 3, 2010, Robert E. Becker, a shareholder of the
Company, commenced a lawsuit against the Company, each of its
directors and Community Bank System, Inc., in New York State
Supreme Court in Otsego County, New York.  In his complaint, the
plaintiff alleges that the Company and its directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by entering
into the Agreement and Plan of Merger with Community.

Amongst other allegations, the plaintiff contends that; i) the
planned merger with Community does not provide fair value to the
Company's shareholders; ii) the Board of Directors failed to
maximize value for the Company's shareholders; iii) the Company's
directors acted in their own interests in violation of their
fiduciary duties in approving the merger; iv) the provisions of
the Merger Agreement limiting the Company's ability to entertain
other offers and imposing a fee on the Company if it terminates
the agreement under certain circumstances are unfair; and v) the
Company's directors' agreement to vote their shares in favor of
the merger unfairly limits the Company's ability to accept other
offers.

The complaint seeks certification of the lawsuit as a class action
on behalf of all other Company shareholders, an order enjoining
the merger, recission of the Merger Agreement and attorney's fees.


YRC WORLDWIDE: Discovery in Kansas ERISA Class Action Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated class action complaint
filed by certain persons in Kansas against YRC Worldwide Inc.
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, as amended, according to the company's Nov. 9, 2010, Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Four class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors, alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended,
based on similar allegations and causes of action.  On
November 17, 2009, Eva L. Hanna and Shelley F. Whitson, former
participants in the Yellow Roadway Corporation Retirement Plan,
filed a class action complaint on behalf of certain persons
participating in the plan (or plans that merged with the plan)
from April 6, 2009 to the present; on December 7, 2009, Daniel J.
Cambra, a participant in the Yellow Roadway Corporation
Retirement Savings Plan, filed a class action complaint on behalf
of certain persons participating in the plan (or plans that
merged with the plan) from October 25, 2007 to the present; on
January 15, 2010, Patrick M. Couch, a participant in one of the
merged 401(k) plans, filed a class action complaint on behalf of
certain persons participating in the plan (or plans that merged
with the plan) from March 23, 2006 to the present; and on April
21, 2010, Tawana Franklin, a participant in YRC Worldwide 401(k)
Plan, filed a class action complaint on behalf of certain persons
participating in the plan (or plans that merged with the plan)
from October 25, 2007 to the present.

In general, the complaints allege that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under ERISA by providing participants
Company common stock as part of their matching contributions and
by not removing the stock fund as an investment option in the
plans in light of the Company's financial condition. Although
some Company matching contributions were made in Company common
stock, participants were not permitted to invest their own
contributions in the Company stock fund. The complaints allege
that the defendants failed to prudently and loyally manage the
plans and assets of the plans; imprudently invested in Company
common stock; failed to monitor fiduciaries and provide them with
accurate information; breached the duty to properly appoint,
monitor, and inform the Benefits Administrative Committee;
misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse financial
information; breached the duty to avoid conflict of interest; and
are subject to co-fiduciary liability. Each of the complaints
seeks, among other things, an order compelling defendants to make
good to the plan all losses resulting from the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty, attorneys' fees, and other injunctive and
equitable relief. Based on the four separate complaints
previously filed, the Company believes the allegations are
without merit and intends to vigorously contest the claims.

On March 3, 2010, the Court entered an order consolidating three
of the four cases and, on April 1, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint.  The consolidated complaint asserts the
same claims as the previously-filed complaints but names as
defendants certain former officers of the Company in addition to
those current officers and directors that have already been
named.  The fourth case (Franklin) was consolidated with the first
three cases on May 12, 2010.

The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
June 1, 2010.  The motion has been fully briefed and is pending
before the Court.  The plaintiffs filed a motion on October 1,
2010 requesting that the court certify a class consisting of all
persons, excluding defendants and their immediate family members,
who were participants in the YRC Worldwide 401(k) Plan, at any
time between October 25, 2007 and the present and whose plan
accounts included investments in YRCW common stock.

Defendants' response was due November 30, 2010.  In the meantime,
the parties are continuing discovery on the merits of the
plaintiffs' claims.


                             *********

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  * * *