CAR_Public/101220.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 20, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 250

                             Headlines

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Awaits Court Approval of "Bateman" Settlement
ANN ARBOR, MI: Faces Class Action Threat Over Low Speed Limits
AUTOBYTEL INC: Awaits Ruling on IPO Settlement Appeal
BELL MOBILITY: Court Reserves Ruling in Canadian Telco Class Suit
CANANDAIGUA NATIONAL: Awaits Approval of Settlement in NY Suit

CDX GROUP: Recalls 1,600 Desk and Table Lamps
CELLCOM: Class Action Ruling May Affect D&O Liability Policies
CENTERLINE HOLDING: 2nd Cir. Denies Motion to Reconsider Dismissal
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Will Continue to Pursue Dismissal of Suits
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: PPO Class Settlement Hearing on Dec. 17

CLEVELAND, OH: Court Allows Red Light Camera Suit to Proceed
COMMUNITY BANK: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in New York
COMPELLENT TECHNOLOGIES: Weiss & Lurie Probes Proposed Dell Sale
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Overtime Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Three More Class Actions Filed in Canada

FEDEX CORP: Wins 20 of 28 Class Actions Over Ground Business Model
GENZYME CORP: Court to Hear Plea to Dismiss Mass. Suit Next Month
GENZYME CORP: Seeks Consolidation of 5 Federal Securities Lawsuits
GENZYME CORP: Court Consolidates Four State Securities Lawsuits
GEO GROUP: Awaits Final Court Approval of "Shelby" Suit Settlement

HOVENSA: Faces Class Action Over Dec. 9 Hydrocarbon Emissions
MADISON COUNTY: On ATRA's Watch List as Asbestos Cases Soar
NFL PLAYERS ASSOC: Judge Junks Malpractice Case v. Manatt
NICOR INC: D&Os Sued Over Sale of Company to AGL Resources
OLD REPUBLIC: Subsidiary Settles Certain State Suits for $12.7MM

OLD REPUBLIC: ORHP Unit Continues to Defend Suits in Calif. & Ala.
OMAHA, NE: May Face Class Action Over Potholes
OPLINK COMMS: Plaintiffs' Appeals of Suit Settlement Still Pending
RINO INTERNATIONAL: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
SINGING MACHINE: Suit Vs. MGA Entertainment Is Pending

SODEXO INC: Food Service Workers File Class Action
TARRANTS: Investors in Class Suit Granted Access to Documents
UNIONBANCAL CORP: Trial in "Larsen" Suit Set for March 2012
UNITED STATES: Legal Fee Cap in Cobell Suit Conflicts with Law
XANODYNE PHARMA: Recalls Darvocet & Darvon Pain Medication

* US Federal Securities Class Action Filings Up in 2nd Half 2010



                             *********

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Awaits Court Approval of "Bateman" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment, Inc., and the plaintiffs of a lawsuit in
California have reached a tentative settlement and are awaiting
court approval, according to the Company's Nov. 9, 2010 Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.

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

On October 24, 2008, the District Court denied plaintiff's renewed
motion for class certification.  On September 27, 2010, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's order and
remanded the proceedings for a new determination consistent with
their opinion.

The Company filed its Petition for En Banc or Panel Rehearing on
October 8, 2010.  The parties have reached a tentative settlement,
subject to court approval, which is not expected to have a
material adverse impact to the Company's financial condition.


ANN ARBOR, MI: Faces Class Action Threat Over Low Speed Limits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan J. Stanton, writing for AnnArbor.com, reports the threat of a
class-action lawsuit over "artificially low" speed limits in the
city of Ann Arbor has city officials reconsidering their stance.

On the advice of the city attorney's office, the Ann Arbor City
Council is expected to vote today, Dec. 20, to re-adopt sections
of the Michigan Vehicle Code that it rejected two years ago --
specifically those dealing with how speed limits should be set.

The recommended ordinance changes also include adopting the
Michigan Uniform Traffic Code.  That will allow the city's traffic
engineers to conduct studies to justify setting speed limits at
levels that might differ from the Michigan Vehicle Code formula.

The changes will put the city in a better position to defend its
speed limits in court, said Robert West, senior assistant city
attorney.  He acknowledged it likely will result in raising speed
limits on certain roads where motorists have complained for years
about speed traps.

Newport Road is expected to be the first to see an increase.  City
traffic engineers have decided based on new studies that the speed
limit could be safely raised from 25 mph to 30 mph.

"This has been brewing for a couple of years," Mr. West told
AnnArbor.com.  "It is a complicated thing, and I think everyone
will be better off with these changes in place.  And if there are
speeds that are too low, we ought to raise them."

Mr. West said 2006 changes to the Michigan Vehicle Code took away
some of the authority that local governments had to set speed
limits on locals streets.  The changes instead imposed a
cumbersome "vehicle access-point formula" as the primary means for
setting limits, he said.

As its name implies, the formula requires cities to use of the
number of access points -- driveways and intersections along a
half-mile stretch of road -- to set speed limits.  The fewer the
access points, the higher the speed must be set under the law.

City officials cited difficulties in applying the formula, as well
as concerns that it could result in speed limits being
dramatically increased.  In 2008, the City Council passed a
resolution that rescinded its adoption of sections of the Michigan
Vehicle Code that dealt with speed limits.

Since that time, the police department has been writing speeding
tickets using provisions of the city code, Mr. West said.

Jim Walker, a board member of the National Motorists Association,
is shown in his Ann Arbor home with traffic reports, studies and
stories relating to the speed limit situation on many of Ann
Arbor's roads.

Mr. West said the city's approach has come under legal challenge
based on the argument that the city can't adopt only a portion of
the Michigan Vehicle Code, and also that a local ordinance cannot
override a state statute.

"We want to comply with the law as best we can," Mr. West said.
"But I think it's a poorly written law and nearly impossible to
apply. I frankly think the access-point formula is ridiculous, and
it doesn't take into account real world characteristics."

In addition to the access-point formula, state law gives cities
other options.  One is conducting traffic studies and setting the
limit at the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic -- in
other words, the speed at which 85% of motorists travel.

Lt. Gary Megge of the Michigan State Police Traffic Services
Division said there's a lot of science to show that setting speed
limits near the 85th percentile range improves both safety and
traffic flow.  That's what the state wants to see in Ann Arbor, he
said.

"Whatever Ann Arbor does to properly establish speed limits, I
wholeheartedly support that," he said.  "It's all about traffic
safety. That's what we're after.  Set the limit correctly and then
we can enforce it correctly, and that's going to maximize traffic
safety."

Mr. Megge, who has been in discussions with city officials
regarding speed limits, noted the state police also worked with
the Michigan Department of Transportation to correct speed limits
on multiple state trunklines in Ann Arbor.  Earlier this year, the
speed limit on M-14 near Barton Drive was increased from 55 mph to
65 mph.

"There are several reasons why speed limits are incorrect,"
Mr. Megge said.  "My guess is they've just been there for years
and years and they've never been reevaluated, changed or updated.
I do know that Ann Arbor, along with the vast majority of cities
in the state, many of their speed limits are definitely in need of
reevaluation and correction in an upward fashion."

City officials also have been in discussions for the last several
months with two Ann Arbor residents with strong opinions on the
city's speed limits: attorney Tom Wieder and Jim Walker, one of
the motorists who successfully fought a speeding ticket in court
two years ago.

"This isn't just coming from a bunch of scofflaws who like to
drive fast," Mr. Wieder said, noting the state police agency is on
their side.  "We wouldn't have a fight without them.  They
promoted the statute that we're asking the city to comply with, so
absolutely they're on our side."

Mr. Wieder said he's talked to a handful of residents, including
Mr. Walker, who indicated they would be willing to join in a
class-action lawsuit if the city doesn't change its ways.

"I'm more interested really in getting this straightened out than
trying to tag the city for a big bill," he said. "If they move to
comply, I may just decide not to pursue the remedial things."

Mr. Walker, a board member of the National Motorists Association
and a recognized expert on speed limits, said Ann Arbor's posted
speed limits typically fall in the 10th to 30th percentile of the
speeds drivers travel.  He claims Ann Arbor has been a "border-to-
border speed trap" for at least five decades.

He's holding his applause on winning the battle for now.

"They'll have to convince me by actual action," he said.  "I want
to see the predatory speed traps gone. Given the history of the
city, it's a wait-and-see proposition."

Mr. Walker had his speeding ticket thrown out in court about two
years ago after he argued the city's 30 mph speed limit on Nixon
Road was too low.  He said the city could not legally set a limit
lower than allowed under the access-point formula in the Michigan
Vehicle Code unless it adopted the Uniform Traffic Code, which the
city is now doing.

If the city conducted proper traffic and engineering studies,
Walker said, it would see that the limit on Nixon Road should be
40 mph -- the speed at which he was cited for driving.

Mr. Walker won his case in 2008 and helped another motorist in Ann
Arbor, Dietrich Bergmann, beat a speeding ticket using the same
argument.

Mr. Bergmann was ticketed for driving 45 mph on Huron Parkway
south of Huron River Drive.  The limit on that stretch of road was
lowered from 40 to 35 without traffic or engineering studies to
support the reduction, Bergmann argued in court.

Mr. Walker called the portion of Huron Parkway between Washtenaw
and Geddes "one of Ann Arbor's most lucrative speed traps."  The
posted speed limit is 35 mph, but Walker says it should be upped
to 45 mph based on everything he's seen.

Newport Road is another "monumental speed trap," he said.  The
posted speed limit is 25 mph, but virtually no vehicle travels
that slow, he said.  He argued it should be 40 mph.

"The whole thing about under-posted limits is it makes the traffic
officer into a road tax collector, and makes him hated and
feared," Mr. Walker said.  "And that's wrong."

The total number of speeding tickets written by all police
agencies in Ann Arbor has steadily dropped -- going from 8,461 in
2007 to 6,916 in 2009.  So far in 2010, 5,019 speeding tickets
have been written, according to court records.

Looking at just the tickets written by Ann Arbor police officers,
the numbers follow the same downward trend.  City officials
attribute that to a decline in the number of officers.

Police Chief Barnett Jones told the City Council earlier this year
that each traffic officer in Ann Arbor brings in about $110,000
per year in revenue.

"Currently, on our street, the cop just sits there and cranks out
speeding tickets," said Mr. Wieder, who lives on Newport.  "The
compliance rate with the posted limit is damn near zero."


AUTOBYTEL INC: Awaits Ruling on IPO Settlement Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Autobytel, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on the appeals from the
order granting final approval of its settlement of a class action
lawsuit in New York, according to the Company's Nov. 12, 2010 Form
10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In August 2001, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Autobytel, certain of the Company's current and former
directors and officers and underwriters involved in the Company's
initial public offering.

A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative
complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002.  The action purports to
allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs allege 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 predetermined
prices.  Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the Company's
initial public offering was false and misleading in violation of
the securities laws because it did not disclose these
arrangements.  The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.
The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  The
parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including the
parties in the Autobytel 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 Autobytel.

On October 6, 2009, the 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 were required to file answering briefs on
December 17, 2010.  The remaining objectors withdrew their appeals
with prejudice.

Autobytel, Inc. -- http://www.autobytel.com/-- based in Irvine,
Calif., is an automotive media and marketing services company
focused on helping dealers sell cars and services, and
manufacturers build brands through marketing and advertising
primarily through the Internet.  The company owns and operates
automotive Websites, including MyRide.com, Autobytel.com,
Autoweb.com, Car.com, CarSmart.com, AutoSite.com and CarTV.com.


BELL MOBILITY: Court Reserves Ruling in Canadian Telco Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Regina Leader-Post reports that after listening to two days of
legal arguments, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has reserved
decision in a class action case regarding cell phone fees.

The appeal saw more than a dozen lawyers stretched across two rows
in the courtroom in a case that has pit average cell phone users
against some of the largest players in the communications
industry, including Bell Mobility Inc., Telus Mobility, Rogers
Inc., Microcell, Aliant Telecom Inc., and SaskTel.

It stems from an application for certification of a class action
suit launched against numerous providers of cellular or wireless
voice services operating in Canada.

The claim alleges improperly imposed "system access fees" were
charged to customers over a period of about 20 years.

Although certification of the class action was initially rejected,
the class was modified and subsequently accepted in a Court of
Queen's Bench ruling in 2007, allowing it to proceed as a class
action.  However, a subsequent ruling in 2009 dismissed an
application to make it a national class action on an opt-out
basis.

Nine applications for leave to appeal were then commenced
regarding the certification orders made in Court of Queen's Bench.

The legal action dates back to 2004 when Merchant Law Group
launched lawsuits against Canada's cell phone providers
challenging the legitimacy of fees and surcharges, normally
amounting to about $6.95 per cell phone user monthly.


CANANDAIGUA NATIONAL: Awaits Approval of Settlement in NY Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Canandaigua National Corp.'s principal operating subsidiary, The
Canandaigua National Bank and Trust Company, continues to await
court approval of its settlement of a lawsuit seeking class action
status and alleging violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer
Act, according to the company's November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.

In October 2009, the Bank was served with a Summons and Complaint
filed in United States District Court for the Western District of
New York in an action seeking class action status alleging that
the Bank violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1693 et seq. and its implementing regulations 12 C.F.R
Section 205 et seq. by failing to post a notice on or at two of
its automatic teller machines advising consumers who transact an
electronic funds transfer of the fact that a fee may be imposed
for the transaction and the amount of the fee.  The plaintiff was
seeking statutory damages on behalf of the class and attorney's
fees.  Damages are capped by statute at $500,000, exclusive of
costs and fees.

On May 7, 2010, the Bank reached a settlement agreement with
plaintiff's counsel resolving all claims against the Bank.
Substantially all of the settlement will be covered by insurance.


CDX GROUP: Recalls 1,600 Desk and Table Lamps
---------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
CDX Group Inc., of Brooklyn, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of
about 1,600 Desk and Table Lamps.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Substandard electrical wiring, connections and plugs in these
lamps pose a fire and shock risk to consumers.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves eight different desk and table lamps
including item numbers 207, 303, 9774, 1108, 1109, 049-1, 054-8
and 2001-271B.  The item numbers are printed on the lamps'
packaging.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11068.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
CDX Group's showroom, New Chens Discount, Concordia Trading Inc.
and Grace Mini Market in Brooklyn, N.Y. and Dollar King in
Lexington, Ky. from April 2010 through July 2010 for between $5
and $10.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lamps and
contact CDX Group to return the lamps to the place where purchased
for a full refund.  For additional information, contact CDX Group
toll-free at (877) 253-4599 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.picture2009.com/


CELLCOM: Class Action Ruling May Affect D&O Liability Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Addy Margalit, Esq., at Levitan, Sharon & Co., reports a recent
Supreme Court judgment in Fatal v Cellcom (CM 8761/09) may have a
dramatic effect on class action suits filed in Israel and, as a
result, will affect liability policies such as directors' and
officers' liability policies, which provide coverage for such
claims, including defense costs.

The Tel Aviv District Court approved the filing of a class action
against the defendant -- a large Israeli cellular telephone
company -- for its alleged illegal billing of its clients for
emailing them a detailed account of the calls that they had made.

The Supreme Court declined a motion to file an appeal of this
decision, stating that the Court of Appeals should decide the
proper timing for allowing an appeal on such a motion (i.e., it
will not agree automatically to hear an appeal on an intermediary
decision, even if such decision allows a plaintiff to file a class
action).

Background

The Class Action Law 2006 stipulates that the filing of a claim by
way of a class action requires the approval of the court (Clause
3(b)). Clause 8(a) of the law lists a number of criteria which
should be fulfilled in order for the court to approve the filing
of a class action lawsuit.  Clause 8(d) stipulates that the
court's decision to approve or deny a motion to approve the filing
of a class action may be appealed, subject to receipt of the
Supreme Court's approval to file such an appeal.

The question which arose in this case was whether a defendant's
appeal against the court's decision to approve the filing of a
class action should be discussed immediately after such decision
has been handed down (ie, an intermediary decision), or whether
such appeal should be dealt with only after the case itself has
been heard and concluded.

Supreme Court ruling

The Supreme Court stated that an appeal filed immediately after
the approval to regard the case as a class action may be
premature.  Such request will be considered according to the
following factors:

    * The class action may conclude in a settlement agreement or
in a judgment denying the case and an appeal may therefore
eventually turn out to be irrelevant;

    * The Court of Appeals might find itself dealing with the same
contentions twice -- first when dealing with an appeal on the
motion to approve the filing of a class action, and again when
dealing with an appeal on the ruling of the case itself; and

    * The discussion on the appeal will automatically delay the
discussions on the case itself.

Therefore, the Supreme Court stated that three criteria will be
taken into account when determining the proper timing for agreeing
to hear an appeal:

    * the implication that acceptance of the class action may have
on the defendant;

    * the weight of the questions which should be discussed within
the framework of the appeal as compared to the weight of the
questions which remain to be discussed within the framework of the
class action; and

    * the chances that the appeal will be accepted.

In this specific case, the Supreme Court denied the appellant's
motion to appeal the district court's decision ruling that the
appeal may be filed only after the hearing of the case itself has
been concluded.

Insurance implications

This decision will most likely affect the number of class action
lawsuits which will be approved and discussed by the Israeli
courts.  In recent years there has been an increase in the number
of class action claims filed against directors and officers,
mainly relating to securities and particularly following the
global financial crisis.  D&O liability policies provide coverage
for such claims and determine that the insurance policy has a duty
to advance payments on account of the D&O defense.

Until the recent Supreme Court decision, D&O liability insurers
had to take into account the legal expenses which had been
incurred in the lower court, which was requested to decide whether
to approve the filing of a class action (i.e., a relatively short
process).

As a result of the recent decision will be applied, D&O liability
insurers will have to advance payment for the defense of D&O class
actions, which will result in lengthy litigation.  This will make
a substantive difference to the legal costs of the case.

For further information on this topic please contact:

          Addy Margalit, Esq.
          LEVITAN, SHARON & CO
          Telephone: +972 3 688 6768
          E-mail: addym@levitansharon.co.il

Levitan, Sharon & Co. -- http://www.israelinsurancelaw.com/-- is
a law firm specializing in Insurance and Reinsurance Law in Israel
including Financial Institutions coverage, Directors and Officers
Liability, Credit Insurance, Factoring, Debt Collection, Execution
of Foreign Judgments in Israel, Jewellers' Block, Professional
Liability, Product Liability, Aviation, Foreign Jurisdiction
Disputes and complex international litigation.


CENTERLINE HOLDING: 2nd Cir. Denies Motion to Reconsider Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Centerline Holding Company is no longer facing a federal
securities class action after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit denied a plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of
its affirmation of the case dismissal, according to the Company's
November 12, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On January 18, 2008, the first of federal securities putative
class actions was filed against the company and certain of its
officers and trustees in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  Thereafter, five other,
essentially duplicative putative class actions were also filed in
the same court.  The complaint in each case asserted that the
company and other defendants allegedly violated federal securities
law by failing to disclose in a timely fashion the company's
December 2007 re-securitization with Freddie Mac.

On May 5, 2008, the Court designated Centerline Investor Group,
which is made up of several shareholders, as lead plaintiff for
these cases.  Pursuant to the Court's stipulation and order dated
March 3, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
on July 7, 2008 in the action, In re Centerline Holding Company
Securities Litigation, No. 08 CV 00505.  The consolidated
complaint also alleges violations of the federal securities laws
in connection with the company's announcement of the Freddie Mac
transaction, changes to the Company's business model, and the
reduction in dividend guidance policy, and seeks an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of all
persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Centerline
Holding Company during the period March 12, 2007 through
December 28, 2007.

The defendants in the action filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on October 27, 2008 and the motion was
granted by U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin on
January 12, 2009.  Judge Scheindlin granted the lead plaintiff
leave to replead, and the lead plaintiff filed an Amended
Consolidated Complaint on March 13, 2009.

On April 30, 2009, the defendants in the case filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint.  The lead plaintiff
filed his opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on June 12,
2009 and the defendants filed their reply to the opposition motion
filed by the plaintiff on June 30, 2009.  On August 4, 2009 the
defendants' motion to dismiss was granted and the case was
dismissed without leave for the plaintiff to replead.

On September 2, 2009, plaintiff filed an appeal of the District
Court's decision with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  Both
the plaintiff and the defendants filed briefs in this appeal and
oral argument before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was held
on April 7, 2010.

By summary order dated June 9, 2010, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's
claims in their entirety.  On June 29, 2010, the plaintiff filed a
petition for reconsideration and rehearing en banc of the June 9,
2010 summary order.  The Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied
plaintiff's petition on August 20, 2010.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Will Continue to Pursue Dismissal of Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. disclosed in its November 12,
2010 Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, that it is continuing to
seek dismissal of several lawsuits filed against the Company.

CenterPoint Energy or its predecessor, Reliant Energy,
Incorporated, and certain of their former subsidiaries are named
as defendants in several lawsuits.

Under a master separation agreement between CenterPoint Energy and
RRI Energy, Inc. (RRI), CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries
are entitled to be indemnified by RRI for any losses, including
attorneys' fees and other costs, arising out of these lawsuits.
Pursuant to the indemnification obligation, RRI is defending
CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries to the extent named in the
lawsuits.

A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas market
participants in a number of federal and western state courts in
connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-
2002.  CenterPoint Energy's former affiliate, RRI, was a
participant in gas trading in the California and Western markets.
The lawsuits, many of which have been filed as class actions,
allege violations of state and federal antitrust laws.  Plaintiffs
in the lawsuits are seeking a variety of forms of relief,
including, among others, recovery of compensatory damages, a
trebling of compensatory damages, full consideration damages and
attorneys' fees.

CenterPoint Energy and Reliant Energy were named in approximately
30 of the lawsuits, which were instituted between 2003 and 2009.
CenterPoint Energy and its affiliates have been released or
dismissed from all but two of such cases.

CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. (CES), a subsidiary of CERC
Corp., is a defendant in a case now pending in federal court in
Nevada alleging a conspiracy to inflate Wisconsin natural gas
prices in 2000-2002.  Additionally, CenterPoint Energy was a
defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Nevada that was
dismissed in 2007, but in March 2010 the plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal to the Nevada Supreme Court.  CERC believes that neither
CenterPoint Energy nor CES is a proper defendant in the remaining
cases and will continue to pursue dismissal from those cases.


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: PPO Class Settlement Hearing on Dec. 17
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reported
that Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder was set to
resolve disputed claims in a 2005 Preferred Provider Organization
class action settlement she approved last year.

Class counsel Bradley Lakin filed the motion to resolve the
disputed claims in the September 2009 settlement of a case against
The Cincinnati Insurance Company and Cincinnati Casualty Company
on Nov. 1.

The settlement hearing was set for Friday, 9:30 a.m.

The class, led by Frank Bemis and his chiropractic office,
includes those providing medical treatment for workers
compensation claims wrongfully reduced by Cincinnati's PPO
discounts from Feb. 15, 2000 to June 3, 2009.

Four class members opted out of the settlement.

The settlement provided class members with up to 90% of the
reduced bills with Cincinnati paying up to $3.5 million total.

Mr. Bemis, as lead plaintiff, netted an award of $5,000.

Mr. Lakin and his team took home $770,000 in attorneys' fees.

The settlement was approved Sept. 3, 2009.

Mr. Bemis and fellow chiropractor Lawrence Shipley led a number of
PPO class actions in Madison County in the early part of this
decade.

The suits were filed by the then partnership of Freed & Weiss of
Chicago and the Lakin Law Firm.

The partnership fell apart in 2007.

Freed & Weiss withdrew from the Cincinnati case in April 2008.

In the motion to resolve the disputed claims, the plaintiff's
counsel writes that on Nov. 23, 2009, class member IBJI submitted
a claim under the settlement.

In January of this year, the claims administrator for the
settlement sent a cure letter to IBJI requesting that the class
member cure a part of its claim and that it submit those documents
no more than 10 days following the date of letter.

The claims administrator allegedly found problems with IBJI's
supporting documents that were required under the settlement.

IBJI then asked Mr. Lakin for more time to fix the documents and,
after Mr. Lakin contacted his clients, they denied the request.

IBJI received a partial denial of its claim in March.

On March 24, IBJI sent Cincinnati a letter contesting the partial
denial.

Cincinnati then sent Mr. Lakin a letter in April continuing to
deny the claim.

Mr. Lakin writes that while IBJI and the Cincinnati defendants
have tried to resolve the issue, they have not been able to do.

He asks Crowder to review the matter and to decide it.

The IBJI claim is the only one requiring Crowder's decision,
according to the motion.

Mr. Lakin and Timothy Campbell represent the class.

Steven Schwartz and others represent the defendants.

The case is Madison case number 05-L-178.


CLEVELAND, OH: Court Allows Red Light Camera Suit to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
TheNewspaper.com reports the red light camera program in
Cleveland, Ohio faces serious legal trouble as the state's second-
highest court ruled on Dec. 9 that a class action lawsuit could
proceed.  In its decision, a three-judge panel of the Ohio Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Appellate District overturned a county
court ruling that had blocked a class action challenge to the
city's issuance of photo tickets to the drivers of leased
vehicles.  The appellate court insisted that the case had merit as
did a federal appeals court in a separate case decision over
Cleveland's automated ticketing machines handed down last month.

A group of $100 ticket recipients sued Cleveland on the grounds
that the municipal traffic camera ordinance did not give the city
any authority to impose a fine on someone who leased his vehicle.
Under the ordinance, only the "vehicle owner" was liable for a
traffic fine.  None of the appellants owned any vehicle
photographed by Redflex Traffic Systems, the Australian company in
charge of issuing tickets in Cleveland.  Thus, the city unjustly
enriched itself, the appellants argued, by collecting money
without legal authority.  Cleveland's city attorney countered that
the lawsuit should be thrown out on the grounds that the motorists
paid their tickets, which is an admission of guilt.  The appellate
court rejected this line of thinking.

"The question before us, then, is whether appellants can prove any
set of facts demonstrating that it would be unjust for the city to
retain the fines appellants paid," Judge Kenneth A. Rocco wrote.
"While we recognize that the appellants had the opportunity to
challenge the imposition of the fines before they paid them, this
opportunity does not necessarily foreclose any right to equitable
relief . . . Among other things, the question whether appellants
were induced to pay the fines by a mistake of fact or law and
whether they were coerced to pay by a threat of additional
penalties may be relevant to this question."

The appeals court found the legal issues involved were not clear
cut and therefore should be argued fully in a trial court.  The
judges also found that it was quite possible that the facts would
show the case would be appropriately certified as a class action
so that every leased vehicle ticket recipient could recover the
fine payments collected contrary to the law.  Cleveland has
modified its ordinance so that future citations will not be
affected by the case.

A copy of the decision in Lycan v. Cleveland (Court of Appeals,
State of Ohio, 12/13/2010) is available at:

     http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/oh-clevrlc.pdf


COMMUNITY BANK: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Community Bank System, Inc., is facing a class action lawsuit for
allegedly breaching its fiduciary duties, according to the
Company's Nov. 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On October 25, 2010, the Company announced that it has entered
into a definitive agreement to acquire The Wilber Corporation,
parent company of the Wilber National Bank in Oneonta, NY, for
$101.8 million in stock and cash.  The acquisition will extend the
Company's Central New York service area to the contiguous Central
Leatherstocking, Greater Capital District, and Catskills regions
of Upstate New York.  The acquisition is expected to close during
the second quarter of 2011, pending both customary regulatory and
Wilber shareholder approval.  Upon the completion of the merger,
Community Bank will add 22 branch locations in eight counties, and
deposits of approximately $775 million.

On November 4, 2010, the Company was served with a complaint
naming the Company, The Wilber Corporation, and the Wilber
directors in a class action lawsuit filed with the New York State
Supreme Court in Otsego County, New York.  The complaint alleges
that CBSI aided and abetted various purported breaches of
fiduciary duties by Wilber and its directors involving the
appropriateness of the sale process conducted by Wilber and
fairness of the merger consideration and terms in connection with
the proposed merger agreement.


COMPELLENT TECHNOLOGIES: Weiss & Lurie Probes Proposed Dell Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Lurie is investigating the proposed sale of Compellent
Technologies Inc. (NYSE: CML) to Dell Inc. (NASDAQ: DELL).  Under
the terms of the proposal, Compellent shareholders will receive
$27.75 for each share of Compellent.  The total value of the
transaction is approximately $960 million.

Weiss & Lurie is investigating whether Compellent's Board is
acting in the best interests of shareholders in approving the
proposed transaction, whether it is seeking to maximize
shareholder value, and the potential conflicts of interests among
Compellent's Board members.  Dell's offer of $27.75 is an
approximately 17.5% discount to Compellent's closing share price
of $33.65 on Wednesday, December 9, 2010.  Further, as recently as
December 6, 2010, an analyst set a price target of $40.00 for
Compellent shares, representing a premium of approximately 44% to
Dell's $27.75 per share proposal.

If you own common stock in Compellent and would like more
information about your rights as a shareholder or additional
information concerning our investigation, please contact Michael
A. Rogovin either by email at infony@weisslurie.com or by
telephone at (888) 593-4771.

Weiss & Lurie -- http://www.weisslurie.com/-- is a national class
action and shareholder rights law firm with offices in New York
City and Los Angeles.  It has litigated hundreds of stockholder
class and derivative actions for violations of corporate and
fiduciary duties.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Overtime Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ann Zimmerman, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports a
federal judge in California ruled Tuesday that a lawsuit alleging
Costco Wholesale Corp. workers were required to work overtime
without compensation could proceed as a state class action in
California and a conditional collective action nationwide.

The original suit, filed in May 2009 in California Superior Court
and removed to federal court by the defendants, alleges that the
Issaquah, Wash.-based membership warehouse chain locked employees
in the store at the end of their shift until managers finished
chores such as emptying cash registers and removing jewelry from
display cases.

The plaintiffs allege the company did not pay its employees for
lock-in time, in violation of California wage and hour laws and
federal statute.  The plaintiffs said the lock-in periods lasted
typically from 10 to 30 minutes.

Costco did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In the conditional collective action decision, hourly employees
who worked at Costco between April 8, 2007, and Oct. 1, 2009, will
be contacted and offered the chance to join the suit and give
depositions about their experiences.  The defendants typically
will then file a motion trying to decertify the class.

In California, where about a quarter of Costco's warehouses are
based, the suit affects workers who were employed from May 15,
2005, to Oct. 1, 2009.  The suit could encompass thousands of
workers.  They are seeking back pay.

"Costco managers do a lot of administrative duties at the end of
the day," says David Sanford, attorney for the plaintiffs.  "The
rationale for locking the workers in while the managers finish up
administrative duties is to secure the building and keep people
safe.  That is a fine justification, but if you do it, you have to
pay the workers."


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Three More Class Actions Filed in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
AboutLawsuits.com reports three more class action lawsuits have
been filed in Canada against Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary,
DePuy Orthopaedics, over recalled DePuy ASR metal hip implants.

The DePuy hip replacement class action lawsuits were filed this
month across Canada, and seek to represent the 1,500 Canadians who
received DePuy ASR XL Acetabular System and ASR Hip Resurfacing
System implants from 2006 until they were removed from the market
in August.

A DePuy ASR hip replacement recall was issued by Johnson & Johnson
and DePuy Orthopaedics after the companies acknowledged that an
unacceptably high number of the devices were failing within a few
years after implant.  Approximately 93,000 of the metal-on-metal
hip implants were sold prior to the recall, exposing people to a
high risk of problems with their DePuy ASR hip replacements.

These latest lawsuits follow at least two other DePuy ASR class
action suits filed in Canada in November, one of which also
included claims for individuals implanted with certain Zimmer hip
replacements and Stryker hip replacements.

In the United States, a growing number of people who received the
ASR implant have filed an individual DePuy hip replacement
lawsuit.  All of the claims involve similar allegations of design
defect, indicating that DePuy and Johnson & Johnson failed to
adequately test the metal-on-metal hip replacement and failed to
immediately issue a recall when it became clear that the DePuy ASR
was linked to a high failure rate.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered that the federal DePuy hip replacement
litigation be consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio as part of an MDL, or multidistrict
litigation.  While the cases will be managed during pretrial
proceedings in a manner similar to how a Depuy recall class action
lawsuit would be handled, the claims in the United States remain
individual cases.


FEDEX CORP: Wins 20 of 28 Class Actions Over Ground Business Model
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Risher, writing for Memphis Commercial Appeal, reports FedEx
won a major ruling Tuesday in a class-action lawsuit challenging
its reliance on independent contractors as drivers for FedEx
Ground.

U.S. Dist. Judge Robert L. Miller Jr. sided with FedEx in 20 of 28
remaining certified class-action cases that had been consolidated
in his South Bend, Ind. court.  Results were mixed in eight other
cases.

FedEx officials hailed the ruling as a victory over opposition to
Ground's business model, which uses contractors rather than
employees as pickup and delivery drivers.

"We are very pleased with [Tues]day's significant rulings from the
Federal District Court in Indiana in favor of FedEx Ground related
to the independent contractor business model," FedEx spokesman
Maury Lane said.

"The Court found that the plaintiffs are independent contractors
as a matter of law in 20 of the 28 remaining certified class
cases," Mr. Lane said.  "In the other eight remaining certified
cases, the Court ruled in favor of FedEx Ground on some of the
claims; in three of these cases the Court ruled against FedEx
Ground on at least one claim."

Judge Miller followed the script he wrote in an August decision in
a Kansas case, when he backed FedEx Ground and set a high standard
for plaintiffs to prove their claims.

"It's huge," Donald Broughton, an analyst who follows FedEx for
Avondale Partners, said of Judge Miller's latest ruling.

"It was kind of assumed that would be the outcome after the
opinion Miller wrote in the Kansas case," Mr. Broughton added.
"He said all the rest of the plaintiffs had to give compelling
reasons" why they shouldn't be judged on the same basis as the
Kansas case.

The ruling removes a risk factor for the company's higher growth
unit.

"It's one more controversy that's resolved, and people can move
on," Mr. Broughton said.

Judge Miller pointed out that FedEx Ground can't discharge drivers
at will, but must deal with problems by canceling contracts for
breaches or not renewing the contracts.  He also noted that
contractors enter willingly into the business relationship with
FedEx, they can buy or sell their routes, and they are free to
hire employees and use their vehicles for other business purposes.

"This court held that the controls reserved to FedEx were results-
oriented: FedEx provides work to and pays contractor-drivers to
provide the specific result of timely and safely delivered
packages to FedEx customers," Judge Miller wrote.

The independent contractor model dates to FedEx's acquisition of
the old RPS in the late 1990s to challenge UPS's dominance in the
domestic ground package business.  Along with the business,
renamed FedEx Ground a decade ago, it inherited a running legal
challenge of the contractor model.

The cases combined in Northern Indiana federal court at one time
affected an estimated 30,000 FedEx Ground drivers in 40 states.

Drivers involved in the lawsuits claimed lost overtime, expense
reimbursements and other compensation they would have received as
employees performing similar work.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters said the ruling won't
deter the union in its efforts to organize FedEx workers.

"Although the Teamsters are not involved in these lawsuits, we
will continue to fight on behalf of all drivers who are exploited
by FedEx and who simply want the right to form a union," said
union spokeswoman Leigh Strope.


GENZYME CORP: Court to Hear Plea to Dismiss Mass. Suit Next Month
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on Genzyme Corp.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
class action lawsuit will be held next month in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, according to the
Company's Nov. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In July 2009 and August 2009, two purported securities class
action lawsuits were filed against Genzyme and its President and
Chief Executive Officer.  The lawsuits were filed on behalf of
those who purchased the company's common stock during the period
from June 26, 2008, through July 21, 2009, and allege violations
of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Each of the lawsuits is premised upon allegations that the company
made materially false and misleading statements and omissions by
failing to disclose instances of viral contamination at two of the
company's manufacturing facilities and the company's receipt of a
list of inspection observations from the FDA related to one of the
facilities, which detailed observations of practices that the FDA
considered to be deviations from GMP.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages and reimbursement of costs, including
attorneys' and experts' fees.

In November 2009, the lawsuits were consolidated in In Re Genzyme
Corp. Securities Litigation and a lead plaintiff was appointed.
In March 2010, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint that extended the class period from October 24, 2007
through November 13, 2009.

In June 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the class
action.  The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Company's
motion to dismiss in August 2010 and the Company filed a reply in
support of its motion to dismiss in September 2010.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled to be held in
January 2011.

Genzyme Corporation is a biotechnology company. Genzyme operates
in four segments: Genetic Diseases, Cardiometabolic and Renal,
Biosurgery and Hematologic Oncology.  The company is headquartered
in Cambridge, Mass.


GENZYME CORP: Seeks Consolidation of 5 Federal Securities Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Genzyme Corp. and plaintiffs of five separate federal securities
lawsuits, who are also seeking class certification, have agreed to
ask the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to
consolidate the Lawsuits, according to the Company's Nov. 9, 2010
Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On July 29, 2010, the company received a letter from Sanofi-
Aventis containing an unsolicited, non-binding proposal to acquire
all of the company's outstanding shares of common stock for $69
per share in cash.  The company's board of directors evaluated the
proposal and unanimously rejected it on August 11, 2010.  On
August 29, 2010, the company received a second letter from Sanofi
that contained a proposal identical to the one in its July 29,
2010 letter. This proposal was again evaluated and unanimously
rejected by the company's board of directors. On October 4, 2010,
Sanofi commenced an unsolicited tender offer for all of the
company's outstanding shares of common stock for $69 per share in
cash.  Also on October 4, 2010, the company's board of directors
urged shareholders to take no action with respect to the tender
offer.  On October 7, 2010, the board voted unanimously to reject
the unsolicited tender offer and further recommended that
shareholders not tender their shares to Sanofi pursuant to the
tender offer.

On August 11, 2010, Jerry L. & Mena M. Morelos Revocable Trust
filed a lawsuit allegedly on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Company, its board of directors, certain
executive officers, and Sanofi.  The suit alleges that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by attempting
to sell Genzyme without regard to the effect of a potential
transaction on shareholders, adopting processes and procedures
that will not benefit shareholders and engaging in self-dealing in
order to obtain personal benefits not shared equally by all
shareholders in connection with a purported proposed merger.  The
suit alleges that certain of the Company's directors are beholden
to activist shareholders.  The suit also alleges that the Company
and Sanofi aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary
duties.  The suit seeks, among other relief, (i) class action
status, (ii) an order enjoining the defendants from consummating a
transaction, unless and until the company adopts procedures
designed to obtain the best value for the company's shareholders,
(iii) an order directing the defendants to exercise their
fiduciary duties and commence a sales process that is in the best
interest of shareholders, (iv) an order rescinding, to the extent
already implemented, any transaction agreement, (v) an order
imposing a constructive trust in favor of the plaintiff and the
putative class upon any benefits improperly received by the
defendants as a result of any transaction, and (vi) an award to
plaintiffs of the costs of the action, including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses.

On September 8, 2010, Bernard Malina filed a lawsuit allegedly on
behalf of a putative class of shareholders in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against the company and
its board of directors.  The suit alleges that the company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by attempting to sell
Genzyme without regard to the effect of a potential transaction on
shareholders and engaging in a plan and scheme to obtain personal
benefits at the expense of shareholders in connection with a
purported proposed merger. The suit seeks, among other relief, (i)
class action status, (ii) an order directing the defendants to
exercise their fiduciary duties and commence a sales process that
is in the best interest of shareholders, (iii) compensatory
damages, and (iv) an award to plaintiffs of the costs of the
action, including reasonable attorneys', accountants' and experts'
fees and expenses.

On September 9, 2010, Emanuel Resendes filed a lawsuit allegedly
on behalf of a putative class of shareholders in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against the company's
board of directors and certain executive officers.  The suit
alleges that the company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties by attempting to sell Genzyme without regard to the effect
of a potential transaction on shareholders and engaging in self-
dealing in order to obtain personal benefits not shared equally by
all shareholders in connection with a purported proposed merger.
The suit seeks, among other relief, (i) class action status, (ii)
an order enjoining the defendants from entering into any contract
which harms the class or could prohibit the defendants from
maximizing shareholder value, (iii) an order enjoining the
defendants from initiating any defensive measures that would make
the consummation of a transaction more difficult or costly for a
potential acquiror, (iv) an order directing the defendants to
exercise their fiduciary duties and refrain from advancing their
own interests at the expense of the class and their fiduciary
duties, and (v) an award to plaintiffs of the costs of the action,
including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses.

On September 14, 2010, William S. Field, Trustee u/a dated October
12, 1991, by William S. Field Jr., filed a lawsuit allegedly on
behalf of a putative class of shareholders in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against the company, its
board of directors and certain executive officers.  The suit
alleges that the company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to pursue a transaction that would provide the
highest value reasonably available for shareholders and by not
providing full and fair disclosure to shareholders. The suit
seeks, among other relief, (i) class action status, (ii) an order
appointing an independent special committee with authority to
evaluate, negotiate and, if in the best interests of shareholders,
accept the offer from Sanofi or other offers, (iii) an award to
plaintiffs of the costs of the action, including reasonable
attorneys', accountants' and experts' fees and expenses and (iv)
such other relief as the court deems proper.

On October 18, 2010, Warren Pinchuck filed a lawsuit allegedly on
behalf of a putative class of shareholders in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against the company, its
board of directors and certain executive officers.  The suit
alleges that the defendants violated Section 14(e) of the Exchange
Act by issuing a false and misleading Schedule 14D-9 statement and
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, refusing
to negotiate in good faith with Sanofi and by failing to allow due
diligence to be performed to facilitate a higher offer being made
by Sanofi or others. The suit seeks, among other relief (i) class
action status, (ii) a declaration that the defendants have
violated Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act, (iii) a declaration
that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties, (iv) an
order enjoining the defendants from breaching their fiduciary
duties by refusing to consider and respond to the proposed
transaction in good faith, (v) an order enjoining the defendants
from initiating any anti-takeover devices that would inhibit the
defendants' ability to maximize value for their shareholders, (vi)
compensatory damages, to the extent injunctive relief is not
granted, and (vii) an award to plaintiffs of the costs of the
action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees and
expenses.

The plaintiffs and the defendants in the Morelos Action, Malina
Action, Resendes Action, Field Action and Pinchuck Action have
filed a joint stipulation with the federal court seeking
consolidation of the cases.


GENZYME CORP: Court Consolidates Four State Securities Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genzyme Corp. is facing a consolidated class action complaint
stemming from four state securities actions that allege breach of
fiduciary duties in relation to the offer extended by Sanofi-
Aventis, according to the Company's Nov. 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On July 29, 2010, the company received a letter from Sanofi-
Aventis containing an unsolicited, non-binding proposal to acquire
all of the company's outstanding shares of common stock for $69
per share in cash.  The company's board of directors evaluated the
proposal and unanimously rejected it on August 11, 2010.  On
August 29, 2010, the company received a second letter from Sanofi
that contained a proposal identical to the one in its July 29,
2010 letter. This proposal was again evaluated and unanimously
rejected by the company's board of directors. On October 4, 2010,
Sanofi commenced an unsolicited tender offer for all of the
company's outstanding shares of common stock for $69 per share in
cash.  Also on October 4, 2010, the company's board of directors
urged shareholders to take no action with respect to the tender
offer.  On October 7, 2010, the board voted unanimously to reject
the unsolicited tender offer and further recommended that
shareholders not tender their shares to Sanofi pursuant to the
tender offer.

On August 16, 2010, plaintiff Chester County Employees' Retirement
Fund filed a lawsuit allegedly on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders in Massachusetts Superior Court (Middlesex County)
against the Company and its board of directors.  An amended
complaint was filed in the Chester Action on September 2, 2010.
The amended complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to adequately inform themselves
regarding the potential offer by Sanofi or any offer by any other
party and failing to pursue the best available transaction for
shareholders.  The suit seeks, among other relief, (i) class
action status, (ii) an order enjoining the defendants from
initiating any defensive measures designed to prevent shareholders
from receiving and accepting a value-maximizing offer, (iii) an
order directing the defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties
to obtain a transaction in shareholders' best interests, (iv)
compensatory damages and (v) an award to plaintiffs of the costs
of the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees
and expenses. On September 23, 2010, by joint motion of the
parties, the Chester Action was transferred to the Business
Litigation Session of Suffolk County Superior Court in Boston,
Massachusetts.

On August 17, 2010, Alan R. Kahn filed a lawsuit allegedly on
behalf of a putative class of shareholders in the Massachusetts
Superior Court (Middlesex County) against the Company and its
board of directors, certain executive officers, and Sanofi.  The
suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
in approving a proposed transaction and failing to negotiate in
good faith with Sanofi.  The suit seeks, among other relief, (i)
class action status, (ii) an order enjoining the defendants from
initiating any defensive measures that would inhibit the
defendants' ability to maximize shareholder value, (iii)
compensatory damages and (iv) an award to plaintiffs of the costs
of the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees
and expenses.

On September 1, 2010, David Shade filed a lawsuit allegedly on
behalf of a putative class of shareholders in the Massachusetts
Superior Court (Middlesex County) against the company and its
board of directors.  The suit alleges that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties in rejecting all offers and approaches by
Sanofi and refusing to engage in any negotiations with Sanofi. The
suit seeks, among other relief, (i) class action status, (ii) a
declaration that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties,
(iii) compensatory damages and (iv) an award to plaintiffs of the
costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses and experts' fees.

On September 2, 2010, the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees'
Retirement System filed a lawsuit allegedly on behalf of a
putative class of shareholders in the Massachusetts Superior Court
(Middlesex County) against the company and its board of directors.
The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in rejecting all offers and approaches by Sanofi and
refusing to engage in any negotiations with Sanofi. The suit
seeks, among other relief, (i) class action status, (ii) a
declaration that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties,
(iii) compensatory damages and (iv) an award to plaintiffs of the
costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses and experts' fees.

On October 5, 2010, plaintiffs and the defendants in the Chester
Action, Kahn Action, Shade Action and Louisiana Action filed a
joint stipulation with the Business Litigation Session of Suffolk
County Superior Court in the Chester Action seeking consolidation
of the state cases. On the same day, the Court signed an order
approving the consolidation of these cases in In Re Genzyme Corp.
Shareholder Litigation.  On October 18, 2010, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint allegedly on behalf of a putative
class of shareholders against the company and its board of
directors.  The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duty by failing to properly inform
themselves of Sanofi's offer, by refusing to negotiate in good
faith with Sanofi, and by attempting to thwart Sanofi's proposed
tender offer.  The suit seeks, among other relief (i) class action
status, (ii) a declaration that the defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties, (iii) an order requiring the defendants to fully
disclose all material information regarding the Schedule 14D-9
filed by the company, (iv) compensatory damages and (v) an award
to plaintiffs of the costs of the action, including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses.


GEO GROUP: Awaits Final Court Approval of "Shelby" Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, Inc., is awaiting final court approval of its
settlement with plaintiffs of a class action lawsuit, which has
been preliminarily approved by the court, according to GEO's
November 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 3, 2010.

On April 27, 2010, a putative stockholder class action was filed
in the District Court for Harris County, Texas by Todd Shelby
against Cornell, members of the Cornell board of directors,
individually, and GEO.  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint
on May 28, 2010.  The amended complaint alleges, among other
things, that the Cornell directors, aided and abetted by Cornell
and GEO, breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
Merger.  Among other things, the amended complaint seeks to enjoin
Cornell, its directors and GEO from completing the Merger and
seeks a constructive trust over any benefits improperly received
by the defendants as a result of their alleged wrongful conduct.

The parties have reached a settlement in principle, which has been
preliminarily approved by the court and remains subject to
confirmatory final court approval of the settlement and dismissal
of the action with prejudice.


HOVENSA: Faces Class Action Over Dec. 9 Hydrocarbon Emissions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joy Blackburn, writing for Virgin Islands Daily News, reports a
class action lawsuit has been filed against HOVENSA stemming from
the Dec. 9 release of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere and over
downwind neighborhoods.

Colianni and Colianni law firm filed the suit in V.I. Superior
Court on behalf of "all persons who were exposed to toxic fumes
and hydrocarbons released from the coker plant at the HOVENSA
refinery on Dec. 9, 2010, and who developed illnesses or property
damage as a result of the exposure," according to court papers.

The class includes people who live, work or attend school in areas
near the refinery, including Clifton Hill, the Harvey housing
community, Central High School, Ricardo Richards Elementary School
and surrounding areas.

The lawsuit was filed on Dec. 9, the same day as the release.

The release of hydrocarbons sickened people at Central High School
and in neighborhoods near the refinery, prompting some to seek
treatment at Luis Hospital.  Central closed at 10 a.m. on Dec. 9
after about 200 students and staff reported feeling ill in the
wake of the refinery's eight-minute release of hydrocarbons around
7:20 a.m.

By noon on Dec. 10, 36 people had received treatment in Luis
Hospital's emergency room for nausea, vomiting, respiratory
problems, skin and eye irritation and headaches in connection with
the release of hydrocarbons, officials said.

"In this case, there was a severe reaction by the residents of the
community in terms of smelling it and experiencing physical
symptoms," said attorney Vincent Colianni Jr.  "It really was a
situation where everyone in the community experienced a similar
odor and experienced similar health effects."

Mr. Colianni said that the full extent of the injuries is not yet
known.

The case currently has three named plaintiffs, residents of
Clifton Hill and Profit: Melinda Ventura, Lisette Cruz and
Herminio Torres Jr.

Mr. Colianni noted, however, that the firm has received calls from
residents of surrounding neighborhoods who want to join the class
of plaintiffs.  He said he thinks the class could potentially
include "thousands."

The lawsuit alleges negligence, trespass, battery, and public and
private nuisance by HOVENSA.

It alleges that the refinery:

    * Engaged in a pattern of "willful and conscious disregard for
plaintiffs' rights and safety," and failed to take reasonable
measures to prevent the release of "toxic fumes and hydrocarbons."

    * Exposed the plaintiffs and their property to airborne
contamination, which intruded on their properties without their
consent.

    * Caused injury to the plaintiffs and damaged their property
and the nearby natural resources of St. Croix "thereby depriving
the plaintiffs and the people of St. Croix of the right to use and
enjoy those natural resources in their natural, uncontaminated
form."

The suit alleges the release caused a private nuisance,
interfering with plaintiffs' "comfortable and quiet enjoyment" of
their property and that HOVENSA's release of hydrocarbons
constituted battery of the plaintiffs.

HOVENSA spokesman Alex Moorhead declined comment on the lawsuit.

"It has been our longstanding practice not to comment on
litigation," Mr. Moorhead said.

The suit also seeks a court order requiring the refinery to
implement mitigation procedures, and staffing or equipment
upgrades "to restore and preserve the quality of the air in the
residential neighborhood downwind of the HOVENSA refinery."

The suit asks for the costs of removing harmful substances from
plaintiffs' property, as well as the costs of the lawsuit and
attorneys' fees.

Mr. Colianni said the law firm made the decision to file the suit
on the same day as the release because "we believe we had
sufficient information that HOVENSA was negligent because of the
release and the impact it was having on nearby residents."

HOVENSA has said that a valve at the coker unit malfunctioned,
leading to the release, and that the valve was closed manually
eight minutes later.

"We don't know a whole lot more yet about what exactly went on at
HOVENSA.  We will get that in discovery, and the EPA is conducting
an investigation." Mr. Colianni said.


MADISON COUNTY: On ATRA's Watch List as Asbestos Cases Soar
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ann Knef, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
Madison County's soaring asbestos docket has earned the court a
spot on the American Tort Reform Association's "Judicial Hellhole"
Watch List.

The annual report released Tuesday warns that the court's
increasing number of asbestos cases and "questionable rulings"
could sink Madison County back into Hellhole status after recent
reforms involving abuses of the system, such as forum shopping.

Madison County had for several years occupied the Number 1 spot on
the ATRA's Hellhole list because of its nationwide class action
suits, a high number of out of state asbestos claims, high
verdicts and what was described as "prejudicial" court rulings.

"This former #1 Judicial Hellhole, which in recent years had been
on the road to reform, now seems headed in the wrong direction
once again," said ATRA President Tiger Joyce. "Troubling signs
include annual asbestos case filings approaching their all-time
high, and the growing percentage of lawsuits brought by plaintiffs
with no connection to the county."

Madison County's asbestos docket reached an all-time high of 953
cases in 2003.  After now-retired Circuit Judge Daniel Stack took
over the docket in 2004 and declared he would dismiss asbestos
cases that did not belong in Madison County, the number of new
cases declined.  But that trend was reversed in 2007.  This year,
the number of new asbestos claims is expected to exceed 800.

An overwhelming number of Madison County's asbestos claims are
filed by out of state plaintiffs through local counsel.  According
to a study by the Illinois Civil Justice League (ICJL), just 11
percent of claims are filed by people who live or work in the
county or have some other connection to Madison County.

Judge Stack, who retired Dec. 3, said on his way out that Madison
County was an efficient and fair court for asbestos cases.  He
said that claims would be filed somewhere: "Do they (defendants)
want to send lawyers to Iowa . . . and then drive two to three
hours? Is that really more convenient?"

Ed Murnane, president of ICJL, countered Judge Stack's logic.

"It may be logical for the plaintiffs but there is no monopoly on
wisdom, efficiency, experience and convenience in Madison County,"
Mr. Murnane said.  "There is a high concentration of plaintiffs'
attorneys who like these cases and are very happy with Madison
County as a venue."

Mr. Murnane also is chairman of the ATRA.

Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder, who took over the asbestos docket
in July before Stack retired, has said she will follow the law
when deciding whether cases belong in Madison County.

ATRA's report also criticized the increased number of asbestos
trial slots added to accommodate Madison County's growing docket,
saying that some defendants have reported the number of lawsuits
filed against them here has doubled over the past four years.

"The number of asbestos trial slots has climbed from 424 in 2009,
to 490 in 2010, and to 520 in 2011, the ATRA report states.  "This
places growing pressure on defendants to settle even meritless
cases."

Travis Akin, executive director of Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch
said Madison County's Watch List status is "troubling news."  He
said that local elected officials as well as judges up for
election and retention in 2012 should "pay attention to this
report and work toward improving the legal climate in Madison
County."

"Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch certainly will be watching them to
see how they react to this report and I-LAW will continue to sound
the alarm about the need for continued reform efforts in the
Metro-East," Mr. Akin said.

Madison County Chief Judge Ann Callis has been contacted for
comment on the report.

Judges Callis, Crowder, as well as Third Circuit Judges Dave
Hylla, Charles Romani and John Knight will be up for retention in
2012.

The ATRA report also took note of an appellate court decision in
September that reversed Judge Stack in an asbestos case brought by
the wife of a deceased railroad worker who resided outside of
Illinois.  The worker had lived in Texas, had worked in Ohio and
Michigan and had no apparent connection to Madison County.

"If given proper respect by other trial courts, this sound
appellate decision could significantly reduce brazen forum
shopping by plaintiffs' lawyers throughout Illinois," the report
states.  "Hope springs eternal."

The ATRA report also mentioned a $43 million Madison County jury
verdict against Ford in 2005, involving a Lincoln Town Car gas
tank explosion after a high speed impact.

The verdict, upheld at the appellate level, is currently on appeal
at the Illinois Supreme Court.

"Unless overturned, the logic of such a decision would require
manufacturers to design and sell, at unfathomable prices, products
that are literally indestructible and able to survive extremely
unlikely accidents," the report states.

Another Madison County case singled out in the ATRA report
involved a class action suit against Blimpie Subs by plaintiffs
who claim they discovered their sandwiches did not contain double
the meat of regular sandwiches.

"A 'where's the meat' lawsuit challenging whether Blimpie's
sandwiches are 'Super Stacked' as advertised is yet another
throwback to Madison County's days as 'America's Class-Action
Capital,'" the report states.

However, ATRA praised a February asbestos jury verdict that went
in favor of Ford.

"As the first asbestos trial of 2010 and the first heard by Judge
Crowder, it may be reason for optimism," the report states.

ATRA: St. Clair County raises 'anxiety'

St. Clair County's new distinction as hosting an asbestos docket
earned it a spot on the ATRA's Watch List.

"St. Clair County, also continues to raise anxiety among civil
defendants," the report states. "Like its Neighbor (Madison
County), "St. Clair County is viewed by personal injury lawyers
around the country as a choice jurisdiction in which to file their
lawsuits."

In 2009, there were four asbestos cases filed in St. Clair County.
As of Dec. 1, there were 53 new asbestos suits filed in St. Clair.

Mr. Murnane expressed concern over St. Clair County's growing
asbestos docket.

"While Judge Crowder, and Judge Callis, seem to be open to reform
and improvement, St. Clair seems to be going in the opposition
direction," he said.  "Right now, the numbers are not as
overhwelming as Madison County's numbers but they need close
scrutiny.  The Appellate Court ruling should have the same
restraining effect on St. Clair, we hope, and will keep the
numbers from sky rocketing."

The ATRA report also pointed out retired Circuit Judge Michael
O'Malley's transition into the private sector in July as a
personal injury lawyer.

"That the former judge does not view his role-switch as the
inherent conflict of interest that it obviously is would make for
side-splitting backwoods satire were the sobering stakes not so
high for the defendant," the report states.


NFL PLAYERS ASSOC: Judge Junks Malpractice Case v. Manatt
---------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at The Am Law Daily by Brian
Baxter, two years ago Manatt, Phelps & Phillips and its co-counsel
at McKool Smith scored a major victory on behalf of 2,062 retired
National Football League players by winning a $28 million damages
judgment after a federal jury found the NFL Players Association
had wrongly excluded retirees from the union's marketing deals.

"The day the trial was over, we were just elated," says Manatt
litigation partner Peter Parcher, who handled the case along with
the firm's sports law chair and IP litigator Ronald Katz.  "We
really came to see the retired guys as not being treated the way
you would treat elders in a family.  We worked days, nights, and
weekends on this against some formidable opposition."

But 18 months after Manatt and McKool prevailed over the union's
lawyers at Dewey & LeBoeuf -- led by longtime NFLPA outside
counsel Jeffrey Kessler, the chair of the firm's global litigation
department -- the bottom fell out.  The case had helped shine a
spotlight on the economic hardships faced by many former NFL
players, but now two renegade groups of those retirees were suing
Manatt and McKool for malpractice, claiming both firms left some
them out of a subsequent settlement with the union and blew a
chance at extracting greater damages at trial.

"To hear some of the things they were saying about our team, I was
like, 'Oh my God, what could this possibly be?" says Mr. Parcher,
seeking to explain his reaction to the suit filed by former NFL
cornerback Bernard Parrish and roughly 40 to 50 other retirees
that signed a form letter expressing their intent to go after
their former lawyers.

On Dec. 7, Manatt and McKool got some vindication.  U.S. district
court judge William Alsup in San Francisco, who had presided over
the initial trial two years ago, dismissed the malpractice case
against both firms in a 13-page ruling.

"Judge Alsup's opinion shows that this lawsuit was the work of one
person and there were another 2,050 people that were really
supportive of us during this thing," says Manatt's Mr. Katz.  "And
that's what meant the most to us."

That "one person" is Mr. Parrish, who in his opinion, Judge Alsup
writes watched the "class action closely from the sidelines and
frequently voiced his own displeasure with class counsel."
Judge Alsup says in his opinion that he frequently received
letters from Mr. Parrish and directed class counsel at Manatt and
McKool to address any of the former player's concerns.

"There is little doubt Parrish is the moving and organizing force
behind this sequel lawsuit," Judge Alsup writes.  "Because Bernard
Parrish's name was not included on the final roster of Adderley
class members, he was not bound by the Adderley settlement and his
rights were not affected by that judgment; he was not in the
class."

Herb Adderley, a former cornerback for the Green Bay Packers and
member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame for which the class is
named, said in November 2008 that the trial court victory against
the NFLPA was better than the three Super Bowls he had won.  The
jury awarded Mr. Adderley and his fellow retirees $7.1 million in
compensatory damages and $21 million in punitive damages in a
decision that was hailed as a landmark win for retirees.

In June 2009, the NFLPA, now under the leadership of former Patton
Boggs partner DeMaurice Smith, agreed not to appeal the judgment
and settled with the retired players for 94 percent of the initial
award, Mr. Parcher says.  Judge Alsup singled out Mr. Parcher for
particular praise in his order dismissing the malpractice case,
which is a welcome victory for a firm that has weathered some bad
headlines this year.

"The jury gave only $7.1 million in compensatory damages.  But
then the jury layered on a whopping punitive award of $21
million," Judge Alsup wrote.  "This was a multiple of nearly
three. In the Court's judgment, this large punitive award was the
result of the excellent trial work of Attorney Pete Parcher of the
Manatt firm, who came into the case for trial.  His performance
was superior."

Added Judge Alsup: "[Parcher] made a convincing case for breach of
fiduciary duty.  Yes, he had to work with a problematic damage
study, but he did so admirably--winning a large punitive verdict."

Mr. Parcher's lingering memory from the win against the NFLPA is
of Mr. Adderley--a man of "real gravitas," he says--sitting at
trial wearing his gold "NFL Alumni" blazer.  "This case was
clearly about money, don't get me wrong, that was important,"
Mr. Parcher says.  "But it was also about the issues many of these
retired guys have and their dignity."

Mr. Katz says his firm will continue to represent retired NFL
players because of clients like Mr. Adderley.  Manatt is
representing Hall of Famer Jim Brown in an appeal of a civil suit
dismissed last year against video game publisher Electronic Arts.

Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin attorney liability
practice chair Pamela Phillips in San Francisco represented Manatt
in the malpractice case, while Munger, Tolles & Olson served as
counsel to McKool.  Ms. Phillips brought the motion to dismiss six
weeks ago and a hearing before Alsup took place last Thursday.

Maxwell Blecher, a name partner at Los Angeles firm Blecher &
Collins, represented Parrish and the dissenting players in the
suit against Manatt and McKool Smith.  He told The Am Law Daily
that there's no way class members could have protected themselves
in advance of a jury verdict, which "perfected the malpractice."
Blecher also criticized the idea that punitive damages could
compensate for a lack of compensatory damages.

"I don't think this decision is analytically defensible or would
withstand analytical scrutiny," Mr. Blecher says. "I think [Alsup]
made a series of mistakes . . . and I would say the probability is
that we will appeal."


NICOR INC: D&Os Sued Over Sale of Company to AGL Resources
----------------------------------------------------------
Plumbers Local #65 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Nicor Inc., et al., Case No.
2010-CH-52627 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. December 13, 2010),
accuses certain of the officers and directors of Nicor, Inc.,
aided and abetted by the Company, AGL Resources Inc., Ottawa
Acquisition LLC and Apollo Acquisition Corp., of violating
applicable law by directly breaching their fiduciary duties owed
to plaintiff and the other public shareholders of the Company,
arising out of defendants' efforts to complete the sale of the
Company to AGL via an unfair process and at an unfair price.

Nicor, an Illinois corporation, is a holding company headquartered
in Naperville, Illinois, whose major subsidiaries include Nicor
Gas, one of the nation's largest distributors of natural gas, and
Tropical Shipping, a transporter of containerized freight in the
Bahamas and the Caribbean region.

Defendant AGL is an Atlanta-based energy services company which
primarily distributes natural gas to 2.3 million customers in
Florida, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, Tennessee and Virginia.
Ottawa and Apollo are wholly-owned subsidiaries of AGL.

Nicor and AGL announced on December 7, 2010, that Nicor had
entered into a definitive Merger Agreement to be acquired by AGL
for $21.20 in cash and 0.8382 shares of AGL common stock, which
together represent a current market value of $51 per share and a
premium of 12% to Nicor's closing stock price of $46.76 the day
before the announcement.

Plumbers Local, a Nicor shareholder, says that the price is
"surprisingly" low, given the access AGL will gain to expensive
and strategic natural gas pipelines, and to Nicor's expensive
storage development in California and Louisiana, and especially as
the energy industry is making a fundamental "green" shift from
coal to natural gas.

Plumbers Local adds that the terms of Merger agreement contains
several onerous, preclusive deal protection devices that act to
prevent other bidders from making competing offers for the
Company, including:

  (a) a termination fee of $36-$67 million that must be paid to
      AGL in event that Nicor's Board chooses to accept a superior
      proposal;

  (b) a no shop/no talk clause that forbid defendants from
      communicating with or providing Company information to
      competing bidders unless an unsolicited superior proposal is
      made; and

  (c) recurring unlimited matching rights that allow AGL to match
      any superior proposal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leigh R. Lasky, Esq.
          Norman Rifkind, Esq.
          Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
          Heidi Vonderheide, Esq.
          LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1320
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Telephone: (312) 634-0057

               - and -

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          Edward M. Gergosian
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058

               - and -

          Patrick J. O'Hara, Esq.
          CAVANAGH & O'HARA
          407 East Adams Street
          Springfield, IL 62701
          Telephone: (217) 544-1771


OLD REPUBLIC: Subsidiary Settles Certain State Suits for $12.7MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic National Title Insurance Co., a principal title
insurance subsidiary of Old Republic International Corp., has
settled some of the class-action suits over title insurance in
Connecticut, New Jersey, and Ohio, according to Old Republic's
November 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010,

Purported class action lawsuits are pending against the Company's
principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title
Insurance Company, in federal courts in two states -- Pennsylvania
(Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Eastern District,
Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006), and Texas (Ahmad et al. v.
ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Northern District, Texas, Dallas
Division, filed February 8, 2008).  The plaintiffs allege that
ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue or refinance credits on
the premiums charged for title insurance covering mortgage
refinancing transactions, as required by rate schedules filed by
ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the state insurance
regulatory authorities.  The suits also allege violations of the
federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

A class has been certified in the Pennsylvania action.

Substantially similar lawsuits, though without alleging violations
of RESPA, were pending against ORNTIC in Connecticut, New Jersey
and Ohio but have subsequently been settled.  The settlement
agreement reached in the Connecticut action is not expected to
cost ORNTIC more than $2.9 million, while that in New Jersey will
cost less than $800,000, including attorneys' fees and
administrative costs.  The Ohio class action settlement caps
ORNTIC's exposure at $9.0 million.


OLD REPUBLIC: ORHP Unit Continues to Defend Suits in Calif. & Ala.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic Home Protection Company, a subsidiary of Old Republic
International Corp., continue to defend itself against two class
action lawsuits in California and Alabama, according to the
Company's Nov. 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010,

National class action suits have been filed against the Company's
subsidiary, Old Republic Home Protection Company, in the
California Superior Court, San Diego, and the U.S. District Court
in Birmingham, Alabama.

The California suit has been filed on behalf of all persons who
made a claim under an ORHP home warranty contract from March 6,
2003 to the present.  The suit alleges breach of contract, breach
of the implicit covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
violations of certain California consumer protection laws and
misrepresentation arising out of ORHP's alleged failure to adopt
and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation
and processing of claims under its home warranty contracts.  The
suit seeks unspecified damages consisting of the rescission of the
class members' contracts, restitution of all sums paid by the
class members, punitive damages, and declaratory and injunctive
relief. ORHP has removed the action to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California.

The Alabama suit alleges that ORHP pays fees to the real estate
brokers who market its home warranty contracts and that the
payment of such fees is in violation of Section 8(a) of RESPA.
The suit seeks unspecified damages, including treble damages under
RESPA.

No class has been certified in either action.


OMAHA, NE: May Face Class Action Over Potholes
----------------------------------------------
Todd Cooper, writing for Omaha World-Herald, reports Omaha
resident Paul Tuohy filed suit Monday against the City of Omaha,
alleging that his car suffered $1,300 in damage when he hit a
series of potholes last spring.

Meanwhile, an Omaha attorney said he plans to file a lawsuit
against the city in the next few weeks over damage that his
Mercedes suffered in June.

Attorney James Sherrets said he had considered filing a class
action lawsuit against the city on behalf of the record number of
drivers submitting claims in the past year over tire-popping and
rim-bending potholes.  The city has received more than 272 claims
for pothole damage in 2010 -- five times the number of claims
filed in 2009.

Mr. Sherrets, who says his 2010 Mercedes-Benz E350 suffered $2,000
in damage, decided against the class action suit "because I think
the city has enough problems right now."

That concern, however, won't stop Mr. Sherrets from seeking to
take the deposition of Omaha Mayor Jim Suttle, who is in the midst
of fighting an attempt to recall him from office.

Mr. Sherrets said he'll ask a judge for permission to explore
"what Suttle knew" about the extent of the city's potholes.  That
means Suttle can add this to the list of reasons to fight to keep
his job: a potential deposition on his pothole position.

"I'd like to question him on his knowledge of the pothole
conditions generally," said Mr. Sherrets, who acknowledged that he
signed a petition to recall Mayor Suttle.  "These aren't just
bumps in the road; it's cost people hundreds of thousands of
dollars because duty was shirked.

"Yet the city's attorneys play this game and pretend like the city
isn't responsible because they didn't have specific notice of a
problem."

Aida Amoura, the mayor's spokeswoman, said the pothole criticism
shows how far critics will sink to second-guess Mayor Suttle.
Mayor Suttle pushed for -- and the City Council passed -- a $50
wheel fee on suburban commuters in the hopes of funding street
repairs.

"Mayor Suttle didn't create these potholes," Ms. Amoura said.
"There's seemingly not enough things that people want to blame him
for."

City attorneys say they're not playing games to avoid blame on
pothole claims.  Under state law, cities and counties aren't
liable for damage unless they've been given "reasonable notice" of
a hazard and failed to correct it.

In turn, the city rarely pays out on pothole claims.

Assistant City Attorney Rosemarie Lee has said that last winter's
record number of potholes made it difficult for city officials to
know which specific pothole caused damage to a vehicle.
Compounding the problem, she said, is the fact that a number of
potholes popped up in the same spot where potholes had been
previously repaired.

Mr. Sherrets acknowledged that a "brutal winter" contributed to
the conditions.

However, he said the mayor, who took office in May 2009, and
Public Works Department officials should have done more to seal
the streets before winter.  Mr. Sherrets also suggested that
Mayor Suttle should have asked for volunteer pothole fillers from
city departments beyond Public Works.

In the lawsuit filed Monday, Mr. Tuohy lists no problems with the
mayor -- only problems with his 1991 Buick LeSabre.

"All 4 struts ruined, left tie rod, bushings and it needs a front-
end alignment," he wrote.

Mr. Tuohy even attached a hand-drawn map of the route he used to
take from home to work near Westroads Mall.  Scribbled on
Mr. Tuohy's map were 10 giant potholes.

"If a potential buyer discovers this damage, he would not want to
buy it," Mr. Tuohy wrote.  "Plus, I need it fixed so it is safe to
drive again."


OPLINK COMMS: Plaintiffs' Appeals of Suit Settlement Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from a court's decision to finally approve a settlement of
a lawsuit filed against Oplink Communications, Inc., remain
pending, according to the Company's Nov. 12, 2010 Form 10-Q filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 3, 2010.

In November 2001, Oplink and certain of its officers and directors
were named as defendants in a class action shareholder complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  In an amended complaint, the plaintiffs
alleged that Oplink, certain of Oplink's officers and directors
and the underwriters of Oplink's initial public offering violated
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegations that
Oplink's registration statement and prospectus failed to disclose
material facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and
the stock allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters.  Similar
complaints were filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of other
public companies that went public in the late 1990s and early
2000s and their IPO underwriters.  During the summer of 2008, the
parties engaged in a formal mediation process to discuss a global
resolution of the IPO Lawsuits.

Ultimately, the parties reached an agreement to settle all 309
cases against all defendants, and entered into a settlement
agreement in April 2009.  The settlement provides for a $586
million recovery in total, divided among the 309 cases.  Oplink's
share of the settlement is roughly $327,458, which is the amount
Oplink will be required to pay if the settlement is finally
approved.

In October 2009, the Court certified the settlement class in each
case and granted final approval to the settlement.  A number of
appeals have been filed with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,
challenging the fairness of the settlement.  A number of
shareholder plaintiffs have also filed petitions for leave to
appeal the class certification portion of Judge Scheindlin's
ruling.  These appeals and petitions are pending.

Oplink Communications, Inc. -- http://www.oplink.com/-- is
engaged in designing, manufacturing and selling optical
networking components and subsystems.  The company's product
portfolio includes solutions for all-optical dense and coarse
wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM and CWDM, respectively),
optical amplification, switching and routing, monitoring and
conditioning, and line transmission applications.  The
addressable markets include long-haul networks, metropolitan area
networks (MANs), local area networks (LANs) and fiber-to-the-home
(FTTH) networks.  The company's customers include
telecommunications, data communications and cable television (TV)
equipment manufacturers located around the globe.  As a photonic
foundry, the company provides design, integration and optical
manufacturing solutions (OMS) for components and subsystem
manufacturing. Its product portfolio also includes optical
transmission products, including fiber optic transmitters,
receivers, transceivers and transponders.


RINO INTERNATIONAL: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the common stock of RINO International Corporation
("RINO" or the "Company") (Pink Sheets: RINO.PK) between May 15,
2008 through November 19, 2010, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") (the "Complaint").  The case is styled
as Chau v. RINO International Corporation, et al., No. CV10-09517-
RGK (PJWx) (C.D. Cal.).

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

     http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/RINOInternationalCorp-RINO

The Complaint names RINO and certain of the Company's current and
former executive officers and directors as defendants.  The
Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements, and/or omitted
material facts.  Specifically, throughout the Class Period, the
Company represented that it was experiencing steady financial
growth due, in large part, to the success of its Flue Gas
Desulphurization equipment ("FGD") sales.  However, unbeknownst to
the market, while RINO was reporting increasingly favorable
financial results driven by its FGD business, certain of its
reported contracts were, in fact, non-existent and, therefore, the
Company's publicly reported financial statements materially
inaccurate.

The truth began to emerge on November 10, 2010 when Muddy Waters,
LLC ("MW") issued a research report about, and a "Strong Sell"
recommendation for, the Company.  In that report, MW states, among
other things, that RINO had fabricated the existence of at least
five of the nine customer contracts for FGD equipment reported in
the Company's public filings.  Moreover, MW reported that filings
with the People's Republic of China's State Administration of
Industry and Commerce ("SAIC") showed that the Company's 2009
consolidated revenue was only $11.1 million, as opposed to the
$192.6 million reported in the Company's SEC filings.

The price of the Company's stock fell approximately 28% on the
publication of the MW report.  On November 15, 2010, RINO
announced disappointing third quarter 2010 financial results and
the Company's stock continued its precipitous decline.  The next
day, on November 16, 2010, the Company postponed a previously
scheduled earnings conference call and its stock continued to
drop.  At midday on November 17, 2010, trading in RINO stock was
suspended.  It was subsequently reported that trading was
suspended at the request of the Company based on advice of its
counsel.

On November 19, 2010, RINO filed a Form 8-K with the SEC in which
it acknowledged that certain of the allegations made by MW were
accurate, and that the Company had, in fact, fabricated the
existence of at least two contractual relationships.

The Company has since announced that investors should not rely on
its annual financial reports for the years ended December 31, 2008
and 2009, quarterly reports for the periods ended March 31, 2008
to September 30, 2009, and quarterly reports for the periods March
31, 2010 to September 30, 2010 inasmuch as they incorporate
results from 2008 and 2009.  The SEC has also begun a formal
investigation into the Company's financial reporting and
compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.  Furthermore,
the NASDAQ delisted RINO's stock on or about December 8, 2010.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 14, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please
contact:

          Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
          Noah R. Wortman, Case Development Director
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          Telephone: 888-969-4242
                     302-295-5310
          Fax: 302-654-9430
          E-mail: info@rigrodskylong.com
          Web site: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/

In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however,
affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.  Any member of the proposed class may move the court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and
Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class,
derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and
corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of
Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United
States.


SINGING MACHINE: Suit Vs. MGA Entertainment Is Pending
------------------------------------------------------
The Singing Machine Company, Inc.'s class action lawsuit against
MGA Entertainment, Inc., remains pending, according to its
November 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The Company has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of itself
and all similarly situated licensees against MGA in the Central
District Court of California, case no. CV 10-4536-DOC(RNBX).  The
Company alleges breach of contract, failure of consideration for
the licensing agreements, and other claims based on various state
and federal laws.

The case is stayed, pending the outcome of a litigation between
Mattel and MGA, however, on October 26, 2010 the District Court
opened the case sua sponte.


SODEXO INC: Food Service Workers File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Tim Darragh, writing for The Morning Call, reports food service
workers at St. Luke's Hospital and Good Shepherd Rehabilitation
Hospital last week filed a class-action complaint against food
service giant Sodexo Inc., charging that the company forced them
to work off the clock.

According to the suit, filed in Lehigh County Court on Dec. 9, two
Sodexo employees, filing on behalf of up to 80 current and former
colleagues, charged that the company demanded or permitted workers
to start work early, work after hours and during lunch breaks
without pay.

The class action suit does not name either hospital as a
defendant.

The complaint says the workers, Louis Olsen, a cook who worked at
St. Luke's from 2005-08, and Shari Kurtz, an aide, salad preparer
and cook for Sodexo at Good Shepherd since 2005, routinely had to
start their shifts 45 minutes before their normal start time.  It
said the company discouraged workers from recording their actual
time worked "by programming the timekeeping system to accept
employee clock-ins no more than three to seven minutes before the
start of the scheduled shift and clock-outs no more than three to
seven minutes after the end of the scheduled shift."

In an interview, Ms. Kurtz said she has worked for 21 years at the
hospital, with Good Shepherd outsourcing food services in 2005.
Workers there prepare close to 400 meals a day, said Ms. Kurtz,
who makes $15.03 per hour to cook, bake, make desserts, prepare
food trays and clean dishes.

A single mother of two, Ms. Kurtz said it's difficult making ends
meet, especially with health care premiums costing her about $350
a month, including a surcharge for being a smoker.  Despite the
extra work, Ms. Kurtz said she never gets paid overtime.

The workers are seeking to unionize under the Service Employees
International Union, a spokesman said.

Calls to Sodexo and Good Shepherd for comment were not returned.
A spokeswoman for St. Luke's said officials there had not seen the
complaint.

Sodexo employs more than 1,000 workers in the Lehigh Valley, some
of whom earn $8.25 an hour, a dollar an hour over the minimum
wage, according to the SEIU.  Sodexo also supplies food services
to Muhlenberg, Moravian and Lafayette colleges, Lehigh University,
Sacred Heart Hospital, and other institutions.

Food service workers at Sacred Heart, Good Shepherd and Lehigh
Valley Hospital went on a one-day strike in October, complaining
of low wages, poor benefits and anti-union tactics.


TARRANTS: Investors in Class Suit Granted Access to Documents
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamelle Wells, writing for ABC Sydney, reports lawyers for almost
200 New South Wales investors who lost their life savings have
been granted access to the records of a financial planning
company.

The investors are seeking compensation from financial planning
company Tarrants, based in Wollongong on the south coast.

They say they lost tens of millions of dollars after Tarrants
advised them to invest in fund manager Trio Capital, which has
collapsed.

More than 10,000 investors across Australia have been affected by
the Trio Capital collapse, leaving $100 million in superannuation
assets unaccounted for.

The New South Wales Supreme Court has heard there are 180
plaintiffs in a case against Tarrants.

Justice Reginald Barrett on Wednesday granted their lawyers access
to some of the company's documents.

Outside court, Barrister Jim Johnson said the company has 21
working days to provide them.

"Most of these people are from the Illawarra," he said.

Tarrants has not yet commented on Wedneday's court proceedings.


UNIONBANCAL CORP: Trial in "Larsen" Suit Set for March 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trial on a class action lawsuit filed by one of UnionBanCal
Corp.'s customers is scheduled for March 2012, according to the
Company's November 10, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the Securities
and Exchange for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

A putative class action was filed on July 15, 2009 by Union Bank
customer Cynthia Larsen.  In October of 2009, the action was
transferred from the Northern District of California to the
Multidistrict Litigation action (MDL) in the Southern District
of Florida.  Omnibus motions to dismiss the complaints in many of
the suits included in the MDL, including Larsen, were denied on
March 12, 2010.

Plaintiffs allege that, by posting charges to their accounts in
order from highest to lowest amount, the Bank charged them more
overdraft fees than it would have charged them had the Bank posted
items to their accounts in chronological order.  Plaintiffs'
complaint asserts common-law causes of action for: breach of
contract/breach of duty of an implied duty of good faith,
unconscionability, conversion, and unjust enrichment, and
statutory violation of the California Business & Professions Code
section 17200 et seq. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, return
or refund of all improper overdraft fees, disgorgement of profits
derived from the Bank's alleged conduct, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  Plaintiffs seek to represent a
putative class of other Union Bank customers who were charged
overdraft charges as a result of "re-sequencing" within the
applicable statute of limitations period. Union Bank intends to
vigorously defend the case.  Trial is currently scheduled for
March 2012.


UNITED STATES: Legal Fee Cap in Cobell Suit Conflicts with Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at The Blog of Legal Times by Mike
Scarcella, the nearly $100 million legal fee cap in a landmark
class action in Washington is less than half of the amount the
plaintiffs' attorneys could have received through a contingency
fee arrangement, the attorneys for lead class member Elouise
Cobell said in court papers.

The plaintiffs' lawyers representing a class of Native Americans
agreed in the settlement to a range of fees between $50 million
and $99.9 million -- money that will be cut from the roughly
$1.5 billion in compensation for potentially hundreds of thousands
of beneficiaries.  The suit, filed in 1996, challenged the
government's mismanagement of billions of dollars of trust fund
assets stemming from private use of Indian land.

The fee cap is a far cry from what the plaintiffs' attorneys call
"fair compensation" for a complex civil case that has dragged on
in Washington's federal trial court with no end in sight.  The
attorneys, including Washington solo practitioner Dennis Gingold
and Kilpatrick Stockton partner Keith Harper, argue that more than
$223 million is appropriate for legal fees.  A copy of the
plaintiffs' fee notice is available at:

     http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/cobell_fee_notice.pdf

The $223 million noted in court papers filed Dec. 10 isn't a
random number.  It represents the compensation from the
contingency fee arrangement the plaintiffs' attorneys executed
before the settlement was announced in December 2009.  The
attorneys expected a 14.75% cut of any funds created for the
benefit of class members.  The plaintiffs "believed then, and
continue to believe" the contingency fee agreement is consistent
with controlling law.

Government lawyers involved in the case "insisted" at the end of
settlement negotiations, according to Ms. Cobell's attorneys, that
class counsel not be paid more than $99.9 million for fees and
expenses through the end of December 2009.

The settlement's legal fee structure, the plaintiffs' attorneys
said, is "at odds with the executed fee agreements and controlling
law."  The lawyers for Ms. Cobell said controlling law holds that
the percentage-of-recovery method is the governing standard.

The plaintiffs' motion appears intended to get the judge to agree
to the fee award the plaintiffs negotiated with the government.
Ms. Cobell's lawyers said they intend to ask for $99.9 million in
fees, but note that the presiding judge has the final say on any
award and can provide class counsel more -- or less -- than what
the settlement itself sets out.

Justice Department lawyers and the plaintiffs' counsel agreed that
neither side will appeal an award of attorney fees if the final
amount falls between $50 million and $99.9 million.

The plaintiffs' attorneys and Justice Department team also agreed
that Ms. Cobell's lawyers can seek up to $12 million in fees for
work on the case after December 2009.  Congress last month gave
final approval to the Cobell agreement.

Messrs. Gingold and Harper said in the court papers that
Ms. Cobell, the lead plaintiff, should receive an incentive award
of $2 million and that three other named plaintiffs should receive
between $150,000 and $200,000 as a bonus for their role in a case
that "subjected them to considerable hardships."

The attorneys for Ms. Cobell also note that the named plaintiffs
will seek reimbursement for expenses and costs -- in the range of
$10.5 million.  That money is exclusive of the incentive award.

The plaintiffs' notice of the incentive award and legal fees was
filed simultaneously with a joint motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement.  Senior Judge Thomas Hogan of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia has scheduled a hearing for
Dec. 21.

The 42-page joint motion, signed by Justice Department attorney
Robert Kirschman Jr., Gingold and Harper, called the settlement
the product of "difficult, arms-length negotiations."  The
attorneys for the opposing sides said the deal is in the best
interest of the class and the federal government.  A copy of the
joint motion is available at:

     http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/motion_cobell.pdf

"Class counsel have undertaken fifteen years of highly contentious
and difficult litigation against defendants, including an
extraordinary twelve month legislative approval process," the
plaintiffs' lawyers said in the filing.  "In framing and
prosecuting this case, they undertook substantial risk, litigated
novel procedural, jurisdictional and substantive legal issues, and
navigated through a series of unique appellate [decisions]."


XANODYNE PHARMA: Recalls Darvocet & Darvon Pain Medication
----------------------------------------------------------
A Darvocet and Darvon recall has been voluntarily issued by
Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals Inc. at the request of the FDA, warns
Class Action.org.  The FDA sought a recall of Darvon and Darvocet
after a new study indicated that the prescription pain medication
puts patients at risk for serious or potentially fatal heart
rhythm abnormalities.  If you or a loved one has experienced a
heart attack, irregular heart beat or other cardiac problems while
taking Darvon, Darvocet or the generic propoxyphene, visit
http://www.classaction.org/darvon-and-darvocet.htmland complete
the Free Case Evaluation form to find out if you can recover
financial compensation for your Darvon heart problems.

According to new clinical research which prompted the Darvon and
Darvocet recall, propoxyphene, the active ingredient in the drugs,
can significantly impact the electrical activity of the heart,
even when taken in recommended doses.  This interference can lead
to a number of heart problems, including irregular heartbeats,
heart rhythm abnormalities, longer QT intervals and heart
arrhythmias.  Potentially, these Darvocet heart problems can lead
to sudden death, cardiac arrest or the need for a pacemaker.

Patients who have suffered Darvocet heart problems may be able to
file a claim to recover compensation for medical bills, lost wages
and other damages.  To find out if you can participate in a
Darvocet class action lawsuit, visit Class Action.org today for a
free case review.  The Darvon recall lawyers working with Class
Action.org are offering this online consultation at no cost and
remain dedicated to protecting the rights of patients who have
suffered heart problems while taking Darvocet, Darvon and
propoxyphene.

Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers and
investors in class actions and complex litigation throughout the
United States.  Class Action.org keeps consumers informed about
product alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them
take action against the manufacturers of defective products,
drugs, and medical devices.  Information about consumer fraud
issues and environmental hazards is also available on the site.
Visit http://www.classaction.orgtoday for a no cost, no
obligation case evaluation and information about your consumer
rights.


* US Federal Securities Class Action Filings Up in 2nd Half 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------
The pace of US federal securities class action filings accelerated
in the second half of the year and filings are on track to exceed
last year's total, according to the Trends 2010 Year-End Update
study released today by NERA Economic Consulting.  Filings are
projected to reach 239 cases by year's end compared to the 220
class action cases filed in 2009.

Credit Crisis Filings Continue to Wane

Over the course of 2010, securities class actions stemming from
the global credit crisis have continued to be filed at a slower
rate than observed in 2008 and 2009.  Through the end of November,
there have been only 31 such cases filed in 2010 compared to 57
filed in 2009 and 103 in 2008.

While the pace of credit crisis filings has declined, these cases
have been offset by a resurgence in a broad range of other types
of filings, including undisclosed product and operational defects,
breach of fiduciary duties, and accounting improprieties.
Companies in the finance sector continue to be a target, though
more than half of the 2010 filings against finance sector
companies appear to be unrelated to the credit crisis.

Median Settlement Reaches an All-Time High

The median settlement value, an indicator of the size of a typical
settlement, was $11.1 million in 2010.  This value is one third
higher than the 2009 settlement and the first time since the
passage of PSLRA in 1995 that the median has exceeded $10 million.

Average settlements for securities class actions reached a new
record in 2010.  The average settlement was $109 million, well
above the previous high of $80 million in 2006.  Excluding
outliers of cases over $1 billion and 309 small IPO laddering
settlements, the average settlement for 2010 was $42 million -- in
line with last year's record high.

Trends Author Commentary

"Of all filings in 2010 against foreign companies, over a third
have been against Chinese-domiciled issuers," according to
Dr. Jordan Milev, a co-author of the study.  "Most of these suits
were filed in the second half of this year and they often contain
allegations of ineffective internal controls and misleading or
false financial reports filed with the SEC."

"The size of the typical settlement reached an all-time high this
year," said Robert Patton, a co-author of the study.  "But this
may begin to drop once the credit crisis cases make their way
through the litigation pipeline."

Other Notable Findings of the Study

    * Securities class action cases are being filed more quickly
in 2010.  The median time from the end of the class period to the
filing of the cases plummeted to one month, compared to six months
in the second half of 2009.

    * Comparing 2010 filings to last year, the largest percentage
increase was in filings against electronic technology and
technology services companies.

    * The percentage of class actions naming a financial
institution as a primary defendant remained high in 2010, at 41%
of total filings.

    * The Ninth Circuit saw more securities class actions filings
in 2010 than any other Circuit, with 26% more filings than the
Second Circuit, which has traditionally commanded the lead.

    * Out of the 230 credit crisis-related federal securities
class actions filed between 2007-2010, just 8% have settled and
over a quarter have been dismissed, leaving approximately two-
thirds unresolved.

    * Two securities class action jury trial verdicts were reached
in 2010, against BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and Vivendi, S.A.

Securities Class Action Trends Report Series

NERA has been analyzing trends in securities class actions for
more than 15 years.  Two reports are published per year: a mid-
year study and an annual review published at year's end.  This
year end study was authored by NERA Senior Consultants Dr. Jordan
Milev, Robert Patton, and Svetlana Starykh and includes data on
filings and dismissals through 30 November 2010, and settlements
through 31 December 2010.

For more details, and to read the full report, visit
http://www.nera.com/recenttrends/

NERA Economic Consulting -- http://www.nera.com/-- is a global
firm of experts dedicated to applying economic, finance, and
quantitative principles to complex business and legal challenges.
For half a century, NERA's economists have been creating
strategies, studies, reports, expert testimony, and policy
recommendations for government authorities and the world's leading
law firms and corporations.  With its main office in New York
City, NERA serves clients from more than 25 offices across North
America, Europe, and Asia Pacific.

                             *********

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  * * *