CAR_Public/111031.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, October 31, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 215

                             Headlines

BANNER: Chinese Drywall Class Action Settlement Uncertain
BB BUGGIES: Recalls 3,200 Bad Boy Buggies Due to Crash Hazard
BROADCOM CORP: Merger-Related Suit to Be Heard in February 2012
CAPELLA EDUCATION: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Suit on Dec. 21
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Wash.

CERADYNE INC: Continues to Defend Overtime Pay-Related Suit
CITY OF ANTIOCH, CA: Authorizes Police Discrimination Settlement
CITY OF ATLANTA, GA: Accused of Illegally Spending Tax Money
E.I. DUPONT: Continues to Defend Drinking Water Class Suits
E.I. DUPONT: Deadline to File Imprelis-Related Claims on Nov. 30

E.I. DUPONT: Accrued $6MM as of Sept. to Fund Monitoring Services
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Awaits Order on Rehearing Plea in "Beeman" Suit
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Refuses to Dismiss Merger-Related Suits
FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Strike in "Scott" Suit
FAMILY DOLLAR: Continues to Defend Store Managers' Suits

FAMILY DOLLAR: "Rothenberg" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed in July
IBM CORP: Continues to Defend "Health Net" Suit in California
J.C. PENNEY: Bills Customers for Unauthorized Charges, Suit Says
KOSS CORP: Settles "Puskala" Class Suit for $1 Million
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Quebec Price-Fixing Suit Pending

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Awaits OK of Deal in Price-Fixing Suits
OFFICE DEPOT: Response to Amended Complaint in Climo Suit Due Nov.
OMNICARE INC: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
OMNICARE INC: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss "Spindler" Suit
OMNICARE INC: Faces Two Securities Class Suits in Kentucky

OMNIVISION TECH: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
PHILIP MORRIS: Plaintiffs' Attorney to Seek New Trial
RADIOSHACK CORP: Faces "Redman" Class Suit in Illinois
RADIOSHACK CORP: Brookler Case on Hold Pending Brinker Suit Ruling
RADIOSHACK CORP: "Ordonez" Plaintiffs Prepare Deal to Stay Suit

RADIOSHACK CORP: Song-Beverly Act Violation Suits Still Pending
RESEARCH IN MOTION: Sued in Quebec Over Blackberry System Crash
SIGMA-ALDRICH CORP: Still Awaits Court OK of Suit Settlement
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Certification Motion Pending in Suit v. Unit
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: "Leonelli" and "Church" Suits Resolved

TEMPUR-PEDIC: Jacobs' Plea for En Banc Review Remains Pending
UNITED STATES: Meetings Scheduled for Keepseagle Settlement
UNITED STATES: Think Tank Challenges $3.4BB Cobell Settlement
U.S. STEEL: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits in Illinois
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Dismissal Appeal Remains Pending

WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Suit in Seattle Certified as Class Action
YELP: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over "Extortion Scheme"




                          *********

BANNER: Chinese Drywall Class Action Settlement Uncertain
---------------------------------------------------------
Rochelle Ritchie, writing for wptv.com, reports that Floridians
may fail to see a financial payout for the Chinese drywall that
has turned their homes and lives upside down.

Chinese drywall has corroded copper, wiring and pipes in thousands
of homes across Florida, and now many are being forced to move out
of their homes or become severely ill.

The company that supplied Knauf Chinese drywall to thousands of
Floridians is in the middle of a class action lawsuit that is
heating up against the manufacturer of the product, Banner.

The attorney we spoke with says there is strength in numbers but
if clients go their separate ways it could weaken their case and
leave them with nothing.

Affected homeowners have had two choices: Wait and take a portion
of the settlement if there ever is one, or have Banner rip out the
Chinese drywall at their own expense.

But Boca Raton attorney Allison Grant, who represents thousands of
Chinese drywall clients says neither of those options will happen
if the company goes broke trying to fight individual lawsuits.

"Will they actually see anything greater by filing individual
action? We believe not," says Ms. Grant.

Miami attorneys are removing their clients from the class action
lawsuit and filing those individual legal claims.  But legal
action in Miami may leave clients empty-handed.

The motive, Ms. Grant says, is unclear.  But the result could be
devastating for thousands.

"Therefore those homeowners may wind up getting nothing," she
says.

Ms. Grant says, Banner may simply not have enough money to pay
individual claims and the cost of any successful class action
suit.  She argues victims must stay united or all may lose out.

"While a lot of homeowners are angry and I certainly understand
that they have to weigh that against if they want their homes
fixed."

Ms. Grant says the settlement will take at least another year.

How much clients part of the class action lawsuit will get is
still to be determined.


BB BUGGIES: Recalls 3,200 Bad Boy Buggies Due to Crash Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
BB Buggies Inc., of Augusta, Georgia, and Bad Boy Enterprises LLC,
of Natchez, Mississippi, announced a voluntary recall of about
3,200 units of Bad Boy Buggies off-road utility vehicles.  Bad Boy
Classic buggies were previously recalled in October 2009 and in
December 2010.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The steering assembly arm can break and cause the driver to lose
control, posing a crash hazard.

The firm has received 15 reports of the steering assembly arm
breaking.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Bad Boy LT, Classic, XT, XTO and XT Safari
model electric off-road utility vehicles.  The utility vehicles
have four wheels, bench seats for the operator and passengers and
were sold in camouflage patterns, hunter green, red and black.
"Bad Boy" is printed on the side or front of the vehicles.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12022.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Bad Boy Buggy dealers nationwide from August
2009 through June 2011 for between $7,000 and $15,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled utility
vehicles and contact an authorized dealer or BB Buggies for a free
replacement of the steering assembly.  For additional information,
contact BB Buggies toll-free at (855) 738-3711 between 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.badboybuggies.com/


BROADCOM CORP: Merger-Related Suit to Be Heard in February 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------
A merger-related shareholder lawsuit pending in Delaware will be
heard on February 24, 2012, according to Broadcom Corporation's
October 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Since the announcement on September 12, 2011, of Broadcom's entry
into a definitive merger agreement with NetLogic Microsystems Inc.
under which a subsidiary of Broadcom, I&N Acquisition Corp., will
be merged with and into NetLogic, referred to as the Merger, two
lawsuits have been filed by stockholders of NetLogic purporting to
assert claims arising out of the Merger.

On September 16, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, alleging that the directors of NetLogic breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to (i) adequately consider the Merger,
including whether the Merger maximizes stockholder value, and (ii)
apprise themselves of the true value of NetLogic.  On October 7,
2011, an amended complaint was filed, asserting that NetLogic
filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A, referred to
as the Proxy Statement, with the SEC containing materially false
and misleading statements in violation of the NetLogic directors'
fiduciary duties.  The complaints allege that Broadcom and I&N
Acquisition Corp. aided and abetted these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by the directors of NetLogic.  The complaints
also seek damages, and ask the Court to (i) enjoin the parties
from proceeding with the Merger, (ii) or, in the event the Merger
is consummated, order that it be rescinded.

On September 20, 2011, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, asserting
claims similar to those asserted in the California action (other
than with regard to the NetLogic Proxy Statement), and seeking
similar relief.  Broadcom recently filed an answer to the Delaware
complaint and joined in a motion to stay the California complaint.
The Delaware case is currently set to be heard by the court on
February 24, 2012.


CAPELLA EDUCATION: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Suit on Dec. 21
---------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on Capella Education Company's motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities lawsuit is currently scheduled for
December 21, 2011, according to the Company's October 25, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On November 5, 2010, a purported securities class action lawsuit
captioned Police Pension Fund of Peoria, Individually, and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Capella Education
Company, J. Kevin Gilligan and Lois M. Martin, was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The complaint
names the Company and certain senior executives as defendants, and
alleges the Company and the named defendants made false or
misleading public statements about the Company's business and
prospects during the time period from February 16, 2010, through
August 13, 2010, in violation of federal securities laws, and that
these statements artificially inflated the trading price of the
Company's common stock to the detriment of shareholders who
purchased shares during that time.  The plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages for the purported class.  Since that time,
substantially similar complaints making similar allegations
against the same defendants for the same purported class period
were filed with the federal court.  Pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, on April 13, 2011, the
Court appointed Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System as lead plaintiff and Abraham, Fruchter and Twersley, LLP,
as lead counsel.  A consolidated amended complaint, captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Capella
Education Company, J. Kevin Gilligan, Lois M. Martin and Amy L.
Ronneberg, was filed on June 27, 2011.  The Company filed a motion
to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint on September 2, 2011, and a
hearing on that motion is currently scheduled for December 21,
2011.

Discovery in this case has not yet begun.  Because of the many
questions of fact and law that may arise, the Company says the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.
Based on information available to the Company at present, the
Company says it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for
this action and, accordingly, have not accrued any liability
associated with this action.


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Wash.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2010, three purported securities class action complaints
were filed against Cell Therapeutics, Inc., and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington.  On August 2, 2010, Judge Marsha
Pechman consolidated the actions, appointed lead plaintiffs, and
approved lead plaintiffs' counsel.  On September 27, 2010, lead
plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint, captioned
Sabbagh v. Cell Therapeutics, Inc. (Case No. 2:10-cv-00414-MJP),
naming the Company, Dr. James A. Bianco, Louis A. Bianco, and
Craig W. Philips as defendants.  The amended consolidated
complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by making certain alleged false and misleading statements
related to the FDA approval process for Pixuvri.  The action seeks
damages on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock during a
purported class period of March 25, 2008, through March 22, 2010.
On October 27, 2010, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint.  On February 4, 2011, the Court denied in
large part the defendants' motion.  Defendants answered the
amended consolidated complaint on March 28, 2011.  Discovery has
commenced, and the Court has set a trial date of June 25, 2012.

Discovery has commenced in the securities class action, and as
such, the lawsuit is at a preliminary stage in the proceeding.
The Company believes that the securities class action is without
merit and intends to defend it vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 25,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


CERADYNE INC: Continues to Defend Overtime Pay-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on April 8, 2011, in the
California Superior Court for Orange County (Civil Action No. 30-
2011-00465269), in which it was asserted that the representative
plaintiff, a former Ceradyne, Inc. employee, and the putative
class members, were not provided with meal and rest periods in
accordance with California law, and were not paid overtime at an
appropriate overtime rate.  The Company removed the case to the
Federal District Court for the Central District of California in
Santa Ana, Case No. 8:11-cv-00778-CJC-MLG.  The Company thereafter
met and conferred related to a motion to dismiss as required by
local rules and Plaintiff agreed to dismiss a significant portion
of the Complaint.  In an amended Complaint, Plaintiff has alleged
that certain terminated employees from the fourth quarter of 2009
to the present were not paid the full amount of their overtime on
a bonus paycheck given to them after they were terminated.
Plaintiff also claims he is entitled to additional overtime
because he was required to perform some work during his meal
breaks.

The Company says it disputes such contentions and is aggressively
defending the claims.  While the posture of the case is such that
it is indeterminable as to the outcome at this time, Plaintiff
only alleges actual unpaid overtime of $8,000 for the entire
purported class.  The Plaintiff alleges waiting time penalties for
this putative class, but such award is contingent upon a showing
that Ceradyne intentionally withheld pay from the purported
Plaintiffs, which is simply not the case.  The Plaintiff has
issued a written demand which only includes damages he alleges
were incurred by him related to his purportedly working during
meal periods and appears prepared to abandon the class claims if a
resolution is reached.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 25,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


CITY OF ANTIOCH, CA: Authorizes Police Discrimination Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Burgarino, writing for Contra Costa Times, reports that
Antioch leaders authorized a $360,000 settlement of a class-action
federal lawsuit over claims of police discrimination against black
renters last week, ending a four-year legal battle.

The 2008 federal suit alleged that Antioch police targeted black
residents receiving housing aid through the federal Section 8
voucher program through a policy of arrests, intimidation and
harassment.  Antioch admitted no fault in the settlement and
continues to emphatically deny the allegations.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs recently approached Antioch with a
settlement offer that was far lower than the cost of going to
trial, and city leaders believed it represented a good economic
decision, City Manager Jim Jakel said.

The five named plaintiffs in the case will drop the suit for a
shared payment of $180,000, according to the settlement.  The
plaintiffs' lawyers will receive the same amount.

That amount is a fraction of the potential for millions of dollars
in damages originally sought in the case, though the plaintiffs'
attorneys say the deal meets its main goal of providing police
oversight.

The U.S. District Court judge handling the case in San Francisco
will hear any disputes of the settlement for the next three years.
This ensures police are not "focusing on Section 8 African-
Americans," said Brad Seligman, the plaintiffs' lead attorney.

"It is injunctive relief.  It's not in the form of a consent
order, but a federal judge will hold the city accountable if it
violates the agreement," Mr. Seligman said.  "It ensures that
Antioch doesn't go back to the bad old days."

Antioch says court jurisdiction over these types of voluntary
legal settlements is common and a way to ensure all parties adhere
to it.  It also protects the city from false accusations,
Mr. Jakel said.

The settlement spells out practices the Police Department already
follows, City Attorney Lynn Tracy Nerland said.

The settlement also calls for the city to provide the plaintiffs'
lawyers with copies of letters it sends to the Contra Costa
Housing Authority about Section 8-related complaints.

Bay Area Legal Aid sued the city in May 2008 on behalf of five
black women receiving Section 8 assistance who accused the Police
Department's Community Action Team, or CAT, of racial
discrimination.  The American Civil Liberties Union and three
other Bay Area civil rights groups later sought class-action
status for all Section 8 recipients in Antioch.

The class action was certified in fall 2010 to include all blacks
"who have held, currently hold, or may hold Section 8 vouchers and
all members of their households, who reside or will reside in
Antioch," though only four of the plaintiffs were eligible to
receive money from a jury verdict.  The number of Section 8-
related police incidents has significantly declined over the past
few years, in part because of the scrutiny of the suit,
Mr. Seligman said.

"Maybe they realized someone was watching them," he said.

City leaders say the calls are down because the police have
successfully curbed neighborhood criminal activity.

"That's why residents of every race and background consistently
voiced their support for community-oriented policing and the
Antioch Police Department," Mr. Jakel said.

In two other Section 8-related federal suits, a jury ruled against
Antioch resident Onita Tuggles' claim of police harassment, and a
family of Antioch landlords dropped their suit.

Ms. Tuggles is appealing the jury's decision.

The judge in the case still needs to approve the agreement.


CITY OF ATLANTA, GA: Accused of Illegally Spending Tax Money
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline J. Holness at Courthouse News Service reports that
Atlanta illegally spent $54 million in tax money intended for
schools on redevelopment projects, two property owners claim in a
class action.  They say the city should refund that money to
taxpayers.

Property owners John Sherman and Christopher Eichler filed the
class action in Fulton County Superior Court against the City of
Atlanta, its Development Authority, the Atlanta Independent School
System, Atlanta Beltline Inc. (which manages a tax assessment
district), and the Fulton County Tax Commissioner.

They seek refunds for all Atlantans who have paid taxes on their
property since Jan. 1, 2003, plus 7% annual interest.

They claim it's illegal to spend money collected for education on
redevelopment projects.

According to the complaint, Georgia House Bill 1634, passed in
1986, authorized Atlanta to use educational tax money for
noneducational purposes, to finance development projects in tax
allocation districts -- but that was repealed in 1996 by H.B.
1502.

The plaintiffs say claim H.B. 1502 amended the City Charter and
killed the city's power to reallocate education money.

But since then, they say, Atlanta "purportedly established" 10 tax
allocation districts, including BeltLine and Perry/Bolton, all of
which are illegal, because they were created after the city lost
the power to create them.

As of Sept. 30, they claim, the class is owed $54,777,390.55 plus
interest.

They demand a "tax refund of all educational taxes illegally
levied and collected for non-education purposes in respect of the
BeltLine and Perry/Bolton TADs [Tax Allocation Districts]."

They add: "The City of Atlanta's attempted creation of the
BeltLine TAD [Tax Allocation District] and the Perry/Bolton TAD
was ultra vires, illegal, null and void and of no force or effect
because the attempted creation of such TADs occurred subsequent to
the General Assembly's adoption of the 1996 City Charter,
stripping the City of Atlanta of any power to exercise
redevelopment powers under the 1985 Redevelopment Powers Law."

A copy of the Complaint in Sherman, et al. v. The City of Atlanta,
et al., Case No. 2011CV207194 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/26/AtlantaTaxes.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert D. Feagin, Esq.
          ROBERT D. FEAGIN III, LLC
          3379 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 400
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 909-8100

               - and -

          John F. Woodham, Esq.
          WOODHAM AND ASSOCIATES, LLC
          2625 Piedmont Road, Suite 56-295
          Atlanta, GA 30324
          Telephone: (404) 862-2480


E.I. DUPONT: Continues to Defend Drinking Water Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company continues to defend class
action lawsuits alleging contamination of drinking water,
according to the Company's October 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court against DuPont and the Lubeck
Public Service District alleging that residents living near the
Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious
health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking water.

DuPont uses PFOA -- collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its
salts, including the ammonium salt -- as a processing aid to
manufacture fluoropolymer resins and dispersions at various sites
around the world including its Washington Works plant in West
Virginia.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004
that binds about 80,000 residents.  In 2005, DuPont paid the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a
payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a
community health project.  The Company is also funding a series of
health studies by an independent science panel of experts in the
communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available scientific
evidence on whether any probable link exists between exposure to
PFOA and human disease.  The Company expects the independent
science panel to complete these health studies through July 2012
at a total estimated cost of $33 million.  In addition, the
Company is providing state-of-the-art water treatment systems
designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water
districts, including the Little Hocking Water Association (LHWA),
until the science panel determines that no probable link exists
between PFOA and human disease or until applicable water standards
can be met without such treatment.  All of the water treatment
systems are operating.

The settlement resulted in the dismissal of all claims asserted in
the lawsuit except for personal injury claims.  If the independent
science panel concludes that no probable link exists between
exposure to PFOA and any diseases, then the settlement would also
resolve personal injury claims.  If it concludes that a probable
link does exist between exposure to PFOA and any diseases, then
DuPont would also fund up to $235 million for a medical monitoring
program to pay for such medical testing.  In this event,
plaintiffs would retain their right to pursue personal injury
claims.  All other claims in the lawsuit would remain dismissed by
the settlement.  DuPont believes that it is remote that the panel
will find a probable link.  Therefore, at September 30, 2011, the
Company has not established any accruals related to medical
monitoring or personal injury claims.  However, there can be no
assurance as to what the independent science panel will conclude.

At September 30, 2011, there were four other actions pending
brought by or on behalf of water district customers.  These cases
generally claim PFOA contamination of drinking water and seek a
variety of relief including compensatory and punitive damages,
testing, treatment, remediation and monitoring.  In addition, the
Ohio action, which was brought by the LHWA and is currently in
discovery, claims "imminent and substantial endangerment to health
and or the environment" under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).  In the West Virginia action, the court
entered judgment for DuPont in the first quarter 2010 which was
affirmed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in April 2011.
Plaintiffs are seeking U.S. Supreme Court review.  In the third
quarter 2011, the court approved an $8.3 million class action
settlement for two consolidated actions in New Jersey, which the
Company paid in October 2011.  DuPont denies the claims alleged in
these civil drinking water actions and is defending itself
vigorously.

While DuPont believes that it is reasonably possible that it could
incur losses related to PFOA matters in addition to the pending
matters for which it has established accruals, a range of such
losses, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.


E.I. DUPONT: Deadline to File Imprelis-Related Claims on Nov. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The deadline for property owners to file claims in connection with
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company's Imprelis(R) herbicide is on
November 30, 2011, according to the Company's October 25, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

The Company has received claims and been served with multiple
lawsuits seeking class action status alleging that the use of
Imprelis(R) herbicide caused damage to certain trees.  In August
2011, the Company suspended sales of Imprelis(R).  In September
2011, the Company began a process to fairly resolve claims
associated with the use of Imprelis(R).  The deadline for property
owners to file claims is November 30, 2011.

In connection with this claims process, the Company recorded a
charge of $75 million in cost of goods sold and other operating
charges in the third quarter 2011.  The Company will continue to
evaluate reported claim damage as additional information becomes
available, which could result in future charges that cannot be
reasonably estimated at this time; the Company says it intends to
seek recovery from its insurance carriers for costs associated
with this matter in excess of $100 million.


E.I. DUPONT: Accrued $6MM as of Sept. to Fund Monitoring Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its October 25, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011, that it has accruals of
$6 million related to funding medical monitoring services under a
medical monitoring program in Spelter, West Virginia.

In September 2006, a West Virginia state court certified a class
action captioned Perrine v DuPont, against DuPont that sought
relief including the provision of remediation services and
property value diminution damages for 7,000 residential properties
in the vicinity of a closed zinc smelter in Spelter, West
Virginia.  The action also sought medical monitoring for an
undetermined number of residents in the class area.  In November
2010, plaintiffs and DuPont reached an agreement to settle this
matter for $70 million which the Company paid in the first quarter
2011.  In addition, the agreement requires DuPont to fund a
medical monitoring program.  The initial set-up costs associated
with the program were included in the $70 million.

As of September 30, 2011, the Company has accruals of $6 million
related to funding medical monitoring services under the program.
The Company expects that future costs or charges, if any,
associated with the program will not be material.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Awaits Order on Rehearing Plea in "Beeman" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts, Inc., is awaiting a decision on its petition for
rehearing en banc filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit over the remand of a class action lawsuit commenced
by Jerry Beeman, according to the Company's October 25, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On December 12, 2002, several California pharmacies filed a
complaint as a putative class action, captioned Jerry Beeman, et
al. v. Caremark, et al. (Case No. 021327, United States District
Court for the Central District of California), against the Company
and several other pharmacy benefit management companies.  The
complaint alleges that defendants failed to comply with statutory
obligations under Section 2527 of the California Civil Code to
provide California clients with the results of a bi-annual survey
of retail drug prices.  On July 12, 2004, the case was dismissed
with prejudice on the grounds that plaintiffs lacked standing to
bring the lawsuit.  On June 2, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's opinion on
standing and remanded the case to the district court.  Defendants
moved to dismiss on first amendment constitutionality grounds and
the district court denied that motion, which defendants appealed.

On July 19, 2011, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
denial of defendants' motion to dismiss.  On August 16, 2011, the
Company filed a petition for rehearing en banc for the Ninth
Circuit's reconsideration of its ruling on defendants' motion to
dismiss.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Refuses to Dismiss Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
denied Express Scripts, Inc.'s motion to dismiss lawsuits arising
from its proposed merger with Medco Health Solutions, Inc.,
according to the Company's October 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

Several lawsuits have been filed by stockholders of Medco Health
Solutions, Inc. ("Medco") challenging the Company's proposed
merger transaction with Medco since its announcement on July 21,
2011, that the Company had entered into a definitive merger
agreement.  The complaints in the actions name as defendants Medco
and/or various members of Medco's board of directors as well as
Express Scripts and certain of the Company's subsidiaries that are
party to the merger agreement.  As of October 25, 2011, multiple
complaints have been filed in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey, and in the Superior Court of the State of New
Jersey.  The plaintiffs in the purported class action complaints
generally allege, among other things, that (i) the members of
Medco's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Medco and its stockholders by authorizing the proposed merger and
(ii) Express Scripts and three of the Company's subsidiaries --
Plato Merger Sub, Inc., Aristotle Holding, Inc. and Aristotle
Merger Sub, Inc. -- aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty by Medco and its directors.  The plaintiffs seek,
among other things, to enjoin the defendants from consummating the
merger transaction on the agreed-upon terms, and unspecified
compensatory damages, together with the costs and disbursements of
the action.  A class has been certified in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware.  The cases filed in the Superior Court
of the State of New Jersey have been stayed.  The Company's motion
to dismiss was denied by the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Strike in "Scott" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to strike the class claims in the lawsuit captioned Scott,
et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., according to the Company's
October 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended August 27, 2011.

On October 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court in Birmingham, Alabama, captioned Scott, et al. v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc., alleging discriminatory pay practices with
respect to the Company's female Store Managers.  This case was
pled as a putative class action or collective action under
applicable statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female Store
Managers.  The plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory and
punitive money damages, recovery of attorneys' fees and equitable
relief.  The case has been transferred to the N.C. Federal Court.
Presently, there are 48 named plaintiffs in the Scott case, with
no additional opt-ins.  In response to the recent United States
Supreme Court decision of Dukes v. Walmart, on September 19, 2011,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss seeking to strike the
plaintiffs' class claims.  The plaintiffs' response to this motion
is due in October 2011.

At this time, the Company says it is not possible to predict
whether the N.C. Federal Court ultimately will permit the Scott
action to proceed collectively under the Equal Pay Act or as a
class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  Although the
Company intends to vigorously defend the action, no assurances can
be given that the Company will be successful in the defense on the
merits or otherwise.  Similarly, at this time the Company cannot
estimate either the size of any potential class or the value of
the claims raised in this action.  For these reasons, the Company
is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss.  The
Company has tendered the matter to its Employment Practices
Liability Insurance ("EPLI") carrier for coverage under its EPLI
policy.  At this time, the Company expects that the EPLI carrier
will participate in any resolution of some or all of the
plaintiffs' claims.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Continues to Defend Store Managers' Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., continues to defend itself from
lawsuits filed by its former store managers, the Company disclosed
in its October 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended August 27, 2011.

Since 2004, certain individuals who held the position of Store
Manager for the Company have filed lawsuits alleging that the
Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and/or
similar state laws, by classifying them as "exempt" employees who
are not entitled to overtime compensation.  The majority of the
complaints in each action also request that the cases proceed as
collective actions under the FLSA or as class actions under state
laws and request recovery of overtime pay, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and court costs.  The Company currently has 22
such cases pending against it.

Grace v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and Ward v. Family Dollar
Stores, Inc. are both pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division (the "N.C.
Federal Court").  In those cases, the N.C. Federal Court has
returned orders finding that the plaintiffs were not similarly
situated and, therefore, that neither nationwide notice nor
collective treatment under the FLSA is appropriate.  Hence, the
Grace and Ward cases are proceeding as 43 individual plaintiff
cases.

On July 9, 2009, the N.C. Federal Court granted summary judgment
against Irene Grace on the merits of her misclassification claim
under the FLSA.  The Company has filed summary judgment motions
related to each of the remaining 42 plaintiffs in the Grace and
Ward cases.  The plaintiffs appealed certain rulings of the N.C.
Federal Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit including the court's summary judgment order against Irene
Grace.  On March 22, 2011, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the
district court's decision finding that Ms. Grace was exempt from
overtime compensation under the FLSA.  The Fourth Circuit did not
address the class certification issue in the Grace and Ward cases
since Ms. Grace's lawsuit would be dismissed on the merits.

Including Grace and Ward, a total of 16 class and/or collective or
single plaintiff misclassification cases are now pending before
the N.C. Federal Court since Hamilton v. Family Dollar Stores of
Florida, Inc., Friedman v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., et al. were
dismissed on July 26, 2011, and September 23, 2011, respectively.
Additionally, in Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., the N.C.
Federal Court has dismissed the named plaintiff's and opt-ins'
collective action and individual claims under the FLSA.  The state
law class and individual claims under the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act remain in the Itterly litigation.  The named plaintiff
and opt-in intervenors are seeking to have the case transferred
back to the district court in Pennsylvania.  The Company has
opposed the transfer.

On July 29, 2011, and August 11, 2011, the N.C. Federal Court
granted summary judgment against Tanya Lakitska Warren and
Catherine M. Dawson, respectively, on the merits of their
misclassification claims under the FLSA.  Additionally, on
September 26, 2011, the N.C. Federal Court granted two additional
summary judgments against John Gersch and Jodi Hare on the merits
of their misclassification claims.  Then, on October 14, 2011, the
N.C. Federal Court granted two more summary judgments against
Brenda Bilbrey and Sally Villanueva.  Warren, Dawson, Gersch, Hare
and Bilbrey are all intervenors in the Grace litigation.
Villanueva is an intervenor in the Ward litigation.  Warren and
Dawson have filed Notices of Appeal with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  These appeals have been
consolidated and Warren and Dawson are scheduled to file their
appellant brief in October 2011.

Presently, there are a total of 39 named plaintiffs and
intervenors in the Grace and Ward cases, and 65 named plaintiffs
and/or opt-ins in the remaining cases, for which the N.C. Federal
Court has not decided the class certification issue.

The Company has been sued in six additional class action lawsuits
alleging that Store Managers should be non-exempt employees under
various state laws.  The plaintiffs in these cases seek recovery
of overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and court
costs.  Twila Walters et. al. v. Family Dollar Stores of Missouri,
Inc., alleging violations of the Missouri Minimum Wage Law, was
originally filed on January 26, 2010, and is pending in the
Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri (the "Circuit Court").
On May 10, 2011, the Circuit Court certified the class under the
Missouri Minimum Wage Law and common law.  On May 20, 2011, the
Company petitioned the Appellate Court for an interlocutory appeal
of the Circuit Court's decision certifying the class.  The
Appellate Court denied that petition on June 10, 2011.  The
Company filed a writ of prohibition with the Missouri Supreme
Court on July 1, 2011.  On October 4, 2011, the Missouri Supreme
Court denied the Company's writ of prohibition and vacated the
stay of the litigation.  Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on March 3, 2011.  Plaintiff seeks recovery for himself and
allegedly similarly situated Store Managers under New Jersey law.
The Company has sought a stay of the Hegab proceedings, which was
denied.  The parties are now engaged in class discovery in this
matter.  Barker v. Family Dollar, Inc., alleging violations of the
Kentucky Wages and Hours Law, was filed in Circuit Court in
Jefferson County, Kentucky on February 17, 2010, and removed to
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky.  On March 11, 2011, the district court denied the
Company's partial motion to dismiss the overtime claim under
Kentucky law and requested more discovery on that claim.  The
parties will be conducting pre-certification discovery through
December 2011.  Youngblood, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.,
Family Dollar, Inc., Family Dollar Stores of New York, Inc. et
al., was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on April 2, 2009.  Rancharan v.
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, Queens County on March 4, 2009, was removed to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on May 6, 2009, and was subsequently transferred to the
Southern District of New York and has been consolidated with
Youngblood.  On October 4, 2011, the New York District Court
certified the class in the Rancharan and Youngblood cases under
Rule 23.  Cook, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of Connecticut,
Inc., was filed in the Superior Court State of Connecticut on
October 5, 2011, seeking unpaid overtime for a class of current
and former Connecticut Store Managers for alleged violations of
the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.

In general, the Company continues to believe that its Store
Managers are "exempt" employees under the FLSA and have been and
are being properly compensated under both federal and state laws.
The Company further believes that these actions are not
appropriate for collective or class action treatment.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend the claims in these actions.  While
the N.C. Federal Court has previously found that the Grace and
Ward actions are not appropriate for collective action treatment,
at this time it is not possible to predict whether one or more of
the remaining cases may be permitted to proceed collectively on a
nationwide or other basis.  No assurances can be given that the
Company will be successful in the defense of these actions, on the
merits or otherwise.  The Company cannot reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions.

If at some point in the future the Company determines that a
reclassification of some or all of its Store Managers as non-
exempt employees under the FLSA is required, such action could
have a material effect on the Company's financial position,
liquidity or results of operation.  At this time, the Company
cannot quantify the impact of such a determination.


FAMILY DOLLAR: "Rothenberg" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed in July
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit captioned Ronald Rothenberg v.
Howard Levine, et al., was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice
in July 2011, according to Family Dollar Stores, Inc.'s
October 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended August 27, 2011.

On March 16, 2011, Ronald Rothenberg v. Howard Levine, et al., a
purported class action complaint relating to the rejection of a
proposal by Trian Group to acquire the Company and the adoption of
a stockholders' rights plan was filed in North Carolina State
Court, Mecklenburg County, and later removed to the North Carolina
Business Court.  The case was filed against the Company's Board of
Directors by Ronald Rothenberg, individually and on behalf of all
of the Company's stockholders other than defendants and their
affiliates.  The plaintiffs alleged, among other allegations, that
the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by not
agreeing to sell the Company and by adopting a stockholders'
rights plan.  The complaint sought various forms of relief,
including damages and an order that the Board of Directors enter
into negotiations to sell the Company to Trian Group and redeem or
rescind the stockholders' rights plan.

This lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on
July 19, 2011.


IBM CORP: Continues to Defend "Health Net" Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation was named as a co-
defendant in numerous purported class actions filed on and after
March 18, 2011, in federal and state courts in California in
connection with an information technology outsourcing agreement
between Health Net, Inc. and IBM.  The matters were consolidated
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California, and plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on
July 15, 2011.  The consolidated complaint alleges that the
company violated the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act in connection with hard drives that are
unaccounted for at one of Health Net's data centers in California;
plaintiffs have been notified by Health Net that certain of their
personal information is believed to be contained on those hard
drives.  Plaintiffs seek damages, as well as injunctive and
declaratory relief.  IBM has also received a request for
information regarding this matter from the California Attorney
General.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 25,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


J.C. PENNEY: Bills Customers for Unauthorized Charges, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernadine Sims, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Stonebridge Benefit Services, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, J.C. Penney Company, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2011-CH-27100 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
October 25, 2011) is brought over the Defendants' alleged practice
of deceptively billing the Plaintiff and class members for
unauthorized charges.  According to the lawsuit, J.C. Penney
provided the Plaintiff's contact and billing information to
Stonebridge for telemarketing purposes.

The Plaintiff alleges that she has been charged between $6 to $9
every month for membership in Stonebridge's LeisurePlus Membership
Program -- a membership she became enrolled in without giving her
informed consent, which she has never used, and has repeatedly
tried to cancel.  She says that Stonebridge has yet to refund any
of the hundreds of dollars owed to her.

Ms. Sims is a resident of Illinois.

Stonebridge, a Texas corporation, is a marketing services company
that operates numerous "Membership Loyalty Programs."  J.C. Penney
is a chain department store with locations throughout the United
States of America, as well as significant over-the-phone catalog
and online operations.  J.C. Penney is a Delaware corporation and
does business throughout the country, the state of Illinois and
Cook County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Christopher L. Dore, Esq.
          EDELSON McGUIRE, LLC
          350 North LaSalle, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  cdore@edelson.com


KOSS CORP: Settles "Puskala" Class Suit for $1 Million
------------------------------------------------------
Koss Corporation, in an October 25, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, announced that a
settlement in principle has been reached subject to Court approval
involving the claims that were brought against the Company and
Michael J. Koss in a pending shareholder class action (David A.
Puskala v. Koss Corporation, et al., United States District Court,
Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 2:2010cv00041).  The
settlement in principle involves a total payment of $1 million to
the shareholders included within the class, which amount will be
funded by Koss' insurance company, with any fee awarded to
plaintiffs' counsel to be paid out of the $1 million settlement.

The settlement, along with a settlement with the SEC and a
previously announced settlement of the shareholder derivative
lawsuit filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, conclude the
major actions that the Company was defending as a result of the
embezzlement by its former Vice President of Finance, Sujata
Sachdeva.  Koss still has certain pending actions that it filed
against its former auditor, former bank, and former credit card
company.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Quebec Price-Fixing Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three purported class action cases alleging price-fixing of DRAM
products have been filed against Micron Technology, Inc., in the
following Canadian courts: Superior Court, District of Montreal,
Province of Quebec; Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ontario;
and Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, British
Columbia.  The substantive allegations in these cases are similar
to those asserted in the DRAM antitrust cases filed in the United
States.  Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied in
the British Columbia and Quebec cases in May and June 2008,
respectively.  Plaintiffs have filed an appeal of each of those
decisions.  On November 12, 2009, the British Columbia Court of
Appeal reversed the denial of class certification and remanded the
case for further proceedings.  The appeal of the Quebec case is
still pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 25,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended September 1, 2011.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Awaits OK of Deal in Price-Fixing Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
At least sixty-eight purported class action price-fixing lawsuits
have been filed against Micron Technology, Inc., and other DRAM
suppliers in various federal and state courts in the United States
and in Puerto Rico on behalf of indirect purchasers alleging
price-fixing in violation of federal and state antitrust laws,
violations of state unfair competition law, and/or unjust
enrichment relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products
during the period from April 1999 through at least June 2002.  The
complaints seek joint and several damages, trebled, in addition to
restitution, costs and attorneys' fees.  A number of these cases
have been removed to federal court and transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings.  In July, 2006, the Attorneys
General for approximately forty U.S. states and territories filed
a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The complaints allege, among other things, violations
of the Sherman Act, Cartwright Act, and certain other states'
consumer protection and antitrust laws and seek joint and several
damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and other relief.  On
October 3, 2008, the California Attorney General filed a similar
lawsuit in California Superior Court, purportedly on behalf of
local California government entities, alleging, among other
things, violations of the Cartwright Act and state unfair
competition law.

On June 23, 2010, the Company executed a settlement agreement
resolving these purported class-action indirect purchaser cases
and the pending cases of the Attorneys General relating to alleged
DRAM price-fixing in the United States.  Subject to certain
conditions, including final court approval of the class
settlements, the Company agreed to pay a total of approximately
$67 million in three equal installments over a two-year period.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 25,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended September 1, 2011.


OFFICE DEPOT: Response to Amended Complaint in Climo Suit Due Nov.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc.'s deadline to respond to an amended complaint
in a securities class action lawsuit is due in November 2011,
according to the Company's October 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 24, 2011.

On April 6, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain current and former executive
officers alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and seeking damages, fees, costs and equitable relief.  The
allegations made in this lawsuit primarily relate to the company's
previous financial disclosures and reports regarding certain tax
losses.  The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida captioned as Climo v. Office
Depot, Inc, Steve Odland, Michael D. Newman and Neil R. Austrian.
The Court granted a request by the Central Laborers' Pension Fund
("CLPF") to appoint it as lead plaintiff in the case and the CLPF
filed its amended complaint on September 6, 2011.  The Company's
response is due in November 2011.

The allegations made in the lawsuit primarily relate to the
Company's previous financial disclosures and reports regarding
certain tax losses.  On March 31, 2011, Office Depot announced
that the Internal Revenue Service had denied the Company's claim
to carry back certain tax losses to prior tax years under economic
stimulus-based tax legislation enacted in 2009.  As a result, on
April 6, 2011, the Company restated its financial results to
revise the accounting treatment regarding its original tax
position.  The periods covered by the restatement are the fiscal
year ended December 25, 2010, and each of the quarters ended
June 26, 2010, and September 25, 2010.


OMNICARE INC: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Omnicare, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its and other
defendants' motion to dismiss the most recent complaint in the
consolidated securities lawsuit filed against them, according to
the Company's October 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled
Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension &
Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26.  The amended
consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its
officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought on
behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from
August 3, 2005, through July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers
who bought their shares in the Company's public offering in
December 2005.  The complaint contained claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule
10b-5) and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and sought,
among other things, compensatory damages and injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs alleged that Omnicare (i) artificially inflated its
earnings (and failed to file GAAP-compliant financial statements)
by engaging in improper generic drug substitution, improper
revenue recognition and overvaluation of receivables and
inventories; (ii) failed to timely disclose its contractual
dispute with UnitedHealth Group Inc.; (iii) failed to timely
record certain special litigation reserves; and (iv) made other
allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's
business, prospects and compliance with applicable laws and
regulations.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on March 12, 2007, and on October 12, 2007, the court
dismissed the case.  On November 9, 2007, plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.  On October 21, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
generally affirmed the district court's dismissal, dismissing
plaintiff's claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  However, the
appellate court reversed the dismissal for the claim brought for
violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and
returned the case to the district court for further proceedings.
On December 30, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion in the district
court requesting permission to file a third amended complaint.

On February 4, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
sole remaining claim in plaintiff's second amended complaint.  On
July 14, 2011, the court granted both motions and deemed the third
amended complaint filed.  This complaint asserts a claim under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all
purchasers of Omnicare common stock in the December 2005 public
offering.  The new complaint alleges that the 2005 registration
statement contained false and misleading statements regarding
Omnicare's policy of compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations with particular emphasis on allegations of violation
of the federal anti-kickback law in connection with three of
Omnicare's acquisitions, Omnicare's contracts with two of its
suppliers and its provision of pharmacist consultant services.  On
August 19, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' most recent complaint.  The Company believes that the
allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
itself in this action.


OMNICARE INC: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss "Spindler" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Omnicare, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its proposed order
seeking final dismissal of a purported class action lawsuit,
entitled Spindler, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Corp., et al., the
Company disclosed in its October 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On April 2, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit, entitled
Spindler, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Corp., Omnicare, Inc. and
Does 1-10, Case No. CV-10-1414, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, against Johnson & Johnson ("J&J"), the Company
and certain unnamed defendants asserting violations of federal
antitrust law and California unfair competition law arising out of
certain arrangements between J&J and the Company.  Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that the Company violated these laws
by entering into agreements with J&J to promote J&J products.  On
January 21, 2011, the court dismissed the amended complaint and
granted permission to file a new amended complaint, which was
filed in February 2011.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
in March 2011.  On August 1, 2011, the court dismissed the second
amended complaint but gave plaintiffs permission to file a further
amended complaint within 20 days.  Plaintiffs did not do so, and
the Company filed a proposed order seeking final dismissal with
prejudice on August 23, 2011.


OMNICARE INC: Faces Two Securities Class Suits in Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------
Omnicare, Inc., is facing two class action lawsuits in Kentucky
alleging violations of federal securities law, according to the
Company's October 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On August 24, 2011, a class action complaint entitled Ansfield v.
Omnicare, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of
all purchasers of the Company's common stock from January 10,
2007, through August 5, 2010, against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging violations of
federal securities law in connection with alleged false and
misleading statements with respect to the Company's compliance
with federal and state Medicare and Medicaid laws and regulations.
The complaint seeks unspecified money damages.  The Company
believes that the claims asserted in the complaint are entirely
without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.

On October 21, 2011, a class action complaint entitled
Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Omnicare, Inc. et al.
was filed on behalf of the same putative class of purchasers as is
referenced in the Ansfield complaint, against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.  Plaintiffs allege
substantially the same violations of federal securities law as are
alleged in the Ansfield complaint.  The complaint seeks
unspecified money damages.  The Company has not been served with
the complaint in this action.  The Company believes that the
claims asserted in the complaint are entirely without merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously.


OMNIVISION TECH: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on October 26,
2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. common stock between August 27,
2010, and October 13, 2011, inclusive.

The action charges OmniVision and certain of its officers with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Complaint
alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Company's financial
results were artificially inflated by virtue of the fact that the
Company had concealed the loss of its exclusive contract with
Apple Inc. to supply imaging sensors for Apple's celebrated
iPhone.

OmniVision is a designer and manufacturer of image sensors that
are used in digital cameras to convert optical images into
electronic signals.  OmniVision is one of the leading suppliers of
complementary metal-oxide-semiconductors sensors used in mobile
telephones.  The Complaint alleges that OmniVision failed to
disclose that: (a) it had lost its lucrative, high-profile, and
exclusive contract with Apple; (b) competition was eroding its
"leadership position" in the smartphone industry; (c) delays in
the development of its 8-megapixel product line were threatening
its prospects; and (d) it lacked a reasonable basis for its
statements about its bright prospects in the smartphone market.

On August 25, 2011, OmniVision announced its results for the
fiscal first quarter of 2012 and provided guidance for the fiscal
second quarter of 2012 that was well below analyst expectations.
The Company also disclosed delays in the production of its new 8-
megapixel product line.  Based on the Company's disappointing
guidance, analysts recognized that OmniVision would not be the
exclusive producer of camera components for Apple's new, fifth
generation iPhone -- the iPhone 4S -- set for release in the fall
of 2011.  As a result of these revelations, OmniVision's stock
declined $7.55 per share, or 30.4 percent, to close at $17.27 per
share on August 26, 2011 on extraordinary trading volume.

On October 14, 2011, the iPhone 4S became available for sale and
for disassembly.  Based on a logo stamped on the inside of the
camera sensor, experts determined that Sony -- and not OmniVision
-- had supplied the CMOS sensor for the iPhone 4S.  In reaction to
this news, OmniVision's stock fell $1.65 per share, or 9.3
percent, to close at $15.95 per share on October 14, 2011 on high
trading volume.

If you are a member of this Class you can view a copy of the
complaint and join this class action online at
http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm

If you purchased OmniVision common stock during the Class Period,
you may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead
Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California no later than December 27,
2011.  A lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for
absent Class members. You do not need to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action.  If you
are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can
share in that recovery as an absent Class member.  You may retain
counsel of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have
any questions about the lawsuit, you may contact one of our
representatives, Rachel A. Avan, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow LLP, at
(888) 753-2796 or (212) 907-0709, or via e-mail at
ravan@labaton.com

Labaton Sucharow LLP -- http://www.labaton.com-- is a law firm
representing institutional investors in class action and complex
securities litigation, as well as consumers and businesses in
class actions seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive
practices.  The firm has offices in New York, New York and
Wilmington, Delaware.


PHILIP MORRIS: Plaintiffs' Attorney to Seek New Trial
-----------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a $696 million
class action against tobacco giant Philip Morris ended in a
mistrial on Oct. 25, due to a deadlocked jury.  Jurors were split
8-4, one shy of the nine needed for a verdict in a civil case.

Jurors in St. Louis City Court deliberated for more than 4 days
before indicating that some were unwilling to continue.

The jury could not agree whether Philip Morris deceived customers
with its marketing of light cigarettes.

The complaint, filed 11 years ago, claimed that light cigarette
packages promised lower tar and nicotine, but were made from the
same tobacco as regular cigarettes.

Philip Morris attorneys claimed the cigarettes are different
because they contain less tobacco, more ventilation and a longer
filter.

Damages sought ranged from $696 million to $911 million, just over
$1 a pack for the cigarettes at issue sold in Missouri from early
1995 through 2002, the period covered by the complaint.

Plaintiffs' attorney Stephen Swedlow told the St. Louis Post-
Dispatch that he would ask for a new trial.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Faces "Redman" Class Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corporation is facing a putative class action lawsuit
commenced by Scott D.H. Redman in Illinois, according to the
Company's October 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2011.

On September 26, 2011, Scott D.H. Redman filed a putative class
action lawsuit, captioned Redman v. RadioShack Corporation,
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  Mr. Redman claims that the Company
violated certain provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act of 2003, which amended the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, by printing the expiration date of the Company's customers'
credit cards on transaction receipts.  This case is at the
earliest stage of litigation, and discovery has not begun.  The
Company says it is still gathering information to evaluate these
claims, the Company's defenses, and the likelihood and amount of a
loss, if any.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Brookler Case on Hold Pending Brinker Suit Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court placed the lawsuit captioned Brookler
v. RadioShack Corporation on hold pending a ruling on the similar
case of Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court,
according to RadioShack Corporation's October 25, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In February 26, 2006, plaintiffs filed a putative class action in
Los Angeles Superior Court, Brookler v. RadioShack Corporation,
claiming that the Company violated California's wage and hour laws
relating to meal periods.  The case was originally certified as a
class action in February 2006.  The Company's first Motion for
Decertification of the class was denied in August 2007.  After a
favorable decision at the California Court of Appeals in the
similar case of Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court,
the Company again sought decertification of the class.  Based on
the California Court of Appeals decision in Brinker, the trial
court granted the Company's second motion for class
decertification in October 2008.  The plaintiffs in Brookler
appealed this ruling.  Due to the unsettled nature of California
law regarding the obligations of employers in respect of meal
periods, the Company and the Brookler plaintiffs requested that
the California Court of Appeals stay its ruling on the plaintiffs'
appeal of the class decertification ruling pending the California
Supreme Court's decision in Brinker.  The appellate court denied
this joint motion and then heard oral arguments in the case on
August 5, 2010.  On August 26, 2010, the California Court of
Appeals reversed the trial court's decertification of the class,
and the Company's Petition for Rehearing was denied on
September 14, 2010.  On September 28, 2010, the Company filed a
Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court, which
granted review and placed the case on hold pending its decision in
Brinker.  On October 4, 2011, the California Supreme Court
scheduled oral arguments to be heard in Brinker on November 8,
2011.  The Company says the outcome of this case is uncertain and
the ultimate resolution of it could have a material adverse effect
on the Company's consolidated financial statements in the period
in which the resolution is recorded.


RADIOSHACK CORP: "Ordonez" Plaintiffs Prepare Deal to Stay Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned Ordonez v. RadioShack
Corporation are preparing a stipulation and order to stay
proceedings pending a California Supreme Court decision in a
similar lawsuit, according to the Company's October 25, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

In May 2010, Daniel Ordonez, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated current and former employees, filed a Complaint
against the Company in the Los Angeles Superior Court.  In July
2010, Mr. Ordonez filed an Amended Complaint alleging, among other
things, that the Company failed to provide required meal periods,
provide required rest breaks, pay overtime compensation, pay
minimum wages, and maintain required records.  In September 2010,
the Company removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California.  The putative class in
Ordonez consists of all current and former non-exempt employees
for a period within the four years preceding the filing of the
case.  The claims raised in Ordonez are similar to the claims
raised in the lawsuit captioned Brookler v. RadioShack
Corporation, and the Company has been informed that the Ordonez
parties are preparing a Stipulation and Order to Stay Proceedings
pending the decision of the California Supreme Court in lawsuit
filed by Brinker Restaurant Corporation.  Should the court fail to
grant the parties' Stipulation and Order to Stay Proceedings, the
parties intend to request a continuance of the hearing date and
briefing schedule with respect to class certification.

The Company says the outcome of this case is uncertain and the
ultimate resolution of it could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's consolidated financial statements in the period in
which the resolution is recorded.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Song-Beverly Act Violation Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2010, RadioShack Corporation received service of
process with respect to the first of four putative class action
lawsuits filed in California (Sosinov v. RadioShack, Los Angeles
Superior Court; Bitter v. RadioShack, Federal District Court,
Central District of California; Moreno v. RadioShack, Federal
District Court, Southern District of California; and Grant v.
RadioShack, San Francisco Superior Court).  The plaintiffs in all
of these cases seek damages under California's Song-Beverly Credit
Card Act (the "Act").  Plaintiffs claim that under one section of
the Act, retailers are prohibited from recording certain personal
identification information regarding their customers while
processing credit card transactions unless certain statutory
exceptions are applicable.  The Act provides that any person who
violates this section is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$250 for the first violation and $1,000 for each subsequent
violation.  In each of the cases, plaintiffs allege that the
Company violated the Act by asking them for personal
identification information while processing a credit card
transaction and then recording it.

The Company says these cases are in an early stage and discovery
has just begun.  The Company says it is defending them, but are
unable to reasonably estimate the loss, if any.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 25,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


RESEARCH IN MOTION: Sued in Quebec Over Blackberry System Crash
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a BlackBerry owner filed a
class action against Research in Motion for its system crash on
Oct. 11-14.

A copy of the Complaint in Blackette v. Research in Motion
Limited, Case No. 500-06-000583-118 (Que. S.C.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/26/BlackBerry.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Me Jeff Orenstein, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP INC.
          1123, Clark St., 3rd Floor
          Montreal, Quebec, H2Z 1K3
          Telephone: (514) 266-7863
          E-mail: jorenstein@clg.org


SIGMA-ALDRICH CORP: Still Awaits Court OK of Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint was filed against a subsidiary of Sigma-
Aldrich Corporation in the Montgomery County, Ohio Court of Common
Pleas, related to a 2003 explosion at the Company's facility in
Miamisburg, Ohio.  The case was partially certified as a class
action in 2005, and proceedings, including two jury trials and an
appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, continued into 2011.  The
parties have reached a settlement of the entire case in an amount
which is not material to the Company's consolidated financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity.  The settlement
agreement was filed with the Court on June 24, 2011.  The
settlement still must be approved by the Court.

The Company believes its reserves and insurance are sufficient to
provide for claims outstanding at September 30, 2011.  While the
outcome of the current claims cannot be predicted with certainty,
the possible outcome of the claims is reviewed at least quarterly
and reserves adjusted as deemed appropriate based on these
reviews.  Based on current information available, the Company
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
condition, results of operations, cash flows or liquidity.  Future
claims related to the use of these categories of products may not
be covered in full by the Company's insurance program.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 25,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Certification Motion Pending in Suit v. Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air Lines, Inc. (Delta) and AirTran Holdings, Inc., the former
parent company of AirTran Airways, Inc., in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on
May 22, 2009.  AirTran is Southwest Airlines Co.'s subsidiary.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that AirTran attempted
to monopolize air travel in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the
first item of checked luggage in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.  The initial complaint sought treble damages on
behalf of a putative class of persons or entities in the United
States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on
domestic flights beginning December 5, 2008.  After the filing of
the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly identical complaints
also seeking certification as class actions were filed in federal
district courts in Atlanta, Georgia; Orlando, Florida; and Las
Vegas, Nevada.  All of the cases were consolidated before a single
federal district court judge in Atlanta.  A Consolidated Amended
Complaint filed in the consolidated action on February 1, 2010,
broadened the allegations to add claims that Delta and AirTran
conspired to cut capacity on competitive routes and to raise
prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  In addition
to treble damages, the Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks
injunctive relief against a broad range of alleged anticompetitive
activities, as well as attorneys' fees.  On August 2, 2010, the
Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that AirTran and Delta had
violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the Court let stand the
claims of a conspiracy with respect to the imposition of a first
bag fee and the airlines' capacity and pricing decisions.  On
June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class,
which AirTran and Delta have opposed.  The Court has not yet ruled
on the class certification motion.  AirTran denies all allegations
of wrongdoing, including those in the Consolidated Amended
Complaint, and intends to defend vigorously any and all such
allegations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 25,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: "Leonelli" and "Church" Suits Resolved
----------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. resolved, and the court has dismissed,
shareholders' lawsuits referred to as the "Leonelli consolidated
complaint" and the "Church federal complaint", according to the
Company's October 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2011.

On May 2, 2011 (the "acquisition date"), the Company acquired all
of the outstanding equity of AirTran Holdings, Inc. ("AirTran
Holdings"), the former parent company of AirTran Airways, Inc.
("AirTran Airways"), in exchange for Southwest Airlines Co.
("Southwest Airlines") common stock and cash.  Various purported
class action lawsuits were filed by stockholders of AirTran that
challenged the acquisition of AirTran by the Company.

On September 28, 2010, Frederick Leonelli filed a purported class
action lawsuit (the "Leonelli complaint") on behalf of himself and
similarly situated AirTran stockholders in the First Judicial
District Court of the State of Nevada for Carson City against
AirTran, Robert L. Fornaro, AirTran's Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Arne G. Haak, AirTran's Senior Vice
President of Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, each
member of the AirTran board of directors, the Company, and
Guadalupe Holdings Corp. ("Merger Sub").  The Leonelli complaint
generally alleged that the consideration received by AirTran's
stockholders in the merger was unfair and inadequate and that the
AirTran officers and directors named as defendants (the
"individual AirTran defendants") breached their fiduciary duties
by approving the merger agreement through an unfair and flawed
process and by approving certain deal protection mechanisms
contained in the merger agreement.  The Leonelli complaint further
alleged that AirTran, the Company, and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the individual AirTran defendants in the breach of their
fiduciary duties to AirTran's stockholders.  The Leonelli
complaint sought injunctive relief to (i) enjoin the defendants
from consummating the merger unless AirTran adopted and
implemented a procedure or process to obtain the highest possible
price for AirTran's stockholders and disclosed all material
information to AirTran's stockholders, (ii) direct the individual
AirTran defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a
transaction in the best interests of AirTran's stockholders, and
(iii) rescind the merger agreement, including the deal protection
devices that may have precluded premium competing bids for
AirTran.  It also sought plaintiff's costs and disbursements of
the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, and
such other and further equitable relief as the court may deem just
and proper.  On the same day, Frank Frohman filed a second
purported AirTran shareholder class action lawsuit (the "Frohman
complaint") in the same court and against the same defendants
(other than Mr. Haak) as the Leonelli complaint.  The allegations
in the Frohman complaint, as well as the relief requested, were
generally the same as those set forth in the Leonelli complaint.
The Frohman complaint was consolidated into the Leonelli complaint
on December 9, 2010.  On December 14, 2010, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint (the "Leonelli consolidated complaint")
asserting the same claims and requesting the same relief against
the same defendants (other than Mr. Haak).  The Leonelli
consolidated complaint also included new allegations, as part of
its breach of fiduciary duty claim, that the individual AirTran
defendants caused the Company to file a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the SEC on November 19, 2010, which omitted or
misrepresented material information regarding the merger.  AirTran
and the individual AirTran defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the Leonelli consolidated complaint on January 7, 2011, which was
joined by the Company and Merger Sub on the same day.

Four purported AirTran shareholder class action lawsuits were also
filed in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and
for Orange County, Florida.  Harry Hoffner filed a purported class
action lawsuit on September 30, 2010, against the same defendants
(other than Mr. Haak and Merger Sub) as in the Leonelli complaint.
This was followed by lawsuits filed by Robert Debardelan on
October 8, 2010, Thomas A. Rosenberger on October 12, 2010, and
Robert Loretitsch on October 15, 2010, against the same defendants
plus Merger Sub.  The allegations in these actions, as well as the
relief requested, are also generally the same as those set forth
in the Leonelli complaint.  On November 15, 2010, these actions
were consolidated into one action styled In re AirTran Shareholder
Litigation (the "consolidated Florida action").  On December 2,
2010, the consolidated Florida action was stayed in its entirety
pending resolution of the earlier filed Leonelli complaint.

On October 8, 2010, Douglas Church filed another purported AirTran
shareholder class action lawsuit (the "Church complaint") in the
Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada for Clark
County against the same defendants (other than Mr. Haak) as in the
Leonelli complaint.  The allegations set forth in the Church
complaint, as well as the relief requested, were generally the
same as those set forth in the Leonelli complaint with one
addition.  The Church complaint additionally alleged, as part of
its breach of fiduciary duty claim, that the individual AirTran
defendants (other than Mr. Haak) received greater benefits under
the merger agreement than other former AirTran stockholders.
Mr. Church voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit on November 30, 2010,
but on December 2, 2010, he re-filed a new lawsuit against the
same defendants in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada (the "Church federal complaint").  The Church
federal complaint makes the same claims and seeks the same relief
as his original lawsuit, but includes new claims for alleged
violations of Sections 14 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 for allegedly providing misleading and incomplete information
in the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed with the SEC on
November 19, 2010.  Specifically, the Church federal complaint
alleges that the disclosures contained in the Form S-4
Registration Statement omitted or misrepresented material
information regarding the process of approving the merger
agreement, the merger consideration, and the intrinsic value of
AirTran.  AirTran and the individual AirTran defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Church federal complaint on December 22,
2010, which remains pending.

On January 18, 2011, William Nesbit filed another purported
AirTran shareholder class action lawsuit again in the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada against the same
defendants (other than Mr. Haak) as in the Leonelli complaint.
The allegations and claims set forth in the Nesbit lawsuit, as
well as the relief requested, are generally the same as those set
forth in the Church federal complaint.  On May 16, 2011, the
Nesbit lawsuit was stayed pending resolution of the earlier filed
Leonelli and Church complaints.

While the Company believes that each of the lawsuits is without
merit, the parties to the Leonelli consolidated complaint and the
Church federal complaint entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") on January 26, 2011, to settle those
lawsuits.  The settlement provided for the inclusion of additional
disclosures with respect to various aspects of the merger in the
proxy statement/prospectus sent to AirTran stockholders soliciting
approval of the merger on February 11, 2011.  The settlement also
provides for the payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
expenses, subject to court approval and conditional certification
of a settlement class.  These terms were included in the
stipulation of settlement entered into by the parties on May 6,
2011.  Final approval of the settlement was obtained on July 28,
2011, and a final judgment and order of dismissal of the Leonelli
consolidated complaint was entered on September 8, 2011.  The
final judgment resolves and releases on behalf of the entire class
of former AirTran stockholders, all claims that were or could have
been brought challenging any aspect of the merger, the merger
agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith, among
other claims.  Accordingly, the Church action has also been
dismissed and the Company is in the process of seeking dismissal
of consolidated Florida and Nesbit actions.


TEMPUR-PEDIC: Jacobs' Plea for En Banc Review Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
On January 5, 2007, a purported class action was filed against
Tempur-Pedic International Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division (Jacobs
v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North
America, Inc., or the Antitrust Action).  The Antitrust Action
alleges violations of federal antitrust law arising from the
pricing of Tempur-Pedic mattress products by Tempur-Pedic North
America and certain distributors.  The action alleges a class of
all purchasers of Tempur-Pedic mattresses in the United States
since January 5, 2003, and seeks damages and injunctive relief.
Count Two of the complaint was dismissed by the court on June 25,
2007, based on a motion filed by the Company.  Following a
decision issued by the United States Supreme Court in Leegin
Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. on June 28, 2007, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the remaining two counts of the
Antitrust Action on July 10, 2007.  On December 11, 2007, that
motion was granted and, as a result, judgment was entered in favor
of the Company and the plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed with
prejudice.  On December 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion
to Alter or Amend Judgment," which was fully briefed.  On May 1,
2008, that motion was denied.  Jacobs appealed the dismissal of
their claims, and the parties argued the appeal before the United
States Circuit Court for the Eleventh Circuit on December 11,
2008.  The Court rendered an opinion favorable to the Company on
December 2, 2010, affirming the trial court's refusal to allow
Jacobs to alter or amend its pleadings and dismissing its claims.
Jacobs has subsequently petitioned the 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals for an "en banc" review of the three judge panel's ruling.

The Company says it continues to strongly believe that the
Antitrust Action lacks merit, and intends to defend against the
claims vigorously.  Based on the findings of the court to date and
an assessment of the Company's meritorious defenses, the Company
believes that it is remote that it will incur a loss with respect
to this matter.  However, due to the inherent uncertainties of
litigation, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the
Antitrust Action at this time, and can give no assurance that
these claims will not have a material adverse affect on the
Company's financial position or results of operations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 25,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


UNITED STATES: Meetings Scheduled for Keepseagle Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Chronicle reports that meetings are planned Nov. 1 in Nespelem
and Nov. 2 in Omak for American Indian farmers and ranchers who
want to file a claim in the $760 million Keepseagle class action
settlement.

Attorneys appointed by the federal courts will hold the meetings
as part of the claims process.

The settlement resolves a lawsuit claiming the U.S. Department of
Agriculture discriminated against Native Americans in farm loan
applications and servicing.

Over the past six months, American Indian farmers and ranchers
around the country received information about their legal rights
and options.  Class members who want to file a claim for cash and
loan forgiveness must file their claims by Dec. 27.

The meetings run from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Nov. 1 at the
Nespelem Community Center, 1 Colville St., and Nov. 2 at the Omak
Community Center, 601 Benton St.


UNITED STATES: Think Tank Challenges $3.4BB Cobell Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at The Blog of Legal Times by
Mike Scarcella, a conservative think tank that advocates for free
enterprise and limited government is challenging the $3.4 billion
settlement in a Native American class action in Washington, saying
the judge in the high-profile case should not have certified a
class.

The non-profit public interest group Competitive Enterprise
Institute, represented by McGuireWoods, submitted a brief
supporting opponents of the landmark settlement who are
challenging the merits of the deal.  The case is pending in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

"The proper administration of class actions is vital to the
functioning of the free market and the rule of law," the
institute's brief (PDF), lodged on Oct. 25, said.  "Large
settlements -- including large class-action settlements -- are
rarely isolated events; instead they signal to future litigants
(or future class-action lawyers) that the rules underlying
litigation have changed, and that they should continue to push the
boundaries of the legal system."

The suit, filed by the late Elouise Cobell in 1996 in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, demanded an
historical accounting of money the government held in trust for
thousands of Native Americans.  The settlement, which required
congressional authorization, will pay potentially hundreds of
thousands of class members.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute said the presiding Washington
trial judge, Thomas Hogan, who approved the deal between the
plaintiffs and the government, should have conducted a more
"rigorous" inquiry before certifying a class for purposes of the
settlement.

At issue, in the eyes of the free enterprise group, is the scope
of the rule of civil procedure that governs class actions.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently offered guidance on the rule in
the high court's decision in the Wal-Mart sex discrimination case.
In that matter, the Court rejected a potential class of current
and former female Wal-Mart employees.

CEI's attorneys, Anand Ramana and Andrew Trask of McGuireWoods'
office in Washington, said "relaxing the demanding standards of
Rule 23 in order to accomplish settlements is a constant
temptation for courts."

The congressional authorization of the settlement, the lawyers
said, improperly set aside the requirements of the class action
rule, which include an analysis of shared traits among potential
class members.  Congress, CEI's attorneys said, had the power to
set up a claims process, to compensate individual Indians, as an
alternative to a class action.

CEI's lawyers said the certified class "was anything but
homogeneous."  The case covered a range of allegations, including
charges the government failed to maintain adequate records of
individual Indian trust accounts and charges the government lost
or mismanaged trust funds.

"[T]he superhuman efforts to resolve this litigation involves
superhuman efforts to sidestep the requirements of Rule 23," the
CEI brief said.

A lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Dennis Gingold, a Washington
solo practitioner, called the CEI brief a "non-event," saying it
repeats arguments critics unsuccessfully made in the trial court.
The Center for Class Action Fairness, representing a class member,
is also challenging the merits of the settlement.

Mr. Gingold also said the CEI brief was filed late.  There is no
certainty the court will take it into the record.  The advocacy
group said "simple computer issues" prevented a punctual
electronic filing.

The D.C. Circuit has not set an argument date, but the case could
be heard early next year.


U.S. STEEL: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
In a series of lawsuits filed in federal court in the Northern
District of Illinois beginning September 12, 2008, individual
direct or indirect buyers of steel products have asserted that
eight steel manufacturers, including U. S. Steel, conspired in
violation of antitrust laws to restrict the domestic production of
raw steel and thereby to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
price of steel products in the United States.  The cases are filed
as class actions and claim treble damages for the period 2005 to
present, but do not allege any damage amounts.

United States Steel Corporation says it is vigorously defending
these lawsuits and does not believe that it has any liability
regarding these matters.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 25,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Dismissal Appeal Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Communications Inc. (Verizon), and a number of other
telecommunications companies, have been the subject of multiple
class action lawsuits concerning its alleged participation in
intelligence-gathering activities allegedly carried out by the
Federal Government, at the direction of the President of the
United States, as part of the Government's post-September 11
program to prevent terrorist attacks.  Plaintiffs generally allege
that Verizon has participated by permitting the Government to gain
access to the content of its subscribers' telephone calls and/or
records concerning those calls and that such action violates
federal and/or state constitutional and statutory law.  Relief
sought in the cases includes injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
and statutory and punitive damages.  On August 9, 2006, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Panel) ordered that
these actions be transferred, consolidated and coordinated in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
Panel subsequently ordered that a number of "tag along" actions
also be transferred to the Northern District of California.
Verizon believes that these lawsuits are without merit.

On July 10, 2008, the President signed into law the FISA
Amendments Act of 2008, which provides for dismissal of these
lawsuits by the court based on submission by the Attorney General
of the United States of a specified certification.  On
September 19, 2008, the Attorney General made such a submission in
the consolidated proceedings.  Based on this submission, the court
ordered dismissal of the complaints on June 3, 2009.  Plaintiffs
have appealed this dismissal, and the appeal remains pending in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 25,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Suit in Seattle Certified as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that purchasers of mortgage-backed securities originated
by affiliates of Washington Mutual Inc. were authorized by a U.S.
District Judge in Seattle to represent everyone who purchased 13
tranches of the securities.  In the same ruling, parts of the suit
alleging fraud on 110 other tranches were dismissed because the
plaintiffs had purchased none of them.

The suit, now proceeding as a class-action as to the 13 tranches,
began in January 2009.  It is proceeding against non-bankruptcy
subsidiaries of WaMu as well as officers and directors.

The lawsuit is Boilermakers National Annuity Trust Fund v.
Washington Mutual Asset

Acceptance Corp., 09-37, U.S. District Court, Western District of
Washington (Seattle).

                      About Washington Mutual

Based in Seattle, Washington, Washington Mutual Inc. --
http://www.wamu.com/-- was the holding company for Washington
Mutual Bank as well as numerous non-bank subsidiaries.

Washington Mutual Bank was taken over on Sept. 25, 2008, by U.S.
government regulators. The next day, WaMu and its affiliate, WMI
Investment Corp., filed separate petitions for Chapter 11 relief
(Bankr. D. Del. 08-12229 and 08-12228, respectively). WaMu owns
100% of the equity in WMI Investment. When WaMu filed for
protection from its creditors, it disclosed assets of
$32,896,605,516 and debts of $8,167,022,695. WMI Investment
estimated assets of $500 million to $1 billion with zero debts.

WaMu is represented by Brian Rosen, Esq., at Weil, Gotshal &
Manges LLP in New York City; Mark D. Collins, Esq., at Richards,
Layton & Finger P.A. in Wilmington, Del.; and Peter Calamari,
Esq., and David Elsberg, Esq., at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver &
Hedges, LLP. The Debtor tapped Valuation Research Corporation as
valuation service provider for certain assets.

Fred S. Hodara, Esq., at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Fled LLP in New
York, and David B. Stratton, Esq., at Pepper Hamilton LLP in
Wilmington, Del., represent the Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors. Stephen D. Susman, Esq., at Susman Godfrey LLP and
William P. Bowden, Esq., at Ashby & Geddes, P.A., represent the
Equity Committee. The official committee of equity security
holders also tapped BDO USA as its tax advisor. Stacey R.
Friedman, Esq., at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and Adam G. Landis,
Esq., at Landis Rath & Cobb LLP in Wilmington, Del., represent
JPMorgan Chase, which acquired the WaMu bank unit's assets prior
to the Petition Date.

On Jan. 7, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered a 107-page opinion
determining that the global settlement agreement, among certain
parties including WMI, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
and JPMorgan, upon which the Plan is premised, and the
transactions contemplated therein, are fair, reasonable, and in
the best interests of WMI. However, the Opinion and related order
denied confirmation, but suggested certain modifications to the
Company's Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Affiliated Debtors that, if
made, would facilitate confirmation.

WaMu filed a Modified Sixth Amended Joint Plan and a related
Supplemental Disclosure Statement, which it believes would address
the Bankruptcy Court's concerns.

On Sept. 13, 2011, Judge Walrath denied confirmation of WaMu's
Modified Sixth Amended Plan and granted equity committee standing
to prosecute claims for equitable disallowance but stayed the
ruling pending mediation.

WaMu said it would seek confirmation of a revised plan "as soon as
practicable."

The Plan proposes to pay more than $7 billion to creditors and
incorporates a global settlement agreement resolving issues among
the Debtors, JPMorgan Chase, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
in its corporate capacity and as receiver for WaMu Bank, certain
large creditors, certain WMB senior noteholders, and the
creditors' committee. The Settlement Noteholders are Appaloosa
Management, L.P., Aurelius Capital Management LP, Centerbridge
Partners, LP, and Owl Creek Asset Management, L.P.


YELP: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over "Extortion Scheme"
----------------------------------------------------------
Josh Lowensohn, writing for CNET, reports that a judge dismissed
the class action lawsuit against social reviews site Yelp, putting
an end to a case filed against it by a group of unhappy business
owners.

That suit, which was filed last February, claimed that Yelp was
running an "extortion scheme" by asking businesses to pay the
company in exchange for the removal of negative reviews, claims
denied by Yelp.

"While we were confident that Yelp would ultimately prevail
because we knew the allegations were false, it is helpful to have
the matter resolved early so we can put these allegations behind
us," Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman wrote in a post on the company's
blog.

Mr. Stoppelman added that the case was dismissed with prejudice,
meaning the plaintiffs involved cannot sue the company again with
the same claims.

The plaintiffs' lawyer could not immediately be reached for
comment.

This is the second time this particular case against Yelp has been
dismissed.  In March, a federal judge dismissed it, giving its
plaintiffs a months to refile after finding the "theories of
extortion" to be "insufficient."  The original suit had stemmed
from a collection of suits filed during 2010 that took aim at Yelp
and its advertising sales personnel.  The suit was then retooled
and refiled near the end of May to add an additional plaintiff and
revised claims.


                           *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Julie Anne
Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  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  * * *